What Becomes of ID?
It is commonly thought that ID is nothing more that some
form of reactionary religious response to the truth of the
neo-Darwinian worldview. Neo-Darwinism, after all, represents
the crown jewel of the non-teleological, reductionist approach
to life. Some religious people, it is said, make their peace
with neo-Darwinism and sequester their God to the
empirically undetectable realm. But it is also said that
there are the religious die-hards, who think their God needs
a job or will otherwise become superfluous. Thus, they
look for gaps in Nature and seek to find a job for their
God among those gaps.
And such, I think, is the most common perception
about basic dynamic behind the existence of ID.
Put simply, it's the last gasp of a dying form of
theistic interventionism. A polished, but still
inherently flawed, form of creationism.
Now, I suspect this perception is accurate for
some, maybe many or even most. As I participate in some
debates about this issue, and more importantly, as I lurk
and watch many others, I do indeed think much of the noise
is simply about theists and atheists using a different language
to carry on the alt.atheism type debates that most cyber-surfers
have probably seen at one time or another. And even if you don't
quite fit into the context, if you participate, it's easy to get
caught in their cross-fire.
If I am correct, then what does the future hold for ID? Let's
say that ID has played its strongest cards - Dembski's EF/CSI
and Behe's IC. Both cards are played such that they are supposed
to compel any rational person into accepting ID. But if we survey
the response of their skeptics, it would clearly appear that they
have thus far failed. An army of skeptics, who are certainly
not irrational, have either rejected these cards or found them
seriously inadequate.
Now, I suppose the arguments can be strengthened in the future,
and periodically various scholars or scientists may join the ID
"movement," but if that was their best shot, what becomes of ID?
Will ID always remain marginalized? Will ID find its home only
among those with fundamentalist-like religious leanings? After all,
as those gaps keeping getting smaller and smaller, it is going to be
harder and harder to find a job for God, right?
I think it is safe to assume the vast majority of ID critics would
respond "yes" to these questions. I think most ID critics think
that in the future, ID will be viewed by historians as nothing more
than a desperate last attempt to resurrect some form of theistic world
view that finally gives way to a non-teleological viewpoint that
will forever reign.
I think, however, there is a very good chance the future will
be very different. That is, even if the current ID arguments are not made
any more rigorous than they are today, I think some form of teleological
viewpoint, probably including something like current ID, will gain
a strong foothold in the future and spread much farther than any current
ID critic can imagine. And not just among the uneducated. Am I really
that naïve? Am I really such a true-believer? Is it really that hard for
me to wake up and smell that coffee?
Well, I hope I am not that naïve, I'm not really a "true-believer"
on this issue, but I do confess to not drinking coffee. Nevertheless, I
can "see" a very different future than the ID critic and it doesn't even
depend on some sensational ID break-through.
It's just in the cards.
Shall I explain?
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 01:01:38 EDT