6 Comments

A Theologian Evaluates Intelligent Design: Part 2 of 3

Having pointed out five things I like about Intelligent Design, I turn now to five things I don’t like. 

Some of my objections address issues of biology and the theory of design itself. Others address the ID movement’s political agenda.  Both sets of issues are important to a person considering whether he or she wants to be identified with ID.

One criticism is that Intelligent Design theory has not garnered support in the laboratory or field.  I find this a very strong criticism of ID. It carries significant weight, given that empirical research is at the heart of the scientific endeavor.

I admit, however, that I accept reports from scientific experts when it comes to this criticism. I’m not an expert on biology; I’m a theologian and philosopher. I have found, however, the vast majority of biologists oppose to ID. They do so largely because the biological data does not support ID’s key idea – irreducible complexity (I’ll address the meaning of irreducible complexity later).

For an interesting survey on the difference between the public’s suspicion of evolution and the scientific community’s affirmation of the theory, see this Pew Research Center study.

My second criticism is that ID promoters sometimes seem interested in changing culture through changing public school science curricula. In this sense, ID is more about culture wars. I admit that I’m nervous when I hear of ID advocates inserting creationist or quasi-creationist statements into the public school science classroom.  (See the Dover, PA trial for an example of this.)

I like it when public schools teach the general ideas and histories of religion.  My two high school daughters learn about world religions in their public high school, and their experience has been very positive. We talk as a family about what they learn. So it’s not that I’m opposed, in principle, to talking about religion in the public square.

Although I tolerate a variety of religions, I’m a Christian theologian. I am so, in part, because I think Christianity is superior. I make no excuses for this.

I get nervous, however, thinking that a nonChristian public school science teacher might advocate as superior his or her religious perspective on science. If I don’t want a public school system in which, say, Buddhist ideas about the origins of the universe dominate the science discussions, why should I think it fair for my Christian ideas about origins to dominate?

Others criticize ID on philosophical grounds. They say ID is really about metaphysics and not science.  I’m less sympathetic with this third criticism, although I share one of its forms.

I think science is always chockfull of metaphysical commitments. It doesn’t bother me that metaphysical issues intersect with scientific ones.

Insofar as critics mean that science alone cannot answer the big questions of life, however, I agree with those who criticize ID. I think the important issues that ID raises fit better in a philosophy course or a course discussing science and religion. In a debate on the Big Questions, we ought to allow ID to fight for a place at the table.

Fourth, I criticize ID leadership for its failure to acknowledge that ID theory and some of its prominent proponents affirm the general theory of evolution. Biologist Michael Behe, for instance, in a prominent ID advocate who thinks we can explain at least some of life’s story in terms of an old earth and natural selection.

In their desire to gather supporters under a big tent, ID leadership fails to admit openly and frequently that ID jibes with key components in evolutionary theory. As a result, the vast majority of Christians with whom I speak think ID opposes evolution in all its forms. That’s just not true. ID leadership ought to admit so openly and often.

Perhaps my fifth criticism is the most interesting from a scientific view (although readers should find my first criticism also important on scientific grounds). This criticism comes from the ID claim that the irreducible complexity of some organisms requires a designer.

The irreducible complexity argument is that some organisms are so sophisticated they could not have come about through evolutionary processes. Natural selection, random mutation, self-organization, and other natural evolutionary mechanisms are inadequate, say ID supporters, for forming highly sophisticated organisms. Complex organisms require “outside” help from a designer.

For a decade or more, ID advocates have used the illustration of a mousetrap to make this point. Just as mousetrap would not work unless its necessary parts were all fully functioning, ID supporters claim that many complex organisms also require all of their parts to be fully functioning. Without all parts in place, these organisms could not be viable. A mousetrap without one of its parts is useless.

ID biologist, Michael Behe, has made this mousetrap argument famous. He says it is highly unlikely that the parts of some complex organisms would randomly assemble over a long period of evolutionary history without a designer’s help. Natural selection alone is not enough.

Biologist Ken Miller offers an argument against irreducible complexity. Miller says that the parts necessary for various complex creatures may have originally evolved for other purposes.  After evolving for purposes largely unrelated to their present purpose, evolutionary forces brought these individual parts together in a highly specialized way.

I think the old TV show, The A-Team, illustrates Miller’s point. The A-Team was constructed of separate individuals, each with specialized tasks.  Before joining the team, each member was involved in some previous line of work that honed his special skills. That previous work often had nothing directly to do with the work done by the A-team. When each member came to the team, however, his previously developed skills helped make the A-team a crime-stopping unit.  Together, the whole was greater than the sum of its parts – parts that were originally meant for other purposes. Pity the fool who thinks otherwise.

Given my “no to that” but “yes to this” approach to ID, readers will not likely be surprised that I cannot identify myself with the ID movement or its key ideas. While I like some things, the things I don’t like are highly significant.

As I said in my previous essay, I’m all for the idea of design itself. I think designing occurs through God’s activity as Creator and creaturely activity in response. I prefer to think of “design” as one subset of the overarching category “create.”

I affirm the benefits of ID while overcoming its liabilities by accepting one of the many versions of theistic evolution. At its core, theistic evolution simply says that the idea that God is Creator is compatible with the idea that God creates through evolution. In one sense, the theory is quite simple.

Admittedly, theistic evolution asks us to think deeply about what we mean by “evolution” and the Christian belief that “God is Creator.” But careful thinking is required of all good science and good theology.

Theistic evolution sees the best and dominant views of science as fundamentally compatible with the best and dominant views of Christian theology.  It’s a win-win situation.

I must admit that some versions of theistic evolution are more compelling than others. But generally speaking, this way of thinking about the development of life is better than theories of evolution denying God and Intelligent Design.

I do have one more criticism of ID yet to share.  It’s specifically theological.  But given all that I want to say about that criticism, I’ll wait to share it in part three of this series.

Posted in 2010 under Theology and Science

Add comment

Comments

About this website

You’ve reached the online home of Thomas Jay Oord, a professor, author, and theologian from the Pacific Northwest. Read more