I found this discussion between Daniel Dennett, co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University, and Dr. John F. Haught, theologian and Senior Research Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, on the topic of intelligent design to be interesting.
Dennett takes issue with the preaching of the concept of intelligent design from the pulpit. Nothing surprising there. But his language strikes a rather ironic note methinks. While he lambastes pastors preaching “bad science” from the pulpit, he uses the language of bad religion to do it. Dennett frames his query in terms of immorality and forgiveness. Implicitly he acknowledges that his “darwinism” has many of the same attributes of religious doctrine.
Haught, for his part, rightfully asserts that the concept of “intelligent design” is not a mainstream Christian idea and that it seems unhelpful for the advocates of “darwinsim” to always be picking a fight with what amounts to a straw man. The real debate is a theological one and should not be confined to the fringes of Christian thought.
Now while intelligent design and ol’ fashioned creationism may be theologically weak, what is missing from this discussion (albeit a short one) is any mention of the deficiencies of “darwinism” from a theological and, dare I say, scientific point of view.
Further, as my own general rule, when a scientific theory acquires the doctrinally telling suffix of “ism,” there is more at work than simple science.
For sure, there is good science and there is bad science. When a “philosopher” such as Dennett seriously asks whether science is sinful, you can be sure we are not really talking about science anymore.
December 17, 2009 at 4:42 am
Is the beard, like, a required thing for Darwinists? If so, Dr. Dennett is doing a mighty fine job of looking the same as Charles Darwin.
December 17, 2009 at 6:47 am
If you define "intelligent design" as the discernible marks of God's creative act in his creation, and "creationism" as a historical interpretation of Genesis, how is that "theologically weak?" God, being God, could have created the world in any manner He so desired, including that described literally in Genesis, so the only question that remains is what does the evidence point to. What is theologically weak is trying to mash up Genesis and the neo-Darwinian synthesis–they don't play well together.
December 17, 2009 at 10:12 am
Genisis is written much like a poem with ideas
abcdedcba
also- its says the flood covered the "land" which seems reference to the area. As for the other sections, plants are made and flourish before the sun!
December 17, 2009 at 11:46 am
Re: abc…
Fascinating you should say that. Look at the location of the narrative; it's placed right around what is now the Black Sea, which had a deluge some 7600 years ago (5600 BC).
Here is the Entry on Wikipedia on it
But, out of the digression, it is solid philosophy from the time of the Plato and Aristotle that a single God is the creator of all things and that this knowledge is knowable from reason. The scholastics were especially keen on this as well.
OTOH, it is when God is dis-acknowledged by modern sophistry that all knowledge falls apart, beginning with Hume and Kant and continuing through Hegel.
December 17, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Re: abc
Regardless of whether you believe the Flood was global or local, it's hard to harmonize a local flood with Genesis. Ch. 7 goes to great length to emphasize the worldwide nature of the Deluge and the total annihilation of life outside the ark. From the Douay Rheims: "And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered. And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth…and all things wherein there is the breath of life died. And he destroyed all the substance that was on the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air: and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained and they that were with him in the ark. (Gen 7:19-24)
As to the order of creation, it's actually amazing to realize that Genesis states that light was created before the sun–that's a scientific concept that would be hard to reason to without instrumentation. Also, is it unreasonable to think that plants could have survived a day without the sun?
December 17, 2009 at 10:26 pm
"And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered. And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth…and all things wherein there is the breath of life died. And he destroyed all the substance that was on the earth, from man even to beast, and the creeping things and fowls of the air: and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noe only remained and they that were with him in the ark" (Gen 7:19-24).
Or…this could just be an example of standard, story-telling hyperbole. I mean, after all, this was a campfire story before it got written down. "And the waters covered the entire valley, such that only huts about 200 feet up on the hillside were spared" sounds kind of lame.
December 19, 2009 at 4:41 am
I think I understand what is wrong with creationism. But why does the Catholic Theologian think that intelligent design is bad science and and religion? I don't see intelligent design as anything close to creationism. Nor do I see anything problematic about it from the standpoint of Catholic faith or theology.
December 19, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Geoffrey Miller:
I understand that the flood account could be hyperbole, but by that logic, so could any of the miracles in the Bible, including the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. It would also imply that that the writer of Genesis intentionally exaggerated what he knew to be false for the sake of effect.
Msgr Pope:
What is wrong with creationism, if it is defined as a historical interpretation of Genesis? If the complaint is that it conflicts with science, so does every other miracle in the Bible. And the unbroken teaching of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church up until modern times was to interpret the first chapters of Genesis as true history. May I respectfully suggest that you visit the site of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation (kolbecenter.org) Its members include scientists, clerics & theologians who accept intelligent design, but also reject the standard old age/uniformitarian paradigm of Lyell & Hutton, the founders of modern geology, whose a prior commitment to naturalism required an old age of the earth to account for the geological features they saw. As Stephen Jay Gould points out in his book, Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle: "I shall seek to show that Hutton and Lyell, traditional discoverers of deep time in the British tradition, were motivated as much (or more) by such a vision about time as by superior knowledge of rocks in the field."
December 21, 2009 at 12:31 pm
"the deficiencies of 'darwinism' from a theological and, dare I say, scientific point of view."
Evolution is called "evolution", not "darwinism". Please try to get that right next time.
So according to you, a non-scientist who knows absolutely nothing about modern biology, the science of evolutionary biology has deficiencies, from a scientific point of view.
Really? Do you want to be more specific? Also, do you want to explain why you know more about biology than all the world's biologists?
The truth is evolution is a basic scientific fact, as basic as our planet's orbit around the sun. Your claim that evolution has deficiencies shows that either you are a pathological liar, or you're an uneducated moron.
So which is it? Are you a compulsive liar for Jeebus, or are you just plain stupid?
December 21, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Human Ape,
While I have no problem with the concept of evolution, it is a "theory" that as of yet does not explain a number of things and is not completely supported by the fossil record. This may change as scientists work to refine it and alter it in light of new evidence. The very fact that scientists continue to explore it and research and write papers is evidence of "deficiencies" is it not.
Let's put it another way. Do you think that there is an evolutionary biologist out there who would suggest that current evolutionary theory explains everything there is to know about biological evolution." I don't. They may be on the right track, but by their own admission they are not there yet.
"Darwinism" is the unreasonable and unscientific view that "evolutionary theory" explains everything and *must* be taken as gospel. This is the silly mind set that leads people to leave nasty and rude comments on the websites of people who point out the obvious.
December 23, 2009 at 11:05 pm
What strikes me is how utterly useless both these men are when it comes to philosophy.