As some of you may know I have considerable sympathies for intelligent design both as a natural theology and as a counterbalance to the pervasive materialism in science. However, I do believe the choice of terms for this cultural phenomenon is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it automatically creates an image of teleology in nature that is theologically problematic. When people hear the words “intelligent design” they, of course, think of human designers. Human designers attempt to shape the world around us and its materials in ways that offer a function or an aesthetic. With this picture there comes the typical sense that design is coercive and manipulative. For human designers there is much truth in this. There is an “intervention” in natural stasis to produce something that is desired. After all designers do impose their will on unruly and “defenseless” matter. Designers do disrupt the state of affairs, tinker with designs, jump in a various points, make changes, and “force” the designs to do what they want. If this is the picture that comes to mind when the terms “intelligent design” are heard, it offers only one theological vision for teleology in nature. The vision it offers is that of classic theism. In a classic theism God is ontologically detached from the world and not affected by it. Accordingly this type of God would appear to jump from time to time into the ontologically distinct world and “violate” the order already present. God would be coercing the world according to God’s separate will. Judging from the many objections within the theological community to ID, this is the picture that emerges because of the terminology. (more…)

Agnostic, atheistic, and theistic (theistic evolution) Darwinists all claim that biotic reality has emerged due solely to chance and necessity. The question for them is, can chance and necessity beget agency? Since human beings are considered agents, this is an important cultural and moral question. If biotic reality only emerged through chance and necessity, the logical entailment is that all biotic processes are due to these as well. If this is the case why would a Darwinist call the human being an agent? They might just as well call any sort of process down to the most fundamental an agent. But if agency can mean anything, isn’t it really a meaningless term?

This is also an important issue for theology. All the major religions affirm some level of freedom in humans. This is what makes them agents. I believe this is also one of the reasons why the Catholic church has recently been forthcoming in its rejection of the Darwinian framework. Here’s a good summary of what’s going on. On the other hand the Episcopals seem to be aligning themselves with the Darwinian view. How will they deal with the issue of agency once the logical conclusions of their position are drawn out?

Ever since the dawn of the first cognitively gifted hominids, naturally theology was born. The first hominids attributed anthropomorphic qualities to animals, plants, and physical objects. This is called animism. Since then natural theology has maintained its prominence in religious thought. Natural theology claims that attributes of ultimate reality can be detected and characterized by observations of nature. Prominent religious thinkers like Aquinas and the more contemporary Karl Rahner affirm natural theology but claim that it must be supplemented by revelation. Whether or not that is the case, natural theology continues its prominence in theistic thought. What may have changed recently is the resolution of natural theology. In the past natural theology was a blunt instrument for exploring the divine. One can look at the beauty of the natural world and attribute beauty to God. One can also look at the workings of the world and extrapolate to the divine. While this is perfectly reasonable, it can offer only general impressions. ID, on the other hand, promises to look in more detail into, what Einstein wanted to understand, the divine mind. Of course Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God. He looked for a theory of everything that made reality predictable. While some physicists maintain that hope, even the great Stephen Hawking now feels it is a futile effort. (more…)

Intelligent design claims that the best explanation for the some of the features found in the cosmos and biotic reality is that they are the result of intelligent activity (i.e. a designer). This obviously begs the question about the designer. Many ID proponents view the question of the designer as a separate issue from design detection. Whether or not this is a fair assessment can be subtle. I certainly agree that detecting design, per se, does not itself entail identifying the designer of a particular religious tradition. However, in my view there is an undeniable reliance on analogy in design theory even if the analogy being drawn is from human intelligence. But analogies are not just being drawn on the ID side. Many of the theological arguments against ID come from analogies as well. (more…)

One has to admire attempts by religious adherents to allow discoveries in science to effect their theological positions. Often the opposite cannot be said for scientists even though religious sentiment is grounded in intuitions about reality, and science also relies on intuitions. When it comes to evolutionary theory many religious thinkers have also tried to embrace the science and find a theological consilience with it. This has led many adherents to reject young earth creationism and the literal interpretation of scripture with regard to origins and organic change. (more…)