Philosophy Science

Philosopher asks, what do you want to know about intelligent design?

Spread the love

Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), asks,

After much seeking, you finally reach the oracle. You’ve come equipped with a long list of questions, but when the Oracle sees you, she says: “Look, I’m busy, I only have time to answer one question. I know you’ve been thinking about intelligent design, and I’m glad you understand the doctrine now; Monton has given the right definition. I’ll give you two options. Do you want to know whether intelligent design in science, or do you want to know whether intelligent design is true?” (P. 75)


2 Replies to “Philosopher asks, what do you want to know about intelligent design?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    I would want to know whether intelligent design is science, because I don’t know what it means to say that intelligent design is true.

    Now, Prof. Monton may get the definition correct, but that doesn’t prevent him from writing:

    The way intelligent design proponents typically portray their activity is that they are looking for scientific evidence for the existence of a designer.

  2. 2
    bevets says:

    Is the conclusion that the universe was designed — and that the design extends deeply into life — science, philosophy, religion, or what? In a sense it hardly matters. By far the most important question is not what category we place it in, but whether a conclusion is true. A true philosophical or religious conclusion is no less true than a true scientific one. Although universities might divide their faculty and courses into academic categories, reality is not obliged to respect such boundaries. ~ Michael Behe

    Of course the argument form

    If X were true, it would be inconvenient for science; therefore, X is false

    is at best moderately compelling. We aren’t just given that the Lord has arranged the universe for the comfort and convenience of the National Academy of Science. To think otherwise is to be like the drunk who insisted on looking for his lost car keys under the streetlight, on the grounds that the light was better there. (In fact it would go the drunk one better: it would be to insist that because the keys would be hard to find in the dark, they must be under the light.) ~ Alvin Plantinga

Leave a Reply