Intelligent Thoughts on Intelligent Design

Editor's Introduction

Upon reading this post, you might ask, "what does this have to do with Reformed Baptist faith or practice?" Reformed Christianity, on the whole, has usually recognized the need for thoughtful, intelligent, and faithful interaction with the culture around us (not adaption, not accommodation, but interaction). The following, written as a letter to the editor for the Washington Post by Walter J. Chantry, editor of the Banner of Truth Magazine, does just that. This is a clear, well-argued, and thought-provoking piece that interacts with the current debate on Intelligent Design from the perspective of the philosophy of science (which, is a perspective often ignored by evangelicals, to their own peril). The careful reader, however, will notice something more: namely, Reformed theology and anthropology at work. Although he does not put the matter in precisely these terms, by decrying lawyers and school-boards for crying "religion, religion!" against this particular theory of origins, Walt pinpoints the real reason Intelligent Design has sparked so much debate: fallen man's innate, but irrational, suppression of the truth of natural revelation in all unrighteousness and ungodliness (Rom 1:18ff.). Here is a helpful reminder, then, that all things are in fact disciplined by theology. Bad theology produces bad fruit; Reformed theology produces thoughtful interaction with the cultured despisers of the revealed truth of God. With that said, read on...

Cultural Dogmatism against Intelligent Design

Walter J. Chantry

Much of the media seems to be pleased that lawyers and judges in government courts may outlaw discussion of “intelligent design” in science classrooms. To others of us it is chilling that thought police have limited the discussion of ideas within schools.

If a decision were taken to teach in science classes only scientific methods of observation, experimentation and measurement, then there would be no place for discussion of “intelligent design”. However, there would be no place for discussion of any philosophy of science. Yet the philosophy of science, which does not arise from observation, experimentation and measurement, is of vital concern to science.

Science has always rested upon philosophical assumptions. Its set of philosophical assumptions changes through history. At the end of the 20th century most serious scientists had to read The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn’s work noted radical changes in the philosophy of science. In fact the most productive scientists have thought outside the accepted norms of the scientific philosophy of their day and consequently have advanced our civilization. Newton and Einstein come to mind as changing philosophical direction in science and thereby making science enormously more productive. It is to be expected that great scientists will amend present thinking in the philosophy of science to make future advances in science (but the courts have ruled that no new philosophical paradigms are to be admitted to the classrooms of science).

By its methodology (empirical or sensual investigation) science has limited itself to examining and discussing material reality. This is either a metaphysical assumption that all reality is material, or it is an a priori admission that science has no knowledge of non-material reality…if any such exists.

The idea of “creation” is that all material reality was brought into existence by an entirely non-material Being. In other words, all that is material had a spiritual first cause and has a continuing spiritual management. By its chosen methodology science is incapable of proving or disproving this viewpoint. Science refuses to discuss what most of humanity past and present considers to be by far the more important reality—the spiritual. Most men think themselves to be an amalgam of both material and spiritual reality. Science is not all. For example, there are fine arts.

Yet science, with its empirical and therefore necessarily material outlook, cannot keep itself from speculating about origins of the material universe. In doing this it jettisons its own principles of reporting only upon the empirically observed facts. No man was present at the beginning of the universe to make sensual observations.

Darwin has become the darling of a majority of scientists, and now, we suppose, of the lawyers as well. What Darwin gave us as a philosophy of science was a materialistic determinism. In chromosomes or DNA or genetic code or in some yet-to-be-discovered element of material there lies an inevitable upward (improving) force of development from within material itself. This is claimed although in a world of merely the material there is no ground for judging improvement! Strangely, this predestinarian view of physical development is not thought to be inbuilt or directed by a personal intelligence. It is the worst of all predestinarian views, because it presents the idea that there are inevitable, purely material impulses creating change that gains dominance by destruction of all competing forms.

When those who believed in such materialistic determinism employed “The survival of the fittest” politically and militarily in the last century, we had Bolshevism and Nazi Fascism. This was hardly a cultural advance. Ideas have consequences!

The media has recently focused on school board members who may have introduced the teaching of “intelligent design” for religious reasons. Horrors! Lawyers have cried, “Religion! Religion!”, and have frightened a nation. Religion does have a philosophy of “Intelligent design” wrapped into its view of creation. Religion teaches intelligent (spiritual, personal) design as opposed to impersonal, unfeeling predestinarian materialistic forces. Should there be a discussion of philosophy or merely the imposition of Darwin’s philosophy?

What is worse, from the point of view of the media, “intelligent design” did not originate with religiously motivated school board non-scientists. Many of our finest scientists do not share Darwin’s philosophy of science (one wonders if there is money to be made by lawyers in silencing them all). Some who began their scientific work assuming Darwin was correct have changed their minds as a result of science itself.

Only since the 1950’s have we had microscopes powerful enough to give us images of cells of the human body. Scientists using these microscopes have observed and described the complexity and marvel of the operations within one human cell. After recording their findings, some sat back and pondered their results. A number of them have concluded from their studies that the existence of a human cell does not fit into Darwin’s philosophy. They could not conceive of cells evolving through the “survival of the fittest” scheme. Nor could they imagine such development from impersonal materialistic determinism. Some scientists are thinking that a change of paradigm is needed in science itself. This did not have religious origins, but it might encourage religious opinions. However, there is the great “bugbear” again—religion! Run for your life!

Are students to be ordered not to read scientists who are suggesting a change in the philosophy of science? What would the courts have done to a theory of relativity before Einstein? I am afraid that the pontifical courts and the lawyers are all “emperors without clothes” on this one; they are for suppression of thought.