Barefoot in the wilderness
in search of understanding

John, it’s not actually true that ID is proposed only in biology. It’s a very prominent theme in cosmology (here, for example). “Apples fall because of gravity”—and gravity is one of the many features of physics that exhibit strange fine-tuning to permit life. In linguistics and psychology, I could go back to C. S. Lewis’s Miracles for Intelligent Design-like argumentation. Many others have said the same since._

As to some of your other points:

Too weak, because they don’t require a God who relates to Creation, who cares for it and who ultimately dies for it.

Of course it requires a Designer who relates to Creation and cares for it! Why would a scientific theory on the biological origins have to include the Crucifixion? And why should it be in the domain of science to make the leap from “Designer” to a specific conception of God? (Note: it certainly doesn’t preclude any of this.) If a scientific theory should require it, which theory do you suggest fits the standard?

ID requires merely a Designer who intervenes for mysterious purposes and then steps back.

You’re at least being careful with the word “requires.” I’ll grant you that. But ID also opens the door for a Designer, which most evolutionary theorists (except theistic evolutionists) categorically deny. ID makes no statements whether the Designer “steps back.” That’s your interpretation.

Too strong, because they require a God who intervenes in such a way as to leave lasting scientific proof of God’s works – but leaves this evidence only where it can be found by the rich, well-educated folk of the 20th century North.

It could be as easily argued that evidence of design has always been present, but that 20th (21st?) century science is needed to combat the counter-arguments raised by 20th century science. Can you imagine an ID movement before Darwin?? It was the only assumption of most scientists ID as science has only appeared on the scene now because only now is there the right combination of need for such science, along with leaders to show the way.

I’ll admit we lost a few decades along the way. Christian philosophers, in particular, could have stood more strongly against the quickly-regnant view of unguided, purposeless evolution. The arguments against that are not new, but thought leaders were not putting them forth.

This is the heart of Christian faith: that we can live with God or without God. But ID contends that this impression is a lie. That, in fact, Creation does require God; that Creation must prove God’s existence.

I’d be interested to hear you further explain what you mean about this being the heart of Christian faith. It’s an unusual statement, to say the least.

There’s a non sequitir between “Creation does require God” and “Creation must prove God’s existence.” That, by the way, is also not one of ID’s tenets. ID is not saying that, for any philosophical or theological reason, creation must prove God’s existence. It’s just saying there are observed features of the natural world that indicate a high probability that there was purposeful design involved in natural history. If those features were not there, you would not see an ID movement saying there had to be. Now, I know you think those scientific arguments can be brushed off with a wave of the hand, but you’ve not focused your post here that, but on theological and philosophical positions that really cannot be sustained.

And surely you know that “God getting his hands dirty” could be re-phrased in terms equally as loaded but pointing in the opposite direction (“God lovingly gardening,” for example). Both are emotive phrases with not much to back them up other than the aesthetic responses they evoke. I see that phrase frequently, and I refer back again to Lewis’s Miracles, in which he dealt quite nicely with aesthetic opposition to God’s being involved in the course of history.

I will grant you this important point: if the science of ID is given its chance and ultimately fails (which I think is still a matter of time before we know for sure), and if we all agree that evolution is the means God used to develop live, then yes, we can still acknowledge God’s role as Creator through that means.

Tom Gilson () (URL)
4:01pm on 07 December 2005

And one more thing I missed (I hate when I do this!): There’s supposed to be a period after “the assumption of most scientists” near the middle of my comments. And “live” in the last sentence should have been “life.” Ah, well.

Tom Gilson () (URL)
4:17pm on 07 December 2005

I agree with the core point of the author’s post. It may be that God’s desire to give us a genuine choice means that we must never have proof (in a scientific sense) of his existence. Such proof would be the equivalent of God writing his name in the sky, which he generally does not do out of respect for human freedom. It’s a good point.

However, when you say “for those of us who accept Darwinian evolution as the explanation for the relatedness of living things…” I have to question if you understand the theory of evolution. If evolution “explains” life (which it may), this is equivalent to saying natural law and chance explain life. If so, then how exactly is the immanent God who died for us involved? What you don’t explain, at least not in this post, is how something can be attibutable to chance and to God. There is at least an apparent contradiction there. Is all chance the work of God? Does God decide the outcome of every coin toss? I don’t see how this is respecting human freedom.

