17 January 2006
it seems as if we’re being tricked into believing in that which we believe in
i have been thinking a little bit lately about intelligent design. the more i think about it, the more it makes me angry.
frankly, i think it’s bullshit.
i don’t deny God’s agency in the creation of the universe. i’m on board with that. definitely. unfortunately for many creationists and intelligent design supporters, i don’t think God is trying to somehow trick us. God has provided us with deductive faculties and a world that is so immeasurably complex and yet beautiful that we can appreciate his hand in it without having a concrete grasp on how he has manipulated it. somehow, we miss that. if the arrogance of the academy in holding fast to evolution and speciation is an overestimation of their knowledge of the world, how much more so are our simplistic interpretations of genesis an overestimation of our knowledge of God? why can’t the universe be enormous, the tale of history before the coming of Christ storied, and the processes shaping our world much larger than we can conceive of? from where i sit, it looks like bad theology.
what’s worse though is that as far as i can tell, intelligent design doesn’t even pretend to be science either. other than talking about it and writing pseudoscientific books, intelligent designers seem to have little to say about actual methods or processes by which things are designed intelligently. apparently, they simply look for what evolutionary theory can’t explain and shout out “ha! and that’s what God must have done! there he is!” then they look smug as the scientists try to explain that though they don’t know now, perhaps they’ll know later.
of course, much like with heliocentricity, it tends to turn out that science is capable of discovering very elegant explanations. then Christians look like morons for trying to trick the people around us into thinking we understand the universe completely, right now. ultimately what can this do other than make us out to be some of the most simple-minded and self-interested people on earth? we are far better to say we do not know.
kevin was wondering whether people had been taught anything critical of evolution in high school. i’m not sure whether that’s relevant. are there actually people who reject Christ based on their inability to reconcile him with evolutionary theory? that’s not a difficult task. who is out on the streets ministering to the poor, the lost, and the broken while Christians are busy fighting these phantom enemies?
if Jesus walked among us today, would we be the ones loving people, or would we be the pharisees trying to trick him into saying something contradictory to our tiny theology?
January 17th, 2006 at 15:29
Outside of what you’ve read in the media, what have you actual read that explains Intelligent Design theory? Do you even know what “irreducibly complex systems” are? Do you at all scientifically conversant with the discussion about cosmological “fine-tuning”?
Do your homework.
January 17th, 2006 at 16:38
a new reader!
i’ll admit i’m not as well-read a critic of intelligent design theory as others may be. is there perhaps a peer-reviewed journal that discusses the current research going on in intelligent design?
that said, i’ve had the opportunity to attend a few lectures and be involved in a few conversations on the topic, so i at least have some familiarity with it. i’m certainly open to learning new things, of course.
as far as i understand “irreducibly complex systems”, they are quite simply systems which we cannot explain how they came about in an evolutionary or progressive way. similarly for the happy fact that the universe is a stable, predictable place with excellent values for the charge of the electron and the speed of light. what are the odds? science offers us no explanation for why we should be so fortunate to be so. at least, we cannot currently explain these problems. so while scientists are looking for an explanation, the intelligent design camp is saying “don’t bother looking, God did it with a miracle.” that’s certainly fine, except it is a terrible cornerstone on which to build one’s faith. what happens when some enterprising young scientist is able to construct a reasonable narrative?
January 17th, 2006 at 23:24
Intelligent Design theory is not a “since-we-have-no-scientific-explanation” theory. It’s about being honest with the actual empirical data. For instance, evolution posits “random” and “minute” mutations, but the actual evidence given in systems of irreducible complexity is that such development is not possible.
Similarly, the evidence of cosmological constants, etc is not that a miracle occurred, but that actual empirical statistical probabilities militate against randomness in such cases.
The arguments made by scientists along these lines concern the actual data, not the lack of explanations. See Behe’s own site with several popularly written articles:
http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html
January 18th, 2006 at 17:03
Resident papist here, and if the Pope says it’s not science, then the matter is settled! But seriously, it seems fishy to me too.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:47
I was going to respond, but I think I’ll relieve myself of the duty of acting the role of shrill, underinformed athiest.
I’ll say that I agree with Lee and Maggie. Where’s my yellow shirt?
January 19th, 2006 at 19:55
Fishy-Schmishy. Underinformed is exactly it. Since when have the mainstream media been a reliable source for issues viewed as religious debates?… but this is clearly where so many are getting their (mis)information.
January 20th, 2006 at 13:39
to be fair, the more i read about it, the more i think it is simply a huge logical gap. to say that the empirical evidence points clearly towards design seems disingenuous, and it’s quite unclear to me how behe defends that as his most reasonable explanation.
it seems as if he has preframed the dialogue as a religious debate. finding a discontinuity in evolution theory seems a reasonable scientific step. what it looks to me as behe is doing next is saying ’so piecewise evolution is wrong, therefore creationism’ – recycling an age-old debate. is it really an either-or proposition?
i also don’t think that the media is misrepresenting the situation as badly as you suggest, because i think that this simple representation is a natural outflow of reducing it to a simple partisan debate.
the problem of course is that i don’t particularly think partisan debates solve much. you’ll note in the gospels that jesus studiously avoids getting into back-and-forth matches, rather sidestepping the invitation to debate and refusing to get ensnared in things that don’t matter.
it’s not something we as Christians have been very good at emulating.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:05
hello! stumbled across your blog via MightyMaggie’s –
wanted to say, right on. Though I don’t know as much as I would like about the science (or not) of the origin-of-the-world debate, I so appreciated your final point and think it has ramifications no matter what culture war is currently being fought. Christian subculture has often become so worked up about pet issues that it has neglected, tragically, the business of loving people — and of course, the business of loving God Himself in His glory, and majesty, and ultimate beauty.
It’s encouraging to see someone saying this stuff — and convicting — though I see the lack of practical love, am I asking God how He might use me to fill it?