Re: Dembski on the backlash against ID

Paul A. Nelson wrote:
>
> Bill Dembski just posted a commentary raising
> issues of relevance to this list. In particular, I
> wonder if ASA list members might want to
> comment on the following:
>
> "I want to make one last point about attacks against
> intelligent design that appeal to pathos. Normally,
> when intelligent design is attacked, the attackers are
> in positions of power and authority, and proponents
> of intelligent design are the underdogs. That’Äôs not
> always the case, however. The world of evangelical
> Christianity, for instance, seems to prefer intelligent
> design over theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists,
> therefore, feel increasingly beleaguered among
> evangelical Christians. Thus, at a meeting of evangelical
> scientists a few years back (the American Scientific
> Affiliation meeting at Westmont, College in the summer
> of 1997), an interesting reversal occurred. Phillip
> Johnson had been speaking, and Keith Miller, a theistic
> evolutionist (who recently edited Perspectives on an
> Evolving Creation), challenged him during the
> question-and-answer period. For several minutes,
> Miller read from notes and, in bullet-point fashion,
> listed the faults that he found in Johnson’Äôs program.
> There was no way, in the allotted time, for Johnson to
> respond adequately to Miller’Äôs many objections.
> Thus, after Miller finished, Johnson simply remarked
> that he and Miller saw things differently. At this, Miller
> burst into tears and ran out of the auditorium."
>
> "To Johnson’Äôs supporters, Miller’Äôs tears amounted to
> a histrionic display not worthy of reasoned discourse
> in an academic setting. Yet that misses the point -- the
> appeal of tears is not to logos but to pathos. Moved by
> his tears, several members in the audience rallied around
> Miller to console him. Further, they cast Johnson as a
> villain. The lesson for us here is that when appealing to
> the undecided middle, don’Äôt allow our opponents to cast
> themselves as underdogs or intelligent design proponents
> as villains. I see a dynamic increasingly at work among
> theistic evolutionists, whose science, let us always bear
> in mind, is no different from that of a Richard Dawkins
> or a Stephen Jay Gould. Accordingly, they cast themselves
> as the kind face of religion, and they characterize intelligent
> design as theologically naive and misguided. Theistic
> evolutionists have now become marvelously adept at
> rationalizing not only how their religious faith makes
> sense in light of evolution but also how evolution enhances
> their religious faith. Let’Äôs not play this game. The issue
> for us is not how evolution relates to religious faith but
> whether evolution, as currently understood by science,
> is true. If, as we argue, it is not true, then exploring its
> religious ramifications constitutes a vain exercise."

        The suggestion here is that science in increasingly supportive of ID & against
evolution, so that "theistic evolutionists" (a poor term) are driven to find "merely"
theological support for their views. But the first part of this suggestion is false:
There is no scientific evidence that supports distinctive ID claims.
        It's understandable that IDers don't want to engage in serious theological
discussion with "theistic evolutionists" because their theology is generally so faulty.
(In a lengthy appendix to _Intelligent Design_ dealing supposedly with "Objections to
Design," Dembski gives no attention to _theological_ objections.) This would be
acceptable if their program were a purely scientific one but of course it is not. IDers
want to take advantage of the religious antipathy of much of the evangelical ciommunity
to evolution and ill-defined "naturalism" in order to gain support, but then when they
talk to secular scientists or public school boards want to play the "nobody here but us
scientists and philosophers" game. This kind of dishonesty is fundamental to the whole
"wedge" campaign, of which ID is just one tool.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Wed Apr 21 22:52:21 2004