In any case, I think we have the example from cosmology that, while science does not prove the existence of God, it certainly points strongly to the possibility of his involvement. Clever atheists will always find a way to explain away the evidence. And the ability to do so may be part of human freedom. Despite this ability to ignore or defy the inference, the creation continually declares facets of God’s nature (Rom. 1:19-20). Cell biology is a facet of creation, an important one.

Foyle () (URL)
5:55pm on 07 December 2005

Tom,
A few points I’d like to make in response to your comment.
First, ID is supported by many Christians because they think that it supports their ideas about God, but it doesn’t. As you said, it doesn’t require the Christian God, only an amorphous Designer. As such, it serves Christianity no better than evolution (which neither supports nor opposes the existence of God). At most, ID supports an Enlightenment deism. This needs pointing out, and repeating. We shouldn’t couple ourselves to an engine that will not take us where we want to go. Far better to follow the science and see where that goes than to invent pseudo-science. If ID ever does get around to producing some science, I’d love to see it. But all we have at the moment is pop science books and magazine articles.

Second, be very careful when you talk about “evolutionary theorists”. There are two very different things that we must distinguish. One is a scientific theory describing how organisms change over time – evolution. The other is a collection of philosophies that claim to explain why these changes occur. Those who say that evolution “disproves” God are not talking science but philosophy, and are merely usurping the language of science to lend their philosophy a feeling of authority (this is what we might call evolutionism). In fact, evolution provides no more evidence for or against God than does gravity. It is the philosophical framework within which we attempt to understand the science that deals with arguments about God.

Third, I’m slightly confused by your assertion that ID doesn’t assert the existence of a Designer (although the nature of the Designer is not specified, almost all proponents of the theory are Christians, so we can safely assume who they believe the Designer to be!). The whole point of the theory is that we can somehow use science to demonstrate God’s existence. If that part of the theory is missing, there is no more Intelligent Design! Without design, there is only standard evolutionary theory. The result is that, given that ID accepts conventional evolutionary theory and tries to add an extra layer of design on top, they seem to feel that evolution by itself cannot be directed by God to achieve God’s ends – if evolution suffices, why is there this extra layer of design? This, I think, betrays their feeling that evolution is not really something God does. Evolution is, in ID, a shameful secret, something not to be talked about. In other words, they are actually, unconsciously, dualist. They see the physical world as something that God doesn’t really control, and so God must interfere with these “designs” in order for God’s plans to come out.

(And note that, in the whole of the above, I have not addressed the value of the alleged pieces of design themselves. Suffice it to say, for now, that I have never yet seen one that stood up to more than 5 minutes of thought. Yes, just 5 minutes – and usually more like 5 seconds. In other words, their claims that science cannot explain their pieces of “design” are pure hubris.)

Finally, my saying that “This is the heart of Christian faith: that we can live with God or without God.“ I don’t mean to say that this is the entirety of the Christian faith, but it is crucial. If we were not able to live with God or without God, we would only be able to live with God. And if that was the case, there would be no true love, no rejection, no Fall, no sin, no redemption, no Christianity. So, our freedom to accept or reject God is absolutely at the heart of Christianity – alongside (and subordinate to) the glorious love of our Creator God.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
9:00pm on 07 December 2005

Foyle,
Don’t worry, I do understand evolution – I studied it for long enough

You say that evolution is “equivalent to saying natural law and chance explain life“. And that’s true, at least as far as its shapes and forms are concerned. But that’s no more than saying that chemistry explains how the environment controls the manner of chemical compounds that can form in a mixture, or that physics explains how planets fall around the Sun. In other words, this Universe is made in such a way that natural law and chance explain all sorts of things. But that’s not at all the same as saying that it’s purposeless or that there is no God. I firmly believe that God created, sustains and guides this Creation. I just don’t believe that God does it by making crude adjustments every so often – the relationship between Creator and creature is more intimate and more powerful than that.

“Does God decide the outcome of every coin toss? I don’t see how this is respecting human freedom.“
No, I don’t think God does control every event – indeed, I don’t think God controls any event in that sense. Rather, God makes the Universe in such a way that the whole four-dimensional Space-and-Time is a single thing. There’s no past or future to God. So, we don’t decide in such a way that God has to accomodate our decision, because it was always woven into the fabric of the whole. The wonder is that we are still free to make those decisions – God doesn’t control them, but nor does God have to alter things to account for them.
But this is straying off topic slightly

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
10:11pm on 07 December 2005

You claim that ID “explicitly accepts that Darwinian evolution explains almost all living things”. Not even close. ID isn’t about that issue at all. That issue is a completely different issue. Any ID argument is strictly about whether one particular fact needs to be explained by a designer. That assumes nothing about whether evolution took place. The fact that some ID people are theistic evolutionists, some are old-earth creationists, and some are young-earth creationists demonstrates that the issues are simply not related.

