In Dembski and Richards' book Unapologetic Apologetics, Bill Dembski writes a few chapters on science/creation and I'd like to comment. First, I think that as a Christian who does not read the creation account as historical narrative, I am one of the few who can look at the issue of creation with an open mind. I view it as a question of the mechanism for design and thus have no vested interest in either side.
He says "without question, no aspect of theology escaped the need for reevaluation in the light of Darwinism." I think he overestimates the impact of Darwinism. How does it question the resurrection or eschatology?
His two main points are 1) "God is not an absentee landlord" and 2) intelligent design is a theory of information which can be tested.
1) "Christians are not deists" so proposing a theory where "God is a master of stealth" like theistic evolution does not jive with Christianity. "If God purposely created life through Darwinian means, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life was created without purpose." Theistic evolution is a cheap compromise for those who believe "the natural world in itself provides no evidence that life is designed."
First, invoking the character of God and saying "God is not like that so He wouldn't do it that way" is a close-minded and arrogant pseudo-argument. I don't think Darwinism requires a deistic God, just deistic in the limited sense of letting life evolve. I think this is reductio ad absurdum (heard that on "The Big Bang Theory"). A engineer type God who enjoys seeing animals evolve can still be personally involved in our lives. God can create a world, let animals evolve, and still perform miracles and direct human lives. Theistic evolution does not mean God can't/doesn't intervene but for the most part let's the earth evolve on its own. This is how I see God working the most in the world today - the coincidences that just seem "natural" or "random."
Second, why can't I see design and be a Darwinist? The fallacy comes in when Darwinism is extracted beyond its purpose and includes atheism. Why can't Darwinism simply be a mechanism of creation? The arguments from Darwin's book are 1) species are not immutable, 2) evolution can account for all the diversity of life, and 3) this process was guided by natural selection. (Phil Johnson, Darwin on Trial) Darwin's theory does not invoke atheism.
2) We know enough today to not make the God of the Gaps fallacy. Using math we can determine whether something has "complexity" ("ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance") and "specification" ("ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence."). Thus, we can reduce or eliminate the personal decision about whether something is designed.
I love the idea, but I'm skeptical that we have this ability when it comes to evolution. I think it will always come down to "the argument from personal incredulity" as Hugh Montefiore calls it (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). Dawkins hates this idea because we have no intuition of the amount of time evolution requires (we think in terms of centuries/millenia) or how complex things (like the human eye) evolve in living things. If statistics can help with the design question, we better be sure what evolution is capable of (circular argument?).
Overall, I think Christians should not have the knee-jerk reaction to Darwinism that's so popular. Two reasons I think are legit for rejecting Darwinism are irreducible complexity and animal death. Irreducible complexity says that there are mechanisms/machines in organisms that require all the parts to operate (i.e. a mousetrap) - take away one part and the thing breaks. This is opposite of cumulative complexity (i.e. a city) where one can take away a part and the thing still functions. (The Darwinist response to irreducible complexity is to deny it or to say that the parts were used for a different purpose but came together for the current purpose.) Second, animal death is an integral part to evolution so if one thinks that God hates animal death (perhaps it entered as part of the Fall) then one can reject Darwinism. However, God's view on animal death is not especially clear and should not be assumed flippantly. As a side note, I find the irreducible complexity argument convincing (not the animal death argument) sometimes so I would classify myself as a theistic evolutionist a few days a week and a progressive creationist a few days a week.
5 comments:
Ok, so I feel like I should weigh in here, but I really don't know when I'll have the mental energy to say anything intelligent. (I've been waiting for a day like that for a long, long time.)
Instead, I'll post a couple of questionable links. (It's all in good fun, people.)
Nomadic Thoughts
MC Dawkins
Hey Nath,
I'm curious why you think that Dembski and his friends overstate the impact of Darwinian Evolution. You'd have to say, it seems to me, that Darwin's theory brought about scientific revolution. The accepted paradigm for millenia would have been that some sort of creator, personal or impersonal, was responsible for the earth, and universe. With the popularization of Darwinian evolution that paradigm was challenged, and has been replaced. That doesn't seem like a small issue to me. That isn't, however, a reason to suggest that Darwin's theory isn't worthy of consideration, but it has had significant impact.
It seems to me that the advent of evolutionary theory gives an opportunity to leave behind any need for a creator of any kind. Not that you're denying the invovlement of a creator, but for many who hold to an argument from incredulity, it's a way out of having to answer the question of a creator. It doesn't seem to me that the bulk of scientists are saying, "Listen, believe in God if you like, it seems like there must be a creator of some sort, but we still think evolution is the way that creator did the work of making all that we see." I know that there are a significant number of scientists who embrace Darwinian evolution who also embrace faith.
I agree with you regarding irreducible complexity, it's a compelling argument in my view. However, I also think that Dembski's filter 1) contingency 2) specificity 3) complexity is compelling. Design is intuitive don't you think? Certainly Dembski's approach pushes towards Philosophy in contrast to empirical science, but for this question that seems reasonable to me.
Love your posts Nathan,
JJR
Those links were awesome - I definitely think Steve Buscemi should play Dembski.
I agree that Darwinism caused a scientific revolution, but I think Dembski overstated the effects of Darwinism on theology, not history. I suppose he just said theology must be reevaluated and not necessarily changed, so it's not uber-radical. However, I do think in the "reevaluation" process some concepts (like resurrection and prophecy) will take only a second to reevaluate and remain affected.
I am also confused by the "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually filled atheist," because design's not the only argument for a creator. People do see Darwinism as a reason/excuse for atheism, but obviously I think it is unfounded.
I think you've hit the problem on the nose - design is intuitive. I do like Dembski's approach, and hopefully it is only the first step with better ideas coming.
UN
So...we just wanted to know when you were gonna make another peanut butter and chocolate milkshake :)
I didn't make any more milkshakes, but Sonic does the trick. That should be a prescription for constipation - one Sonic blast produces one supersonic blast.
Post a Comment