Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dinesh D’Souza as an example of why so many Christian intellectuals accept evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

With my new book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY coming out shortly and with the publisher positioning it as a counterblast to the neo-atheist literature, I’m boning up on that literature as well as on the responses to it. Dinesh D’Souza’s response has much to commend it, but he drops the ball on evolution. Not only is his scholarship sloppy on this point (for instance, he fails to distinguish the younger C. S. Lewis, who largely had no problem with evolution, from the later C. S. Lewis, who did), but he justifies taking the side of evolution on the basis of an argumentum ad populum:

I am not a biologist, but what impresses me is that virtually every biologist in the world accepts the theory of evolution. While the debate goes on, it seems improbable that the small group fo intelligent design advocates is right and the entire community of biologists is wrong. Consider what two leading Christian biologists say about evolution. Kenneth Miller writes, “Evolution is as much a fact as anyting we know in science,” and Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Unfortunately, much of the Christian intellectual world (from Christianity Today to the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities) is willing to sign off on evolution for just such reasons. It’s why we need to keep focusing on winning the younger generation.

Comments
nullasalus: Good questions. D'Souza would distinguish evolution from Darwinism, the former for him being a scientific theory, the latter an ideology. The problem is that evolution, even in the former sense, makes natural selection and naturalistic mechanisms like it, the basis for evolutionary change. Such mechanisms, and this is their big selling point, are supposed to render design undetectable (thereby obviating ID). Yes, if evolution is suitably construed, it can be compatible with ID (cf. "Life's Conservation Law" on the publications page at http://www.evoinfo.org). But that's not how it is commonly used and that's not how Dinesh uses it -- see my article "Unintelligent Evolution" here: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.12.Unintelligent_Evolution.htm. Earlier in his book Dinesh writes: "Darwin's theory of evolution, far from undermining the evidence for supernatural design, actually strengthens it." This is simply confused. I think his heart is in the right place, but the great selling point for theistic evolution is that you can accept evolutionary theory without theological fall-out. But if the theory is itself scientifically misconceived, as ID claims to have demonstrated, then theistic evolution is, as Denyse O'Leary notes, the solution to a problem that no longer exists.William Dembski
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
William Dembski, I agree that 'argumentum ad populum' leaves a lot to be desired. On the other hand, wouldn't you endorse D'Souza's basic claim that evolution is compatible with Christianity? I recall you recently made a post where you argued that Intelligent Design itself is completely compatible with the truth of evolution. Now, I know there's a difference between Darwinism and evolution, and those differences are important. (Indeed, I think D'souza would possibly agree with such a distinction.) But I have to ask, just what are you trying to win the younger generation to? Intelligent Design? Being against evolution? Both? Are they different things? I have tremendous sympathy for the ID project. But this sort of thing worries me, since sometimes I hear ID proponents insisting that ID and evolution are compatible. Other times, like this one, it seems like ID and evolution aren't compatible.nullasalus
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply