Jack Haas wrote:
> Greetings: Bill Dembski has been developing his 'intelligent design'
> ideas for a decade or so. During this period his work has been heavily
> discussed by the evangelical community and the broader scientific and
> educational world. PCSF and this list have had their chance to
> critique his ideas - often negatively. Bill's response to a recent U.
> C. Berkeley talk by National Center for Science Education director
> Eugenie Scott represents both a spirited defense of his thought and a
> chance to catch up with his current ideas. Iwould propose that the
> list read his paper (attached) and comment on it. If we get some
> thoughtful response I'd be willing to pull it together and place the
> article and a summary of responses on the ASA web page. Is he saying
> anything new these days? Has he learned anything from 'friendly'
> critics in the past? Has his critique of contemporary Darwinism
> gained ground? Where is lacking about ID for the working scientist?
> Where have his arguments gone right? Wrong? Etc., etc., etc. I have
> numbered the paragraphs for ease in making citations.
In paragraph 1), Dembski refers disapprovingly to Scott's use
of "some comedic elements, like the Monty Python wink-wink-nudge-nudge
routine, which she uses when she wants to make clear to her audiences
that the designer of intelligent design is really none other than the
"Big G" of the Christian faith." I wonder where she could have gotten
that idea? Could it be from the fact that ID proponents regularly refer
to the "big G"? Could it be from that fact that they raise no voices in
protest when significant parts of the Christian community use their
arguments as proof for the "big G" of the Bible?
Philip Johnson's undisguised belief in "a God who acted openly
and who left his fingerprints all
over the evidence" is admittedly in considerable tension with concept of
a God whose supreme revelation is the crucified Jesus. Still, he (and
most of his ID allies, including Dembski) clearly think that their
"Designer" is "the "Big G" of the Christian faith." Pretending that
this is not the case allows the ID movement to play the "nobody here but
us scientists and philsophers" game when it suits them, and also to
avoid serious theological discussion. But most people aren't fooled.
In paragraph 19 Dembski refers to the "present lack of insight
into the workings of an unembodied designer." One important reason for
such a lack of insight is the failure of those in the ID movement to
give any attention to the question of how God is actually supposed to
carry out his designing work by acting in the world. Glenn Morton
pointed this out in his report on the "Nature of Nature" conference in
the July/August 2000 newsletter of the ASA and CSCA. Many Christian
theologians of past and present have discussed different approaches to
this question of divine action. In order to avail themselves of this
work the IDers would have to (a) drop the pretense that their
"unembodied designer" isn't "the "Big G" of the Christian faith" and (b)
recognize that most of those who are making useful proposals in this
area today are not sympathetic to ID claims. Alternatively,
they could (c) try to do some real theology themselves.
My comments here point up the fact that one (though certainly
not the only one) of the problems
with the ID movement is precisely their unwillingness to engage in
serious theological discussion. It may be replied that in Dembski's
article, which is a response to Eugenie Scott, theological arguments
would have been out of place. But the fact that theological defects are
so clear even in such a setting is itself significant.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 26 2001 - 07:51:52 EST