ID Cannot Take the Heat

Proponents of a theory known as intelligent design (ID) have gotten together to form a blog called Intelligent Design the Future. This blog differs from other blogs such as this one by not having comments. One of the entries complains about confusing ID with Young Earth Creationism (YEC):

ID and the Charge of Creationism William Dembski

Despite intelligent design’s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a maneuver to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed.

Excuse me? If people cannot interact on your blog, the charge of censorship falls hollow at least on my ears. What about the substance of the complaint? Is it reasonable for people to conclude that ID is a form of creationism? This seems to be complaining too much because you could argue anybody who believes in a creator including theistic evolutionists are a form of creationism. In fact, many -- including myself -- who hold to that view prefer the label evolutionary creationists. What about the other end of the spectrum? What do YECs consider ID to be? Jonathan Savarti in Answers in Genesis says this:

Young-earth creationists (YECs) and the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) are natural allies in many ways, although we have major differences as well.

Dembski tries to disassociate himself from YECs but in my opinion grants too much:

Despite my disagreements with Morris and young earth creationism, I regard those disagreements as far less serious than my disagreements with the Darwinian materialists.

Dembski like Gertrude in Hamlet protesteth too much. Until he more publicly and explicitly disavows YEC it is reasonable for the general public and academia to assume they are joined at the hip. Hopefully, this new venture will do just that if he opens up comments on his blog. Welcome to the blogosphere. Ask Dan Rather what it is like. If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

Comments

[Richard]

My two-cents' worth on this is that if one can generalize the beliefs of the individuals within the ID movement, one would have a group that is not approaching the scientific evidences from a framework of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 ~ 3. Whereas the Creationist is understanding, or interpreting scientific evidences in the light of Genesis. As a Creationist myself, I find the perspective that the ID movement brings to the scientific table as fascinating, though not surprising. What I would really like to see is a civilized discussion of the issues, rather than all the name-calling.

[Kevin]

I have to disagree. Dembski demonstrates clear differences between ID and YEC including the compatability of ID with positions that contradict YEC. Besides, if he says that ID is not creationism, how is that not believable but a "disavowal" of YEC would be? I fail to see the difference. Regarding this statement:

"Despite my disagreements with Morris and young earth creationism, I regard those disagreements as far less serious than my disagreements with the Darwinian materialists."

I can't speak for Dembski, but I suspect that what he meant was that the central claim of ID is accepted by YEC but not by philosophical materialism, which is usually entailed in most expressions of Darwinist thinking.

I've never heard of "evolutionary creationist" before. Do you mean by this that God directed evolutionary processes, or that the major taxa evolved by blind, natural processes but God still exists (similar to deism)?

[Rich]

Kevin said:

I can't speak for Dembski, but I suspect that what he meant was that the central claim of ID is accepted by YEC but not by philosophical materialism, which is usually entailed in most expressions of Darwinist thinking.

A survey done by the journal Nature found 40 percent of scientists to be religious. So-called Darwinist thinking and philosophical materialism are not the same thing. If ID consisted purely of teleological argumentation there wouldn't be much of a problem with most people because it is clear that the universe is ordered. The problem arises by the God in the gaps approach when ID looks at biological issues. (Dembsky asks why is there a critique of the biology of ID but not the cosmology? This is why.) If one of the so-called gaps can be shown to have a naturalistic explanation then this gives the atheist a cheap shot at disproving God.

I've never heard of "evolutionary creationist" before. Do you mean by this that God directed evolutionary processes, or that the major taxa evolved by blind, natural processes but God still exists (similar to deism)?

It is usually the former. God is not limited to the gaps and controls all of creation, at all times. His Providence includes what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls the contigency of second causes. Just because something can be described by a natural or "random" process does not mean God was not involved. Random does not mean uncaused. When you flip a coin heads or tails it come up "randomly" but it is your thumb and not "chance" that causes the head or tail.

Richard said:

What I would really like to see is a civilized discussion of the issues, rather than all the name-calling.

