Last week I had a good converstation with a friend who is a Christian but who is skeptical of ID. My friend has strong social science training and feels that ID cannot be classified as “science.” One of his principal arguments is what I’d call the “pragmatic” argument: “science,” defined broadly as methodological naturalism, has produced many useful things; detecting design is not likely to produce such useful things. If we assume naturalism, the argument goes, we don’t stop inquiring about a natural phenomenon merely because we can’t explain it. In contrast, if we explain the phenomoenon through design, rational inquiry stops.
I don’t think this is a fair characterization of what ID seeks to do. Last night I came across a passage in Augustine’s City of God, a current reading project of mine that’s proving incredibly fruitful, that I think reinforces how belief in design spurs research rather than stalls it.
In Boox XI of City of God, Augustine discourses on the goodness of creation, and notes how even harmful things like poison are useful when “we use them well and wisely.” Then he continues:
Thus does Divine Providence teach us not to be foolish in finding fault with things but, rather, to be diligent in finding out their usefulness or, if our mind and will should fail us in the search, then to believe that there is some hidden use still to be discovered, as in so many other cases, only with great difficulty.
In other words, our belief that the universe was designed, and in particular that it was designed “good,” should compel us to investigate thoroughly how everything in creation works and how it can productively be employed. Design isn’t a conversation stopper; it’s a conversation starter.