| Definitions  | Intelligent Design  | General Papers  | Relevant Scripture | Vocabulary |

    Christian Apologetics and Science           

Let's begin with a few definitions.

Apologetics is a word that is derived from the Greek word apologia, which means "to make a defense." Christians have adopted this term to mean the defending of the rationality of the Christian faith. This defense usually revolves around philosophical arguments although science, history, archeology, psychology and other fields of study may also be involved. Apologetics serves two purposes: (1) to defend areas where Christians' beliefs are challenged and (2) to give positive reasons for accepting Christianity.

 Raphael, detail of School of Athens, 1511 (Plato and Aristotle)

Apologetics,  in the sense of a rational vindication of the Christian religion, is not a positive term. Some scholars prefer to use "Christian Evidences", the "Defense of the Faith," or "Contending for the Christian Religion."

In this page we will consider arguments framed from the natural world and our scientific understanding of natural phenomena. Scientific findings and scientific theory are a two-edged sword - on one hand used to support Christianity, on another to discredit it. We will focus primarily on the cosmological argument (arguments for the existence of God as the First Cause) and  the design or teleological argument (arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer and creator). These arguments have been popular with believers and non-believers from the time of Plato. The result has been a huge amount of literature expressing a wide diversity of views on the nature and validity of the evidence offered.

In the last two decades well funded organizations have aggressively sought to include religiously based anti-naturalistic materials in US public schools science curricula. The courts have so far rejected these appeals. One result of these well-publicized events has been to build walls between a segment of American Christendom and the main-stream scientific community.  The American Scientific Affiliation supports efforts to develop dialogue rather than confrontation. 
                                                     ---

The rise of modern science in the 17th century was accompanied by serious concerns about the effect that the new mechanisms of nature would have on Christianity.  As most of the participants were men of faith (often Clerics), there was intense debate over God's role in nature and the kind of God that his apologists offered. Was God only a craftsman-architect? What about the biblical revelation? How was the new understanding of nature to be interpreted? Where does science find its limits? What kind of natural theology has survived? Can natural theology be used to support deism as well as theism?  These concerns continue to this day.        

We offer a diversity of articles from the pages of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) and other sources, links to related sites,  notes for a college course, and an assessment of the current state of Intelligent Design. 

A portrait of Thomas Aquinas.

A Working Vocabulary

Anthropic Principles: A certain set of values of initial conditions and physical constants of a universe are fine-tuned for intelligent life if and only if (a) each of the values of the initial conditions and physical constants in this set is a physically necessary condition for intelligent life, (b) the values in this set are jointly sufficient for ('give rise to')  intelligent life, and (c) there is only an extremely small range of all physically possible values of the initial conditions and physical constants that meet conditions (a) and (b). If any value meets these three conditions, it is an anthropic coincidence (Nick Bostrom, 1992).

Design:

"When we come to inspect the watch, we perceive. . . that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped

Portrait of Wm. Paley    

from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. . . . the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker - that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use . . . living organisms are even more complicated than watches, in a degree which exceeds all computation . . . how else to account for the often amazing adaptations of animals and plants? . . . only an intelligent Designer could have created them, just as only an intelligent watchmaker can make a watch ."(William Paley, 1802).

Deism: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct. In the eighteenth century, numerous important thinkers held deist beliefs (and not a few of America's founding fathers).

Naturalism: (1) In general, the philosophical belief that what is studied by the non-human and human sciences is all there is, and the denial of the need for any explanation going beyond or outside the Universe. All such naturalists since Darwin insist especially upon the evoution, without supernatural intervention, of higher forms of life from lower and of these in turn ultimately from non-living matter. (2) (in philosophical ethics) Particularly since G. E. Moore, the view held by those who, taking the naturalistic fallacy to be not really a fallacy, insist that value words are definable in terms of neutral statements of fact - not excluding even statements of putative theological fact. Earlier, and surely better, usage allowed any secular and this-worldly accounts of value to score as naturalistic; including those - for instance in Hume - which expose and eschew that fallacy (A. Flew, 1979).

Natural Theology (Physico-theology): Those beliefs that can be established by reason without divine revelation; the attempt to demonstrate the existence and activity of God from the phenomena of nature.

Teleology: The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena; the use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining natural phenomena; purposeful development, as in nature, toward a final end. A term applied to any system attempting to explain a series of events in terms of ends, goals, or purposes. It is opposed to mechanism, which holds that all events are explained by mechanical principles of causation. The teleological proof of the existence of God argues that since there is design (intelligent design) in the world, there must be a designer - God. 

Two forms: (1) Natural (or internal) teleology - teleological features attributable to some natural phenomenon, and (2) Artificial (or external) teleology - teleological features attributable to purposeful action consciously carried out by an agent (F. Ayala, 1998).

Some Relevant Scripture

Ps. 97.6  "The heavens proclaim his righteousness, and all peoples see his glory." (NIV)

You may wish to explore the  College Course  developed by University of Texas philosopher. Dr. Robert Koons, for background on the themes explored on this page.

General Papers (ID discussed separately)

Robert Augros, "Is Nature Purposeful?" PSCF 48 (December 1996): 216.

