> I've prepared a short piece on this conference, which I'm planning to
> send to a Christian monthly journal here in the UK. I'm looking for
> some peer review before I send it off - so I thought those on this
> list would be worth approaching. Feedback welcome!
This is *very* well written, David. I substantially agree with both the
content and the tone of voice.
I have one reservation and suggestion for change. (This criticism is
not unique to your piece. I see it in almost *everything* written by ID
advocates. So this critique is aimed generally, not particularly at you.)
Your piece rapidly move back and forth between two points.
These points are (1) That neither philosophical naturalism
nor thorough-going methodological naturalism should be a *prerequisite*
for science; (2) that the data points towards intelligent intervention
in biological history. Your piece (and most ID writings) moves so
quickly back and forth between these two points that they are nearly
blended. I believe it would be better to treat these more separately.
The two points must be discussed in their proper order. The first must
be established --- or at least well-understood --- before we can discuss
the second. Moreover, it is entirely possible to agree with the first
point while disagreeing with the second point. But when you closely
intertwine the two points in your writing, you make it very difficult
for your readers to "meet you half-way." I believe that most theistic
scientists, and a fair number of agnostics, would quickly grant the
first point, *if it were not continually intertwined with the second.*
But their honest disagreement with the second point leads to great
suspicion about the first. If you dealt with each point more
separately, the suspicion would lessen. If you acknowledged that it is
possible to agree with the first point while disagreeing with the
second, the suspicion would virtually disappear. This would improve the
dialogue. (It would also be helpful to younger people who are just
beginning to study this topic and form opinions.)
As I said, it's an excellent piece. I think it would be more effective
if you moved a few sentences around.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> "MERE CREATION" CONFERENCE
>
> Over 150 scholars gathered at Biola University, Los Angeles on
> 14-17 November 1996 with a goal which few in academic circles
> seem to share: to develop an approach to science which is free
> from naturalistic philosophy (the idea that nature is all there
> is). There was a sense of urgency in the conference, because the
> message broadcast by most opinion-formers in science is that
> science cannot be done without a prior commitment to naturalism.
[first point]
> What this rules out is any thought that the natural world
> exhibits design. The best-known British advocate for naturalism
> is Richard Dawkins. He has suggested the word "designoid" to
> be appropriate for living things (i.e. they appear designed, but
> they are actually the result of a mindless process known as
> Darwinian evolution.)
[now into the second point]
>
> Christians in science have only two options. One is to view
> evolution as a God-ordained natural process: one which he used
> to create all things. Since God ordains natural laws and
> controls chance, he is responsible for what results. However,
> few find this a convincing argument for design. Apart from
> reacting to the extraordinarily wasteful route chosen, we expect
> a creative designer to take things beyond natural law.
Of course, some of us "expect" the creator to use the same techniques in
pre-human biological history as he apparently used in physical history.
;-)
But do you really want to use the word "expect" in that sentence? It
implies, to put it frankly, bias. Perhaps that is all right. We can
have two competing paradigms with different "expectations" and different
bias while looking at the data. But truly, I hope most of us can be a
little more impartial than that. Perhaps a more wishy-washy term would
be better, leaving open the *possibility* of seeing intelligent
intervention, but not *expecting* to find it in every gap. Just a
suggestion.
> Both the
> design concept and the fabrication process take things beyond
> law: materials are moulded and fashioned to do things they would
> not naturally do. In other words, an intelligent input is always
> required if we are to recognise design.
[still on the second point]
> This is the one thing
> that is never allowed in evolutionary accounts of origins.
[back to the first point]
> The other option for Christians is to say that the naturalists
> are wrong and that living things really are designed by God.
[boom, second point]
> They cannot be explained without reference to the intelligent
> input of a Designer. Natural law, by itself, will never bring
> about life. To say such a thing necessitates, of course, a
> rejection of Darwinian evolution as it is held within the
> academic world. This radical option is the one taken by those
> participating in the conference.
>
> Focusing the debate on "Intelligent Design" issues is a strategy
> which has been led by Professor Phillip Johnson, author of
> "Darwin on Trial". The aim is to change the way the debate over
> origins proceeds. The issue is not "evolution vs creation
> science" but "naturalistic science vs theistic science".
[first point again]
> It asks
> the question: should science be undertaken with the prerequisite
> of naturalism, or should it be open to theistic possibilities?
> Some years ago, a book was published with the title "Chance and
> Necessity". Its message was that everything is either the
> result of chance or the consequence of law. The theistic
> alternative is to say that there is a genuine third option:
> things may be the result either of chance, or law, or intelligent
> design.
[still on the first point]
> What is needed, and what the conference set out to address, is
> a development of these ideas in a form that can stand up to the
> critical evaluation of the academic world. Scientists need a
> methodology for identifying design and for incorporating the
> concept harmoniously into explanations of origins. We need to
> be able to point to ways in which these ideas make a difference
> to scholarly work. We need to have a robust philosophical
> framework for science incorporating intelligent design. The
> general feeling was that the conference achieved substantial
> progress in these areas, making it a resounding success.
[this is a good transition between points]
> A few specific examples of presentations follow. Professor
> Michael Behe gave a synopsis of his recent book "Darwin's Black
[now the second point]
> Box", which demonstrates that the biological world has
> innumerable examples of irreducibly complex systems which defy
> Darwinian explanations of origins. Professor Siegfried Scherer
> spoke about research into the concept of Basic Types in the
> biological world: evidences of distinct groupings of organisms
> that are genetically related within the Type but which appear to
> be genetically separate from other Types. This work provides
> empirical evidence of the discontinuities introduced by
> intelligent design activity by the Creator. Dr Jonathan Wells
> spoke of confirmatory evidence from developmental biology, that
> distinct differences between different types of organism are
> apparent from their earliest development. Dr Sigrid Hartwig-
> Scherer applied the Basic Type biology concept to hominid
> fossils, showing how sense can be made of the diverse collections
> of fossils - pointing to a coherent story of the intelligent
> design of mankind.
>
> Professor Phillip Johnson, whose writings, lectures and personal
> influence catalysed the conference, gave the final address. He
> spoke of the momentum that already exists: the conference
> proceedings will be published to make the papers available to a
> wider readership; further conferences will be organised; media
> opportunities are growing; etc. But everyone can contribute to
> the goals of the conference by being much more sensitive as to
> what constitutes "science". Science is NOT forcing everything
> into a naturalistic framework of "chance" or "necessity".
[now we're back to the first point]
> We
> must be prepared to allow for the possibility that chance and
> necessity are inadequate to explain the real world. If
> practising science means seeking truth, then scientists will be
> open to the possibility of intelligent design and will not rule
> the concept out of bounds as inherently unscientific. Christians
> who claim to be interested in both truth and science should be
> giving a lead here. A culture change is needed about the
> scientific enterprise - and culture involves everyone who has any
> interest in science: teachers and students, parents and children,
> researchers and writers.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope my comments are helpful to you and to other writers.
Loren Haarsma