"The Theory Of God Did It"

I'm referring to an observation made in our local paper that it's much easier to believe 'God performed a miracle', than to do all the hard work that science, and understanding science, requires. Why trouble yourself with trying to comprehend evolutionary biology (or astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology…) when a simple 'God performed a miracle' will suffice?

The hypothesis espoused - listed in the scientific journals as the "Theory Of God Did It" - has been around since time began and was just about the only explanatory theory in existence up until a few centuries ago. It has a little more competition today, what with the birth of modern science and all, but it's still quite popular among those who… well, once again, don't care to be bothered with anything that requires too much work. If 'God performed a miracle' will supply an answer - which it always does - that's about all the "knowledge" they need.

Now it's important to understand that there are also those today who embrace both the "Theory Of God Did It" and the natural sciences; recognizing that even though God did it, there had to be some natural mechanism for it to be done; something other than God simply waving a magic wand around.

So when I cite proponents of the "Theory Of God Did It", I'm referring to the 'magic wand/miracle' wing of the theory. These are the ones most agitated, and threatened, by modern science; the ones who yearn for the good old days when this particular mind-set was in its' heyday, like say… 13th century Europe.

Earthquake, famine, or plagues ravage your village? What could be easier than simply invoking the "Theory Of God Did It"? Modern scientific fields like plate tectonics, meteorology, and medicine would have only complicated the issue.

How about something more upbeat, like a rainbow? Think of the confusion that may have ensued if an alternative, natural explanation for a rainbow had been around! How would the people have been able to cope?

Well, believe it or not, even the 13th century had its' share of troublemakers. Someone actually did present an alternative, natural explanation for the rainbow around the year 1265.

He was a Franciscan monk named Roger Bacon, and his work has been recognized as a precursor to the modern scientific method. He developed a methodology of discovery involving observation, hypothesis, and experimentation in an attempt to explain seemingly miraculous phenomena - like rainbows - by way of natural processes. He was one of the first to suggest, and demonstrate, that rainbows were caused by the refraction of light through raindrops; at one point frightening his students by creating one using glass beads. He also had the audacity to suggest that the methodology he developed be taught in the educational institutions of the day, and submitted this idea to the Pope.

As you might suspect, this didn't go over too well. The Church - strong proponents (then as now) of the "Theory Of God Did It" - viewed any natural explanation for the 'miraculous' rainbow to be blasphemous, and considered his [scientific] methodology to be a threat to The Faith. So they did what any good "Theory Of God Did It" devotee would do in their day: they had Roger Bacon imprisoned for the rest of his life.

So you see, all this current hoopla and fervor over the teaching of evolution in the public schools is just a new act of an old play that has run continuously since the dawn of science. Sure it's cloaked in new costumes, with important sounding names (they now refer to it as the "Theory Of Some Invisible Supernatural Being Of Some Sort Did It"), but it's really just the same old story that played out in Roger Bacon's day; as it did in the days of countless other pioneers who faced the wrath of the church to bring us this marvelous thing we call modern science. Throughout history, anything or anyone deemed threatening to The Faith had to be destroyed or neutralized, utilizing whatever means were available at the time. In Roger Bacon's day it was imprisonment, and often torture and execution. These days they're a bit more subtle - "Hey it's only fair to the kids to teach both theories" - but the ultimate goal is the same. Kill the science. The antagonists of the scien ces today are no different than those in the 13th century. They just publish a whole lot more.

So the question we in this complex society, with a challenging future looming, need to ask ourselves is this: do we really want these folks to dictate what kind of science can be taught in the public school system? Should we actually be trying it to emulate the 13th century model of learning and understanding?

The theory of evolution is as factually sound today as Roger Bacon's rainbow theory was, in reality, back in his day. And even if those back in the enlightened 13th century were content with the 'God performed a miracle' presumption, is it really a wise idea for us to do likewise today, in the 21st century?

Shouldn't we allow our schools and universities to aim a bit higher than that in trying to understand, and predict, how the natural world works?

Kerry Tomasi