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.
12 replies on “Augustine and Intelligent Design”
David – though I agree with your argument against what your friend stated, I don’t disagree with your friend. Science, at its simplest level, requires the ability to be tested. ID cannot be tested – it is a philosophical presupposition. Evolution stands on just as shaky ground in that its presupposition is that no intelligent designer exists – also philosophical and unprovable. The danger with evolution is that because of its philosophical background it tends to distort information in order to make sure that the information comports to its philosophy (not something we should be too surprised at since that is human nature). So, although the ID and creationists are right in pointing out the misinformation that the evolutionists have proffered, they are wrong in saying that their presuppositions are any more scientific than evolutionists.
ID cannot be tested
I’ve never understood this argument. Take Behe’s argument concerning irreducible complexity. The inference of design would arise if (1) the system is irreducibly complex; and (2) the probability of that system arising through solely naturalistic processes is low. What’s not testable about that?
In fact, many materialists criticize ID out of both sides of their mouths — they say ID isn’t testable, but at the same time they argue that Behe’s irreducible complexity criterion has been falsified. They may be right that Behe’s irreducible complexity criterion has been falsified — though I don’t think so — but that means the theory isn’t supported, not that it isn’t testable.
I think it is important to remember how little authority stands behind the falsifiability criterion of science. It may be a good definition of empirical science, but surely we are not required by the constitution to be empiricists. Indeed, empirically speaking, the historians of science tell us that the evolution of scienctific belief has occurred not by means of incontestable empirical proofs but in keeping with much softer sociological factors. If science demands empiricism, let us be empirical about what constitutes science.
With respect to Augustine, how does the fall influence our thought in this regard. Surely, the fact that we are fallen means that some aspects of our nature that were once in harmony with nature are now out of harmony. That is, the original design of the universe will not focus on fallen man, but on man as he was made. Similarly, the fact that the affects of the fall extend to creation likewise suggest that creation will not longer bear all the marks of the original design. Indeed, finding creation to centered on fallen man might constitute some evidence against the biblical account. If there weren’t elements of curse in man’s condition, e.g. like struggle for food and pain in child birth, that would suggest an unfallen world.
Fundamentally, I could never understand why it was o.k. to presuppose naturalism but not o.k. to presuppose a creator.
Sometimes, I find the so-called science versus religion debate to be a checkers game where one side is allowed two jumps per move and the other is only allowed one.
For example, I find Behe’s argument regarding irreducible complexity a strong a brick in the case against naturalism. If I am not allowed to consider this an argument for a creator, why are the Crusades or the Inquisition, for example, not merely pieces of evidence against murder in the name of Christ? Why is it o.k. to make the (il)logical jump that organized religion must be an evil force in the world?
I make a motion that we *not* teach the “scientific method” in science class … because the scientific method is not falsifiable, and is therefore, not science.
Any takers?
re: “Science, at its simplest level, requires the ability to be tested.”
That is a philosophical truth claim, not a scientific one.
This is the core of the problem … philosophy and science are so closely wed, that we cannot talk about one without talking about the other.
The goal of scientific inquiry is truth, not the right kind of truth … and yes, I realize that that is a philosophical truth claim as well.
As to the claim that ID is testable. Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity is not an argument for ID – it is an argument against evolution.
The judge in the Dover case puts it quite succinctly:
“As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)).”
I would highly recommend reading the decision in the Dover case for a fantastic summary of why ID should not be taught in public high school science classes. And in the trial it is documented that Behe has known for several years that there is a serious problem with his IC idea, yet he has failed to address that problem.
It is a shame that so many Christians have not been more skeptical of the ID proponents.
Ralph,
Thanks for the comment. I have read the Dover decision, and will blog about it soon. I think the Judge’s treatment of what constitutes “science” is pathetic. In about thirty pages, he parrots a series of standard canards about ID, while never mentioning any serious philosopher of science. The opinion is little more than an advocacy piece for one side of the culture war.
Wow! I had the completely opposite reaction to the written decision. By the way, did you read the testimony that was given in court? That is what the judge had to base his testimony on.
I’ll be very interested to see who these serious philosophers of science are. Why didn’t the ID people have them testify?
As a Catholic, I recognize that there is a culture war going on. But I also know that evolution does not conflict with my faith, so I think it is a mistake for Christians to assume that the ID movement is on the right side here. Perhaps they are, but one should use caution.
As was clear from the testimony a number of the pro ID people in Dover lied in court. I don’t believe that is something we Christians wish to be engaged in.
Am looking forward to your more complete view of the matter.
Take care.
Ralph — good points — I do agree that the Dover school board members seemed disingenuous, and I don’t approve of their political or litigation strategy.
Forgive me for a long comment, here’s another relevant Augustine quote. Young-earth creationists would do well to read it!
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Robert — great quote! The principle you quote that Augustine articulated son long ago is critically important in today’s faith-science discussion. (BTW, I’m not YEC, and the principle you’ve quoted here is one of the main reasons why).