Me too. Unfortunately, it seems that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. Being scientific rather than religious has more prestige. Most of what I know about God comes from Scripture rather than nature. Let's just be up front about that and not pretend we are just being "scientific". Anthony Flew stopped short of the God of the Bible and embraced Aristotle's god because he based his thinking purely on nature. Michael Guillen has excellent phrase: we should have stereoscopic faith. We should see Truth both from the lens of faith and the lens of reason. By setting Scripture and science against each other we do both a disservice. I call myself a creationist (and the label is not something to be eschewed) because I believe:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

This is something that we all can agree on and we shouldn't let differences of opinion about how God created get in our way.

BTW, this is the kind of discussion I would like to have on the ID site if they would allow it by opening up comments.

[Kevin]

Rich:

"A survey done by the journal Nature found 40 percent of scientists to be religious. So-called Darwinist thinking and philosophical materialism are not the same thing."

True, but there is a game being played by some, in which it is insisted that science must operate according to methodological naturalism (which is right annd fair), but to insist that all phenomena (including origins) must have a naturalistic explanation is to presuppose philosophical materialism, i.e. that the physical universe is all that exists. Too often IMHO philosophical materialism is flying under the false colors of methodological materialism.

One way to tell the difference is that if it asserted that there *must* be a scientific explanation for everything --a statement of faith in its own right-- then we're really dealing with the belief that God is either nonexistent or irrelevant.

[Rich]

I found that it is usually best to take claims of methodological naturalism at face value. If there really is a distinction, you are not falsely accusing people. Most of the people I know who hold to this -- and I myself am in this category -- would pass your test in the last paragraph. By not allowing this middle ground a false choice is forced which can cause people to lose their faith. Note the following story of a student of CHC/ICR when confronted with the facts on the ground while being a working geologist:

"My greatest beef with ICR is their polarization of the creation/evolution issue. If you are not entirely in their camp, by their own declarations you are entirely out of the camp of those who accept the Bible as a completely true and literal account of God's interaction with time, space and matter. There is no leeway for any other interpretation of the Biblical text since Henry Morris studied it and figured out what it really means. Now that he as found out exactly what God meant, all observations must fit within his (Morris') explanation of Genesis because God would not lie. It is not at all illogical to throw out interpretations/explanations of observed natural phenomena (biological, geological, astronomical, or what have you) even though there is no sufficient or reasonable alternative offered from their group. Petrified sand dunes in Utah CANNOT be subaerial, even though they show a complete set of characteristics that match present day subaerial dunes and the evaporite deposits in the lows between them demand a subaerial environment of formation, because they HAD to have been deposited in the flood and God doesn't lie. Varves CANNOT be annual features because they HAD to have been deposited in one year and God doesn't lie. Your example of the meander through carbonate rock CANNOT have been produced by eroding solid carbonate because it HAD to happen subaqueously and within minutes, hours or a day at most since the Bible clearly says that all geological formations except the basement rock and a thin upper veneer were laid down during the year of the flood. God doesn't lie! In ICR's logic, to ignore or deny problematic natural observations is not to be deceitful. (A perfect example of this is John Morris' statement that he has never seen a geological fact that did not fit equally as well or better in the flood model than any other model.) At worst, in their view, it would be glossing over what remains to be explained properly, and WOULD be explained properly if more scientists did creationist research. The problem, from ICR's viewpoint, is the vast, hidden conspiracy to interpret the world around us in a way to discredit the Bible, not that any of the data from the world around us is contrary to their explanation of what the Bible means in Genesis. This inflexible, dogmatic, self-blinding position is my bone of contention regarding ICR. Until a person begins to understand where they [the scientists--GRM] are coming from, and the rules of their game, he is incapable of realizing that he could question their dogma and still be a Bible believing Christian."

