Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID continues to invade creationist culture

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The intelligent design movement has celebrated ID-friendly developments within the Roman Catholic Church. A comparably important development is the ascendancy of ID within the insular enclaves of creationism.

At some point, if a group of people will not give ID a fair hearing, it is time to “shake the dust off your sandals” and reach out to others. I have often thought that the die-hard critics of ID will never be persuaded. The only reason to engage the die-hards is to expose their fallacies, not to persuade them. If the die-hards remain resistant to considering ID, it would be good to search for new places where ID theory may find a welcome hearing.

ID has its best chance in 2 communities:

1. creationists (about 50% of the population)
2. the undecided middle among the Theistic Evolutionists (about 25% of the population)

Which is roughly 210 million people. It is within this pool of people that ID can cultivate fruitful inquiry to advance science. I intend to write on the superiority of the ID paradigm for advancing medical research and biotechnology in an upcoming essay at Uncommon Descent. I alluded to some of the ideas at : How IDers can win the war and Airplane magnetos, contingency designs, and reasons ID will prevail.

Creationists have been the unsavory associates of ID. Johnnyb and myself are among these unsavory associates, but I’m glad we’ve been given an opportunity to reach out to our unsavory brethren through Uncommon Descent because these unsavory associates have the potential to be a vast pool of future talent for ID research. And if any one accuses me of shameless marketing of ID to people of faith, I point them (again) to the Nation Center for Selling Evolution (NCSE) to People of Faith.

If one carefully examines ID literature, one will hardly find appeals to Biblical authority in ID arguments. I have often said that it is the theology-free nature of ID which makes it especially appealing to people in insular creationist enclaves.

Deep down, within these insular enclaves, some are too afraid to open their eyes to the physical facts lest they be de-converted. Deep down, some wonder if their faith is only rooted in their biases and upbringing and might not withstand exposure to theology-free science.

But ID is breaking down the barriers through theology-free science. It’s been heart-warming to see pastors, campus missionaries, church workers with no scientific background studying Michael Behe’s writings. They get more exposure to bio-chemistry than they’ve ever known in their life through Behe. They then become more friendly to encouraging the next generation to attend the nation’s best secular universities to study science, medicine, and engineering. They have far less fear that somehow Darwinian evolution can de-convert their kids because their kids are now armed with material and resources which were not available in generations past.

We now have the potential of a large infusion of creationists who were once scared to enter scientific fields. These large numbers of workers will be a great development for everyone. I should mention, that since the advent of ID, the field of biology has been exploding. There is no evidence the strong pro-ID leanings of this nation are eroding interest in the life-sciences. Where we’re really hurting is the other sciences and engineering, not biology!

Testament of the ascendancy of ID within the creationist community is the fact a major organization with strong creationists ties, in a month-long, multi-million dollar outreach, prominently featured four ID luminaries affiliated with the Discovery Institute.

Darwin’s Deadly Legacy

FORT LAUDERDALE, Aug. 18 /Christian Newswire/ — Author and Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy connects the dots between Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler in Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, a groundbreaking inquiry into Darwin’s chilling social impact. The new television documentary airs nationwide on August 26 and 27 on The Coral Ridge Hour. For station listings, go to www.coralridge.org/darwin.

What: New TV documentary, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy

When: August 26, 27, 2006

Where: Nationwide; details at www.coralridge.org/darwin

The program features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens.

The one-hour program features Ann Coulter, author of Godless; Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler; Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator; Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution; Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial; Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box; Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men, and Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project.

These are good developments. I welcome creationists going even farther and studying the works of Michael Denton, Frank Tipler, John Barrow, David Berlinski, John Angus Campbell, John Davison, Jeffrey Schwartz, Charles Townes, and more people than I can possibly list….

Creationists should view the theology-free science of ID as a science like any other (such as physics, chemistry, information science etc.). ID should be viewed as a theology-free ally, not a replacement for creationist beliefs. And with this in mind, I believe ID can find, through the creationist community, a welcome place where ambitious explorations of ID can be made in various fields of science, medicine, and biotechnology.

