The Creation Wars: Creation Or Intelligent Design?
Wow...its been a very, very long week for me, and I'm just glad that it's Saturday. I'll try to return to a regular blogging schedule by Wednesday, if possible. Until then, here are some of my thoughts on the controversy between the Young-Earth Creationists and the Intelligent Design Movement (a.k.a. "The Wedge Of Truth"). From now on BTW, I'll try to add a bit of a scholarly touch (hehe) whenever possible to my posts.
_______________________________________________________
It wasn't too long before the first shots were underway between the YEC and the ID movements. I quote from Wieland's assessment of the Intelligent Design movement, from a creationist perspective:
"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. For instance, Dr Michael Denton, though an amiable fellow, was nevertheless part of a broadcast forum in Australia which recently told a largely Christian audience that belief in literal Genesis was foolish and unscientific." [1]
Wieland also points out, rightly, that
"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions. In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse." [2]
This also reminds me of Butler's critique of the teleological argument: "Why are we to conclude that there is only one designer? Why not many designers? After all, the clothes you have were not all designed by one person, right?" [3]
Thus, I agree that "Intelligent Design" in and itself provides us no impetus to head to the Creator God. That said, I think it would be a "baby with the bathwater" approach if we are to discredit the ID argument entirely based this criticism. It must be said, beforehand, that many have already considered young-earth creationism to be dead and buried (and I also agree that this particular aspect of their movement would pretty much hang on a certain interpretation of Genesis 1). Consequently, many people (Christians included) turn a deaf ear to young-earthers.
However, before I continue, I would like to say that I hold to a great deal of respect to the many credible young-earth creationists scientists out there (excluding fundamentalists like Ken Hovind, who is horrible in some aspects of his argumentation), and believe that too many Christians wrongly reject such people as "literalistic fundamentalists".
But then, that is where my appreciation for YEC ends. I, of course, completely agree with and recommend critiques of evolution from a young-earth perspective, but I think that when it comes to defending the age of the earth, their argumentation gets rather tedious. [4]
And that is where the "Wedge Of Truth" comes in. They are perhaps a more credible and stronger force than the creationists, as Dembski notes:
"Entire books in mainstream academic presses have now been written to debunk intelligent design (Forrest and Gross's Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, published by Oxford University Press, is just one example). The same cannot be said for creationism."[5]
So then, it is clear that the evolutionists consider ID a greater force to reckon with than creationism. How does this affect apologetic argumentation? For one, it would first be important to establish that we were created, before bringing the argument down to the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. And I do think that "design" is indeed a great force to be reckoned with when dealing with an atheist or agnostic. [6]
_______________________
[1] AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement, Carl Wieland
[2] Ibid.
[3] I have paraphrased Butler's criticism.
[4] One thing I have always noticed about young-earth defenses is that most of it centers on critiquing old-earth models (rather than creating their own). This is not to say that young-earthers have not come out with their own geological time scale models. They have. But I still feel uneasy and uncertain when it comes down to this, as such models would not have been developed if it wasn't for a particular interpretation of the Creation and the Flood narratives. I, for now, remain undecided on the age of the earth.
[5] Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, William Dembski. For the sake of fairness, I point to you Sarfati's response to Dembski.
[6] The issue of deism is another matter entirely. I focus now on whether God exists.
_______________________________________________________
It wasn't too long before the first shots were underway between the YEC and the ID movements. I quote from Wieland's assessment of the Intelligent Design movement, from a creationist perspective:
"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. For instance, Dr Michael Denton, though an amiable fellow, was nevertheless part of a broadcast forum in Australia which recently told a largely Christian audience that belief in literal Genesis was foolish and unscientific." [1]
Wieland also points out, rightly, that
"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions. In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse." [2]
This also reminds me of Butler's critique of the teleological argument: "Why are we to conclude that there is only one designer? Why not many designers? After all, the clothes you have were not all designed by one person, right?" [3]
Thus, I agree that "Intelligent Design" in and itself provides us no impetus to head to the Creator God. That said, I think it would be a "baby with the bathwater" approach if we are to discredit the ID argument entirely based this criticism. It must be said, beforehand, that many have already considered young-earth creationism to be dead and buried (and I also agree that this particular aspect of their movement would pretty much hang on a certain interpretation of Genesis 1). Consequently, many people (Christians included) turn a deaf ear to young-earthers.
However, before I continue, I would like to say that I hold to a great deal of respect to the many credible young-earth creationists scientists out there (excluding fundamentalists like Ken Hovind, who is horrible in some aspects of his argumentation), and believe that too many Christians wrongly reject such people as "literalistic fundamentalists".
But then, that is where my appreciation for YEC ends. I, of course, completely agree with and recommend critiques of evolution from a young-earth perspective, but I think that when it comes to defending the age of the earth, their argumentation gets rather tedious. [4]
And that is where the "Wedge Of Truth" comes in. They are perhaps a more credible and stronger force than the creationists, as Dembski notes:
"Entire books in mainstream academic presses have now been written to debunk intelligent design (Forrest and Gross's Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, published by Oxford University Press, is just one example). The same cannot be said for creationism."[5]
So then, it is clear that the evolutionists consider ID a greater force to reckon with than creationism. How does this affect apologetic argumentation? For one, it would first be important to establish that we were created, before bringing the argument down to the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. And I do think that "design" is indeed a great force to be reckoned with when dealing with an atheist or agnostic. [6]
_______________________
[1] AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement, Carl Wieland
[2] Ibid.
[3] I have paraphrased Butler's criticism.
[4] One thing I have always noticed about young-earth defenses is that most of it centers on critiquing old-earth models (rather than creating their own). This is not to say that young-earthers have not come out with their own geological time scale models. They have. But I still feel uneasy and uncertain when it comes down to this, as such models would not have been developed if it wasn't for a particular interpretation of the Creation and the Flood narratives. I, for now, remain undecided on the age of the earth.
[5] Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, William Dembski. For the sake of fairness, I point to you Sarfati's response to Dembski.
[6] The issue of deism is another matter entirely. I focus now on whether God exists.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, October 01, 2005 at 8:48 AM.
|