 Robert Todd Carroll, "argument from design: con," The Skeptics Dictionary

William Lane Craig, "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991): 85-96.  (web link) The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe..

William Lane Craig, "Philosophical and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo" JASA 32.1 (March 1980): 3-13.

Herrmann, Robert L. & Templeton, John M., "Scientific Contributions to Meaning and Purpose in the Universe" PSCF 39.2:77-86 (6/1987)

Randy Isaac, "From Gaps to God," PSCF 57 (September 2005): 230-234.

Dennis Jensen, "Pain, Pleasure and Evolution: An Analysis of Paul Draper's Critique of Theism," PSCF51.1 (March 1999): 40-46)

John E. McKenna, "Natural Theology," PSCF 49 (June 1997): 96.

Murphy, George L., Cross-Based Apologetics for a Scientific Millennium PSCF 52.3:190-193 (9/2000).

Robert C. Newman, "A Designed Universe." 

Padgett, Alan G., The Roots of the Western Concept of the 'Laws of Nature':
 From the Greeks to Newton PSCF 55.4:212-221 (12/2003

Harley B. Potter, "How to End Science's Border War: A Conceptual Framework,"  PSCF 51.2 (June 1999): 98-101.   

Hugh Ross, "Design and The Anthropic Principle " Reasons to Believe (web link)

Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, "Redundant Complexity: A Critical Analysis of Intelligent Design in Biochemistry." Philosophy of Science, 66 (June 1999): 268-298).

David Snoke, "The Apologetic Argument," PSCF 50 (June 1998): 108.

Robert Trundle, "A First Cause and the Causal Principle: How the Principle Binds Theology to Science," Philosophy in Science X 2003 pp. 107-135. Pachart Fdn. (used by permission)

Henry Wace, ON AGNOSTICISM. A paper read at the Manchester Congress, 1888.

Peter Zoeller-Green, "Genesis Quantum Theory and Reality: How the Bible agrees with Quantum Physics - An Anthropic Principle of Another Kind: The Divine Anthropic Principle," PSCF 52 (March 2000): 8.

Intelligent Design

In the mid 1980s the topic of "intelligent design (ID)" emerged to capture the attention and support of the evangelical world and raise the ire of the scientific community.  Twenty years later "what do you think of ID?" has replaced "what do you think of evolution?" when church people are introduced to a scientist/Christian. ID has stirred passions within and outside of the Christian world and a well funded movement promotes a Wedge Strategy featuring a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." One part of the program involves advocating discussion of ID in the public school. 

The pages of PSCF offer a diverse set of views on ID. It is clear that there is little consensus over the value of ID as an apologetic  or as a part of science (2007).  Almost 20 years of endless discussion has seen hardened attitudes, brought out bursts of angry rancor, and built walls of mistrust among Christians who should know better.

A historian comments:

"I don't think that God is obliged entirely to "hide" himself in the creation.

At the same time, I share Polkinghorne's view that "The world is not full of items stamped 'made by God' -- the creator is more subtle 
than that -- but there are two locations where general hints of the divine presence might be expected to be seen most clearly."  One 
of those is cosmic history, the other our own consciousness. As Polkinghorne likes to say, when the astronomer peers into her telescope, 
she needs to remember that the most complex object in the universe is six inches behind the eyepiece.

The "biggest problem" with ID, as I see it, is "the inability to separate ID from the politics of the "culture wars."  It isn't hard to find leading
ID advocates linking these inseparably.  So, for those who find the ideas themselves interesting and worth considering, but who reject the 
cultural warfare that the ideas are explicitly said to be linked to, what are we to do?

Furthermore, what are we to make of ourselves, those of us who believe that an inference to purpose/design in the universe is larger than 
science alone, that it depends also on metaphysics/theology?  I know quite a few Christians in the sciences who believe that one can in fact
make design inferences from nature, but not independently of theodicy and prior conceptions of who the designer actually is. Are we ID 
advocates, or not? I find the general thrust of ID persuasive myself--the universe and its parts really are too complex in specified
ways to have been the product of "blind chance," as Christians and others have called it for centuries.  But, I also hesitate to claim "proof"
of this from the mere absence of presently known specific mechanisms that could have produced such complex objects.  

So--does this make me an adherent of ID?  To the best of my knowledge, no, because of my belief about the importance of metaphysics and 
theology in drawing design inferences.  On the other hand, what of my sympathies toward the larger picture and my support for a modest 
natural theology?  Does this make me an ID or just the kind of TE that some IDs seem not to appreciate?  

The bottom line, for me, is that I believe what I believe, without regard to the categories we sometimes quite artificially impose on people
 and  their ideas/beliefs.  In my opinion, the culture wars seem to require "proofs" to support a particular agenda and to oppose the equally
shrill claims of Richard Dawkins and company.  In culture wars, those who sit in the middle of the road tend to end up as roadkill.  I suggest
that drivers are often responsible for what they hit, particularly if it doesn't just jump in front of you around the next bend in the road.  A little 
more delicacy in navigation might leave some more of the truth alive."

A scientist comments:

"In principle, ID as a scientific research program could be separated from ID as a "movement," and most of my  criticisms have been 
directed toward the latter.　 However -
　
1)　 "In principle" is one thing but the actual history is another.　 I recall that Phillip Johnson was cranking up his anti-naturalism rhetoric
 well before any of the claims of Michael Behe or Bill Dembski became prominent,  and that "movement" was ready to glom onto specific 
ID ideas pretty much when they emerged from the womb.　ID as a scientific research program alone has never really existed.　 It has
always been marked by Johnson-like cultural confrontation.
　
2)　 The major things that I have always focused on in criticizing ID are:　
a)　 The failure of the movement's spokespersons to be straightforward about their theological agenda.　 On one hand there's Dembski 
saying that ID is just the Logos doctrine of the Gospel of John in the language of information theory, but when theological questions or 
challenges are raised, the response is "There's no theology here.　We're  just scientists and philosophers."　 (I'm speaking of ID leaders.)　　
b)　 When one starts looking at the theology that is implicit in ID claims, it isn't very good.
　
3)　 I don't want to give the impression that my criticisms of ID are only theological. I focus on that 1st because  it doesn't get enough 
attention & 2d because molecular biology isn't my scientific specialty.　 But I think there is plenty wrong with ID scientifically.　 For one
 thing, the jump from the claim that at a particular time certain processes haven't been explained in terms of natural processes to the 
claim that they can't be so explained is unjustified.　 Things like the bacterial flagellum should have been described not as "irreducibly 
complex" but as "not-yet-reducibly complex."　 The fact that Behe et al resist evidence that some steps of things like the blood-clotting 
cascade, the flagellum or the immune system can be explained in terms of natural processes is quite significant.

Dialogue from the pages of PSCF

Van Till and Intelligent Design  Mark Discher, PSCF (December 2002): 220. 
Is the Creation a "Right Stuff" Universe? Howard J. Van Till, PSCF (December 2002): 232. 
Is Howard Van Till's Response to "Van Till and Intelligent Design" a "Right Stuff Response? Mark Discher, PSCF (December 2002): 240.

Gavin McGrath, "Intelligent Design from an Old Earth Creationist Perspective," PSCF 58 (September 2006): 252.

Jeff Mino, "Science or Sience: The Question of Intelligent Design Theory," PSCF 58 (September 2006): 226-234.

Michael A. Everest, "Why Does ID Get (Nearly) All the Christian Press," PSCF 58 (September 2006):235-236.

David F. Siemens, Jr., "Mounting Evidence for Theistic Evolution against Intelligent Design," PSCF 58 (September 2006): 239-240.

Dal Ratzsch, Nature, Design and Science (2003) Dal Ratzsch answers questions on Intelligent Design  

Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit,  Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's Complex Specified Information," (Nov. 2003)

Denis Alexander,  "Is Intelligent Design Biblical?" S&CB
My own view is that the arguments of the ID movement are a Trojan horse bringing what is essentially secular un-Biblical thinking into the heart of certain evangelical fellowships within Europe. In its place we need to emphasise the great Biblical truths of the creative handiwork of God in every aspect of the created order without exception, an order in which ‘nature’ was long ago kicked into touch as an unnecessary appendage of pagan ancient philosophy and of enlightenment thinking.

Richard Aulie, "Intelligent Design, High School Biology, and the Lessons of History." (June 2001)

Arthur V. Chadwick, "The Trilobite: Enigma of Complexity A Case for Intelligent Design," PSCF 52.4 (December 2000): 233-241.

Hugh Reynoulds, "Creation and Intelligent Design: A New Testament Perspective , S&CB

Howard Van Till, "The Universe: Accidentally Robust, Intelligently Designed, or Generously Gifted? (12 January, 2001 draft)

Bruce Gordon, "Intelligent Design Movement Struggles with Identity Crisis" (2001)

William A. Dembski, "Is Intelligent Design Testable? A Response to Eugenie Scott" (2001)

David F. Siemens, "Two Prediction Sets and Their Consequences for Applying Intelligent Design Theories," PSCF 51.6 (June 1999): 108-113.

Michael B. Roberts," Design Up to Scratch? A Comparison of Design in Buckland (1832) and Behe," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 51.4 (December 1999): 244-252.
Intelligent Design has attracted both its supporters and denigrators. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box has been a secular best seller. This paper¹compares Intelligent Design with nineteenth century Paleyan design, by comparing the philosophy and methods of Buckland’s lecture on "Megatherium" in 1832 with Behe’s philosophy in Darwin’s Black Box. Buckland regarded every detail as showing design and practiced reverse engineering, but Behe regards only the unexplained to show design. To put it pithily; Buckland saw the demonstration of design in explaining. Behe sees the demonstration of design in not explaining.

William A. Dembski, "Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information," PSCF 49 (September 1997): 180.

Raymond E. Grizzle, "A Few Suggestions for the Proponents of Intelligent Design," PSCF 47 (September 1995): 186.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              haas.john@comcast.net                               

Science in Christian Perspective
Since 1941

Last Entry: 05/13/2008                            Top                  Counter Stats