ID continues to invade creationist culture
| August 20, 2006 | Posted by scordova under Creationism, Intelligent Design |
The intelligent design movement has celebrated ID-friendly developments within the Roman Catholic Church. A comparably important development is the ascendancy of ID within the insular enclaves of creationism.
At some point, if a group of people will not give ID a fair hearing, it is time to “shake the dust off your sandals” and reach out to others. I have often thought that the die-hard critics of ID will never be persuaded. The only reason to engage the die-hards is to expose their fallacies, not to persuade them. If the die-hards remain resistant to considering ID, it would be good to search for new places where ID theory may find a welcome hearing.
ID has its best chance in 2 communities:
1. creationists (about 50% of the population)
2. the undecided middle among the Theistic Evolutionists (about 25% of the population)
Which is roughly 210 million people. It is within this pool of people that ID can cultivate fruitful inquiry to advance science. I intend to write on the superiority of the ID paradigm for advancing medical research and biotechnology in an upcoming essay at Uncommon Descent. I alluded to some of the ideas at : How IDers can win the war and Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail.
Creationists have been the unsavory associates of ID. Johnnyb and myself are among these unsavory associates, but I’m glad we’ve been given an opportunity to reach out to our unsavory brethren through Uncommon Descent because these unsavory associates have the potential to be a vast pool of future talent for ID research. And if any one accuses me of shameless marketing of ID to people of faith, I point them (again) to the Nation Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE) to People of Faith.
If one carefully examines ID literature, one will hardly find appeals to Biblical authority in ID arguments. I have often said that it is the theology-free nature of ID which makes it especially appealing to people in insular creationist enclaves.
Deep down, within these insular enclaves, some are too afraid to open their eyes to the physical facts lest they be de-converted. Deep down, some wonder if their faith is only rooted in their biases and upbringing and might not withstand exposure to theology-free science.
But ID is breaking down the barriers through theology-free science. It’s been heart-warming to see pastors, campus missionaries, church workers with no scientific background studying Michael Behe’s writings. They get more exposure to bio-chemistry than they’ve ever known in their life through Behe. They then become more friendly to encouraging the next generation to attend the nation’s best secular universities to study science, medicine, and engineering. They have far less fear that somehow Darwinian evolution can de-convert their kids because their kids are now armed with material and resources which were not available in generations past.
We now have the potential of a large infusion of creationists who were once scared to enter scientific fields. These large numbers of workers will be a great development for everyone. I should mention, that since the advent of ID, the field of biology has been exploding. There is no evidence the strong pro-ID leanings of this nation are eroding interest in the life-sciences. Where we’re really hurting is the other sciences and engineering, not biology!
Testament of the ascendancy of ID within the creationist community is the fact a major organization with strong creationists ties, in a month-long, multi-million dollar outreach, prominently featured four ID luminaries affiliated with the Discovery Institute.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Aug. 18 /Christian Newswire/ — Author and Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy connects the dots between Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler in Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, a groundbreaking inquiry into Darwin’s chilling social impact. The new television documentary airs nationwide on August 26 and 27 on The Coral Ridge Hour. For station listings, go to www.coralridge.org/darwin.
What: New TV documentary, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy
When: August 26, 27, 2006
Where: Nationwide; details at www.coralridge.org/darwin
The program features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens.
The one-hour program features Ann Coulter, author of Godless; Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler; Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box; Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men, and Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project.
These are good developments. I welcome creationists going even farther and studying the works of Michael Denton, Frank Tipler, John Barrow, David Berlinski, John Angus Campbell, John Davison, Jeffrey Schwartz, Charles Townes, and more people than I can possibly list….
Creationists should view the theology-free science of ID as a science like any other (such as physics, chemistry, information science etc.). ID should be viewed as a theology-free ally, not a replacement for creationist beliefs. And with this in mind, I believe ID can find, through the creationist community, a welcome place where ambitious explorations of ID can be made in various fields of science, medicine, and biotechnology.
Salvador
PS
Incidentally Coral Ridge was the same organization which aired my interview in The Intelligent Design Controversy in Higher Education. If the main stream media refuses to cover these issues fairly, and if educational institutions impede the flow of information on these issues, then other avenues of getting ID into public awareness can and will be explored.
40 Responses to ID continues to invade creationist culture
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
VOICEofREASON ,
Creationists use math and chemistry in their arguments, does that make math and chemistry theological?
Answer: no
Is it really so horrible to think that ID and creationism might use some of the same arguments against Darwinism? Why should I be banned for mentioning this in a topic about ID reaching out to creationists?
My first post here and people are already saying I should be banned. Maybe I can set a record…
StephenA,
I think you set a record.
I look forward to seeing you around!
Salvador
Comments by Mats and Jerry and TinaBrewer are illustrative of the confusion surrounding ID. Unless these issues are clarified, Darwinism will prevail.
Barret1,
If I am confused and maybe you should be specific to set me straight. I can only relate what I have read and what others accuse ID of being and some of these accusations by others are within the realm of the definition of ID as defined on the side bar. For example, did God create birds in what is known as special creation or did birds evolve someway from previous species by some unknown mechanism. I picked birds because they have a very unique anatomy. Not just wings but oxygen transport and bone construction. So I have a problem with any sort of gradual or even sudden scenario that led to birds. Too many DNA hurdles to overcome without a lot of help and zillions of intermediaries which are not there. It is one of John Davison’s many quotes that a bird one day appeared out of reptile’s egg but I find this a little too much for even a pre loading.
If God created birds 200 million or more years ago, then this act of special creation would be an example of the “Tinkering God.” Of course this creator does not have to be God and ID makes no claim that it is. I think that this is certainly within the ID paradigm but many would not like it because it implies that God mettled very specifically in the environment and somehow this rearrangement of the nucleotides is beneath what an omniscient God of most traditional theologies should be doing or had to do. If the agent was other than God, then that opens whole lot of other discussion which we avoid when discussing ID. A plan, whether front loaded or the result of natural laws which led to the bird would be much more in tune with the omniscient God view than having either God or some other intelligence acting in these events.
Either way, all are design events which is what ID cares about. But few out there are picking up on any front loaded hypothesis. When I first came here I had never heard of it and had read quite a few ID books though certainly not all. If this is current thinking among a lot of people, it is certainly escaping the popular press on ID.
Traditional theology includes other events that are consistent with the “Tinkering God.” Prayer is one of them. Every time we pray for someone or some event we are asking for intervention somehow by God. Also the old testament has lots of examples of a “Tinkering God” such as the flood, parting of the waters, manna from heaven etc. However, I don’t think this is the place to discuss any of this since this is supposed to be about science and not theology so I hope this does not lead to a discussion of prayer or Old Testament incidents.
People keep bringing up theistic evolution and why they seem to ignore the science. I was trying to explain why I think they do because as I said the evidence points to tinkering which I said some believe is beneath their vision of God. That is a wide spread impression that is out there in the real world about ID. It may not be ID’s intention but a frequent attack is an aggressive question such as “How many species did God create? Which ones did He not create?†meant to trick you or put you in a box.
At one time I fitted into the category of theistic evolution because I thought Darwinism was the mechanism for evolution but felt it was guided by God. When I started to read all the evidence, my view changed because Darwinism only accounts for trivial stuff and I am open to where the evidence leads. Interesting, if the materialist found some really magical way that speciation happened, it might make me return to the theistic approach. Because, it was built in.
Theistic evolution has been discussed numerous times before so it seems like it shouldn’t have to come up time and time again. I bet you can find 25 threads which wonder about theistic evolutionists. The answer is usually all the same.
Jerry,
I can relate somewhat to what you said. Being raised a Catholic (I am now a Presbyterian) I was an Old-Earth Darwinist. I rejected Darwinism while I was still in the Catholic church. It had nothing to do with theology, it had to do with the fact Darwinian evolution seemed scientifically indefensible. That impression has only gotten stronger over the years.
Regarding Theistic Evolution, in a limited sense, modern creationists are TE’s in that we believe some degree of pre-programmed evolution occured. I pointed out a good example in : Marsupials and Placentals. Those examples seem very reasonable, and there is empirical support for that kind of evolution, where God front-loaded the creatures with these capabilities. However, some forms of front-loaded evolution seem to be a real stretch, such as a front-loaded common ancestor of plants and animals, especially plant-eating animals!
Salvador
kvwells said: “I say it is impossible to call oneself a “Theistic Evolutionist†with any kind of self-consistent meaning and NOT subscribe to ID. This should be obvious:
1. What do you mean by “Theistic†except for “I believe God or god/gods exist.â€Â
2. What sort of “Evolutionist†are you? ND (effectively) cancels #1 so “TE†is meaningless, in this case; If “evolution†is God god/gods guided then this is the ID position anyway, for most IDers (Front-loading would be considered ‘guided’ as in providing initial input which guarantees or makes likely an outcome desirable to the designer).”
I would say that the chief flaw in that argument is the assertion that ND effectively cancels #1. It only does so if we insist that we are able to understand the ways in which God works. I have no reason to suspect that this is the case. Therefore I have no problem searching for natural explanations that can be understood by us knowing that any scientific theory is merely our most accurate representation of reality. ND incorporates the only mechanisms for change that we know off and applies those mechanisms to life’s patterns of change. Is it flawed and incomplete. Well sure it is and few to no scientists would argue otherwise.
I would say that it certainly appears that the universe was in some way designed to create life. However, I do not doubt that it unfolded through natural processes. Why are there not an equal number of people insisting on supernatural processes in the evolution of the universe.
It seems to me that the issue of design is a metaphysical question. We can say that given what we know the natural evolution of life is incredibly improbable, but how useful is that when we know so little?
I just cannot see how believing something is designed or not affects science one way or the other. What is important is understanding how things work not why things work. Scientific methodologies have a tremendously successful track record in this regard. Understanding the how is what allows us to manipulate nature. That ability is otherwise known as technology.
Salvador,
I am like Diogenes looking for an honest man. I am still waiting for someone to present a cogent argument in defense of Darwin.
There is so much to read so I can only keep up sometimes with the logic people use. If they don’t present relevant facts then you know what they are about. It is easy to see most of the sophist arguments that are used though some are more clever than others. Some are especially clever at putting you down than others but to a person they don’t present a defense of Darwinism.
On a side issue, we never discuss plants and they make up most of life. There should be some sort of education section here to get up to speed on plant life, its genomes, taxonomy etc. I feel completely inadequate to discuss it and it doesn’t seem to be covered much in any of the books on evolution. Our power is out so I will get one of the biology books I own and go outside and read about plants (I work at home which lets me comment when I want and work late when I comment too much.)
While science and theology should be distinct disciplines, “theology-free science” perpetuates the detachment of science from theological limits. Over time that will lead back to naturalism because there’s nothing to prevent it and everything to foster it.
“If nature is fundmentally designed, science cannot understand nature properly through an anti-teleogical framework, and thus anti-teleological thinking will hinder the advance of science and technology.” Yes. Teleology should be considered a criterion for theory acceptance, along with parsimony, etc.
Here is a fundraising document of a prominent Baptist Seminary:
I consider ID Biblically based in as much as the Bible teaches that an essentially theology-free starting point will point to design in the universe. (Romans 1:20, Acts 17, John 10:38).
This is welcome news that the Catholic Church as well as various Protestant Denominations like the PCA and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are welcoming ID.