>Right now I am thinking of what I am going to say about the possible
>impact the movement could have and here is where I would like some
>feedback. Actually I think its strongest impact has been and probably
>will be on the evangelical non-scientific world. Here I see it [at
>least in the US], for a variety of reasons, either supplanting or making
>significant changes in the broadly accepted Young Earth/Flood model
>theory (YEC).
In my experience (not too extensive), it seems to be taken as part of the
YEC model by YECs. I talked a bit with an engineer who read Darwin's Black
Box and thought it supported special creation of species (not to imply that
engineers have particular problems of discernment but rather to note that
it is not exclusively non-scientific folks). CBD is offering a package
deal with Darwin's Black Box and a recent edition of The Collapse of
Evolution, the latter being a YEC work that appeared totally devoid of
truth in the edition I examined. The scenario of either YEC or atheist is
too deeply ingrained in many people to notice that other options are being
suggested.
>But to have a strong impact ID would have to undermine the
>mechanism/materialism to the degree that it causes a shift to another
>paradigm.
I think there are three areas in which it needs to change. First is
avoiding factual errors, misrepresentation, and similar flaws of the sort
that have thoroughly discredited YEC to most scientists. Although these
are more frequent in Phil Johnson's version of ID, vigilance is needed
throughout. Emphasizing the differences with YEC would help scientific
credibility, but would create rifts with the YEC camp. In the long run,
this might help lead to the effect of modifying the YEC/flood geology
consensus.
Secondly, ID of the Dembski/Behe sort, though generally better as far as
representing the evidence, still gives me the feeling that it is working
from the conclusions to the evidence. This is akin to Glenn's complaint.
To create a credible criterion of "intelligent design" will require testing
models against "non-intelligently designed" complex systems. The arguments
I have seen tend to focus on "this describes certain human-designed things
and certain natural systems". Also, I do not see how a system that already
exists can be tested by the criterion of prior specification. In
confronting non-theistic views, ID seems permanently open to the reply of
"we just have not yet figured out how it worked" or "we are just really
lucky".
Thirdly, there is the need to avoid a "god of the gaps", a point that has
repeatedly been made on this list. God, being omnipotent, does not have to
create in any particular way. Similarly, scientific laws are our best
approximation, subject to revision with new evidence or new understanding.
Dogmatism that ID must be correct is unwarranted on either basis. Also, it
is especially theologically important to recognize that everything is
intelligently designed in the sense that God created it for His purposes.
I believe "special design" was proposed as a better term to describe what
ID is advocating. It is one thing to recognize God's hand in all of
creation (the "big brain") and another to insist that He did a particular
part of the creating in a particular way. "I think the evidence favors ID
as a model of how this came into existence" is very different from "ID is
the new scientific paradigm that will overthrow conventional views". The
former may be a testable hypothesis, if ID is defined testably; the latter
is counting chickens before they are created.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 09:55:19 EST