There’s an interesting article by Stephen Barr in this month’s First Things, entitled “The Miracle of Evolution,” in response to Cardinal Schonborn’s article The Designs of Science (Barr’s article is in the current issue, so there is no direct link to it yet on the First Things site).
Barr is a theoretical particle physicist at the University of Delaware. He also is a Catholic who is critical of intelligent design theory. His judgment about intelligent design theory is stated in his current article: “The Intelligent Design movement’s ‘design hypothesis’ is not a scientific one if we understand natural science to hae its traditional, ‘metaphysically modest’ goal of understanding the ‘natural order’ of the world.”
Yet, Barr is entranced by the way in which the orderly physical laws of the universe have allowed life to evolve out of apparent chaos:
These examples [of regularity in nature] seem to suggest that the orderliness we observe in nature — which since ancient times has been seen as cosmic evidence for a designer — can arise spontaneously from mere chaos. That conclusion, however, is superficial. a careful analysis of all such examples from physics reveals that the orderly structures found in things (such as the solar system or crystals) are manifestations of a more profound and impressive orderliness at the level of fundamental laws….The world looks not less orderly now than it did to the ancients. Rather, the deeper physicists have penetrated into the inner workings of the world, the more they have uncovered mathematical harmony of a richness, subtelty, intricacy, and profundity that can only be called sublime.
The point Barr goes on to make is that this “sublime” beauty and harmony found in physical laws is what the classical “argument from design” historically has been all about. One does not need to accept “Intelligent Design” theory — which suggests that we can discern evidence of a designer beyond the level of basic physical laws — in order to find the “argument from design” compelling.
I like Barr’s approach, and I think he is largely right about the classical argument from design. As I’ve said before, I do find “Intelligent Design” theory interesting, and I don’t necessarily agree with the way the demarcation (“science / not science”) arguments over ID have been playing out. Many of us evangelicals are drawn to ID theory because it seems to support an easier harmonization of the first two chapters of Genesis, which seem to suggest a special creation of various “kinds” of animals, with natural history. But ID theory isn’t at the heart of my faith, and we evangelicals should be careful about how closely we identify with it. Whether ID theory turns out to be fruitful or not, “the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1.)