Intelligent Design is a legitimate initiative aimed as bringing the concept of an original universe into the classroom. Its advocates are at pains to distance themselves from a theological posture, arguing, for the sake of scientific rigor and to ensure wide acceptance, that the concept of a personal God is by the way.
Most, if not all, ID proponents have a personal witness of God, but they need to legitimize their opposition to evolution, which is widely taught in most western schools. The fact that evolution in its purest form is more theoretical than empirical, is for most educators, as by the way.
The ID debate has to distance itself from a theological position else it will be labeled as theology in disguise. As such they rightfully refute a literal interpretation of Genesis, because the argument lacks substance ... and I agree with that. Thus, they describe intelligence in abstract terms, devoid of spiritual perspectives.
Okay, I get all that. I am also inclined to support what they are doing, because what is still a fledgling philosophy will eventually push through the normal scientific resistance lines to establish its own support base. After all, I have to agree that the universe has far more evidence of deliberate design than randomness, an angle that needs to inform classroom debates, less than get lost in vain philosophy.
Jan Smuts, one of the founding fathers of the league of nations, put it all quite elegantly when asked about his book, "Evolution and Holism". His reply to a woman who prematurely praised his evolutionary thinking, was, "yes, isn't it wonderful how God made little ears to hang our spectacles on".
Jan Smuts, one of the founding fathers of the league of nations, put it all quite elegantly when asked about his book, "Evolution and Holism". His reply to a woman who prematurely praised his evolutionary thinking, was, "yes, isn't it wonderful how God made little ears to hang our spectacles on".
All is fair in love and war when it comes to scientific argument. Nothing is sacred, per se, but it would be errant to assume that scientists are fundamentally irreverent. Many have made their peace with God as a person and have also moved beyond the creation debate. Dissenting views range through a full spectrum of isms. Even Einstein was a relatively benign skeptic, for he acknowledged a deliberately creative force. If ID persists through the scientific rigor of opposition, it will acquire stature and legtimacy.
Evolutionists and atheists have all significantly strengthened the case for creation. Thanks to such dissenting views, creationists resisted what would otherwise have darkened the minds of humanity. However, Intelligent Design has still distanced itself from Creationism, which I am not quite prepared to do.
Consequently, Intelligent Design has a potential flaw, for ignoring the motives of the designer will not account for the aesthetics of the resulting design, by which I refer to the spectrum of flowers, trees, birds, animals and other wonders. By implication, evolution would have naturally selected function over form, because that is all that is needed for survival, but the universe far exceeds mere functionality.
Evolutionary and design models are challenged by aesthetics, because that always points to a higher order and a creative mind that reflects both motive and feeling. By implication then, they potentially relegate the designer to the detached, unfeeling posture of a machine (which in itself would need a creator).
When we look at the red tones and sensual lines of a Ferrari, we acknowledge a designer but see much more than design. We see passion, feelings, emotions. I actually met the chief designer of Alfa Romeo and can safely say that love for his cars exceeded the love of women.
Accordingly, our attempts to counter evolution, risk painting us into a corner that will possess every attribute of God except the heart that moved Him to breathe His own life into us or to make us in His own image. And in doing that we would negate the fundamental raison détre of creation. I won't go deeper into that here, but I will state that my position is unambiguous. I may not be a literal creationist, but I will always be a theist.
(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net
No comments:
Post a Comment