Adrian, do not worry, I do not accept ID theory. I'm all for natural selection. However, since I have so little invested in Clarence-Darrow brand village atheism, I'm probably much more sympathetic to ID arguments than the usual TASPer. I want to point out that ID theorists are not creationists. They don't believe in a young earth or the seven days or whatever. They belive in shared ancestry and in evolution.

They are, however, supernaturalists. Of course, science is a materialist discipline and so their attempts to join the science country club are laughable. However, I think the debate can be instructive because it reminds us that science is only successful when its claims are limited. The ID people look foolish when they try to introduce ultimate questions into the discipline. So do the self-satisfied athiests on science faculties. Science does not pose or answer ultimate questions. By science we know the fittest survive. But how do we know that we should value survival? Only through religious means. I'm sure that we'd all laugh if Nature or Science published a headline: "Recent Studies Demonstrate That Life Has Meaning." The Vatican stands behind evolution as do all major American denominations aside from the Southern Baptists and Mormons, which are primarily regional entities, whose attitudes reflect the generally held views in their respective locales. The ideology of science is one of discovery, which values knowledge, but it can not sustain this fundamental value independent of the foundation provided by the religious humanism from which it sprang.

posted by Matthew Schmitz   [5:28 PM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML