With the ongoing discussions about Bruce Waltke’s video at the BioLogos website and his subsequent resignation from RTS, as well as the long comment thread here at Evangel about events in Genesis, I thought I would post some thoughts about the relationship between science and religion that were gathered from a series of helpful lectures from the Teaching Company. Some might find it helpful and others, I’m sure, will not.
Natural Theology and Intelligent Design
The arise of the mechanical philosophy (the view that sees the world as one large machine-like entity) in the 17th century lead to a promotion of materialism, that matter is all there is, and in turn encouraged atheism. Various responses to this involved what became known as “natural theology”—the practice of using examples from nature to demonstrate God and the wisdom of his character.
Though natural theology would become prominent in the 18th and 19th centuries, two important precursors of the movement were Richard Bentley and Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was as deeply religious as he was a mathematical genius; though his theological views were considered heretical by Augustinian standards (he tried to correct the “corruptions” of Scripture). Nevertheless, his classic text of physics Principia Mathematica expounded in detail about the attributes of God and sought to identify evidence for the mind of the deity. By the same token Bentley produced arguments from the orderliness of the Solar System for an ultimate designing intelligence. Later in the 18th and 19th centuries thinkers like William Paley and John Ray would permeate the cultural and intellectual milieu of the English Enlightenment with widely read treatises on natural theology popularizing the notion of the “watchmaker.”
However, though natural theology was a popular phenomenon it was not without its cultural despisers. Another intellectual giant of the times, David Hume, marshaled several important criticisms against natural theology, particularly the argument from design, that have had a lasting impact even until today. Hume argued that the argument from design didn’t necessarily take the observer to theism and certainly not the God of revealed religion. For example, let’s say one is able to infer design. It does not follow that there is one designer—there could be many (polytheism). Furthermore, the argument works analogically, and the places where the analogy does not fit are telling. For example, biological substances grow from seedlings into embodied entities without any external help, but mechanical things, like watches, do not grow over time nor do they reproduce. We also have no real criteria for establishing design since we can’t compare a world that is designed with one that is not. Finally, the argument from design appeals to ignorance claiming that because a natural cause cannot be found it must be the handiwork of a designer. The infamous “God of the gaps” fallacy emerges especially when a natural cause is found later.
It is not hard to imagine where Principe falls on the debate over Intelligent Design (ID) theory. He maintains ID is an updated form of natural theology developed to combat Darwinian evolution—the principle doctrine of materialistic atheism that historically has been feared throughout the ages. He even goes so far to interact with ID theorist William Dembski who avers that ID is a scientific enterprise able to provide the impetus for better scientific explanations. Principe is doubtful. He contends that if a natural explanation cannot be found for the emergence of design then we exhaust our search for a secondary cause and are left with direct primary causation. Direct primary causation may be possible and recognizable, but it is not explainable. What we are essentially left with is a miracle and miracles end scientific investigation… but that is precisely where theological investigation begins.
April 21st, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #1
Intelligent Design is a hypothetical alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis and compliment to the theory of Evolution. As such, ID’s scope is very narrow – as presently defined, it applies only to life found on Earth. Whereas ID proponents argue for, at best, a lone designer some 4.5 billion years old, Science suggests everything is part of a single, logical, comprehensive whole whose universal properties point to an origin (natural or supernatural) before the beginning of time. Natural Revelation, therefore, applies to the Universe itself and every (material) thing within. The distinction is important. Science is not a proper natural theology but a witness to Natural Revelation – that is, a measure of the Word of God, a counterpart to the meaning of the Word of God.
April 21st, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #2
“Intelligent Design is a hypothetical alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis and compliment to the theory of Evolution.”
Eh? ID says, “We can tell by certain features of life that an intelligent agent was involved.”
It isn’t any more about biogenesis than it’s about subsequent development. ID could argue “this bit of evolutionary history shows the marks of a designer being involved”, or “the beginning of life shows the marks of a designer being involved”. Or it can deny common descent altogether, and simply say “these current features show design”.
April 21st, 2010 | 4:59 pm | #3
Jugulum,
Intelligent Design (at least Meyer’s variety) claims that new information and new physical forms require a designer because a random (natural) origin is statistically improbable. Since, by definition, there were no pre-existing forms or information prior to the first life form, a designer must have been responsible for the origin of life.
April 21st, 2010 | 5:11 pm | #4
Yes, that is usually the specific “certain features” that indicate design.
But I think I misread you:
“Intelligent Design is a hypothetical alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis and compliment to the theory of Evolution.”
I thought you were saying that ID applies only to biogenesis. i.e., it’s a complement in that it provides the starting point.
Aside from that, I’m struck by this:
“Science suggests everything is part of a single, logical, comprehensive whole whose universal properties point to an origin (natural or supernatural) before the beginning of time.”
That seems to be the general assumption in science–perhaps a restatement of methodological naturalism. But I don’t know why you would say that it’s a outcome of science.
Also, I’ll be surprised if you include the resurrection of Christ from the dead as part of the universal, comprehensive whole.
April 21st, 2010 | 5:59 pm | #5
The single, logical, comprehensive Universe is a consequence of the discoveries of Science. There is no reason why the universe needs to be this way, nor is Science bound to this view. It’s simply the best explanation of what we have found to be true.
Unfortunately we can’t use Science to study the resurrection of Christ as there is no evidence to examine. But we can use Science to study modern miraculous claims, so there is where you should focus your “Science-busting” efforts.
April 21st, 2010 | 6:13 pm | #6
“Science-busting efforts”? Pardon? I have no inclination to bust science. I questioned the notion that science has told us, “Everything that occurs in the universe happens through a cohesive system of laws.”
I thought I recognized your name from past posts, where I got the impression that you’re a Christian. Is that the case? If so, are you actually saying, “Since creation, God never intervenes in the normal working of physical laws”?
As for “The single, logical, comprehensive Universe”, you didn’t answer my question; you repeated yourself. Well, I suppose I didn’t phrase it as a question, but this is what I mean: “But I don’t know why you would say that it’s a outcome of science.”
If “The single, logical, comprehensive Universe” means “miracles do not occur”, then you need to substantiate your grandiose claim that this conclusion is a consequence of scientific discovery. I would have considered that a metaphysical claim beyond the reaches of scientific methods.
April 21st, 2010 | 7:58 pm | #7
What we can see with objective truth is that we have no empirical evidence that God needs to operate in violation of his own Creation. That does not mean, however, that Biblical miracles are contradictory of Science since we have no means to examine them and thus make that determination.
In any event, I don’t see cause for concern. Today it would be a simple matter to determine if Jesus truly arose from the dead by comparing tissue samples taken while he lay dead on the cross with ones taken after the Resurrection. Provided the blood type and DNA were the same, and the cells in the first sample were dead but alive in the second, then that would be compelling scientific evidence.
To determine how Jesus arose from the dead, I imagine all sorts of instruments could be crammed into the tomb. Supposing an anomalous electromagnetic field surrounded Jesus and jolted him alive, this could be detected and recorded. Of course this leads to the question of where did the field come from, which would require it’s own investigation, but you get the idea.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact