Distortions Abound

Here's another current example of the distorted version of facts that get served up by ID opponents: Lee Cullum's editorial in the Dallas Morning News about the upcoming ID conference at SMU

She wrote,

"Their mistake is presenting themselves as a science and Charles Darwin as their natural enemy when, in fact, they are arguing from a religious base.

"The principal funder of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, sponsor of this confab along with the Christian Legal Society at SMU's Dedman School of Law, is Howard Ahmanson, who long has shown interest in conservative religion."

That's all the reason Cullum offered for believing that ID is arguing from a religious base. It's a glaring example of the genetic fallacy, thinking that where an opinion comes from tells us all we need to know about its content.

Later:

"Sharon Turner, an Episcopal priest, calls the imperative to prove up Intelligent Design the last gasp of the Enlightenment, when religious certainty gave way to the experiments of science. But, she added, there is knowledge that is far deeper than the literal or the scientific."

"What she understands is this: For all the gains of the scientific method, it did limit the life of the spirit for those unable to imagine more broadly. Perhaps we were better off when science and philosophy were part of the same discipline. Aristotle, remember, formed his categories of plants and animals with all the assurance of both persuasions.

"Certainly Leonardo da Vinci embraced the two worlds as one, which may be the main reason for his current popularity. It did not occur to anyone then that they could be separate.

"Perhaps that's what the Discovery Institute is trying to achieve – a return to unity of knowledge. But to do this, adherents of this effort are now the Peter of religion, denying it at every turn."

It's an interesting thesis. Sharon Turner seems to be saying that we should not have to rely on scientific knowledge to inform religious knowledge. To some extent she's right: there is a truth that's far deeper than what can be accessed by scientific methods. It seems she changes the subject, though, when she speaks of science and philosophy belonging together. Where did religion suddenly go? Maybe I shouldn't worry about that: I agree that science and philosophy should walk hand in hand, informing each other. It would solve a lot of the problems we work on here. And Cullum was on a wrong track about religion, so there's no call for disappointment at her dropping the topic for a moment.

But then she says ID adherents are the "Peter of religion, denying it at every turn." This is her most egregious distortion. If it were true that ID was trying to build a religion on science, she would be correct. If ID were saying that existing religion depends on ID, she would also be right. It appears that's what she (and possibly Sharon Turner) believe.

I'm developing new thinking about the relationship between ID and religion, which I will post after Easter. It's a subtle interplay. I could go ahead and correct Ms. Cullum already on her misunderstanding of ID's relationship with religion, but I'll hold off on that. Instead, I have one further comment to make in response to Sharon Turner. I think she may be sounding a caution against religion holding too tightly to modernist versions of truth that place too much dependence on science. If ID is doing that, then her caution is an excellent one.

But from my own perspective, that's not what ID is about. Intelligent Design research is not about proving God, it's about finding out what he has done. That's what all of science is about, on one level. It's a valid way of looking at origins even if someday we would all agree that neo-Darwinism was right all along. Alternatively, ID (and all of science) are about finding out the truth of what happens or has happened in the natural world.

Here's what I would like everyone someday to understand: ID is an approach toward scientific research that seeks to find out what happened in natural history. Its only necessary philosophical "baggage" is a rejection of philosophical naturalism. Its political implications, these days, are being trumpeted and advance only as scare tactics by opponents; ID proponents aren't pushing for anything except a hearing at places like SMU. Its theological implications are more subtle, and as I said I'll have more new thoughts to add on that in a few days. But it's not a modernist, Enlightenment-mentality attempt to prove religion. It's a program of empirical research into the workings of the natural world.

Hat tip to Lawrence Selden. See also John West's article at Evolution News and Views.

Posted: Fri - April 6, 2007 at 08:27 PM |

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

Distortions Abound

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson