« Poking into Dispensationalism |
Main
| Scripture and True Conversion »
Show Me Some ID
I decided to google my old friend Jed with whom I co-taught a worldview class (using James Sire's The Universe Next Door) to undergrads at UC Berkeley when I was getting my masters in journalism. When I knew him, he was living at Westminster House but planning to move into Phillip Johnson's basement. That would be Phillip E. Johnson (not Phillip R. Johnson, a.k.a. pyromaniac)., law professsor at Boalt and proponent of Intelligent Design (ID). Because of Jed, I was able to interview Phil, landing me my first feature in the San Francisco Chronicle. (ironically, that led to me getting an internship at the Chron and cancelling my plan to live at Westminster for the summer after graduation)
Anyway, it turns out that Jed and Phil are still friends and allies. Jed is now a professor of biophysics and is making a name for himself in the ID movement. I found this out because the skeptics/atheists are starting to criticize him on their ID bashing blogs. Early next year, Intervarsity Press will be publishing A Man For This Season: The Phillip Johnson Celebration Volume, edited by William Dembski and my friend Jed Macosko. It looks like a must for anyone interested in ID and worldview studies, which should be all Christians.
Jed and I are now back in touch (ah, the power of the internet), and after he checked out what we're doing here, he made a nomination for an Intellectuelle representative of the ID sector: Denyse O'Leary of Post-Darwinist. But the mother (father?) of all ID blogs (which I'll be adding to the brotherhoods blogroll) seems to be ID the Future.
Marla, These are a lot of interesting links. One gap (of many) in my knowledge is a gaping hole where debates on evolution should go. I don't have a solid grasp on the theories of evolution or on the ID arguments against them. If you or others blog more about it, I'd be interested to read.
Hannah, here's the short version of the presuppositional argument:
Since biology presupposes cosmology, and cosmology presupposes epistemology, then since the evolutionist has no reliable epistemology, his assumptions about the world are flawed from the start, and we don't even need to hear about his views on biology. So basically, biologists who want to work in a vacuum - only discuss biology without establishing their epistemology or cosmology - are starting from absolutely unjustified grounds.
Hi Hannah,
ID is an umbrella term really - it doesn't exclude Christians who do believe in evolution. It is really focused on seeing intelligent design and pointing then to a designer - be it from a 6 days, long stages, or evolution view. Sorry if I am stating the obvious - sometimes people think ID means 6 day creationism only.
The problem with ID - and I think those in the ID vanguard would agree with me, is that it is theistic but not necessarily Christian. And as such it can be like a wedge in the door, but by itself it is incomplete in terms of presenting a Christian perspective. ID I think also includes the sustaining work of God - as opposed to the theistic type view that has been held by some Christians that God designed it but then once in motion he had no control over it - a theistic mechanical view.
Hi Laura,
You said:
"his assumptions about the world are flawed from the start, and we don't even need to hear about his views on biology. So basically, biologists who want to work in a vacuum - only discuss biology without establishing their epistemology or cosmology - are starting from absolutely unjustified grounds. "
I think it would help to qualify some of that. If you are talking only about evolutionary biology then origins is an issue. If you are talking about all of biology then I think you may be a bit too dismissive here. Evolution is a framework - and whether or not one agrees with it all, the fact is that the looking at detail within the framework does provide useful data. That data can be used in very constructive ways. What you've said is also an argument for theism I think - because the reality is that biologists are people with a diverse range of beliefs. There are Christians, New Agers, agnostics, atheists, muslims, Bhuddists, those with other religious beliefs, and so on.
The second point I think I'd like to make is that in practical terms - in the lab basically - a biologist will usually only discuss biology without discussing cosmology or epistemology. For example - fine tuning a protocol, let's say for protein purification - then cosmology is irrelevant. Likewise if the research on that protein is published - maybe it's a protein which acts as a toxin and conveys -pathogenicity - cosmology is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the toxic protein, or toxic domains within it, have been identified and maybe even the pathogenic mechanism has been identified. Much work is done of this nature - including on HIV which led to the triple therapy.
I've given the example to illustrate that we can at times misundertand the focus and role of the biologist. To say that we don't even need to hear a biologist's views on biology is I think not allowing for the useful knowledge that can be obtained.
If we want to hear that God created the world - that's a matter of knowing by faith. By faith we know that the worlds were framed by God. But if we want to gain some knowledge of how things in that world are constructed - if we want to gain glimpses into what seems invisible and discover the intricate construction at a sub-microscopic level - then I think we can learn from a biologists view of biology. His or her overall framework may not be one we agree with - but views where research should focus, ie. gene therapy or not? this drug or that drug to be developed? , predictions of which possible pandemics we should prepare for, highlighting of endangered species and habitats - and many other views, we can learn from.
Biologists who focus on their work, as I mentioned, have a range of beliefs. Beliefs don't change facts. I remember doing a series of difficult experiments and wishing God would just make it work for me. But of course God is not going to fake my experiment for me! Regardless of whether I was Christian, Bhuddist, muslim, or atheist - the experiment was only going to work when I fine-tuned the chemical balance and worked out the kinks in the protocol. It was a memorable day for me because I realised that my faith is not a magic wand that overrides the natural laws God has in place. I say they are God's laws - a muslim might say they are Allah's. But in practical terms that is a matter of faith - and a biologist can talk about the laws themselves and be worth listening to on that aspect. And that is what every biologist I've met (bar one) wants to do - talk science.
Hi Marla,
I'd be interested to see some ID posts. I don't spend much time on the arguments but I'd be interested to read a bit here. Sounds interesting.
Laura,
I am not sure if you were just giving your take on presupp or if that's your view. My comment applies either way though - it's really about extracting what is vaulable - or the presupp argument is not going to be convincing to those in the discipline I think.
Catez,
You know, if I had proofread, I could have saved you a lot of time - I meant to say, "we don't even need to hear his views on ethics..." Not "on biology." Sorry! What I was trying to say was that it is irrational to presuppose a cosmology that denies God, accept a non-revelational epistemology, and from that standpoint try to make any kind of moral judgment (e.g. have a say in the stem cell debate).
And re: your second comment - well, I'm actually just getting into presuppositional apologetics, so I'm far from making any sort of dogmatic statement about it. I just thought I'd offer the presupp argument because it does seem very plausible to me. That is, when I put the right words in the right places. :D
Lol - that's funny!
Actually... I still disagree with you a little. Biologists are not homogenous on ethics. It's interesting for instance to talk on issues like human cloning or ESC research. So I think we can hear views on ethics - same sort of argument I put forward above (but I won't write another whole long comment!)
BTW - I am great at typos myself.
Small world... I know Jed too. I actually was just at a meeting with him, and it turns out we'll be seeing each other more often in the near future as we attend some of the same conferences. He's a great communicator.
IDtheFuture is a good blog. Several of the bloggers have their own blogs as well (notably Dembski and Jonathan Witt, perhaps others; I know Paul Nelson is starting one soon). I particularly enjoy Jonathan and Amanda Witt's blog Wittingshire, which is a good mix of an assortment of things, including but not limited to ID. http://wittingshire.blogspot.com, if you want to check it out.
