"I suspect that Johnson is more
popular because many Christians think that people like Howard
offer no substantive defense against the atheism of people like Dawkins
and Gould and instead it's more about not be "embarrassed." Thus, if
Howard and others want to get their message out, I think they would do
a far better job of this by taking on people like Dawkins directly and
ignoring the ID movement."
Thanks, Mike, for your comments. Following is my brief response:
Let me try to provide a bit of context first. I was born into the Christian
community and trained in Christian day schools and in an excellent
Christian college. I was also privileged to be born into a portion of the
Christian community that placed a high value on doing one's work on the
foundation of a well-examined and explicitly articulated theological
position.
As an expression of my desire to work professionally in that sort of a
community, I dedicated my teaching career to educating Christian students
in a way that would allow their Christian faith to be enriched by the
scientific investigation of the created world. Specifically, I chose to
teach physics and astronomy at Calvin College for 31 years.
In the context of that commitment, the focus of my concern has always been
the Christian community. It has always been my desire to provide something
of value to my fellow Christians. In that context I have been candid in my
critical evaluation of episodic creationism (both the young-Earth variety
and the Intelligent Design variety) for a number of reasons, including
these: (1) its anti-evolution strategy is based on a rarely examined
assumption that in order to "make a difference" God's creative work must
include episides of form-imposing divine intervention. Proponents are free,
of course, to build their case against evolution on that platform, but I
think it deserves explicit warranting. (2) it (especially the ID version)
fails to distinguish "design" (as thoughtful conceptualization for the
accomplishment of a purpose, an act of Mind) from "extranatural assembly"
(the form-imposing action of an extranatural agent, the action of a
"hand").
However, although the reckless and vain rhetoric of people like Richard
Dawkins and other preachers of Naturalism has not been my central concern,
I have responded to it critically on a number of occasions. See, for
instance, my contributions to the book, _Science Held Hostage_
(InterVarsity, 1988) in which I take both Carl Sagan and Peter Atkins to
task for their attempts to exploit science for the promotion of their
Naturalistic worldview. See also my chapter, "No Place for a Small God," in
the book, _How Large is God?_. published by the Templeton Foundation Press
in 1997. In that chapter I critique Daniel Dennet's rhetoric in his book
_Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, pointing out that he has utterly failed to
defeat the historic Christian doctrine of creation.
So, I have not been silent in my criticism of Naturalism. People who are
actually interested in what I have to offer can read it in the works here
cited.
I am fully aware that the ID style of anti-evolution position is far more
popular in the evangelical Christian community than is my fully-gifted
Creation perspective, with its willingness to celebrate the "robust
formational economy principle." However, I must say what I believe to be
the case, whether popular or not. I do not subscribe to the idea that the
value of one's writing is to be decided solely on book sales.
Cordially,
Howard Van Till