Pro-evolution Religious Links

Intelligent design proponents, especially Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Witt, and William Dembski, claim that the evolution/intelligent design debate is nothing other than a clash between two worldviews: a dogmatic naturalist world view and a religious worldview (apparently they miss the ironic use of "dogmatic" in reference to naturalism, certainly "dogmatic" is a term based in religion).

These proponents attempt to create the false dichotomy of religion versus scientific atheism.  Touchstone Magazine was especially despicable in this regard recently. Its June/July 2004 issue "Darwin's Last Stand" opened with a nice photograph of an Auschwitz oven open door and repeatedly compared "Darwinists" to nazis. And yet ID proponents decry the incivility of the debate! (For futher discussion and comment see here and here.)

ID is bad enough as science. It's flat out terrible as theology.  Johnson's credentials as a theologian are worse, if possible, than his credentials as a biologist.  I've set up a series of links on the left rail to articles and discussions discussing the theological shortcomings of Intelligent Design. I'd appreciate any suggestions or additions. Several more are in the works.

Interestingly, the response of the ID proponents to this theological critique is exactly the same as their response to scientific critique.  They claim that "mainstream" theologians are set in their ivory towers and are not "rank and file" Christians. ID proponents claim also that "mainstream" theologians are just as rigid in their thinking as mainstream scientists are in theirs. Finally they attack Christians who think that IFD is theologically bankrupt as "accomodationists" and not true Christians at all.

There are two main theological objections to ID:

1. it is a form of natural theology discredited since Paley.  See Dembski's unsuccessful effort to wiggle out of that accusation in the left rail article.

2.  Proponents of Intelligent Design are not acting as Christians because they twist the facts, subvert the truth and essentially violate this Commandment. They lie for God. This is a peculiarly ineffective way to "witness" for your faith, but very bad theology in any event.

Comments

[Cary]

Nice article.

I've mentioned a couple times in my blog that ID is a disaster for religion.

Matters of faith are just that, and are not meant to be scientifically scrutinized.

Regardless of how the universe may have been created or not, we are stuck with the empirical evidence we have. As _CSI_'s Grissom would say the evidence is just the evidence.

Clearly the way we 'do' science works. The advances of the last century in particular are evidence enough of that.

[Mark V.]

Joe

I wonder if Jim Wallis, a so-called "leftist evangelical" has written anything significant on this issue. It definitely is not a focus of his, although he is very much concerned about the warping of Christianity by conservative evangelicals (i.e., turning it from a religion focused on the sick and poor into a pro-business pro-war pro-america political recruiting tool).

[Joe McFaul]

For many Christian evangelicals, there is a differnce between being potically conservative and being Christian and they objec to the blurring of this distinction.

I've just begun collecting the thoughts of Christian theologians on intellgigent design and was very pelasantly surpirsed at the amont of thoughtful rejection from a theological point of view.

The point is not to resolve differences in Christian thought but to issustrate that teh Johnson-Dembski branch of Chrstianity is just as far out of the mainstream Chrstian and evangelical thought as their Intelligent Design proposal is remioved from manstream sciencce thought.

Thanks, for the sugggestion, I'll follwow up with Jim Wallis.

Cary had this to say on his blog:

" Second, by promoting the ID agenda, these people are in essence admitting that they need scientific proof – i.e. denying the role of faith. Now, obviously this isn’t the case for all religions, but most (all?) Judeo-Christian sects(and lets face it, that’s who makes up the religious right in this country) state that belief in God is a matter of faith, not proof. Can’t they see they’re taking a huge risk here?"

Wise words. ID is a tacit admission of weak faith.

No they cant see the risk they are taking.

[Don T. Know]

>> Matters of faith are just that, and are not meant to be scientifically scrutinized.

As a former fundamentalist, let me say it's not that easy.

While it is true that mainstream religionists have little problem "accommodating" ideas that challenge their faith. The same cannot be said for fundamentalists.

Unlike mainstream believers, faith is an assertion of fact for fundamentalists. And, the most basic fact to the fundamentalist is the implication of the creation stories in Genesis ... specifically the introduction of "sin" that makes the rest of the Christian story (salvation) necessary. There is no room for metaphors, symbolism or allegories. It either happened or all is for naught.

Of course, this is a problem of the fundamentalist's own making since Christians who are not biblical literalists have no problem reconciling their beliefs with evolutionary theory.

Nevertheless, as long as fundamentalists insist on believing the Bible to be 100% without error, it will not be possible to avoid conflicts whenever an object of its faith makes a claim of fact that can be verified (and falsified) by science.

[Jeremy Mohn]

Joe McFaul said:

"ID is a tacit admission of weak faith."

I agree. Those who use ID to shore up their belief in God are setting themselves up for disappointment.

They are like the fool who built his house on sand. Science will continue to advance. The rains will come, the floodwaters will rise, the winds will blow and beat upon their house. And eventually, it will fall with a great crash.

[Joe mcFaul]

Don, Great observations. I've spent a lot of time thinkig of ways to find some common ground. Jeremy Mohn's site is worth checking into for an approach to that common ground.
Overall, though I have to agree with you. A fundamentalist belief in "the fall" is essential to an understanding of the later Redemption. To the extent that your religious beliefs require you to believe in a literal reading of Genesis, you will find science incompatible.

I'd make two obervations for persons that find themselves in that category:
1. recognize that scietnits will disagree with your interpretation of religion.
2. Recognize that many very reliogus fellow Christians or fellow Jews, if you are a Jewish fundamentalist, disagree with you--not on scientific grounds but on religous grounds.

Finally I think you do an injustice by arguing that science in any way is compatible with a YEC view. Arguments that radiocarbon dating is wrogn or that eh speed of light has changed dramtically are intellectually dishonest--you scadalize fellow believers with that kind of lack of integrity.

All a YEC can do is argue that science has been fooled by the appearance of age, the so called omphalos hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

That one is logically irrefutable and in my opinion, the only intellctually honest approach for a YEC creationist.

[Cary]

Wow, someone quoted my blog... I'm famous! ;-)

[Joe McFaul]

Yeah, I quoted the "Clint Eastwood" of blogs! ;)