In my last blog post I raised the question of the relationship between Theosophy and Intelligent Design.
My first college level philosophy class was a philosophy of biology class intended for post-grad science students. At that time, Creationism was vying for equal time in the classroom with Darwinism and the contrast between the two was so obvious as to make the former’s claim to ‘science’ laughable. The situation made a convenient, if charged, test case for defining the parameters of science. Creationism’s science was actually natural theology, or the study of god’s work in the natural world, with the Judeo-Christian God of revealed scripture as an unquestioned premise.
Intelligent Design, or ID, emerged into public consciousness several years later, initially as an attempt to replace the term ‘creationism’, which the Supreme Court declared in 1987 could not be taught as science in public schools. It was simply a substitute term, not a substantive difference in theory.
As such, when I raised the question of ID, I was fully prepared to find creationism with a mere patina of psuedo-scientific jargon. What I have found instead makes explicit claims of difference from creationism and aspires to nothing short of a scientific revolution.
The first difficulty in exploring the relationship of Theosophy to Intelligent Design is that there isn’t yet consensus as to the exact position of the latter. While Wikipedia states that advocates of ID “seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations”, the Intelligent Design Network defines its goal as “institutional objectivity in origins science”. I’ve heard some, anecdotally, invoke Intelligent Design as any model of evolution that isn’t strictly Darwinian, while some ID is explicitly Christian.
The IDEA (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness) Center states that: “Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.”
The Intelligent Design Network says “in a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.”
The Discovery Institute, a think tank supporting research into ID states:
“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.”
What emerges from all of this is that Intelligent Design is in its emergent phase. What may have begun as a retreat from the legal condemnation of creationism as science may end up as a new phase of science, one that will even be at odds with creationism should it hold to its own claims.
One of the dominant figures of this newer, purportedly scientific wave of Intelligent Design advocacy is William Dembski, whose The Design Revolution I am currently reading. I’m finding Dembski challenging in two respects. On the one hand, his thinking has forced me to rethink Intelligent Design, not as disguised Creationism, but rather as a possibly viable, and even revolutionary, approach to science. On the other, there are serious gaps in the thinking, and arguments so nonsensical that I have to fight to take the rest seriously.
In my next few posts, I’d like to take a closer look at Intelligent Design, as articulated by Dembski, and discuss what does and does not stand up to scrutiny and the consequences for science and theology either way. From this, we can then look at Theosophy to better identify its position in relationship to all three.
Hi Chris – FYI, Found this article via a search on Twitter to see who was involved in this debate. You kept my attention here because your post is not full of strawmen and ad hominem, and for that I’ll be back. I particularly appreciate that you took the time to reproduce the exact wording provided by these organizations explaining what they are all about. Sites like Pharyngula etc do not offer that civility and therefore are not frequented by me.
I am glad you are exploring this because I too started out with the audio version of the Design Revolution, and am now wrapping up The Design of Life as well as Edge of Evolution by Behe.
I am a strong proponent of ID, and My own quest taught me right away that I really needed to bone up on what Darwinian Evolution really teaches in order to critically think about it (the same was true for ID). I discovered that the more I learned and the more I listened to Darwinists, the more I realized that they too were functioning from non-empirical metaphysical explanations for things.
I also realized that some very famous Darwinists (ex: Lewontin) were intellectually honest enough to admit that they were predisposed to methodological naturalism, and therefore, allowing bias to pre-determine their conclusions regardless of data.
Last – What is remarkable to me about ID is that its “tent” can house evangelical creationists (both old and young earth), SETI researchers, Directed Panspermia (LGM), and yes, proponents of Common Descent (Behe). The Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer believes the earth is 4.6 billion years old, but to listen to Eugenie Scott and Barbara Forrest, you’d think everyone at D.I. were flat-earth snake charmers holding tent meetings.
Thanks for listening!
Thanks Steve! I think the tone of these posts reflect a simple truth: I don’t yet know what I think. I’ve learned to trust my own ability to critically engage an issue rather than simply trust authorities on either side. As you said, even excellent scientists such as Lewontin (whose works I really enjoy) have to admit intellectual biases.
One of the many things that attracted me to the Theosophical Society was the organization’s motto: There is no religion higher than truth. My goal here is to look for the truth in the debate around evolution to the best of my ability. Unfortunately, much of the debate hinges on math and science that is far beyond my ability to effectively discern.
I’ll deal a little further with the science, but my focus here will eventually switch to the wider concept of evolution and how it has been used by theorists like Hegel, Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, Sri Aurobindo and Jean Gebser.
I hope we keep you engaged, and please keep the comments coming!
Scientific proof of The Virgin Birth is taught in public schools: