This topic has generated heated discussion among many Christians as much as topic like gender has generated much heat. Everyone will agree that discussion must take place with due respect for the opponents even when we passionately disagree, yet reality is oftentimes otherwise. Labels or terms that we use in the debate can also contribute to more confusion and more heat. And so it's important that terms that the other party dislikes are avoided.
Intelligent Design theory "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not an undirected process such as natural selection". The problem with this theory is that when it says "not an undirected process such as natural selection" it is arguing against a strawman. After all evolutionary biology does not say that natural selection is undirected or directed. Now an ID proponent may argue that "undirected" has been added in some scientific literature and therefore such literature have supported atheism. After all "undirected" implies no purpose and no design which atheists argue for. There is some merit in this argument. However, such ID theory does not present itself as an alternative theory to theory of evolution; it justs tries to find fault with clause like 'undirected' inserted by some atheists.
Leading ID proponent like Michael Behe has no problem with idea of common descent with modification; it's the mechanism for which he has problem. But to me Behe's proposed idea of 'irreducible complexity' smacks of 'god-of-the-gap' argument. Just because we cannot explain the step by step process of the formation of, say, bacterial flaggellum now we cannot bring in an 'intelligent cause' to explain the gap in our knowledge. As a Christian, therefore, I don't find ID theory persuasive from theological standpoint.
If one reads Reason In The Balance by Phillip Johnson, who is the chief architect of the ID camp, it is clear that he was concerned with atheistic elements in American public life. I understand his thought pattern to imply that since atheists have used evolutionary biology to support their atheistic agenda, the most plausible way to fight such atheistic agenda in public life is to critique evolutionary biology. I sympathise with such cause but I am not convinced of the plausibility of the approach. That is not the way to redeem Science.
But should Christians in India endorse ID theory? I don't think there is a need to do that. Though ID proponents try to present ID theory as a scientific theory it is not a scientific theory; it is neither falsifiable nor has it generated scientific research project. I find ID theory as a response to materialistic worldview, not against evolutionary biology. In India there is hardly any influence of materialistic worldview in our scientific textbooks. In our Biology textbooks theory of evolution is taught, but it is not taught as a theory that undermines God; it is only a scientific theory. It is not a Philosophy. Therefore, I see no need to endorse ID theory and setting it up to critique evolutionary biology. What use is it if we argue against a scientific theory in our Bible studies or Sunday sermons?
Just as I have no problem in Big Bang theory I have no problem with theory of evolution. Whether it's Big Bang or some other Bang I believe it's God who did it. Whether it's evolutionary process or some other process I believe it's God who did it. Science is a study of God's world as Theology is a study of God's word. And since God is the author of both the world and the word I believe Science and the Word will not contradict each other. After all God does not lie.
Intelligent Design theory "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not an undirected process such as natural selection". The problem with this theory is that when it says "not an undirected process such as natural selection" it is arguing against a strawman. After all evolutionary biology does not say that natural selection is undirected or directed. Now an ID proponent may argue that "undirected" has been added in some scientific literature and therefore such literature have supported atheism. After all "undirected" implies no purpose and no design which atheists argue for. There is some merit in this argument. However, such ID theory does not present itself as an alternative theory to theory of evolution; it justs tries to find fault with clause like 'undirected' inserted by some atheists.
Leading ID proponent like Michael Behe has no problem with idea of common descent with modification; it's the mechanism for which he has problem. But to me Behe's proposed idea of 'irreducible complexity' smacks of 'god-of-the-gap' argument. Just because we cannot explain the step by step process of the formation of, say, bacterial flaggellum now we cannot bring in an 'intelligent cause' to explain the gap in our knowledge. As a Christian, therefore, I don't find ID theory persuasive from theological standpoint.
If one reads Reason In The Balance by Phillip Johnson, who is the chief architect of the ID camp, it is clear that he was concerned with atheistic elements in American public life. I understand his thought pattern to imply that since atheists have used evolutionary biology to support their atheistic agenda, the most plausible way to fight such atheistic agenda in public life is to critique evolutionary biology. I sympathise with such cause but I am not convinced of the plausibility of the approach. That is not the way to redeem Science.
But should Christians in India endorse ID theory? I don't think there is a need to do that. Though ID proponents try to present ID theory as a scientific theory it is not a scientific theory; it is neither falsifiable nor has it generated scientific research project. I find ID theory as a response to materialistic worldview, not against evolutionary biology. In India there is hardly any influence of materialistic worldview in our scientific textbooks. In our Biology textbooks theory of evolution is taught, but it is not taught as a theory that undermines God; it is only a scientific theory. It is not a Philosophy. Therefore, I see no need to endorse ID theory and setting it up to critique evolutionary biology. What use is it if we argue against a scientific theory in our Bible studies or Sunday sermons?
Just as I have no problem in Big Bang theory I have no problem with theory of evolution. Whether it's Big Bang or some other Bang I believe it's God who did it. Whether it's evolutionary process or some other process I believe it's God who did it. Science is a study of God's world as Theology is a study of God's word. And since God is the author of both the world and the word I believe Science and the Word will not contradict each other. After all God does not lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment