For the theologians
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 12 January 2005 | 7 responses
Steve Braggs of Double Toothpicks fisks NRO’s John Derbyshire on the subject of intelligent design.
7 Responses to “For the theologians”
I can’t get on the ID bandwagon. Is it even needed? Sure, science hasn’t answered all the questions, but I don’t think ID is the solution. Some would even say it weakens our faith. I think the current mainstream evolutionary theory is largely correct and I believe that Christ is the Savior. These beliefs aren’t mutually opposed, are they? Why do we even need ID?
This is one of the most uninteresting and glibly self-righteous fiskings I’ve ever read. Not to defend everything Derb says, but this deconstruction is itself riddled with uninsightful fallacies. On the whole, I’d say the whole adventure of bickering about ID in The Corner is fruitless, as Derb eventually recognizes here.
It’s a small, crabbed, and curious faith that must fit itself into the places that science can’t explain–and withdraw whenever science advances.
But suit yourselves.
Wasn’t there an old argument for the proof of God’s existence (one of five or six)that was similar to ID? That the universe was created has long been a belief. Science seems to, with Big Bang theory, support a bit of that belief, e.g. there was a beginning, in theory.
It’s a small, crabbed, and curious faith that must fit itself into the places that science can’t explain
That’s a distortion of intelligent design. ID does not say “science can’t explain how this works, so God must have done it.” It says “now that we understand how this works, it turns out to be incredibly complex; it looks like it was designed.”
But consider the things that “look like they are designed.” If they turn out to have been created by natural laws instead, with no designer (except perhaps for one who made the natural laws), then doesn’t that force the religion of intelligent design theorists to retreat?
The Sense of Fact and the Theory of Unintelligent Design
Perhaps a way to clarify this is to oppose the dogmatic theology of Intelligent Design to its real converse, which is actually not Evolution through Natural Selection, but the Theory of Unintelligent Design, a theory proposed by a United States Air For…