Today (May 13, 2001) at church (Vineyard Community
Church, Mundelein, Illinois) I experienced a live
application of the ID argument for the existence of
God.
The presentation was brilliantly done by the Youth
Leader of the Church, a High School math teacher.
Although I think that the ID argument is an enticing
and sophisticated philosophical argument I disagree
with some of the scientific presuppositions of the
argument, and I’m not even sure if it is always good
philosophy of science.
The central ideas of the talk were the testability of
a scientific (or any) claim, the lacking fossil
record, and consequently the flaws in the
macro-evolutionary parts of the theory of evolution.
Michael Behe and Michael Denton, among others, were
quoted as authoritative sources, and the former’s
mouse-trap analogy was presented.
This experience spurts some comments and questions.
First, is it a fact that the ID movement has succeeded
in bringing the neoID argument out to the grass roots
of Evangelical America? How is that, and could ASA
learn from that?
It occurs to me that one essential part of the
spreading of the argument is the teaching of it at
seminaries. My wife studies New Testament at Trinity
Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, and
here on campus one of the textbooks for the
Apologetics class (taught by well-trained
philosophers) is Phil Johnson’s Wedge of Truth. From
my conversations with the students here it seems that
the only viable option for connecting science and
theology is the ID thing. Would that be true for other
evangelical seminaries as well? Nevertheless, I just
can’t help to ponder why the ID argument should be the
best thing to do for an evangelical Christian. Is this
due to any specific theological assumptions, or is it
just the alleged advantage the argument gives the
Christian apologetic?
Second, with regards to the testability of ID and
science in general I won’t bother the list (as I think
this was duly debated a few months ago), and so goes
for Behe and Denton. But I have a problem with the
fossil record argument. Because I’m not a scientist I
can’t deal with the issues of the empirical data of
evolution on standing foot, and my general question is
therefore: What is the true (or truth approximate)
status of the fossil record corroborating the claims
of the theory of evolution? I guess this question
demands a very long and complex answer, but I hope
that there is something like a short version of an
answer.
Most often this argument is posed so that the
reliability or truth of micro-evolution doesn’t entail
the reliability or truth of macro-evolution, and while
the fossil record that verifies the reliability or
truth of macro-evolution is insufficient, the argument
goes, macro-evolution simply can’t be reliable or
true. The argument also incidentally directs attention
to the transitional forms in the fossil records, or
the transitional forms that should have been there,
and lays out in detail how it is nearly impossible for
a fish-like animal to evolve into a bird-like animal
(apologize my unscientific terminology).
I hope someone out there has the time and energy to at
least suggest some answers to my questions.
Bjorn Moller
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 14 2001 - 14:54:46 EDT