Actually, it isn’t ID that’s breaking up; it’s Darwinism
|January 26, 2018||Posted by News under Books of interest, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, theistic evolution|
Opponents of intelligent design (ID) usually dismiss the theory as unscientific, an attempt at smuggling religion into science through a back door. They slam it as a “god of the gaps” argument — inserting God into questions where science has not yet found a persuasive answer.
In a new book, former geophysicist and author Stephen C. Meyer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, explained why intelligent design is not a “god of the gaps” argument, but a viable scientific theory.
“The theory of intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible,” Meyer wrote in Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Rather than a Bible-based theory, ID “is based on recent scientific discoveries and what we know about the cause-and-effect structure of the world — specifically, what we know about patterns of evidence that indicate intelligent causes.” More.
In my (O’Leary for News) view, the “god of the gaps” argument was invented by Christians who thought Darwinism was right, adjusted to that worldview, saw that there were alternatives later, and then had no recourse but to discredit the alternatives. Worse, Darwinism is under plenty of fire within the academy…
Prediction: The world’s last genuine Darwinist will probably be a religion prof who keeps asking his class, Why would Jesus have invented the Ebola virus? Why?!
From the publisher:
Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design presents the current “state of the conversation” about origins among evangelicals representing four key positions:
Young Earth Creationism – Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis)
Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism – Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe)
Evolutionary Creation – Deborah B. Haarsma (BioLogos)
Intelligent Design – Stephen C. Meyer (The Discovery Institute)
See also: The BioLogos Project: A program of unwarranted assumptions and irrational claims.