Salvador

PS
Incidentally Coral Ridge was the same organization which aired my interview in The Intelligent Design Controversy in Higher Education. If the main stream media refuses to cover these issues fairly, and if educational institutions impede the flow of information on these issues, then other avenues of getting ID into public awareness can and will be explored.

Comments
ID advancing science and technology would be the best way to defeat Darwinism.Chris Hyland
August 21, 2006
August
08
Aug
21
21
2006
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Tribune7 writes, "What has always puzzeled me is why theistic evolutionists react so violently towards ID." In general, the ID movement had denounced theistic evolution (TE) as a sellout to naturalism. Given the ID has rejected TE, it is not a surprise that theistic evolutionists have reacted negatively to ID. In Kansas, both at the May 2005 science hearings and recently at the Intelligent Design network's DDD6 tour, it has been clear that the supporters of ID believe in special supernatural creation for some aspects of life, while the TE's believe God's works are manifested throughh natural causation. This is the key point, I believe, that separates most ID advocates from the TE's.Jack Krebs
August 21, 2006
August
08
Aug
21
21
2006
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
As a young earth creationist that has been investigating ID quite avidly for the last few weeks, I can say creationists would do well to familiarise themselves with ID. Many of the ID arguments are much the same as ones put forward by creationists, but more formalised. So thank you for doing the hard work for us. :) As for reaching social circles other than creationist ones... I do happen to work for a small media company based in South Australia by the name of Bushvision (see www.bushvision.com) that is looking for all the content it can get. If you have any videos that you would like us to put to air send me an email at stephen@bushvision.com .StephenA
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
Jerry, Thank you for your comments.
The Darwinists rule the popular press and have successfully conflated ID with creationism.
Therefore, imho, it must be through routes outside of Mainstream Legacy Media and Public Education that ID is spread. Naturalistic evolution is a minority position in the most technologically advacned society in history. It was through channels outside Mainstream Media and Public Education that naturalistic evolution has been kept in a minority position. It is through these same channels ID has its best chance of getting a fair hearing and being understood accurately. ID is not just about persuading people Darwinian evolution is wrong, ID is about understanding design and purpose in nature. If nature is fundmentally designed, science cannot understand nature properly through an anti-teleogical framework, and thus anti-teleological thinking will hinder the advance of science and technology. Thus even if a child has decided Darwinism is wrong, he still would greatly benefit being exposed to ID literature. We have been so conditioned (for various reasons) into thinking ID is about destroying Darwinian evolution and persuading people Darwinism is wrong. What is forgotten is that ID should still be taught to people who already reject Darwinism. ID should be taught even to full blooded creationists who've gone to week- long creation conferences. Thus I'm not as much worried about getting more people to reject naturalistic evolution, as many already reject it already and a good number are ambivalent to it. I'm more worried about getting potentially ID-friendly people familiarized with sound origins science. Even the ambivalence of the sort you point out here is not bad:
I just don’t run into anyone who thinks about it. Many are aware of the controversy but really don’t care or know too much.
What is important is that ID gets into the hands of those who do care and into the hands of those who find the issue relevant to themselves. There may be creationist Physicicians, Vetrinarians, Biotechnologists, who might make a breakthrough with ID. For them there is no controversy already, Darwinism is dead as far as they are concerned. But they still need exposre to ID so that they can further research into ID. They may be well positioned to assist in using ID for breakthroughs in their field. Because lives and profits and well-being of people are involved, not just one's persuasion about origins, there may be more incentive to study ID. I'll have to write more on this topic later.... In contrast, regarding the average person, they do not need to spend a lot of time thinking about ID. Ideally, they can be exposed to it briefly and set on the right path for the rest of their life. Many who are very much pro-ID today can point to that first brief exposure to ID which opened their eyes for the rest of their lives. Names that come to mind: Kenyon reading A.E. Wilder-Smith's Cybernetic Approach to Evolution Johnson reading Denton Behe reading Denton An important first step is getting Unlocking the Mystery of Life viewed by every Christian home-schooled child, every kid in Christian private schools, and