I will blog on the Catholic Church’s position in more detail later, when I get a chance to get all my links together, but for now:
There are currently two and one half understandings of ID:
1. The specific ideas of biochemist Michael Behe and mathematician Bill Dembski (irreducible complexity and specified complexity) may provide evidence of a level of information in life forms that cannot be explained by the chance interactions of physical laws.
Behe’s or Dembski’s thesis may be correct. Or may not. Even if both are incorrect, correct theses may arise from another quarter.
Surely, the Catholic Church was never going to throw its institutional weight behind either of these theses, as I have pointed out in at least one earlier post. Why should it? Such theses stand or fall in their own arenas in their own good time. The Church has learned at least that much in the age of science.
2. The universe and life forms show evidence of intelligent design in principle. That is not something the Catholic Church can oppose. The entire Bible depends on that idea. Jews and Muslims agree with it, and so did key Greek philosophers, as indeed have most philosophers throughout history. (They disagreed about what, who, how, where, when, and why, but few disagreed about the fact of design until fairly recently.)
For a while, Darwinism looked like it might provide a creation story for post-Enlightenment atheism, … but maybe not.
½. Oh yes, the half idea. Read More ›