Creationism's Trojan Horse III: I'm still looking...
The book
Creationism's Trojan Horse
covers some ground well, but
fails miserably at understanding the roots of Intelligent Design (ID). I'm still
looking for a response to ID that presents its case
well.
I've been working my way through
Creationism's Trojan Horse
by Forrest and Gross, hoping to find some meat
there. I've commented twice previously (here
and here)
on its lack of response to Intelligent Design's (ID's) central point: the
naturalistic bias in science.
I'm willing to grant they scored points by showing that ID has not yet been persuasive among much of the science community. They also did yeoman's work in detailing ID advocates' political and communication efforts.
They ought to be embarrassed at their last chapter, though. It's entitled, "Religion First--and Last." I read it with a sense of amused anger. Their complaint here is that the ID people have brought religion into their arguments. Some ID advocates (gasp!) even want other people to agree with them. How awful!
What they never say is, why religion is bad. All through the chapter there's a strong undercurrent of horror at the connection of religion to ID. One would think that with all the space they gave to refuting key scientific points in an earlier chapter, they would at least spend a paragraph on what's wrong with religion. They just assume everyone knows it's awful.
Not only this, but they don't even address what's so wrong about starting with open presuppositions. By that I mean, being open to the possibility that there's more to the universe than can be explained through what we can measure and count. But they never touch the subject. They just expect us to rise in panic over it along with them.
On page 261, they say,
Not only does Dembski and Richards's particular Christian worldview require intelligent design as its first principle... it is unabashedly exclusionary.
Well, who's being exclusionary here? They seem to feel perfect freedom to claim an incontestable position, but it's not okay for ID proponents to do that.
On page 283 we read,
An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: (1) belief in the creation of the universe by a supernatural designer and (usually) the designer's continuing intervention in the creation; (2) implacable anti-evolutionism, stemming from opposition to the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life, such opposition being based on theological, moral, ideological, and political, but never scientific grounds.... (emphasis in the original)
The loaded language here is typical of the whole book. "Ideological" is a great dismissive term. How about the more accurate "philosophical" instead? (Is science the only valid guide to truth? Careful: it's a trick. That itself is a question of philosophy, not of science!)
They complain that ID's anti-evolution stems from moral ground. Is "moral" a bad thing? They mention a "theological" basis of opposition. Now, theology is understood very poorly by most Americans. It is not, as many suppose, just an ethereal grab for free-floating ideas. I don't have space for to discuss it fully here, but theology (at least the evangelical variety) is based on real evidence. Finally, they say opposition is based on political grounds. That's simply untrue (although it certainly has been expressed through political methods).
The book has some strengths. I'm re-thinking my views on irreducible complexity and information theory. That's great. Those theories are works in progress, too, of course, and the truth of God as Creator does not stand or fall with them. If ID was 100% dependent on science alone, then this would be a more serious problem, but there is no such thing as 100% science alone. Science, like everything else, operates in a context.
The context of evolutionist thinking is nicely exposed in the other book I'm reading concurrently, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, edited by evolutionist philosopher/historian Michael Ruse. A chapter contributed by Richard Dawkins includes this:
If [a device or structure that appears to have "purpose" as Dawkins defines it] were found upon another planet, some special explanation would be called for. Either there is a God, or, if we are going to explain the universe in terms of blind physical forces, those blind physical forces are going to have to be deployed in a very peculiar way.
The choice is starkly presented: we explain the universe in terms of a God or in terms of blind physical forces. The universe does not tell you that it has to be defined in terms of blind physical forces, you have to decide to take that approach before you begin working on your explanations. That's the nub of the materialism that ID objects to. Evolutionists claim to have discovered through investigation that the universe developed blindly; when in fact, they decided that before they began to work on their explanation, and all their explanations are simply working out how their pre-determined opinion could be so.
Back to Creationism's Trojan Horse: even though the authors mention the philosophical underpinnings of ID over and over and over again, they don't deal with it at all. That's shoddy. My belief in ID's foundations remains as secure as ever--only more so.
I'm willing to grant they scored points by showing that ID has not yet been persuasive among much of the science community. They also did yeoman's work in detailing ID advocates' political and communication efforts.
They ought to be embarrassed at their last chapter, though. It's entitled, "Religion First--and Last." I read it with a sense of amused anger. Their complaint here is that the ID people have brought religion into their arguments. Some ID advocates (gasp!) even want other people to agree with them. How awful!
What they never say is, why religion is bad. All through the chapter there's a strong undercurrent of horror at the connection of religion to ID. One would think that with all the space they gave to refuting key scientific points in an earlier chapter, they would at least spend a paragraph on what's wrong with religion. They just assume everyone knows it's awful.
Not only this, but they don't even address what's so wrong about starting with open presuppositions. By that I mean, being open to the possibility that there's more to the universe than can be explained through what we can measure and count. But they never touch the subject. They just expect us to rise in panic over it along with them.
On page 261, they say,
Not only does Dembski and Richards's particular Christian worldview require intelligent design as its first principle... it is unabashedly exclusionary.
Well, who's being exclusionary here? They seem to feel perfect freedom to claim an incontestable position, but it's not okay for ID proponents to do that.
On page 283 we read,
An analysis of American creationism of all varieties reveals a number of shared characteristics: (1) belief in the creation of the universe by a supernatural designer and (usually) the designer's continuing intervention in the creation; (2) implacable anti-evolutionism, stemming from opposition to the scientific consensus on the evolution of the universe and life, such opposition being based on theological, moral, ideological, and political, but never scientific grounds.... (emphasis in the original)
The loaded language here is typical of the whole book. "Ideological" is a great dismissive term. How about the more accurate "philosophical" instead? (Is science the only valid guide to truth? Careful: it's a trick. That itself is a question of philosophy, not of science!)
They complain that ID's anti-evolution stems from moral ground. Is "moral" a bad thing? They mention a "theological" basis of opposition. Now, theology is understood very poorly by most Americans. It is not, as many suppose, just an ethereal grab for free-floating ideas. I don't have space for to discuss it fully here, but theology (at least the evangelical variety) is based on real evidence. Finally, they say opposition is based on political grounds. That's simply untrue (although it certainly has been expressed through political methods).
The book has some strengths. I'm re-thinking my views on irreducible complexity and information theory. That's great. Those theories are works in progress, too, of course, and the truth of God as Creator does not stand or fall with them. If ID was 100% dependent on science alone, then this would be a more serious problem, but there is no such thing as 100% science alone. Science, like everything else, operates in a context.
The context of evolutionist thinking is nicely exposed in the other book I'm reading concurrently, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, edited by evolutionist philosopher/historian Michael Ruse. A chapter contributed by Richard Dawkins includes this:
If [a device or structure that appears to have "purpose" as Dawkins defines it] were found upon another planet, some special explanation would be called for. Either there is a God, or, if we are going to explain the universe in terms of blind physical forces, those blind physical forces are going to have to be deployed in a very peculiar way.
The choice is starkly presented: we explain the universe in terms of a God or in terms of blind physical forces. The universe does not tell you that it has to be defined in terms of blind physical forces, you have to decide to take that approach before you begin working on your explanations. That's the nub of the materialism that ID objects to. Evolutionists claim to have discovered through investigation that the universe developed blindly; when in fact, they decided that before they began to work on their explanation, and all their explanations are simply working out how their pre-determined opinion could be so.
Back to Creationism's Trojan Horse: even though the authors mention the philosophical underpinnings of ID over and over and over again, they don't deal with it at all. That's shoddy. My belief in ID's foundations remains as secure as ever--only more so.
Posted: Fri - January 14, 2005 at 05:19 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
