The difference between science and religion

To those of us who like science, the difference between science and religion can seem pretty self-evident: Religion requires faith, for one thing, and science demands evidence.

But that doesn't always satisfy the true believers. "You can't prove there isn't a God," they say, "and if scientists can't prove God didn't create people, how can they claim their 'belief' in evolution is any less religious than religion?"

In 2005, with the country watching, the task of answering that question fell to U.S. District Judge John E. Jones, who had to untangle the nature of science and religion to decide whether "intelligent design" theory could legally be taught in public-school science classes in Dover, Pa., near York.

Though he was a liberal-arts major, a Republican, and an appointee of an openly creationist president, George W. Bush, Jones ruled against the teaching of intelligent design as science.

His decision is admired by scientists and philosophers of science, not just because they agree with his answer, but also because he left the world with a clear, succinct document that, among other things, helps clarify the nature of science and show why it's not religion.

On Saturday, Jones will speak at Community College of Philadelphia, part of the citywide science festival that began Friday and will continue to April 28. The free talk is being presented by the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking.

In light of all this celebration of science, it seemed apropos to devote a column to what qualifies something as science, and why Darwinian evolution makes the grade and intelligent design does not.

I.D. is a brand of creationism that allows living things to evolve, albeit guided by an intelligent designer, the nature of which is never made clear.

The Dover trial was not an obvious battle between scientists and people of the clergy. On the side of I.D. were several Ph.D. biology professors, and on the opposing side was a well-known theologian.

Jones said he wasn't required to rule whether I.D. constituted good science, only whether its promotion in public schools amounted to endorsing a particular religious view. But he realized the two questions were connected. His decision might have been different if I.D. had been a solid, powerful, well-tested, widely accepted theory that just happened to coincide with Christian teachings. But it wasn't.