There is a part of the ID movement that seems to see itself as primarily
apologetic, with the idea that defending the existence of certain
interventions by God in natural history is equivalent to defending
theism. As we've discussed over the past few months, many of us see Phil
Johnson as playing by those Sagan-like rules. A quote by Dembski
recently posted also made it sound like, in his mind, a God who did not
intervene in the ways he thought God should have might as well not exist
at all. Whether or not we agree that specific people such as Johnson
take such a "God of the Gaps" position, I hope we can agree that such a
position is abominable.
On the other hand, there are some in the ID movement (Paul Nelson seems
to be in this category, and also Alvin Plantinga in his recent PSCF
article) who see it as science, not apologetics. They do not demand that
God *must* have left these gaps, but want science to be more open to the
possibility that he *might* have. While I might disagree with some
specifics of how they go about this, it at least is reasonably sound
theologically.
I think it is important for the health of the church to steer ID in this
latter direction and away from gap-based apologetics. I fear that the
church has been so conditioned to equate evolution with atheism that
*any* ID message may be interpreted as gap reinforcement unless the ID
people are very clear and forceful in repudiating this bad theology. I
had some comments along those lines a couple of months ago which I'll
paste in rather than writing more:
>I suggest that, first and foremost, everybody make their primary message
and mission in this area the destruction of "God of the Gaps" theology.
We must teach people that God is sovereign over everything, not just
those things for which we have no "natural" explanation, and that the
truth of theism does not depend on the existence of any "gap". Only
after this message (which, I might add, also disarms Sagan-style atheism)
is clearly inculcated would it be appropriate to talk about possible
gaps. Those who focus on gaps without clearly speaking out against the
bad theology they may be reinforcing are ultimately doing more harm than
good. It might even be best if the ID movement disowned such people (or,
better, persuaded them into sound theology). Unless and until a sound
theological foundation is laid, it is too dangerous for the church to
hear messages about gaps.
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dr. Allan H. Harvey | aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
| Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame the |
| National Institute of Standards & Technology | government for what I |
| 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice versa." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------