He further wants to add:

"I do not consider myself to have undergone a "severe crisis of faith" in the sense of struggling with whether to be a Christian or not. The struggle for me was to come to the point where I could accept that a Christian could disagree with Morris' interpretation and still believe in the literal truth of Genesis. For me, that crisis never wandered from within a Christian worldview. If it was a crisis, and I guess it would be fair to call it one, I look back now and believe it was a false one created by my naive acceptance of ICR's dogmatic presentation of their view as the only allowable Christian view. The result of this crisis was that I stopped actively participating in this debate and still consider myself to be mainly a passive bystander."

[theomorph]

Despite Dembski's (rightful) protest that YEC and ID are philosophically distinct, he fails to account for the fact that they are historically linked through evangelical Christianity. Both YEC and ID (in its current form) are responses of evangelical Christians to Darwinian evolution. That ID has become more fashionable a protest against natural selection than YEC is only evidence that YEC went bankrupt years ago (about 80 years ago this July) and that ID has taken up the torch of the evangelical challenge to Darwinian evolution. I.e., ID and YEC are intimately related not in their methods but in their motives, which are identical: weaken the strength of science and replace it with theology.

[Kevin]

Rich,

I agree with the critique of ICR, and even then they are models of judicuous scholarship next to Answers in Genesis or Kent Hovind. I think it's telling that the best evangelical Bible scholars (as opposed to scientists trying to be exegetes) either reject YEC or at least concede that the biblical case for it is less than convincing.

Theomorph,

ID proponents include Jews and agnostics, and now include former prominent atheist Anthony Flew, who hardly cares about upholding a particular interpretation of Genesis. Also, you might be suprised to learn that the contributors to The Fundamentals, compiled around the same time as the Scopes trial, conceded that the earth is old. YEC had been a fringe, mostly Seventh-Day Adventist position until the 1960s and 70s. Bryan, who led the prosecution at Scopes, held to an interpretation that accommodated science. BTW, the compelling proof of Darwinism at Scopes was the fraudulent Piltdown Man. Darwinists "won" only because of slanted press coverage and a historically revisionist movie.

[Kevin]

Oh BTW Rich, the problem I see is that most scientists are not deceitfully promoting philosophical materialism of course, but most if not all of the official public spokespeople for science are: Dawkins, Scott, NAS, the Smithsonian, Scientific American, and the Discovery & Science Channels. Science is one thing, "scientific truth for the masses" is another as I'm sure you're aware.

[Rich]

Kevin, my training is engineering so I am partial to the so-called teleological proofs for the existence of God. What ID does well is hammering on abiogenesis and the question why is the universe "just so"? This is what convinced Anthony Flew to become a Deist. I have to disagree with you concerning evolution as a description of how God created species. I'm not a biologist but I went to church with Dr. Terry Gray, who is. I had to examine his case because he was tried by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church because he believed both evolution and Scripture to be true. (I was a ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and a YEC at the time.) I have examined his scientific arguments and found them utterly compelling. Terry is a member of the American Scientific Affiliation (www.asa3.org). Unlike the organizations listed above the ASA is dedicated both to science and Christianity. Because they have been mostly shouted down by the creationist community, and in Terry's case subjected to ecclesiastical trial, their voice has been muted and the atheists have filled the void. Terry is one of the chapter authors of Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. As a microbiologist you should find his chapter on Biochemistry and Evolution interesting. He also critiques ID in the following chapter. I'll close with a quote from a more famous member of the ASA, Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project:

COLLINS: If God is who God claims to be, and who I believe he is, then he is not explainable in natural terms. He is outside the natural world; outside of space and time. So if God chose to intervene from time to time in the natural world by allowing the occurrence of miraculous events, I don't see why that is an illogical possibility. Once one accepts that idea that there could be something outside the natural, then miracles also become possible. Lewis writes about this extremely well in his little book called Miracles.