then by large number of sunday schools around the country. Small amounts of ID exposure combined with pointing the young to the appropriate resources is usually sufficient to immunize the young against Darwinian brainwashing (unless of course the kids reject their values for reasons unrealted to scientific evidence....) But again, the goal is not just about getting people to reject Darwinism, it is getting them to consider the theology-free science of ID. If every creationist in the world can be exposed to ID, that would a major accomplishment to the furtherance of ID and of science. I may not live to see the day when ID's greatest contribution to society will be the medical and technological advances it brings and the defeat of Darwinism will be only one of IDs anecdotal accomplishments. Recall what happened to epicycles and phlogiston theory? These mistaken theories barely enter the awareness of modern man in light of the theories which supplanted them (namely celestial mechanics and atomic chemistry.) It is for this reason that the theology-free science of ID must ascend within creationist circles, and for that matter all circles, not so much to defeat Darwinism (as Darwinism is already doing a good job of self-destructing), but rather to ultimately advance science and technology.scordova
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
What has always puzzeled me is why theistic evolutionists react so violently towards ID. And actually the conclusion that I have reached is that they put fashion ahead of belief.tribune7
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
Salvador, I think you overestimate the immediate potential for intelligent design. I just don't run into anyone who thinks about it. Many are aware of the controversy but really don't care or know too much. We are odd balls here because most of us are well informed on the topic but most people out there think ID is some sort of oddity and religion based. The Darwinists rule the popular press and have successfully conflated ID with creationism. It would have to take something big to change people's knowledge or affect the educational hurdles, like a well-argued case before the Supreme Court. There are currently five Catholic Supreme Court justices who might be sympathetic especially if the Catholic Church took a stance on it as an acceptable position. Though I am not sure about Kennedy. It would be interesting if the Catholic Church did take some sort of position and the ACLU asked all the Catholic justices to recuse themselves. Who would they appeal to?jerry
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
Sal, I've watched some of the clips from the Coral Ridge Hour from the past month and Ken Ham most assuredly appears in at least one of them. Kennedy also still continues to use many young-Earth creationist arguments in his radio broadcasts that fit right in with Answers In Genesis and the ICR. From what I have heard over the past few weeks, D. James Kennedy has not moved one inch from his staunch young-Earth creationism position. The lack an appearance from Dr. Dino in the broadcasts is probably more to do with his current legal problems than any backing away from Hovind's claims. So af least as far as Kennedy is concerned, your hope that there is an "ascendancy of the theology-free science of ID within creationism" is most likely unfounded. If you want to impress people with the scientific merits of either ID or creationism, you would be better off steering them elsewhere.austinite
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
SCheesman, My apologies, I can only write regarding the community I have familiarity with, and there are too many countries for me to keep track of. If you have statistics of your country, you are invited to provide them here. The readers would welcome getting more numbers than the limited ones I provided. Incidentally, on Canadian, Ian Taylor will be featured in this grand special by Kennedy. Salvadorscordova
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Sal: "Which is roughly 210 million people." Sal, might I gently remind you of the international nature of this debate and that one of the co-principals does not live in the United States? As a Canadian, allow me to apologise for possible embarrassment this comment may bring (Canadians are well known for apologising for everything).SCheesman
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Though I hate the term "theology free" b/c it can be interpreted in many ways (like Can Jesus really be "theology free") ID has def. helped out Creationists b/c of the great research that have come from this movement - regardless of their religious background - I know I've learned a tremendous amount. The paradigm shift is slow to come, but nonetheless its coming. I'm just longing for the day when ppl say the word Physics they think relativity, Chemistry they think quantum mechanics, and *Biology - Design. ID is essentially just biology. [As a side note, its funny how in all my science classes all the prof. have to use the words "designed" or "created." They really can't escape it]jpark320
August 20, 2006
August
08
Aug
20
20
2006
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply