I hope this won’t turn out to be a trip to the woodshed…
…but I have to get on Denyse O’Leary’s case for a bit.
I don’t want to start there however. I want to start, instead, with something that Binks wrote over at Free Canuckistan.
The Binks, he say:
Science Vs. Materialism
- ITEM: “Theistic evolutionists”: What they can expect after they have surrendered
- ITEM: Intellectual freedom: The freedom to raise one’s hand
~ AS I’VE SAID BEFORE, I’m no trained scientist, but rather an amateur (in the best sense), and not ignorant of the philosophy of science and the history of that.
I’m in a hearty dislike of scientific Materialism and the pretence that any other theory (say, Intelligent Design) is phony science, or actually ‘creationism’. That’s snobbery, and intellectual dishonesty.
Let’s stop here for a moment and set a few terms straight. Or one, to be specific. Intelligent Design (ID), like its counterparts (theistic evolution, evolutionary creationism, and Young Earth Creationism) are all forms of creationism: they all posit the involvement of a creative force or entity which exists behind and, to varying degrees, participates in the natural world, and which is the (or a) causal factor therefore.
It’s not intellectual snobbery to note that ID, YEC, and all the rest are forms of creationism, then: to observe as much is simply to assert something which is, in fact, true. ID is a flavour of creationism, but it’s not the same flavour of creationism as is spouted by this group of clowns.
It is, however, intellectual snobbery to dismiss an argument because it is, by some measure, creationist. My cousin attempted to do this to me once, during a wine-fueled debate at a family Christmas party. My reaction was probably excessive, though not incorrect in its details.
There are rational reasons to posit a creator when one regards the Universe; indeed, if one wishes to frame the discussion in terms of causality proper, it is only rational to posit that the Universe has a first cause which satisfies specific criteria. Connecting the existence of a first cause with God requires additional reasoning, but remains firmly within the realm of reason all the same.
But the point is that Intelligent Design, in this case, is in fact a form of creationism. People involved in the origins debate on the side of God need to avoid the snobbery of hiding from the ‘creationist’ label, and must in turn embrace it. It’s what we believe, after all, regardless of the name by which we call the creator, or the amount of involvement in creation we are willing to assert that He has.
But I digress.
Note how in the list of links Binks provides, there is an article listed which purports to pertain to theistic evolutionists. One notes, also, the invocation of a fairly common criticism of TEs (and of ECs like myself, as well): the “conform/surrender” trope.
It would appear that Denyse O’Leary is on a tear again.
Here is a true story about “theistic evolution,” by Carol Iannone:
[Theistic evolution, as normally propounded today = accept on faith that God dun it and holler yer guts fer Jesus to feel good – because the evidence suggests there is no God].
Let’s stop here for a moment and note the grotesque mischaracterization of theistic evolution. To be fair, I don’t really identify with the TE position, which places too great an emphasis on the evolutionary aspects of its area of study and so comes closest, of all the theistic positions regarding origins, to “conforming Scripture to science.” (EC, in contrast, is explicit in assertion of the creatorship and Lordship of God, and of His personal and present intervention in creation unto this day…including by means of an ordained, sustained, design-reflecting evolutionary process by which He has fashioned us and all living things.)
Where EC and TE agree, however, is given its most beautiful example in Psalm 19: the heavens do indeed declare the glory of God, and all creation shouts for joy at being fearfully and wonderfully made. But unlike our counterparts in, say, the YEC camp, we take Job 12’s declaration that the Earth will teach those who inquire of her a bit more seriously, as do proponents of ID (generally speaking).
My point, then, is that Denyse’s characterization of theistic evolutionists as a bunch of Jesus-hollering hypocrites who secretly believe that the evidence of the natural world points toward atheism is, in equal measures, uncharitable, unjust, and dishonest. These errors are only magnified by her digression into a discussion of the evil that is eugenics. Her choice of title implies that theistic evolution at best lines the road down which future eugenicists will happily march. I hope I am incorrect in this reading…but given my past experiences with Denyse’s vitriol, I’m going to have to wait for her to come out and say it.
The article to which she links ends with this observation:
Remember this when you see a version of Inherit the Wind, with its fradulent implication that the Bible and Darwin are perfectly compatible, and its closing scene with the Clarence Darrow character exiting happily with both in his briefcase. Generations of schoolchildren have been misled by this lie. Now at last we have the truth and can begin again to build on that.
This is a tone-perfect example of what could be called the “conflict model” in the origins debate. It pre-supposes that science and Religion are natural enemies, or at least fundamentally incompatible at several key levels.
This is a peculiarly recent phenomenon unheard of in centuries past, and it’s highly unfortunate that it has cropped up at all. Both sides of the false dichotomy that is at the heart of the “conflict model” bear the blame for its existence and ferocity — Christians who vilify science in the name of a literal hermeneutic are as idiotic and misguided as are atheists who confidently assert that evolutionary theory and other avenues of empirical inquiry essentially disprove the notion of God (and yes, such as these do exist).
Let’s come back to the point Binks makes after citing Denyse’s article. He notes that it is a form of snobbery to label something like ID — a viewpoint of which Denyse is a proponent — as creationism. He’s half right: it’s honest to note that ID is a creationistic philosophy, and it would be snobbery to reject it solely on that basis. But if we can turn what Binks is saying around for just a minute, there is — both in the article Denyse cites and in her own post commenting thereupon — a different kind of snobbery at work. It’s a snobbery fairly commonly seen in those who, in their pursuit of the erroneous “conflict model,” label all those who assert that the conflict is itself a false one as hypocrites, conformers, or surrenderers.
For centuries, dating back as far as Augustine of Hippo (and likely further still), Christians have approached science with what is essentially an attitude of openness. The one big, glaring example of this system breaking down is, naturally, the whole Galileo issue…but in truth, what happened to Galileo had as much to do with the fact that he was a “Class 1A Asshole” as with the scientific viewpoint he was articulating. In fact, it probably had a great deal more to do with his being an asshole than with the science he was articulating.
And one notes that Galileo is the only significant example, apart from the curiosities introduced by American evangelicalism in recent decades, of a formal conflict between the Christian faith and science in history.
It’s hardly an act of surrender to remain in keeping with that tradition.
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.” — Pope John Paul II
Powered by ScribeFire.
KHdN - Kenneth Hynek (dot Net) » Blog Archive » Clarification tag (May 22, 2009, 1:28 pm).
[...] updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet BoxBinks clarifies a few of his remarks in response to my previous mention of his comments on Intelligent Design. He has, I think, misunderstood some of what I said, so I should clarify a few points in [...]