(1) Why be so upset about this? Where is the deception here? Anyone who
has ever visited the website of the Discovery Institute or who watched the
PBS program should be able to figure out that this is a "broadly theistic"
(my words again) enterprize, perhaps even broader than that. Thus Dr.
Berlinskly is (so far as I know) Jewish (I don't know if he is observant or
not), and if Dr. Yockey has any religious affiliation I am not aware of it.
Nor should being a follower of Rev. Moon count against Dr. Wells. Mr.
Johnson has assembled a fascinatingly diverse group (IMO) that apparently
shares his deep-seated opposition to scientific naturalism. I share his
opposition also, though I express it differently.
(2) From my point of view as an historian of religion and science, this
very diversity is one of the movement's assets. I could say a lot more
here, but I'll confine myself to two points. First, even a quick look at
the first flourishing of antievolutionism in America (the period surrounding
the Scopes trial in 1925) reveals the fact that Bryan had a substantial
following in part because he had a broad popular following. He was voicing
many different concerns about evolution and education--some of them valid,
in my view, and still valid today--and not simply reflecting a "Christian"
agenda, though I have no doubt about the sincerity of his Christianity,
which indeed shaped his political career substantially in earlier years.
Likewise, contemporary scientific creationists like to downplay specifically
religious concerns (which they do not in any way deny) for the sake of
getting political results. Unless we are prepared to campaign ourselves for
an openly "Christian" America and eschew cooperating with unbelievers who
agree with us on certain issues, then we shouldn't throw stones at Mr.
Johnson on this score. Further, we ought to contrast his approach with that
of "purer" antievolutionists such as the YEC leadership, which has recently
distanced themselves from Mr. Johnson b/c he does not believe in a young
earth. It's a big tent, but that's partly because it's a political tent,
and successful political tents are always macroscopic.
Second, by emphasizing a common "theisim" rather than a doctrinally
specific Christian theism, Mr. Johnson is not doing much that my good friend
Mr. Boyle wasn't also doing 300 years ago. Mr. Boyle, you may recall,
thought it generally inappropriate to raise theological concerns in his
works on natural philosophy--he had another set of books for those--except
for questions of design. When it came to design, which Mr. Boyle considered
to be so overwhelmingly obvious that no truly rational person would deny it
(fascinating contrast with Will Provine or Richard Dawkins here, isn't it?),
he was willing to talk about it in his natural philosophical works, and even
wrote one book arguing that final causation ought to be part of the toolbag
for natural philosophers dealing with animals. And, in his more strictly
theological books, he went on about design at great length, mainly for
RELIGIOUS reasons: that is, he considered the teleological argument to be
the very best one available for affectively convincing (the spelling of the
first word is deliberate) people that God exists, thus opening the door for
biblical theology to take over. In his opinion, most "atheists" were what
his friend Henry More called "practical atheists"), ie unnamed libertines
who lived as if there were no God, not philosophers who genuinely thought
God does not exist (though Thomas Hobbes probably fit this category as Boyle
realized).
But Boyle otherwise thought it simply inappropriate to invoke (say) the
resurrection or the atonement in books on natural philosophy.
It may further illuminate this aspect if I point out that Boyle himself
drew heavily on Stoic sources in constructing his argument from design. He
knew full well that Stoics weren't Christians--indeed he argues against
their more panthetistic type of theism at length in his book on the doctrine
of creation--but he used their arguments when he agreed with them. Where's
the harm in this? Don't we--shouldn't we--do the same? If we decline to
use good arguments simply because we don't agree with some of the beliefs of
their advocates, haven't we simply caved in to the "strong program" of
social critics of science, by effectively admitting that all arguments are
really about politics (NOTE: in a somewhat different sense than the politics
I mentioned above)? Haven't we then conceded that we must argue only ad
hominem?
(3) NEVERTHELESS, having said all this in Mr. Johnson's defense, I will now
come down strongly with George Murphy and point out that we dare not expect
the ID movement to aid the cause of Christ. The objections to evolution
being raised by IDers are increasingly sophisticated and may in fact prove
convincing to some of their opponents (though I realize the limits of
cross-paradigm conversations, thanks to Dr. Kuhn). Perhaps they may even
tilt the landscape enough to unlock conversations about science at research
universities (a worthy goal, IMO, though I don't think it will succeed).
But I do not see here--and I'm not surprised, for reasons already given--an
open door for the gospel to flourish. As Dr. Murphy rightly stresses, the
theology of the cross is not a theology of glory. And it is only the cross
that saves, and sacrificial love is the main evidence of its efficacy.
Galileo quoted Cardinal Baronio's maxim that the holy ghost tells how to go
to heaven, not how the heaven goes; I would revise this for our use in this
context (call it Murphy's axiom?): the starry crosses may tell the glory of
God, but a wooden cross is what we should glorify.
Ted Davis