Intelligent Design

Up until now I have not been particularly interested in the Intelligent Design movement, though I read about it from time to time. I have always thought such debates were somewhat silly, since they (i.e., the evolutionists) rarely address the underlying issues of philosophy of science, and almost never critically examine their own presuppositions. Trite labels such as pseudoscience and religious fanaticism are used as all-purpose summary dismissals.

I have recently read about an organization called the Discovery Institute, which apparently is not affliated with any religion and is not partisan, and read a few of their articles. There is also a simple statement, signed by over 300 scientists, that expresses doubt that random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity of life. Though these scientists may not be advocates of Intelliegent Design themselves, they might be candidates for their opponents’ label of pseudoscientists if all it takes to qualify is to express doubt on Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. And these are conventionally trained (if I may use that phrase) scientists who have advanced degrees. To call one or two renegades pseudoscientists might be credible, but 300 is a pretty big number to dismiss without serious engagement and criticism.

The disingenuousness of the establishment evolutionists is also evident in their refusal to answer questions about why critical thinking on and approaches to Darwinism should not be encouraged in secondary schools. I cannot but help notice the parallels with the critical schools in the study of the Scriptures. Those who opposed biblical criticism were often labeled obscurantists, and engaging in criticism, whatever the results, was supposed to be the mark of the enlighted. (For the record, I think a lot of biblical higher criticism was wrong.) Now, ironically, it is the establishment scientists who are trying to hold on to their orthodoxy and impose it on everyone else (including our children), and critics of the orthodoxy are the heretics.

I guess the imposition of orthodoxy works both ways, but the tendency of man to rebel against God is the same. Whatever arguments can be leveled against belief in God are celebrated, and whatever arguments that compels man to believe are to be shunned or attacked at all costs.

(UPDATE 2005-05-30): I think intelligent design may be a useful starting point (something like John Frame’s proximate starting point) for engaging someone who does not believe in God. But the notion among the ID proponents that one can purely infer from “evidence” ultimately fails from a Van Tilian perspective. Likewise, the evolutionists claim of pure naturalism also fails: it too has preconceived notions about nature, namely, that there is something about nature that can be studied and understood. That preconceived notion belongs to the realm of epistemology proper, not science. Vern Poythress’s recent article is a good analysis of why scientists, regardless of their explicit claim, must “believe” in God.