What If . . .
We're a long way from it happening, but I've been
thinking "what if?" lately. What if someday there was widespread agreement that
Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, and others are on the right track? What if evolution
was convincingly falsified? What if Intelligent Design showed solid empirical
support, and did so in a way that was safe from charges of
Bible-thumping?
Some of you are thinking right now, "What if that
guy at Thinking Christian is a nut case? That'll never happen!" But a what-if
game doesn't have to be about something that could happen. In this case, it can
give us insight into the current
controversy.
Today at Telic Thoughts, MikeGene showed that "Fear is in the Air" among evolutionary scientists, linking to an essay at American Scientist, "Being Stalked by Intelligent Design." That author is not saying he's afraid maybe ID is right; he says he fears "religious prejudice disguised as intellectual freedom." (If I hadn't done it so often already, I'd take a few paragraphs to put that opinion right.) But what if it were really shown that this is not about religious prejudice but about observable reality?
I invite you to play this game with me here.
********************************************
If Intelligent Design wins the day, this is what I think it will look like:
It will continue to be messy.
It will not happen in the next 5-15 years. I can't remember the source--maybe it was Thomas Kuhn--but someone pointed out that scientific revolutions are not often completed by their originators, but by the generation of students who follow them. The originators' generation includes too many people with an unbudgeable stake in the old paradigm.
Many will continue to disbelieve there was intelligent design at the basis of life, because of their prior commitment to purely natural reality.
Nevertheless, hordes of biologists will eat their words about origins, and about ID proponents like Johnson, Dembski, Behe. It will be painful.
Biology itself will continue on fruitfully without depending on macro-evolutionary theory, as it has for decades. (Micro-evolutionary theory will continue to be uncontroversial and useful.)
The new generation of biologists will develop and flesh out the theory of ID with more complete explanations, testable hypotheses, and so on.
Someone will find a non-theistic "out" from the implications of intelligent design, and many will choose to follow that path, even if there is no evidence for it. (This is already the case in regard to the anthropic coincidences.) The seeds for this are already planted in the panspermia and many-universe theories. Searching for extra-terrestrial life (both simple and intelligent) will take on incredibly new urgency, as scientists seek another explanation for life here.
American public schools will teach nothing about the origins of life. Studies of evolution will be relegated to the history of science. Students will be left to wonder what science currently believes, but because of legal opposition, Intelligent Design will not be permitted to be taught. Court battles will be even more intense than what we've seen so far.
ID will nevertheless be taught in countless other forums. Much of it will be hopelessly confused and distorted (some things will never change, in other words).
The culture wars in the West will take on a new dimension, as religious people (Christian and otherwise) press the implications of ID on public morality. ID in itself will not solve these moral issues, but will serve to further intensify and focus the debate. Things will get hotter.
Some unbelievers will convert to Christian belief, as Anthony Flew has already converted to a belief in God because of Intelligent Design arguments. This will not in itself, however, lead to a general revival of Christian religion, because other factors affecting belief and holiness may not necessarily line up with it for revival to happen.
Richard Dawkins will say that anyone who disbelieves in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or possibly wicked (some things will never change, in other words).
********************************************
Is this a realistic scenario? If so, is it any wonder that it's scaring people so bad that at least one university won't even allow its faculty to talk about it? The backlash against ID is not all about the science; a lot of it has to do with the way the world would change if it succeeds.
Today at Telic Thoughts, MikeGene showed that "Fear is in the Air" among evolutionary scientists, linking to an essay at American Scientist, "Being Stalked by Intelligent Design." That author is not saying he's afraid maybe ID is right; he says he fears "religious prejudice disguised as intellectual freedom." (If I hadn't done it so often already, I'd take a few paragraphs to put that opinion right.) But what if it were really shown that this is not about religious prejudice but about observable reality?
I invite you to play this game with me here.
********************************************
If Intelligent Design wins the day, this is what I think it will look like:
It will continue to be messy.
It will not happen in the next 5-15 years. I can't remember the source--maybe it was Thomas Kuhn--but someone pointed out that scientific revolutions are not often completed by their originators, but by the generation of students who follow them. The originators' generation includes too many people with an unbudgeable stake in the old paradigm.
Many will continue to disbelieve there was intelligent design at the basis of life, because of their prior commitment to purely natural reality.
Nevertheless, hordes of biologists will eat their words about origins, and about ID proponents like Johnson, Dembski, Behe. It will be painful.
Biology itself will continue on fruitfully without depending on macro-evolutionary theory, as it has for decades. (Micro-evolutionary theory will continue to be uncontroversial and useful.)
The new generation of biologists will develop and flesh out the theory of ID with more complete explanations, testable hypotheses, and so on.
Someone will find a non-theistic "out" from the implications of intelligent design, and many will choose to follow that path, even if there is no evidence for it. (This is already the case in regard to the anthropic coincidences.) The seeds for this are already planted in the panspermia and many-universe theories. Searching for extra-terrestrial life (both simple and intelligent) will take on incredibly new urgency, as scientists seek another explanation for life here.
American public schools will teach nothing about the origins of life. Studies of evolution will be relegated to the history of science. Students will be left to wonder what science currently believes, but because of legal opposition, Intelligent Design will not be permitted to be taught. Court battles will be even more intense than what we've seen so far.
ID will nevertheless be taught in countless other forums. Much of it will be hopelessly confused and distorted (some things will never change, in other words).
The culture wars in the West will take on a new dimension, as religious people (Christian and otherwise) press the implications of ID on public morality. ID in itself will not solve these moral issues, but will serve to further intensify and focus the debate. Things will get hotter.
Some unbelievers will convert to Christian belief, as Anthony Flew has already converted to a belief in God because of Intelligent Design arguments. This will not in itself, however, lead to a general revival of Christian religion, because other factors affecting belief and holiness may not necessarily line up with it for revival to happen.
Richard Dawkins will say that anyone who disbelieves in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or possibly wicked (some things will never change, in other words).
********************************************
Is this a realistic scenario? If so, is it any wonder that it's scaring people so bad that at least one university won't even allow its faculty to talk about it? The backlash against ID is not all about the science; a lot of it has to do with the way the world would change if it succeeds.
Posted: Fri - October 7, 2005 at 12:13 PM |
Quick Links
Categories
"Do Christians believe we hold the truth? No, it holds us; we submit to it and to the One who gives it. We seek the truth to know it and follow it, that it may grip us tighter yet."
Personal Profile
Guest Speaking
Articles Published Elsewhere
Frequently Discussed Topics
My Other Blog
Email this link to a friend
XML/RSS Feed: Blog Entries
Feedburner Feed
XML/RSS Feed: Comments
Guest Speaking
Articles Published Elsewhere
Frequently Discussed Topics
My Other Blog
Email this link to a friend
XML/RSS Feed: Blog Entries
Feedburner Feed
XML/RSS Feed: Comments
Archives
Knowing God
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 06, 2007 01:03 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 06, 2007 01:03 PM