However, I don't think miracles happen frequently. It seems to me reading the Bible there were times when miracles were occurring at greater frequency, such as in the time of Moses or Elijah or the time of Christ. I have not personally witnessed a spiritual miracle. And I reject the comments that people make sometimes like the fact that a flower is blooming is a miracle. I don't think so. That's a matter that science can actually explain. How did you go from that seed to that blooming flower? I can answer that. Now, why did the seed exist in the first place? That, perhaps, is a miracle. We don't really know how the universe got here.

Actually, I don't see that any of the issues that people raise as points of contention between science and faith are all that difficult to resolve. Many people get hung up on the whole evolution versus creation argument — one of the great tragedies of the last 100 years is the way in which this has been polarized. On the one hand, we have scientists who basically adopt evolution as their faith, and think there's no need for God to explain why life exists. On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings. It's unnecessary. I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary.

If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They're not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they're part of who I am.

[*** Dave]

Hear, hear, Rich.

[Kevin]

Thanks for the link, Rich. The book is on its way. Let me return the favor here. Don't let the title fool you; it's about the difference between speciation as science and Darwinism as dogma.

[*** Dave]

Hear, hear, Rich.

[Rich]

Thanks for the link, Kevin. Here is Terry Gray's review of this book. A short summary is that Johnson did a good job of critiquing the atheistic naturalism of some evolutionists. He did not do as good of a job of critiquing the science itself. This review was originally published in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church magazine, The Banner. The review was used as a basis for ecclesiastical charges in that denomination. When Terry's membership was transferred to the church where I served as an officer, I had to review the entire matter. Our session concluded there was no basis for not transferring his membership to our body. In fact, Terry's behavior during the entire affair was quite Christ-like. This is from the letter where Terry was "censured" by his previous church!

The Session thanked Dr. Gray for his humility and godly demeanor throughout the trial process. We ask the congregation to join us in continual prayer that God will give great wisdom to Terry and Sheri as they respond to this ruling. The Session also wishes to thank the congregation for your prayers on our behalf as we sought to honor God and serve the church in this matter. Above all, we thank our Loving God who has enabled us to "keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3). May God's gracious love for us continue to be deeply reflected in our gracious love for each other as we continue to walk together for the glory of our Lord Jesus!

[Kevin]

I think that the equivocation in Johnson's book is a reflection of the equivocation in the public arena. When we see evolution promoted, say, in curriculum debates or those few journals that are ideologically driven, evolution in practical terms is equivalent to atheistic materialism. There are those, when called on it, who will retreat and concede that, of course, science cannot say anything for or against the miraculous. But this concession is rarely made in the public discourse. Just look at the venom that begins to be directed at Anthony Flew for leaving atheism for ID. This is a tacit admission of the degree to which these are offered as either-or.

Johnson is addressing Darwinism as promoted popularly, rather than with the conplexities that exist but are often undisclosed. I almost wonder whether this was deliberate on Johnson's part in order to elicit concessions about evolution that would remove most of its atheistic apologetic value, again, as understood popularly.

[Kevin]

Oh BTW Rich, I've added you to my blogroll :)

[Rich]

Scripture is clearly miraculous. Liberalism tried to have a naturalistic Christianity and that is clearly worthless. There is, however, a Biblical naturalism. That is, we need to have a natural order wherein the rare exceptions achieve the ends as John Locke put it credit the proposer. Even in Scripture the miraculous is rare. Science teaches that all living things dies. When someone comes back from the dead this allows for the claim only God could do this. If the natural order was often broken and without being tied to Special Revelation it debases the coin of the miraculous. This is what YEC and to a lesser extent ID does. If an atheistic scientist can show something to be non-miraculous and not irreducibly complex, he can claim to have disproven God. Thus, it can have a negative apologetic value.

The better argument can be constructed tu quoque. Assuming the description that science describes is correct then can you show the Universe has the earmarks of design and that miracles are possible? I believe the answer to this question is yes. Your example of Anthony Flew shows this. Flew does not accept Behe's arguments, but he does see design based upon what science currently believes and now believes that Hume did not prove that miracles are impossible.

One good link deserves another. I've blogrolled you back. I should have a comment on your symposium entry soon.