Here's an interesting article about ID, taken=20
=66rom Michael Shermer's weekly newsletter,=20
eSkeptic. I usually don't send out entire=20
articles like this, but Shermer permits it as=20
long as it is properly credited, which is done at=20
the end of the article.
Hugh
Bad Science, Bad Theology
by Michael McGough
Put aside the question of whether "intelligent=20
design," the latest alternative to Charles=20
Darwin's theory of evolution, is good science.=20
The more interesting question is whether it is=20
good theology.
ID argues, supposedly on purely scientific=20
grounds, that the complexity of life, especially=20
at the cellular level, points to an Intelligent=20
Designer. Its adherents won't call that designer=20
God, but the conventional wisdom is that=20
Christians can only be pleased if ID gains=20
traction. But that's not necessarily so, though=20
ID certainly has its Christian cheerleaders, and=20
they aren't all fundamentalists.
Last month, for example, Cardinal Christoph=20
Schoenborn, the Roman Catholic archbishop of=20
Vienna, published an Op-Ed article in the New=20
York Times assailing "neo-Darwinism" and sounding=20
a lot like a supporter of ID.
"The Catholic Church," he wrote, "while leaving=20
to science many details about the history of life=20
on Earth, proclaims that by the light of reason=20
the human intellect can readily and clearly=20
discern purpose and design in the natural world."
Schoenborn conceded that Pope John Paul II said=20
in 1996 that evolution was "more than just a=20
hypothesis" (a statement science writer Michael=20
Shermer once paraphrased as "evolution happened -=20
deal with it"). But the cardinal also argued that=20
this "rather vague and unimportant" papal=20
pronouncement must be read in light of John=20
Paul's comment 11 years earlier that "the=20
evolution of living beings =8A presents an internal=20
finality which arouses admiration [and which]=20
obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its=20
inventor, its creator."
But is acceptance of ID (and rejection of=20
Darwinism) really required by the basic belief=20
contained in the Apostles' Creed?: "I believe in=20
God =8A creator of Heaven and Earth"? It all=20
depends, as Bill Clinton might say if he were a=20
theologian, on what the definition of "creator" is.
Long before Darwin, Christian thinkers struggled=20
with the paradox that portraying God as "maker of=20
heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and=20
invisible" (in the words of another creed, the=20
Nicene-Constantinopolitan) could give the Deity=20
less than his due. The problem, Protestant=20
theologian Langdon Gilkey explained in his 1965=20
book "Maker of Heaven and Earth," is that a=20
"maker" could be a mere craftsman, shaping raw=20
material, rather than a truly omnipotent God. The=20
solution, was to emphasize that God created ex=20
nihilo, "from nothing."
"In the Christian doctrine of creation," Gilkey=20
wrote, "God is the source of all and creates out=20
of nothing. Thus the Christian idea, far from=20
merely representing a primitive anthropomorphic=20
projection of human art upon the cosmos,=20
systematically repudiates all direct analogy from=20
human art." God instead is the "transcendent=20
source of all existence." Moreover, Gilkey wrote,=20
human beings discover God the creator "not from a=20
careful scientific or metaphysical analysis of=20
the general experience of nature and of finite=20
existence, but rather from the illumination that=20
comes from special encounters with God in=20
revelatory experiences."
And that points to a different problem with a=20
naive embrace by the church of intelligent=20
design. Christian faith cannot be produced by a=20
reflection on scientific knowledge or supposed=20
gaps in that knowledge.
The Catholic theologian Luke Timothy Johnson=20
makes a similar point. "The Christian confession=20
of God as creator," he writes in "The Creed,"
is not theory about how things came to be, but a=20
perception of how everything is still and is=20
always coming into being. God's self-disclosure=20
in creation, therefore, is not like the traces of=20
the watchmaker in his watch. God is revealed in=20
the world first of all not through the 'whatness'=20
of things but through the 'isness' of things.=20
That anything exists at all is the primordial=20
mystery that points us to God.
Johnson sees this vision of creation as being=20
"entirely compatible with theories of evolution."=20
He adds: "The theories of the natural and=20
biological sciences address, and can only=20
address, the interconnecting causes of beings=20
that have been or are now already in existence.=20
They cannot account for existence itself."
And although Johnson doesn't refer specifically=20
to intelligent design, he calls its close=20
relative, creationism, a "failed enterprise=20
lacking =8A intellectual integrity."
For atheists, the distinction between these=20
accounts of the doctrine of creation and=20
intelligent design might seem a distinction=20
without a difference. After all, they both see a=20
God of some sort behind or under (pick your=20
metaphor) physical reality. Yet for many=20
Christians, it is not only possible but necessary=20
to reject the idea of God as the watchmaker, the=20
mere Intelligent Designer, who walks away from=20
his work.
******************
eSkeptic is published (almost) weekly by the=20
Skeptics Society, ISSN 1556-5696. Subscribe to=20
eSkeptic by sending an email to=20
<mailto:join-skeptics@lyris.net>join-skeptics@lyris.net.=20
Unsubscribe by sending an email to=20
<mailto:leave-skeptics@lyris.net>leave-skeptics@lyris.net.=20
Contact us at=20
<mailto:skepticmag@aol.com>skepticmag@aol.com.=20
Contents are Copyright =A9 2005 Michael Shermer and=20
the Skeptics Society. Permission is granted to=20
print, distribute, and post with proper citation=20
and acknowledgment. This webpage is coded by=20
<http://www.rocketday.com>Rocketday Arts to W3C=20
compliant XHTML 1.1, adhering to accessibility=20
guidelines set forth by the W3C's Web=20
Accessibility Initiative and US Section 508,=20
using Dublin Core RDF metadata.=20
<http://www.skeptic.com>www.skeptic.com
--
Never ask someone what computer they use. If they=20
use a Mac, they will tell you. If not, why=20
embarrass them?
=09=09=09--Douglas Adams
******************************************************