Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Think of atheists like the mafia and ID as cutting into their profits

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Intelligent design leads to forsaking atheism
By Jerry Bergman

Why did the court rule against teaching intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., case? Judge Jones’ ruling was summed up by one commentator as follows: Critical analysis of evolutionism leads to intelligent design, which leads to the Creator requirement. The Creator requirement leads to religion, which leads to God. The courts have consistently ruled that the state cannot hinder or aid religion – and that teaching intelligent design aids religion.

Of the many examples I know of people who left atheism and became theists because of intelligent design, I will cite only two.

Antony Flew, professor emeritus at Reading University, was a leading 20th-century intellectual and author of many books including “Atheistic Humanism.” Although as a youth Flew was a devoted Christian, during his teens he rejected Christianity because of his study of Darwinism. He concluded that evolution could fully account for the creation of all life – and that no need existed for a Creator who had been put out of work by science. Flew eventually became a leading defender of atheism for over half a century.

Flew kept reading and thinking about this topic, though, and eventually came back to the theism of his youth. His conversion was primarily because of his study of intelligent design. As he told The Associated Press, his views were now similar to the “American ‘Intelligent Design’ theorists who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.” Michael Behe’s and William Dembski’s books were especially influential. Flew added that an argument from design, “assures us that there is a God” and that DNA research has provided us with “a new and enormously powerful argument” for design. Flew stresses that the main reason for “believing in a First Cause God is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.” He states that his whole life has been guided by the principle of Socrates, “follow the evidence where it leads” and, in this case, it led him to theism.

The second is Harvard Medical School professor Dr. Timothy Johnson. Johnson is most well-known as an ABC News medical correspondent, and for his many documentaries. His new book on intelligent design titled “Finding God in the Questions,” a New York Times best-seller, both defends intelligent design and reviews his own spiritual journey beginning from his childhood religious beliefs to his acceptance of skepticism, then back to belief. He discusses in detail why, as a scientist, intelligent design was critical in his journey from agnosticism to belief.

Johnson graduated from high school as valedictorian and, after two years of college, decided to become a minister. His theology studies at the University of Chicago, instead of deepening his faith, caused him to lose it. In his words, “under the challenge of some very bright and skeptical teachers at the University of Chicago” he began to “doubt most everything” he had learned. This included the belief that the Bible was God’s word, that Jesus was God’s son, and that God rules the universe. No longer a believer, he graduated and was ordained but did not enter the ministry. He elected to study medicine, partly because of his seminary field placements in hospitals.

He came to believe in God only after many years of examining in detail the major questions that trouble many of us. He began by questioning the evolutionary belief that the universe is a product of only time, natural law, and chance. After extensively studying the scientific research, especially intelligent design, Johnson concluded that our inner and outer universes are not only far too vast and complex to be the result of natural forces but are constructed so as to force the conclusion that they were created by an intelligent designer. Johnson concluded the footprints are found everywhere, from the human conscience to our basic need to form the complex social relationships that shape our lives.

Johnson cites the major intelligent design literature, which he recommends highly. His journey parallels that of many people today and is why intelligent design has been a major means for many to convert from atheism to theism, and why courts rule teaching it is religious advocacy. The above are only two case histories involving conversion from atheism to theism because of intelligent design discussed in a book I edited that will be published this fall by Master Books.

Source: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/living/14682288.htm

Comments
To paraphrase Von Neumann: Sir, if you tell me exactly what passion and honesty are, I will build a machine that can be just that.Raevmo
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
"Of the many examples I know of people who left atheism and became theists because of intelligent design..." I can't claim to have left atheism in favor of theism (and, more specifically, mere Christianity) because of intelligent design theory. I give that credit to my then (12 years ago) five-year-old daughter, C.S. Lewis, and You Know Who. But once my intellect was freed from the blinders of purely materialistic preconceptions, I realized how vacuous and nihilistic those preconceptions were, and how contemporary scientific evidence contradicted those preconceptions at every turn.GilDodgen
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Ah, just before departing work I blathered, “It seems to me that there would be no science without two qualities that materialism must deny: passion and honesty.” ’Twas a mistake, should have said “… that materialism cannot explain”—my opinion, of course. One must never suggest that materialists can’t be passionate and/or honest—some of my best friends are such. Nevertheless in answer to Chris Hyland who asks, “Why must materialism deny passion and honesty?” I do think that materialists—if honest—must deny the reality of right and wrong—J. Budziszewski puts it well in his books. Also it’s hard to imagine a passionate machine, and so those who admit only to mechanism—if logical—have a hard time accounting for passion. Science isn’t some kind of unique procedure, rather it is old fashioned observation and reason and authority (the latter because human knowledge builds cumulatively and no one can prove everything to himself). Science was birthed in Europe not so much because of some unique insight into methodology but because enough folks passionately and honestly wanted to know. All cultures—indigenous, ecclesiastical, academic or otherwise—resist new understanding because it is ALWAYS destabilizing. Therefore the rise of science is one of the greatest anomalies of history. BK is right. ID is simply being honest when it concedes that making a design inference says nothing about whether the designer is “natural” or “supernatural”, in time or out of time, corporeal or incorporeal, animist or Judeo-Christian, or any other speculative consideration. Not, of course, that these are philosophical issues that cannot be turned into scientific theory. I believe it is unwise to demarcate areas that we cannot know, for how can one know so much as to know that he cannot know (forget who said something to this effect).Rude
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
So does anyone know what Flew’s current view is?
Fortunately Flew has not reached the conclusion that Darwinism is not science, or the pressure on him to recant would be immense.Mung
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Chris #9: passion and honesty belong to nonmaterialistic categories. If your worldview is materialistic, you cannot meaningfully speak of nonmaterialistic things -- they are nonexistent in that worldview.formlessandvoid
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
The design inference doesn't lead directly to a creator requirement. It leads to non-biological intelligence, but it isn't necessary that this intelligence be God.BK
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT

I have read Flew's book. Claims that he has become a theist are utter nonsense. Read the book, people. Dishonesty and ignorance does not do ID any favors.

Flew has embraced intelligent design but not supernatural designers or an afterlife. Definitely not a theist but on the other hand he's no longer an atheist. He seems to be right in line with me now. Better late than never I guess. I gave up atheism for intelligent design about 15 years ago when I was 30-something. -ds Fred Hudson
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Why must materialism deny passion and honesty?Chris Hyland
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
It seems to me that there would be no science without two qualities that materialism must deny: passion and honesty.Rude
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Leebowman: "The falsity of 2 & 3 falsify 4. Christianity is a subset of religion, which is a subset of a creation premise, which is a subset of design inference. How then is design synonymous with religion? It is not." I wholeheartedly agree. Mind if I restate: Though Christian is religion, not all religion is Christian. Though (some) religion has a creation premise, not all creation premises are religious. Though a creation premise is a design inferrence, not all design inferrences are a creation premise. Might I add: The big bang and strong anthropic principal can easily be viewed as a design inferrence. This design inferrence may be seen by religious people as supporting their religion. Some religious people who see the big bang and strong antropic principal as supporting their religion are Christian. Therefore, for the courts to be consistent, the courts must legislate that the big bang not be taught in schools.bFast
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Why did the court rule against teaching intelligent design in the Dover, Pa., case? Judge Jones' ruling was summed up by one commentator as follows: 1/ "Critical analysis of evolutionism leads to intelligent design … " If one sees the earmarks of design, and also sees the madness behind 'purposeful randomness', especially in that even if that is possible, the 'fact' of it being the dominant evolutionary principal over eons is untenable. 2/ " … which leads to the Creator requirement." Only by inference. Design is not necessarily creation. 3/ "The Creator requirement leads to religion, which leads to God." I can almost see Judge Jones nodding in agreement with the ACLU's lawyers. I'll state again what everyone here knows: Evidence of design is just that, and says nothing about who, when or why, nor does it infer a present day deity. 4/ "The courts have consistently ruled that the state cannot hinder or aid religion - and that teaching intelligent design aids religion." The falsity of 2 & 3 falsify 4. Christianity is a subset of religion, which is a subset of a creation premise, which is a subset of design inference. How then is design synonymous with religion? It is not.leebowman
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT

I've read a number of different accounts of Flew's purported conversion, and most seem to contradict each other.
As Doug notes, many athests have a stake in Flew and his earlier work. For that reason it seems clear that they are going to downplay the importance of things he has said recently. On the other hand, theists also have a stake in the matter. If Flew is really a theist of any sort, that lends a bit of extra credibility to our position.

So does anyone know what Flew's current view is?

LowenheimSkolem
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Mike@3 ID scientists have been more than clear in stating that, if you have a theistic worldview, ID is friendly to that. Steven Meyer said that him being a Christian made him more open to ID. However design theorists have been also clear in making a distinction between what the data reveals (ID) and with the implications. Darwinists might acuse ID of being Creationism, but that doesn't anul the fact that biological system reveal Intelligent Design. Adding to that, even if all Discovery Institute scientists were closet Creationists, that would not anul their scientific criticism to Darwinism. Having said that, I really see no problem in revealing the sucess of ID among atheists (now, ex-atheists). Mike said
Since detecting design in nature implies no supernatural whatsoever, what the hell is the point of postings like this?
Well, I believe that the point of the post was to show why Darwinists fear ID, and the logic behind Judge Jones' ruling. But that's just my take on that.Mats
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
*gasps* Bill, you have revealed our plan ahead of time! Seriously now, as it was said before, and by qualified people, the only reason Darwinists reject ID is due to its clear implications. I think Bill said something like this in his Kansas presentation. The moment you start thinking about unevolved Intelligence, the Big *G* starts materializing and the Darwinian alarms start sounding. However, as Mike Behe said in his book, other centuries had their schocks, why not we?Mats
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
(sigh) These kinds of posts make me weary. Since detecting design in nature implies no supernatural whatsoever, what the hell is the point of postings like this? ID is not about religion or any particular supernatural god or gods, or any supernatural at all. Please resist the temptation to link the two. Those of us, like me, who are ID friendly and who are also agnostic about any sort of "supernatural" (whatever that might means) bristle at these sorts of posts. It only adds fuel to the charge that ID is merely repackaged creationism.mike1962
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
I read Flew's book, "God & Philosophy". Let me suggest that Flew's move to thiesm is tentative at best. I would not raise him up as a standard of ID's success in theising someone. On the other hand, Dr. Timothy Johnson's story sounds intriguing, and refreshing. (Though I have also heard of a few similar stories.) "Critical analysis of evolutionism leads to intelligent design, which leads to the Creator requirement. The Creator requirement leads to religion, which leads to God. The courts have consistently ruled that the state cannot hinder or aid religion – and that teaching intelligent design aids religion." One day the courts will discover the fondness that teleologists have with the big bang theory, and the strong antropic principal. At that point, the courts will be obligated to remove the big bang from all textbooks because it may lead some to discover the creator.bFast
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Would Flew be considered more of a deist? It's closer to theism than it is atheism. But I still think a better description would be that of deistic. I remember when that story 1st broke. Over at IIDB people were scurrying around to find justifications for Flew's 'switch'. Then there was one article that contained, "but rest assured, he still doesn't believe in an afterlife". Pretty pathetic. What's even more pathetic is that the author of the article that stated that claim also tried to rationalize away Flew's conversion along the lines of, 'when a person gets to the end of their life (Flew being advanced in age) they start to hope dearly that there is something more out there'. But this assesment contradicts when the author noted that Flew 'still doesn't believe in an afterlife'. Pathetic indeed.Doug
May 30, 2006
May
05
May
30
30
2006
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply