Friday, December 22, 2006

What Atheists Say About Intelligent Design

1. Some atheists say that Intelligent Design is dead. If this is so, then why can't they shut up about it? This is especially ironic, as they turn right around to harp on the fact that they are in the minority, presumably to gain sympathy and pretend that they are so unique and lonely in their genius. Humans have this tendency to want to make themselves out to be victims; it's like, the thinking man's opium.

2. Some atheists say that Intelligent Design is just religiously motivated, dressed-up Creationism. This is not very precise, as Creationism, (along with it's critiques of ID), is the view that everything was brought into existence by a special act of divine creation. Intelligent Design differs from this, as it does not necessarily posit any deity. Rather, ID posits that design by an intelligent entity is a better explanation for the origin of life than untintelligent processes. The difference is significant, because the Creation Science movement never got far, while the Intelligent Design movement has been advanced, even advocated by some atheists and agnostics, with the help of other atheists. In fact, there are even some atheists using the term to describe their message, that humans were intelligently designed by other humans. The fact that many religious people have latched onto it for obvious reasons, or the claim that it has religious implications, has nothing to do with whether the theory is scientifically credible. Intelligent atheists say, 'let's hash it out, not censor it it'.

It seems to me that we all need to put history, statistics, and even implications aside and just find some common epistemological ground, some common goals, and some love, then set out to do good science and good philosophy in the areas of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of species. I don't care what the effects or implications of believing in certain propositions are, I care about whether they are true--pragmatism be damned!

1 comment:

Derek said...

Alvin Plantinga has mentioned that given the known facts so far, the probability that naturalistic evolution is true is less probable than its denial, and therefore the rational thing to believe is that naturalistic evolution is (probably) false; see here:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/on_rejecting_the_theory_of_common_ancestry.pdf

To be fair though, the best of intelligent design (Dembski and Behe) is either showing the difficulties of naturalistic evolution or showing that our reasoning concerning design in normal circumstances might also apply to the whole of nature.

I think both sides of the debate have only posited theories to explain the facts, and neither of them have shown which theory is true (no evolutionist has actually shown us that evolution has acted blindly, and no theist has shown that it is not a blind process), we’re left to be agnostic about the whole subject; everything else is a deus ex machina.