A year or two ago, I was much more sympathetic to Intelligent Design than I am now. Part of my waning enthusiasm for ID is that, as I’ve studied the arguments, some of the “proofs” ID uses don’t really seem all that compelling. Of course, I still believe in design. More than that, I think some arguments that are classified as “design” or “ID” arguments remain very strong, particularly when they are used in the classical sense as part of a broader framework of “faith seeking understanding,” rather than as formal, rationalistic evidences of breaks in the created order.
What has really turned my stomach sour about ID, however, is the increasingly politicized tone of some of the ID leadership. Exhibit No. 1 here is Bill Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent. I’ve read some of Dembski’s books, and his tone in that kind of writing tends to be erudite and scholarly. On his blog, however, he and some of his guest posters come across, at least in my mind, as strident and angry. They make the political motivations for ID transparent, particularly when they go off on rants about things that are completely irrelevant to the question of design, such as global warming. Dembski’s blog, for me, damages the credibility of ID as a scientific or even generally scholarly enterprise — which is a shame.
Here is what gets my ire today. I participate actively in the American Scientific Affiliation discussion list. One of the friends I’ve made on that list, whom I’ve never met in person but hope to some day, is Ted Davis, a professor at Messiah College (a Christian liberal arts college). From what I’ve seen of Ted’s work, he is a model to me of what a Christian scholar should be like. I may not always agree with Ted (though I usually do), but I can always say that Ted presents his case in a calm, reasonable way.
For some unknown reason, Dembski decided yesterday to attack Ted on Uncommon Descent. This attack was particularly ridiculous because the comments Dembski refers to were in the context of Ted’s criticism of a strident anti-ID commentator who was trying in some absurd way to defend Richard Dawkins. This kind of thing makes it hard for me to trust what Bill Dembski says — which again, is really too bad, because alot of what he says in his more scholarly work is interesting and worthy of careful discussion.
Here is what I wrote in the comments on Dembski’s blog, which undoubtedly will get me flamed over there:
I am the “David” to which Ted Davis refers and whose earlier comments Ted “echoes” in the discussion thread from the ASA email list which Dr. Dembski has referenced. The context of that thread was a discussion of Richard Dawkins’ recent “Fresh Air” interview.
The person to whom Ted is directly responding in that discussion, Pim van Meurs (of Panda’s Thumb), was suggesting that Dawkins’ main target is ID rather than religion generally. Pim seemed to be defending Dawkins as a champion of Science. I reacted strongly to that, and others jumped into the fray, including Ted.
The suggestion that Ted’s post “is written to Pim van Meurs, as a mentor would write to his disciple” is patently absurd, bordering perhaps on defamatory. If you read through the whole thread, and indeed if you were to participate regularly on the ASA list, you would immediately see that nothing could be further from the truth. Ted never hesitates to call out over-the-top nonesense like a defense of Richard Dawkins as a reasonable chap who is just concerned about ID.
Indeed, in my many online conversations with Ted, I’ve come to appreciate deeply his somewhat moderating stance between TE and ID. It is true that Ted also doesn’t hesitate to criticize what he sees as the flaws in the “strong” ID program. But at the same time, he often defends the basic notion of design from excessive criticism by TE’s, and the historical context he is able to provide to these discussions invariably is invaluable.
Above all, Ted is a gentleman as well as a scholar. From what I’ve seen of Ted’s writing and of his leadership in the ASA, he has refused to allow the politics of ID to overwhelm careful scholarship and calm, reasoned discussion.
It is a shame that we can’t say the same for everyone involved in this discussion, particularly for those who publicly identify themselves as followers of Jesus. Personally, I used to be much more sympathetic to ID than I am now. One of the main reasons for my increased skepticism about ID is that nasty, strident, politicized tone of many ID leaders — as exemplified by this unfair attack on a fellow Christian scholar. You may think you are winning a battle here and there, but you will lose the war if you keep going down this track. The shame is that it isn’t really your war to fight, and the tools you’re using to fight it are not those of the Kingdom all of us Christian scholars are supposed to represent.
I am a law professor, a Christian scholar along with Ted and Dr. Dembski, though not possessed of anywhere near their achievements, influence or stature. We who are called to serve the Church with our teaching and scholarship, perhaps more than anyone else, ought to model patient, careful, deep and reasonable discourse. We together name Jesus as Lord and agree that all Truth is God’s Truth. Our bond in those facts should transcend this sort of petty sniping.
(And now, let’s see with what love and grace everyone here treats me for daring to defend my friend Ted Davis).