Apr 20
Your enemy’s enemy is not your friend
Both Jim West and Claude Mariottini link to the same review of Expelled. Both seem persuaded by the fundamental fallacy of the film, that there is a politically correct liberal conspiracy at the heart of a politico-media-scientific America, which is pro-gay, pro-abortion and anti-God. They seem to think that when the reviewer says “Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates” where “Christian” voices are stifled, he does, in Jim’s words “have a point”.
Er no, guys, he doesn’t. People’s stands on abortion, gay rights and God (funny how those get so regularly lumped together) are about doing theology, philosophy and ethics. Evolution is about science. They may not (and should not) exist in separate intellectual boxes, but they are separate things. The problem with “Intelligent design” (ID) is that it is (bad) theology masquerading as science.
At the heart of the scientific methodology is the idea of exploring and testing possible mechanistic explanations of observable physical reality in the light of all the available evidence. The most astonishing current example of this is the building of the large hadron collider just coming on line. Fundamentally, millions of pounds have been poured into this project so that experiments can be carried out to see if current physical theories are wrong. That is how science proceeds, and one can hardly call it arrogant, or see what on earth it has to do with some atheist gay agenda. By contrast, ID sets out to prove that there is no explanation, and then say “see, that means God exists”.
Poor theology and apologetics has had a long history of looking for things that can’t be explained as proof of God. Unfortunately, science has had an uncanny knack of coming up with explanations. The current poster-child of the ID movement seems to be the bacterial flagellum and its “irreducible complexity”. There is good reason to think that this fence too is falling to an evolutionary explanation. The “God of the gaps” is scientifically and theologically unsustainable. Buying into ID is to buy into a pseudo-science that is being continuously discredited.
There are legitimate questions to be raised about the practice of science. Is it limited by ideas of “acceptable” areas of research? (There’s no doubt that the makers of this film would like to so limit it.) Is it limited by the economics and politics of funding bids and providers? I would judge that it is. But so is every human endeavour likewise limited, and theology has been no exception, especially when it comes to acceptable areas of research.
Siding with people who defend God by bad arguments means that you are always in danger of seeing your faith fail when the bad arguments are exposed for the fallacies they are. ID and its friends pose very little danger to science. They are, however, a profound threat to sustainable and reasonable faith. I do not see liberalism as some big bad wolf out there waiting to devour little red riding believer. But for those who do, I strongly advise against getting into bed with a roaring lion. Your enemy’s enemy is not necessarily your friend.
April 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Excellent post, Doug. Every sentence, word, and comma. I thought of blogging on the matter myself but almost don’t think this stuff merits attention. Until the ID crowd and its peculiar allies, semi-allies, and unwitting allies are able to keep science distinct from theology (whether good or bad — ID is obviously the latter), meaningful dialogue becomes near impossible.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Thanks for this. Much of the reason why ID is so popular is that people read a Bible in which God “does stuff”, and they want to be able to say “I know what God does“. But as you’ve indicated in what you wrote, saying “what God does” is the equivalent of “what we cannot (yet) explain” is a recipe for disaster. Indeed, I can’t figure out why there isn’t more Christian opposition to those godless meteorologists, who reject the clear teaching of Scripture that God sends the rain, and attribute it to warm fronts and whatnot. Perhaps it is because the weather presenters are so often wrong that they feel there is room for God, once again, where human ignorance prevails. But ultimately, the interesting theological work is on making sense of our life in a world where, unlike for the authors of the Bible, it is possible to debate what God does and whether God does anything at all.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Doug,
Thank you for your interesting post. Jim and I wrote our posts independently of each other. First, let me say that the media in American has a pro-gay, pro-abortion, anti-God bias. Those who watch the news and TV programs here is American are aware that this bias is a reality, even though the media is unwilling to recognize this fact.
Intelligent Design is not science; it is theology masquerading as science. This is the reason I oppose ID being taught in school as science.
I have not seen the movie “Expelled” yet, but I believe that you have missed the intent of the movie. What I believe “Expelled” is trying to demonstrate is that here in the USA evolution is the only explanation given for the origin of life. Those who advocate another possible reason for the origin of life, that is God, are ridiculed, silenced, never promoted, and at times they are either demoted or fired. Most academics in secular universities are either atheists or agnostics and they refuse to allow a dissenting voice in the classroom. The way evolution is taught in the classroom may not be the only way to explain the origin of life.
Next week I will be blogging on Antony Flew’s new book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 2007). Even Flew recognized that evolution alone cannot explain the origin of life. It was this discovery that led this famous atheist back to God. And this is what I think Ben Stein is trying to demonstrate with his movie.
Claude Mariottini
April 20th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
When it seems to be so necessary for US politicians to wear their faith on their sleeve to be elected, I find it hard to accept that there is such a blanket atheist bias in media and public life. There do seem to be an awful lot of silly spats over the constitutional separation of church and state that suggest no-one interprets it historically, but atemporally and absolutely (rather as the fundamentalist deals with Genesis) and that shibboleth is at the heart of this particular mess.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
James, don’t forget that Jesus endorsed meteorology, i.e. weather forecasting based on observation of current conditions, Matthew 16:2,3 and Luke 12:54-56. There is of course a great irony in Matthew in the “sign from heaven” which he offered, which is lost when we don’t use the same word for “heaven” and “sky”.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:58 am
Great post, Doug. Claude: before blogging on the Flew book, I strongly urge you to look at Mark Oppenheimer, “The Turning of an Atheist” if you have not already done so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=magazine
I blogged on it at http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/11/fish-ehrman-flew-oppenheimer-and-wright.html