Henry Neufeld has an interesting discussion about rejecting intelligent design. A commenter challenged him about whether he was rejecting it a priori, and if so doing wasn’t a mistake: whether one’s conclusions were “religious” or “naturalistic” [not a distinction I'd sign up to] what was important was whether thye were reached from the evidence.
Henry’s reply, in part, is:
I immediately need to clarify that I do not reject a designer as such, but rather intelligent design as a scientific concept. From a theological point of view, I hold that the universe is designed and that God is the designer. I simply believe that the design is consistent and that it does not show “wrinkles” in the natural universe.
His post then expands on this and is all worth reading.
I think I’d perhaps put it slightly differently. ID is not so much a faulty theory or concept (though it is that also) as it is rather a faulty methodology. No proper scientific enquiry (which is what ID claims to be) proceeds by saying: “Let’s look for things we can’t explain and then announce we’ve found them, and they’re inexplicable.” Of course, the bigger problem with that methodology is that history shows that sooner or later someone comes along and explains the inexplicable.
Rejecting a methodology as invalid is not an a priori rejection of its conclusions, but a recognition that they are not conclusions in the first place, merely a restatement of the methodology presented this time as an hypothesis.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Eric Rowe // Sep 17, 2007 at 11:23 pm
The commenter you mentioned and Neufeld’s response to him both very well point out the nature of the main critique of ID. It is in every way an a priori rejection of miracles on purely religious grounds. When Neufeld says, “I simply believe that the design is consistent and that it does not show “wrinkles” in the natural universe,” he is articulating something that can never be arrived at by science, rather it is a rule which defines science for the scientist who accepts it. But there is a very important question that impinges on both the natural sciences and theology, that being the question of whether miracles have ever happened. If miracles are allowed (and the Christian faith not only allows them–it demands them), then any philosophy of science that is to be conducive to the truth must be open to the notion that some of these wrinkles exist because of events that did not fall into the normal natural order (miracles). The alternative is to rule out miracles a priori as Neufeld and most other ID opponents do, and as that commenter accurately noticed.
2 doug // Sep 17, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I’m not at all sure that I agree with the point you make, Eric. I think the discussion of miracles as it is usually carried on has two problems with it. The first is that it assumes a deist model of creation: that creation was wound up at the beginning and every subsequent involvement by God in it is exceptional, and hence a miracle. If you think, as I do, that God is always and continuously involved in creation, then the “natural” and “supernatural” categories simply don’t work in this way. Secondly, there is a lack of eschatology here: the paradigmatic miracle is the resurrection, which insists ultimately on final causes for creation, and not just initial or proximate causes, as part of a fully rounded explanation of reality.
3 Eric Rowe // Sep 18, 2007 at 1:23 am
On the contrary, Deism is by definition a system that excludes miracles. It is true that all events that have ever occurred in creation have been superintended by God. These include the great majority of events which follow the repeated patterns of natural phenomena that are predictable and testable. But there are miraculous exceptions to these patterns, exceptional not because one category is directed by God and the other not, but because one God-directed group of phenomena follows these laws, and the other does not. Just as God in His sovereignty created the laws of nature, He in His sovereignty is capable of working outside of them. The resurrection is a good example of this, both as an eschatological event and a historical event, wherein the physical corpse of Jesus became re-animated contrary to the natural laws which comprise the norm for human experience.
4 doug // Sep 18, 2007 at 8:55 am
Er … I’m not quite sure what position you think you’re arguing against, or what it’s got to do with ID which insists not on “miraculous” exceptions to patterns, but that some “natural” phenomena themselves are not shaped by and in accord with those patterns, and that in the end, God is not ordering things by the laws of nature, but only when he feels like it. He will create human hands, arms, ears etc by law of nature, but insists on doing eyes differently. This is just nonsense, and renders any science impossible when one adopts it as a method. I think your discussion of miracles is a red herring.
5 Eric Rowe // Sep 19, 2007 at 2:05 am
“I think your discussion of miracles is a red herring.”
I’m sorry about that. I don’t intend it as a red herring. When you say (rightly I think) about ID “that some “natural” phenomena themselves are not shaped by and in accord with those patterns” you are describing what I think is normally meant by miracle. My only problem with your description is that you include the word “natural” in a description of something that is clearly miraculous and not natural. I understand that you believe that it is “nonsense, and renders any science impossible when one adopts it as a method.” But that belief of yours is a purely religious one that is itself not derived from science. Since you have determined at the level of your presuppositions that no phenomena can ever be explained by miracles, it is not valid for you then to argue that the scientific method built on that assumption can ever disprove a view of the world that does allow for miracles.
Leave a Comment