Biologists have legitimate authority to tell us the facts that they observe in the field and in their laboratories. They have no authority to tell the rest of us what metaphysical assumptions we must adopt. Once it becomes clear that Darwinian theory rests upon a dogmatic philosophy rather than the weight of the evidence, the way will be open for dissenting opinions to get a fair hearing. In a nutshell, that is the strategy (in Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Ed. W. Dembski & J. Kushiner, p.26)
It has been over a decade since the ID movement has been in full publication and debate mode and there still doesn't seem to be any major headway into academia or the mainline scientific community. Today, in addition to dealing with criticisms from naturalists, the ID movement now has the theistic evolutionists to contend with (i.e. Francis Collins, Bio-Logos, et. al.) It seems as if the ID movement is like an enormous ice-breaker ship (very powerful) which had plotted a course to sail to the north pole through thick pack ice only to be stopped by the ice pack - the ships radar unable to detect how thick the ice was.
Now...let me be clear. I am not a critic of ID. I believe very strongly that ID is a fruitful and legitimate endeavor. I do, however, have friends and colleagues who are critical of it for various reasons. Some of the criticisms are: "ID doesn't name the God of the Bible as Creator;" or "ID does not make this or that minute philosophical distinction." I personally think ID is an amazing application of the human intellect given to us by God to probe and explore His creation. Every corner of the cosmos has God's fingerprints covering it, yet still, the scientific & academic world is adamant that "nature is all there is." They are "convinced" that physical evidence of God's existence is not to be found anywhere in the physical world. So, the question I ponder is simply, "Does the problem lie with ID or is it somewhere else?"
My own view is that ID has actually made those (committed to Naturalism) and who understand what the argument is saying even MORE without an excuse for not believing that there is a God. Let me explain.
According to Romans 1:20 - the Apostle Paul states that "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. so that men are without excuse."
From Paul we learn two basic truths:
(1). Convincing evidence of God's existence, His power and His nature has been pouring into human knowledge since the world began - by the created order of things.
(2). Those who refuse that knowledge are without excuse for their condemnation
The ID movement actually makes the self-imposed noose of unbelief even tighter. To those who refuse the knowledge of God from creation, no additional knowledge (from the ID movement or otherwise) will ever convince them. Rather it will only deepen their unbelief.
A case in point is a few quotes from one of my favorite books on ID by William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence:
In these excerpts Dembski is commenting on a concept known as emergence. Emergence is a highly theoretical area of physics and biology which tries to explain how complexity may arise out of rather simple mathematical laws. Once more Dembski checkmates those who attempt to get something for nothing:
"The logic of emergence parallels the logic of alchemy. Emergence, like alchemical transformation, is a relational notion. To say that something emerges is to say that it emerges from (e.g., gold emerges from lead plus some other things). "X" emerges is an incomplete sentence. It needs to be completed by reading "X emerges from Y." Moreover, the claim that X emerges from Y remains vacuous until one specifies Y and can demonstrate that Y is sufficient to account for X... (pg. 244).
...a complete set of the building materials for a house do not suffice to account for a house - additionally what is needed is an architectural plan (drawn up by an architect) as well as assembly instructions (executed by a contractor) to implement the plan. Likewise, in the origin of life, it does no good simply to have the building blocks for life (e.g., nucleotides bases or amino acids). The means for organizing those building blocks into a coherent system (i.e., a living organism) needs to be specified as well (pg. 244).
...The problem with claiming that life has emerged from purely physical causes is not that it admits ignorance about an unsolved problem, but that it restricts the possible solutions to that problem; namely that it requires that solutions limit themselves to purely physical causes" (pg. 245).
The concept of emergence is currently being explored by scientists who call themselves "Complexity Theorists" (see, Stewart Kaufmann, Murray Gell-Mann, the Santa Fe Institute, et. al.). These men are currently seeking with all their hearts and minds, a theory or a set of physical laws that will explain the cosmos that we are currently living in in purely physical terms. We know from Romans 1 that they are doomed to failure. Even someone as brilliant as Bill Dembski, with two earned doctorates, technical peer-reviewed publications, and dozens of articles and books will not convince them that they are wrong about creation and God.
If the convincing power of creation itself is not enough, then no forthcoming additional evidence will convince them either. They "will" not to believe and this is a matter of the heart. The solution? ID theorists must continue to render futile the arguments of skeptics to rule out God from His creation and believers must pray for those who don't believe that they will respond to the evidence that is already there right in front of their eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment