Intelligent Design Theories
We have been reading a book entitled God and Evolution, edited by Jay Richards. Its default position is the promotion of Intelligent Design, with a collection of essays by Protestants, Roman Catholics and Jewish contributors. In this and some future posts, we will interact with some of the contributions.
Now, on one level--the broadest referent--nobody denies "evolution"--the concept of development, change, and adaptation is universally taught in the Scriptures and self-evident everywhere in the creation. In a similar fashion, all Christians acknowledge "intelligent design" of the universe. To believe that God created all things of nothing necessarily requires a belief in intelligent design. After all, "in the beginning was the Word. . . . All things came into being through Him; and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:1-3) the Greek noun, "logos", used here for the Word, means rational, verbal expression.
But Intelligent Design protagonists want to say something more.
Not only is the universe "intelligently designed" by God, but it can be demonstrated to be intelligently designed. (Well, actually "demonstrated" is too strong a word. More on that in a minute.) This demonstration can be made sufficiently strongly that it demands respect amongst Unbelievers and Believers as a reasonable, legitimate hypothesis. On this basis, Intelligent Design proponents want to argue for "air time" in secular schools, universities, and public mass media as offering a reasonable alternative to Darwinian evolution--a scientific hypothesis (not conjecture, mind) that along with all hypotheses can be tested and rejected or accepted--for the time being, anyway. (It is intrinsic to the nature of scientific knowledge that it remains tentative, and subject to revision by the discovery of further data, or new theorising. Thus Newtonian physics was replaced by quantum mechanics.)
In this sense, Intelligent Design can never be "demonstrated". It can only claim reasonableness. Which is to say, it seeks recognized status as a scientific hypothesis. But status amongst whom? Amongst Christians? That would be a no-brainer. As argued above, all Christians believe the universe is intelligently designed. Christian science presupposes this, and merrily goes about researching and testing derivative hypotheses. But this is not what Intelligent Design protagonists are about. They want the Unbelieving science establishment to accept not just the possibility that the universe is intelligently designed, but the reasonable possibility of such. They want respect in the Academy.
Underneath this lies a critical assumption that all Intelligent Design protagonists make. They assume that all men, both Believers and Unbelievers alike, can step outside their fundamental religious presuppositions and core religious beliefs, and, for the sake of argument, stand on neutral epistemological ground, looking objectively and dispassionately at the evidence. All Intelligent Design protagonists believe that the Fall did not affect the mind of man. It remained fundamentally untouched by sin.
This being the case, or so Intelligent Design folk assume, the Believer can engage in rational, objective scientific discussion with Unbelievers. Both are capable of objectively assessing the data and evidence. Both can reach reasonable agreement on what the objective data present to honest enquirers. Given this, it is reasonable both to ask and expect that the scientific establishment, the Academy, will give not only equal air-time to Intelligent Design theories, but if the evidence appears fortuitous, even swing over to its acceptance.
Herein lies the fundamental flaw in Intelligent Design theories. Sadly, the world of man is not as they assume it to be. Sadly, and inevitably, the mind of man did not escape the Fall, but was perverted by it. When Eve began a "rational investigation" of the "facts" she was already in sinful rebellion against God. What we mean by this is that prior to the Serpent's entrance to Eden both Adam and Eve were totally objective in their analysis of the world in which they had been placed. Their seeing and thinking about the world was perfectly in accord with the way the world actually was.
But when the Serpent--that Liar from the beginning as our Lord names him--came to Eve, he offered an alternative conjecture about God, Man and the Creation. He suggested to Eve that she consider the possibility that created reality was not as God said it was, but that there was another explanation--namely, that God was the liar and deceiver, and that He was driven by evil envious motives against Eve and her husband.
Eve moved the conjecture to the status of a hypothesis and began empirical research to establish the truth, one way or the other--at that point she was in sin, before she reached forth to take the fruit. (Note that the text is quite explicit about the rationalism and empiricism and evidentialism employed by Eve: "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate." [Genesis 3:6] In other words, her decision was evidence based--but not really. It was no longer objective. Her decision was based on how she saw and interpreted the evidence, not on how things really were, in themselves. In reality, she rejected objectivity and brought her rebellious perspective and sinful narrative to bear upon the evidence.) Was God telling the truth or the Serpent? Sadly, her "objective" inquiry was anything but. By stepping outside of God's pre-interpreting Word, she was asserting her own autonomy over God Himself. She was sinning and sinful in her heart before she ate--and the heart, you recall, is the seat of all the intellect, emotions and will.
Now the Intelligent Design folk think not only that Eve's empirical inquiry and ratiocinations about the "evidence" was not sinful in itself. They also believe (and want us to join them in the belief) that all mankind descending from Adam by ordinary generation are in exactly the same place that Eve was prior to the Fall. Moreover they assert that all men, with respect to their ability, in the same way as Eve, must engage in holy and truthful empirical inquiry untainted by sin, yet independent of God--despite the fact that Eve was sinning in so doing. And this, despite what the Scripture says about the perverted nature of all men's thoughts. The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, we are told. (Jeremiah 17:10). Not so, say the Intelligent Design folk: we can assume the human heart is honest, truthful, and without sin. When it comes to assessing the evidence for the origin of the world, scientists are neither deceitful nor desperately wicked in the way they do their science.
The Intelligent Design protagonists point us to Romans 1, where Paul says that the evidence for God being the Creator of the world is plain and compelling for all to see (Romans 1:19). Since that is the case, they jump to the conclusion that it is possible to have an evidence based discussion with Unbelievers about the origins of the world. Sadly they overlook the previous verse, where God tells us that all Unbelieving men suppress the truth which is evident to them. This is exactly what Eve did. The truth was clearly evident to Eve, but she suppressed it, put it aside (for sake of argument) and began to consider the possibility of God being a liar and the Serpent's alternate hypothesis true. Her empiricism--which required putting God and His truth off to one side, whilst she conducted her own rationalistic inquiry which considered alternative hypotheses--was the precise attitude and act of suppression of the truth that Paul talks about. What Paul confirms is that all men do this--which is a sinful state of mind--which is why the wrath of God is revealed against all men (Romans 1:18).
Sadly, what the Intelligent Design folk are doing is unwittingly confirming they believe that the Serpent had it right and was legitimately in the Garden. There are legitimate, competing, reasonable, alternative hypotheses. It is the place and prerogative of man to use his faculties to decide which is right. God is therefore reasonably in the dock and it is appropriate to put Him there.
Ah, that's why God did not judge Adam and Eve, right? That's why He did not curse them and the creation for eating the apple. They had been acting righteously all along. Sure, their conclusions were a bit wonky--but that's because they had not processed the data rightly, or there was additional data that they had not considered. They had made a mere procedural mistake. That's why He came to Adam and Eve and argued more compellingly for the God-hypothesis, so that they would conclude that the Serpent hypothesis was not supported by the weight of evidence, and they would reverse their decision. That's what Genesis says happened, right?
When men set out to test God--to prove Him to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of their autonomous, sinful, rebellious minds--even if they conclude that, yes there is lots of evidence for God, so that to accept the hypothesis may be reasonable--they need never honour Him as God, nor worship Him, nor aught they. For a God who exists by virtue of man's approbation, can likewise be dismissed at will. Therefore, by definition, He cannot be God.
The Intelligent Design folk need to hear this command above all else: Thou shalt not put the Lord Thy God to the test!
No comments:
Post a Comment