Monday, September 06, 2010
They Know Their Own
Wiley Richards, a retired professor of theology and philosophy at The Baptist College of Florida in Graceville, helps by identifying the nature of Intelligent Design:
Arguments to prove God's existence fall under two broad categories, general revelation and special revelation. Christian apologetics in the public arena largely is pursued along the lines set forth by William Paley (1743-1805), an English theologian who used the example of a watch. He argued that its existence demanded a watchmaker. A present-day example has been set forth by Michael J. Behe in his seminal book, Darwin's Black Box, in which he contends that Darwin and his followers posit the existence of the first living cell but have failed to explain how it could come from non-living matter. This view is commonly called the argument of Intelligent Design, the ID approach.... as if we didn't know that already.
Me either. I think Richards was probably confusing Behe's book with Meyer's Signature in the Cell. It's so hard to keep those Christian apologists straight.
Perhaps, but it's not a minor "argument" of Behe's either, there in chapter 8.
I think it's kind of funny how they've pushed the idea that ID isn't at all religious, heaven forfend, since "it could have been an alien," all the while admitting that they're heirs to Paley and his Natural Theology and claiming that Thomas Jefferson was an IDist (which he was, indeed) because of his mentions of the "the Creator" in the Declaration of Independence and a few other places.
Then the barest allowance that there just could have been alien designers by Dawkins and a few others gets Paul Nelson to complain that some will allow that there could have been a designer, while denying that it would be God, on the DI's blog:
Designed, Yes -- Just Not by God: The Remarkable Implications of Clarke's Third Law
And, outside of his book, Stephen Meyer repeatedly points to God as being the best candidate for being the Designer, "arguing" from "fine tuning" that an designer immanent to the the universe seems a tad unlikely, and that a transcendent designer is thus indicated (still no theological motivations, nuh-uh).
In his book Meyer's more careful to maintain the thinnest veneer of deniability of his theological motives, which doesn't keep him from preaching that "Without a purpose-driven universe, there can be no 'purpose-driven life'" (p. 449). Um, yeah, I'd like to see how his conclusion logically follows, although I know how it theologically follows.
Cause it's all science, but fortunately its implications just happen to support its proponents' religious predilections.
They are getting careless, apparently giving up on any hopes of winning Dover II (Scopes IV?), and happily pointing out to more conservative creationists that they're working hard to get God "back into science."