The best ID arguments start from cosmological constants in physics. One standard ID argument comes from chemistry, particularly the low possibility that the right chemicals for life could have come together in the right combination in the right environment without having been planned to do so by a creator. John Locke offered a linguistic argument that could be taken as an ID argument, though I would say that its empirical claims don’t stand up nowadays. A friend of mine in college presented to me a psychological argument for God. Why is it that we like music? Music happens to exist in simple mathematical combinations, and we happen to be formed in a way that we psychologically appreciate how those sounds sound to us. There are ID arguments all over the place, not just in biology.

You didn’t say anything in this post that explains why there’s a “God who relates to Creation, who cares for it and who ultimately dies for it”. Therefore, your argument in this post is too weak and must be immoral the way ID is immoral for not explaining every single truth that is true. Why should an argument that makes a particular claim for a particular conclusion have to say everything that’s true or important to be worth making? It’s making a weaker claim than someone might make, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or not worth stating. If it’s a good argument for that smaller conclusion, then what’s wrong with acknowledging that it establishes that?

“ID requires merely a Designer who intervenes for mysterious purposes and then steps back”

Not true. ID does not require that God steps back. It’s fully consistent with ID that God is responsible for every event that happens. All the argument is supposed to show is that we can’t explain certain events scientifically. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other events that God caused. It doesn’t mean that there are any events that God doesn’t cause. It simply means that these particular events make no sense in the standard naturalistic picture.

“They require a God who intervenes in such a way as to leave lasting scientific proof of God’s works – but leaves this evidence only where it can be found by the rich, well-educated folk of the 20th century North”

Um, why is it a problem if some of the evidence is of the sort that it takes careful study of nature to understand it? No one is claiming that there’s no evidence anywhere else. No one is claiming that we need to have evidence to believe to begin with. It’s simply a claim that there’s something in nature that can’t be explained naturalistically. It might even be that the primary purpose for this evidence isn’t as evidence. That doesn’t mean it isn’t evidence.

“they require a God who not only leaves evidence, but also makes everything else in Creation appear self-consistent and self-maintaining – a Creation that doesn’t demand a God but can do without one”

This again assumes that the ID arguments require that there’s no evidence anywhere else, which is false. It assumes everything else is as if it’s naturalistic, which ID doesn’t assume. It assumes ID itself isn’t deterministic, which ID doesn’t assume. All of those issues are further issues that ID says nothing about. It makes a small point. That doesn’t mean it assumes the standard naturalistic answers about all other issues simply because it assumes nothing about them. There’s a huge difference between not having anything to say about another issue and assuming the standard picture on that other issue. ID does the former. You’re making it out to do the latter.

I think your last point is also a misunderstanding. For one thing, ID is perfectly consistent with evolution (see http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives..). All it is claiming is that some things, even on a standard evolutionary account, seem incredibly unlikely. That means we should think it was planned to come out that way. A deterministic, evolutionary account then will need to be supplemented by the idea of final cause, i.e. purposes in nature. No Christian should deny such a thing. In fact, the view you seem to be defending here should be welcome to ID people. Walter Bradley and Howard Van Till seem to hold it. Yet they argue for ID and publish their work in all the ID anthologies.

You’re not the only person making these false assumptions about ID. People on both sides keep doing so. But you happen to have written this right after I’ve spent a good deal of time working out why such claims are false.

Jeremy Pierce () (URL)
02:10am on 08 December 2005

Jeremy,
The anthropic principle (your cosmological argument) isn’t ID.
The beauty of music isn’t an argument for ID – music is a human creation, not a divine one.
Your argument about biogenesis (how life arose) has some merit, and indeed is where a valid discussion might take place. However, this isn’t where ID actually chooses its fights, certainly not its public ones, which (in the biological arena) are all to do with much, much later structures such as the bacterial flagella and blood clotting proteins.

Part of my problem with your comment is summed up in these two quotes:
“You claim that ID “explicitly accepts that Darwinian evolution explains almost all living things”. Not even close“ and “ID is perfectly consistent with evolution“
I’m confused here – does ID accept evolution or not? At least in the forms I’ve seen it proposed, ID assumes that evolution happens most of the time. It’s just that sometimes it needs a helping hand in the form of Design.

If, as you say, ID is actually a grouping of “evolution plus design” types and straight Creationsists, that also explodes the myth that ID is actually about the science. If Creationists are pushing it then it is obvious that it is actually about the philosophy. But I’d be surprised to find Creationists pushing the public ID line, because (as you admit) ID accepts evolution as the main cause of speciation.

“[ID is] making a weaker claim than someone might make, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or not worth stating“
True, but my point was to warn that ID isn’t the Christian apologetic that it is often taken to be. Even if it were to be shown that ID was accurate and scientifically true, it would go almost no distance towards demonstrating that Christianity is true – and yet this is often how it is sold.

As I said above, my problem is not at all with people saying that God is in charge of evolution. My problem is with people saying that God didn’t manage to get things to work out right using evolution and had to step in with additional design steps. That’s bad science (although that’s not my point here) and, more importantly in this context, bad theology. That’s because it has implications that jar with the God revealed in the Bible.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
08:16am on 08 December 2005

Read my post. It gives an in-depth account of how ID arguments are consistent with a fully deterministic, evolutionary account.

Of course ID isn’t about the science. The versions that are being focused on lately are philosophical arguments that start from scientific data. This is the kind of reasoning that often goes on in science, however. Darwin’s argument for common descent was a philosophical argument that couldn’t be established through observation or falsification. Science includes philosophy as one of its components for arriving at and evaluating theories.

The beauty of music, anthropic arguments, etc. are just like the classic examples of intelligent design arguments, which go back to Plato in The Laws but are more known in their medieval version, particularly Aquinas’ Fifth Way. An argument that starts with some observable fact that appears designed, concluding that there is am intelligent designer, is an intelligent design argument. Behe and company fit right into the standard teleological argument model, and the arguments I’m including in the same category also fit the general argument form.

I don’t admit that ID accepts evolution as the main cause of speciation. I specifically denied that more than once in my above comment. I admit that some people who accept ID arguments accept evolution as the main or even the ONLY cause of speciation, while some do not accept evolution at all as any cause of speciation. The issue of what caused it (the how question) is simply a separate issue from whether it was designed (the why question). ID arguments do not have any how element in the conclusion, at least not the ones I’m familiar with. They do have a why element (at least they conclude that there must be a why, which naturalistic evolution denies).

I don’t think Behe’s argument requires anything like God stepping in and miraculously changing things. You can trace out a causal story of how the unlikely combination might unexpectedly and seemingly coincidentally come together. Behe isn’t claiming, as far as I can tell, that this involved a breaking of the laws of nature. What he’s claiming is that God must have had something to do with why they came together. One way to explain that is through a breaking of the laws of nature, but another way to explain it is that God’s deterministic plan from the outset included what would otherwise seem like an extremely unlikely set of events to lead to the formation of the living cell, the flagellum, or whatever. (Behe does discuss the formation of the cell, by the way. It’s one of his main points. The structures have no purpose on their own but fit so well together that it seems coincidental that they could happen to be together all at the right time to form a cell. The best explanation of that, he says, is that there was a purpose for those things to have come about.)

I’ve never seen any careful apologist claiming that any theistic argument comes remotely close to demonstrating anything more than bare theism. Lots of people think it plays a role in a larger case, which would involve comparing Christianity with other theistic religions. It would be part of a cumulative case argument. This point is made right at the outset by all the major apologists I’m familiar with.

Jeremy Pierce () (URL)
3:41pm on 08 December 2005

Jeremy,
I’m actually at a loss to know exactly what you’re trying to defend under the term “intelligent design”. It certainly appears to be far wider than what that term currently means – a specific theory about biological phenomena, as espoused by Behe et al. and as currently under dispute for its place (or lack of it) in USAian science classes. Using the term for anything else can only cause confusion.

If you’re only wanting to talk about the very general senses in which God guides and sustains Creation then you’ll get no argument out of me. But when we start to talk about Intelligent Design (capital letters) then we are talking about something specific, which does deal specifically with Darwinian evolution. And this particular theory has some very serious theological flaws, which I was trying to call attention to, in addition to its far more obvious scientific flaws.

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
7:12pm on 08 December 2005