Traditionally, both (1) the "fine-tuning" of natural laws and (2) the
complexity of biological organisms, were considered signs of Intelligent
Design. This certainly fits into the Christian (or more broadly,
theistic) world-view. I know that both of those elements speak to me
intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually, prompting me to humility
and to worship the Creator.
Currently, based upon what I've read, ID theory seems primarily ---
almost exclusively --- engaged in arguing that biological history shows
evidence of intelligent intervention. If this has become the goal of ID
theory as currently practiced, then fine-tuning poses two problems to
it. First, although fine-tuning is joyously effective at prompting
worship in a theist, it is rather weak when used as evidence to convince
an atheist. Second, emphasis on fine-tuning has the potential to
undermine the goal of proving intelligent intervention. In most recent
writings, modern ID theory at best ignores, at worst scorns, the
suggestion that "intelligent design" can be seen in a biological
complexity produced by finely tuned natural laws under the Designer's
ordinary providential care and guidance.
These posts are aimed at encouraging ID to consider some implications of
their theory, implications which I don't think have been adequately
discussed. In this case the question is: what will ID theory do about
its old allies of fine-tuning and God's ordinary providential oversight.
I've read ID writings which reject that fine-tuning and providential
oversight have anything significant to do with design. I've read ID
writings which argue that they are fine for physical creation, but
inadequate for biological creation. I've read ID writings which find
them theologically acceptable for biological creation, and try to treat
the issue of intervention as an empirical matter. What are the
implications of each choice?
If ID theory rejects fine-tuning and ordinary providential oversight as
having anything significant to do with Design, ignoring centuries of
theological insight about God's creative and sustaining acts in other
parts of creation, to focus exclusively on a search for signs of
intelligent intervention --- *any* intelligent intervention (divine,
alien, or otherwise) --- in earth's biological history, then ID will
have to work very hard to justify why it should call itself a "theistic
science."
If ID theory decides that fine-tuning and providential oversight are
theologically adequate for understanding Design in the creation of the
sun, moon, stars, ocean, atmosphere, and dry land, but theologically
inadequate for understanding design in the creation of plants and
animals, then ID theory should lay its theological arguments on the
table, expect them to be critiqued, accept that evolutionary
creationists will offer theological arguments in favor of their own
view, and give those arguments due consideration.
If ID theory decides that fine-tuning and providential oversight are
theologically acceptable for Design (however weak it may be at winning
apologetic arguments), if ID theory insists that its disagreements with
abiogenesis and macroevolution are essentially matters of *scientific*
judgment, then ID should eschew all attempts by some advocates to wrap
it in a "more theistic than thou" mantel; ID should embrace evolutionary
creationists as its fellow theistic scientists; and it should give and
receive scientific critiques without treating them as apologetic salvos.
You see why I chose carbon formation as a watershed issue for ID theory.
Recent writings have sloshed into several pathways, but the paths lead
to different oceans.
Loren Haarsma