The ideas below were originally in a section about "Apologetics and Intelligent Design" in a links-page for Intelligent Design in Science between the introduction and ending (in green) that are still in the links-page:
Why should
anyone feel a need [as in my earlier definition of apologetics] to "defend
the rationality of Christianity"? For
a long time, skeptics have asked, "If God is powerful and loving, why
does he allow evil in the world?", and other tough questions. After
Darwin, some scientists (like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins) have claimed
that "everything
evolved naturally, so God was not necessary and does not exist."
Consider two responses to this
claim about evolution: 1) some Christians challenge the scientific
claim that "everything evolved naturally"; 2) all Christians
should challenge the non-scientific claim that "natural" means "without
God," and should explain why — even if the formative history of
nature was totally natural (notice the "if") — this would not
show that "God was not necessary and does not exist." {#2
is one of the "easy theological questions" in METHODS
OF CREATION}
During debates about Intelligent
Design, sometimes Christians try to "win points" by using theological
principles to imply that #1 (which includes Intelligent Design and some theories
of creation) should be avoided, or that #2 is a weak defense (because
natural creation doesn't let us know that God created) so (if we want
a good apologetic argument against Sagan and Dawkins) #1 should be considered
necessary. Are either of these claims — that #1 (ID,...) is
unwise or is necessary — theologically justifiable? These
two
claims are illustrated in the following examples:
Phillip Johnson, the pioneer of modern Intelligent Design,
says: "God is our true Creator. I am
not speaking of a God who is known only by faith and is invisible to reason,
or who acted undetectably behind some naturalistic evolutionary process that
was to all appearances mindless and purposeless. That kind of talk is
about the human imagination, not the reality of God. I speak of a God
who acted openly and who left his fingerprints all over the evidence." (from Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997)
Is this a statement about science, or theology, or both? Is
he claiming that God did not "act undetectably
behind some naturalistic evolutionary process," or that God would
not create in this way, but instead would "act
openly and leave his fingerprints all over the evidence," or perhaps
he meant both? And what idea(s) does this paragraph communicate to his
readers?
Due to the ambiguity of what Johnson wrote, for many readers
it will reinforce the idea — which is stated clearly, without ambiguity,
by other writers and speakers — that natural-appearing creation is not
really "creation" because God would create in a way that is detectable, as
proposed by Intelligent Design. They think #2 is a weak defense, so #1
is necessary. Why? Because if we want to know that God did
it, then it has to be a miracle. They want scientific evidence for creation
(which is the goal of #1) so they can argue against the scientific claims of
skeptics like Sagan and Dawkins. They think #1 is stronger
for
apologetics, compared with #2.
The second illustration doesn't require a specific source, because (if you've read much about origins) you have seen the phrase "God of the gaps," which is often used as an accusation against an opponent. Although "GOD OF THE GAPS" is a term with many meanings (and usually the intended meaning isn't clarified), a common implication is that if someone thinks God created using miraculous-appearing action (as in #1), they are denying that God also works by using natural-apearing action.
There are Bible-based reasons to reject a claim that
#1 either should be avoided, or is necessary.
Regarding a claim that #1 (ID,...) should be avoided because
it implies "God is not involved in natural process," in the Bible we
see that God is active in the world using two modes of action — usually
in ways that seem natural, and occasionally with miracles — so we don't
have to make an either/or choice between divine action that is natural-appearing
and miraculous-appearing. Of course, all Christians should challenge (in
#2) any implication that "natural" means "without
God," that "if it isn't
a miracle then God didn't do it," that natural events "count against
God" in our worldview-thinking
about
divine action.
Regarding a feeling that #1 is
necessary because God would create non-naturally in a detectable way to clearly
show that he created (so it's more
persuasive for apologetic
arguments and for evangelism), in the Bible we see that God does not always try
to
be
maximally
persuasive. For example, after his resurrection Jesus did not appear publicly
in downtown Jerusalem; and God does not give everyone a compelling Damascus
Road experience, as with Paul in Acts 9. God seems to want a "balance
of evidence" so we have some evidence (personal, interpersonal, scientific,
historical) for and against various worldviews, but there is no proof. Therefore,
each of us has freedom to choose what we want to believe (which is influenced
by how we want to live) and the lack of certainty forces each of us — no
matter what we believe in our unique personal worldview — to live by faith
in what we believe. {for more about evidence and proof, see CHRISTIAN
APOLOGETICS & POSTMODERN RELATIVISM}