Steven Meyer's second major ID book Darwin's Doubt got a fair amount of attention at the site, Several different contributors provided reviews of the book, starting here. Meyer was given opportunity to respond here.
It was a reasonably civil exchange and Meyer thanked the contributors for that. His take on the whole of the discussion is telling. " I—and many others—have long assumed that the debate between our two groups was mainly a scientific debate about the adequacy of contemporary evolutionary theory. Surprisingly, the reviews collectively have shown that the main disagreement between ID proponents and BioLogos is not scientific, but rather philosophical and methodological."
He notes that the reviews did not respond to some of his main points by offering scientific evidence to rebut his contention that no currently proposed mechanism for evolution accounts for the necessary increase in genetic information for the Cambrian period. They were simply unwilling to accept Meyer's conclusion, seemingly from a commitment to naturalism. "If inferences to intelligent design are perceived as breaking the rules of science then, of course, they will always be seen as “premature.”"
This is precisely the main issue in my understanding of the origins debates. Naturalism simply says that every effect in nature must have a cause that is also within nature. The idea of a cause that comes form beyond nature is ruled out of bounds because a) the cause cannot be investigated scientifically (even though the effect may well be accessible to physical examination) and b) a violation of the "laws of nature" might be a slippery slope that would undermine science altogether. As a result, Christians in the academy feel intense intellectual pressure to adhere to naturalism in method even if they profess something beyond nature exists and is in some undetectable way involved.
I would go so far as to say that the naturalism of "evolutionary creation" or "theistic evolution" is in essence not in any practical way different from the naturalism of the hardened atheist. To believe in a God who is not allowed to violate the laws of the very nature He is believed to have created is just not sensible, particularly if one claims to believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection.
But I still think it all misses the point. The genius of creation is not in the material stuff out of which creation is made. Even if all the mathematical problems of genetic complexity are solved and a viable mechanism for more rapid change solves the difficulties of the Cambrian explosion, none of that even begins to address the real question. How does randomness lead to function? How can mere chemical sequences account for function?
On the same day that Evolution News linked to the Meyer/Biologos discussion, the folks down under at Creation.com posted a piece referencing Hans Christian Anderson. Anderson wrote a story called ‘The Pen and the Inkstand’ which was intended to teach, in parable form, that humans, as God's instruments, should not boast of the work that they do by his grace anymore than a pen or an ink well should boast of great poetry that is produced on the page. Without the poet, there would be no poetry, only meaningless ink on a page.
The author of the post, Michael G Matthews concludes:
"...Creationists deride cosmic evolution as a theory which says ‘hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.’ This is considered to be an insult to the sophisticated who accept evolutionary theory, but in essence that is what it boils down to. Where does the information come from which will restructure matter and give it meaning? Does it come from the matter itself? For if there is no outside intelligence, that is exactly what must be the case.
Therefore, to the secular evolutionist, the ink and the pen themselves are the source of the poetry, for there is no poet. But if there is no poet, how can the words created be recognized as words? It can only be that there is intelligent ink. The ink itself needs to reproduce itself, and creates an elaborate language to express that need. It expresses that need to other intelligent inks. Does anyone in their right mind believe that?"
If one recites a Creed that attributes all creation to "One God" who is "maker of heaven and Earth" and professes belief in one "born of the virgin Mary" who "rose on the Third Day, how absurd is it to then allow oneself to be enslaved to a "science" that insists that there can be no causes except nature?
ID strives to find a rigorous scientific theory that does not begin with dogma but still allows for something beyond mere nature. As such it is a worthy endeavor that Christians should support. But I cannot support a Christianity that does not allow God to be God over his Creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment