[asa] Re: Cosmological vs. Biological Design

In the discussion about the Intelligent Design movement and "god of the
gaps" arguments, I think there is an important distinction that has only been
hinted at. Somebody a few years ago on this list (Ted Davis?) made the
distinction between God-of-the-gaps *arguments* and God-of-the-gaps *theology*.
 
I don't particularly object if the ID movement tries to identify "gaps" as
useful supplementary arguments for theism. I might disagree about the
strength of the arguments, and bemoan a large effort going toward Jesus-free
apologetics, but in principle it is not an unreasonable thing to consider the
possibility that such "gaps" in natural history might exist and might be
apologetically helpful if they could be shown convincingly. At its best (for example,
Dembski in at least some contexts), that is what the ID movement is doing and
I don't have much problem with it.
 
But what is much more of a problem is when it turns into God-of-the-gaps
*theology*, the idea that such "gaps" are not just *apologetically helpful* but
are *theologically necessary* in order for theism to be true. One sees this
for example in Phil Johnson, for whom God must leave his "fingerprints all
over the evidence" in order to be real. In other words, for "God of the gaps"
proponents in this sense, lack of gaps is equivalent to lack of God. This is
probably the aspect of the ID movement that Francis Collins had in mind when
making his criticism, although he didn't explain it very well in my opinion.
 If it is presented such that "gaps" in natural history are foundational to
faith, one is building unwisely on an insecure foundation as advances of
science squeeze the "god of the gaps" closer to nonexistence.
 
An important thing to realize in making this distinction is that, whatever
reasonable things might be said in some ID publications or by people like
Dembski, *in actual practice* the ID movement is dominated by "God of the gaps"
theology in this second sense. For the people in the pews (and many pastors),
the message of the ID movement is that evolution entails atheism (this was
the explicit ID position in Kansas, for example, and seems to be the position
in Discovery Institute propaganda), and that therefore the truth of the faith
depends on the ID arguments being right. One might hope that responsible
people like Dembski would denounce this bad theology as misuse of their
arguments, but it doesn't seem to happen. The main message that comes across
(especially from prominent advocates like Johnson and Wells) is that the "gaps"
they want to find are the only thing keeping theism from being falsified. It is
this abonimable theology that I think many of us have in mind when we
criticize those who promote a "god of the gaps".
 
Allan
 
P.S. The question has also been raised whether the "god of the gaps"
criticism applies to Collins' arguments from cosmology and from human moral sense.
In part, I think it would depend on whether he is viewing the truth of the
faith as depending on him being right about these (in which case "god of the
gaps" criticism would be applicable) or whether they are just viewed as useful
arguments that, while not foundational, might help people find the true
foundation in Jesus Christ. From my one reading of Collins' book, it is hard to
say which of these is the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cat"

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 9 15:28:48 2006