Re: Phil Johnson's agenda

MikeBGene@aol.com
Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:29:06 EST

I find the dispute between Johnson and Morton/Miller/Murphy
to be most interesting. Apparently, for some critics, ID is
not Christian enough, while for others it is nothing but
Christianity. Yet, ironically, the two extremes that flank
ID don't seem to argue this out with each other, but instead,
seem to have some kind of truce alliance against the common
enemy of ID.

Anyway, what interests me is a claim made by Murphy:

>It is quite another matter to start - or claim to start - from a
>position which is religiously neutral, and search for evidence of
>"God" who is in fact _defined_ by the way in which the search is
>conducted. I.e., a search for "God" via arguments for design has
>already decided a priori that God is the Intelligent Designer.

It has never been my impression that the ID movement
is a search for God. And while I can not speak for
the ID movement, but as someone who is sympathetic
to its inquiries, I can say that I certainly do not view
ID as a "search for God." I already believe God exists
and have no need to engage in such a search. Yet
since I believe in a being most capable of carrying
out intelligent design, explanations that exclude
ID (evolution via natural selection) no longer have
a precious default position, but instead must earn
their place in a competitive sense.

As it stands, the current story believed by most
scientists is one in which abiogenesis happened,
followed by the spread of variations under the
guidance of chance and natural selection. Yet
this is a story that exists largely due to the exclusion
of ID as a serious competing explanation (it is
the story one naturally finds as a consequence
more of methodological naturalism than the
evidence). Yes, there is plenty of evidence for
common descent and plenty of evidence that
natural selection can change the gene frequencies
in a population. But none of this evidence translates
as evidence for the story. Thus, I don't understand
why anyone would want me to tie theological claims
to a story so weakly supported.

Now, as I pointed out before, my theology allows
me to approach the world with quite an open mind.
I don't feel a theological or anti-theological pressure
to find one answer over another. I can just as easily
adopt something like Howard's views of Creation
as I can adopt the views of the ICR. It's all a matter
of what fingerprints are in the world. Why I
should close my mind to ID when I search the world
for clues as to what happened is beyond me.

Mike