It is important to note that ID proponents distance their theory not only from "general" evolution, but also from creationism, deistic evolution, and theistic evolution. ID is careful to refer only to an unnamed and undefined "intelligent designer." ID is careful not to identify God as the intelligent designer.
ID and theistic evolution
On the surface, it would appear that ID and theistic evolution are the same, at least in the abstract if not the details, as theistic evolutionists believe God maintains a sustained interest and guiding hand in the evolutionary process.
However, this is not the case at all. Phillip E. Johnson, a Discovery Institute program advisor, has written often of theistic evolution. This article offers views that are typical in his (and others') work, in which he describes theistic evolution and evolutionists:
- Theistic evolution is self-contradictory.
- ...the compromise position called 'theistic evolution' ...
- ... the main point of theistic evolution is to preserve peace with the mainstream scientific community. The theistic evolutionists therefore unwitting[ly] serve the purposes of the scientific naturalists, by helping persuade the religious community to lower its guard against the incursion of naturalism.
- Theistic evolutionists accomplish very little by trying to Christianize the answer to a question that comes straight out of the agenda of scientific naturalism.
Officially, ID proponents distance ID from Christian creationism. At the same time, ID proponents strive to qwell the conflicts that creationists have among themselves, such as "young earth" vs. "old earth."
In a nutshell, ID proponents ask creationists - does it really matter how much time it took for God to create the heavens, the earth and life as we know it? Isn't the important thing that God did it?
ID proponents then ask that creationists present a united front to the rest of the world. As Gordon Lewis puts it in this article: With the increasing impact of secular humanism and Eastern pantheism, both recent and progressive creationists should expend less time and energy on the length of time between the creative acts and more on those mighty acts. Unless creationists concertedly present their philosophy of origins more effectively to the coming generations, the 21st century will be increasingly dominated by a materialistic evolution or a pantheistic emanation.
Answers in Genesis, a Christian creationist organization ("young earth") based in Australia, offers its own take on ID here. Answers in Genesis (AIG) acknowledges that ID offers benefits to the evangelical work of creationists, but also expresses concerns, two of which are:
- Since the only thing in their platform which comes close to being a commonly-shared presupposition is a negative (naturalism is wrong), they can provide no coherent philosophical framework on which to base the axioms necessary to interpret evidence relevant to the historical sciences (paleontology, historical geology, etc). So they can never offer a ‘story of the past’, which is one more reason why they must continually limit the debate to one of mechanism—and then only in broad, general terms (designed vs undesigned).
- Some who are prominent in the IDM appear to be sympathetic to the Bible’s account of Creation. However, if the movement should ever make the strategic inroads it hopes for, then our concern would be that any of its leaders who might later identify themselves with Genesis belief would lay themselves open to charges of having been publicly deceptive. Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time. Were the IDM to partially succeed in its initial aims, some of the strongest opponents of literal Genesis may well arise from its recently-victorious ranks. ...
Notwithstanding ID's official distancing from God (and, more specifically, from Christianity), ID's largest target audience - and the most receptive audience - is the Christian population. More specifically, ID's target audience is the Christian population that votes and/or influences decision-makers in their communities, in their states, and at the federal level.
But this population is only the spearhead audience. And ID itself is only the spearhead issue.
The ID architects have a much larger audience and a much wider agenda in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment