Origins from a Different Angle

Intelligent Design is a research program that relies on empirical evidence. It's science, not religion.

That does not, however, make it illegitimate to inquire about origins from another angle, that of metaphysical or religious belief. I've mapped out how various beliefs will lead to different outcomes on this question. It shows us once again that ID is not a religious but a scientific question, but where people are willing to go with it will be colored by their presuppositions. This is true for both ID supporters and detractors.

This chart is not intended to cover all options exhaustively. It's focused on the major players in the debate. I've left out the impersonal pantheistic and polytheistic views of deity, which don't seem to be involved in the discussion. Pantheists (or panentheists) of the New Age variety typically land in the Neo-Darwinian camp anyway, and other eastern religions do not seem to propose creation stories with any real attempt at credibility. I'm not qualified to speak on their views, at any rate, nor am I qualified to speak on the Muslim form of theism. Panspermia is not included here because it seems to be another version of the ontological materialist view, and this is more about the development of life than its initial origins on earth anyway.

Also, I'm not suggesting that every contributor to this discussion does or should approach it this way. There are Darwin skeptics who haven't done much metaphysical work, at least not publicly; they're primarily concerned about empirical (scientific) problems they see in evolutionism. This chart is designed to fit only those who approach it from a particular perspective, and that within limits.

And a final disclaimer: because it is not exhaustive, this chart only works from top to bottom, not in reverse. A philosopher like Antony Flew can accept Intelligent Design and yet have problems with Biblical revelation. If the chart in this form actually presented every option, and if ID ever prevailed, it would prove Biblical religion. The chart is not exhaustive, though, and though ID is potentially supportive of Biblical beliefs, it is not potentially a proof for them.

Much of the debate on ID centers on whether it's credible even to consider the possibility that the development of life has been purposefully guided. That's where this chart begins. Those who say "no" are ontological materialists: they are convinced that nothing at the ground of existence (ontology) has purpose or can act as a guiding agent; all there is, is matter and energy and their interactions. The only option on the table for materialists is neo-Darwinism and/or its intellectual descendants.

Belief in purposeful guidance, on the other hand, is typically tied to belief in a personal God. God's guidance may conceivably have been entirely contained in "seed" form from the moment of creation, such that God has not intervened since then. This is a generally deistic view, which leads also to something like a neo-Darwinian conclusion, though its assumptions may not be as strictly materialistic as those of many neo-Darwinians.

Among those (including myself) who believe in a personal God who intervenes (the theistic view), some are young-earth creationists who view Genesis 1 as being literally true. Others view Genesis 1 as not being literally true in that sense; most of these hold what I call the figurative/literal view. It's possible to believe that the Bible is literally true according to the authors' original intent, and that Moses, the author (under the Spirit's inspiration) intended the creation story to be viewed in a poetic, figurative sense. There's no need to discuss that at length; the point is that it's possible to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible and yet not believe in a literal 6-day creation.

Thus there are those who believe in a personal God who may have intervened in the development of life since creation, and who do not ascribe to the young-earth view. This group may further divide into two sub-groups, based on their theology or their view of the evidences. The determining question at this stage is whether God's intervention was hidden or discoverable. Theistic evolution believes God was present and involved in the development of life, but his work was hidden, perhaps even tucked away on a quantum level, so that we will not discover his intervention through empirical means. The final group is that of Intelligent Design theism, those who believe that God's intervention left traces that scientists can discern today. (Remember where this flow chart begins and how it progresses. It leads to a theistic version of Intelligent Design, but that does not mean that all ID is theistic. ID research that begins and remains only with the empirical evidences in nature leads only toward intelligence as a conclusion, not toward any God.)

The first octagonal box on the chart points out that neo-Darwinism and theistic evolution are empirically indistinguishable. There is no science that can discern between God being absent or having just hidden his interventions. This contributes to answering whether evolution science and religion are necessarily incompatible. They are not, if this box represents any possible reality. Neither can disprove the other, so neither need view the other as enemy. It also demonstrates that atheistic evolutionists like Dawkins, Dennett, Wilson, etc. have not arrived at their dogmatic atheism through evolutionary science (as they claim) but through other prejudices.

The second octagonal box asks whether there is any theological need to choose between ID and theistic evolutionism. The question mark is there for a reason. Our friend and commenter here Mike S. has said there is nothing unbiblical at all in theistic evolution. Young-earth creationists strenuously object. For me, this is a matter that requires more work, yet for now I lean toward a figurative-literal interpretation of Genesis 1, after the hermeneutic suggested by Lee Irons, and an old-earth version of Intelligent Design with God as creator. But it may be that the only way in the end to choose between theistic evolution and ID will be the empirical method.

And that brings us back around to my early point, that the question of Intelligent Design is an empirical and not a religious one. Some Bible believers reasonably believe in evolution; therefore there is no necessary religious motivation behind ID. This is consistent with what I read in the ID literature. Yes, there is a rejection of philosophical materialism. That's essential for ID; as the chart shows, there's no path from materialism to any conceivable openness to ID. From there, though, the work is being done in the empirical realm. I'll close by repeating what I've said often: I don't claim to know how that empirical work will come out in the end, but I strongly support the value of pursuing it.

Posted: Fri - December 9, 2005 at 09:32 AM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Origins from a Different Angle

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson