ID and the confusion of (a)theistic historicism…//Center for Science and Culture | Discovery Institute

The failure of Darwinism was long understood by a number of scientists and thinkers who could not prevent the crystallization of Darwinian dogma. The critique was picked up by the Intelligent Design group(s) and this, in turn, uncovered some interesting aspects of design. But the debate between atheists and (Christian) theists has hardened into a strange situation of deadlocked evolutionary swamp theory on both sides. The obsessive atheists like Dawkins have actually lost the debate with ID religionists, but after winning a battle or two the latter have lost the war.
The simple resolution is to leave aside god debates and focus on some way out of the issue as a naturalistic process: natural selection can’t be right and design seems to be a process of nature. That design is not yet really understood by scientists but that doesn’t justify extra-natural explanations.
I often think of the way a differential equation (so I recall reading somewhere) of a certain type can act from the future (?/) without being physically realizable in normal terms. Teleology is a natural gimmick but so far an orphan of the dominant physics which is not the deciding factor in biology.
That may be unclear still, but the answer to many questions often lurks in the realm of mathematics. In any case, there is no reason why design should not be a natural process. Kant and his school of teleomechanists said so during the Enlightenment period, but the baffling regression of Darwinism displaced this insightful approach that could have led to a robust biology.
Biologists have lead science into a Darwinian swamp and made that an official dogma. The design in nature gets the adjective ‘intelligent’ form the design Christians. Again nothing wrong there as long as you put quotes around the term, ‘intelligent’ design, because something can look intelligent but remain quite distinct from personhood, mind, or consciousness. The real issue is not this concept but the context in which it is used: biblical biologists are incurable theists who drift into the fantasy that ‘intelligent’ design is some kind of proof of the existence of god. It can’t work. The sad irony is that ‘intelligent’ design seems present in nature but that it can’s apply to Biblical history because that is not really history. And in fact we see the real problem: Christian scientists take the Old Testament on faith and think that Yahweh was the source of ‘intelligent’ design in world history. But the two genres don’t mix. The idea of ‘god’ in nature is taken on faith which means sadly that it drifts into delusion without reflection. The great irony is that ‘intelligent design would work a lot better if the scientists were, if not atheists, then at least operational atheists: god or no god the idea of god in nature doesn’t work. So intelligent design can work as a concept but not if you mix science with Old Testament mythology. But that is just what the design group does. The presence of design in nature is not evidence of god outside of nature. Not all theologies agree there, precisely the point of Hegel’s ‘pantheism’???
Marx and Hegel fought this issue, btw, and the result was the usual stalemate. Hegel was metaphysically extravagant and ‘geist’ was indeed intelligent design, but Marx thundered back with the equally dubious historical materialism. A simple passage of Kant might have warned all parties of the antinomies that lurk here and which are beyond resolution.
Meanwhile, it just might be true that nature has some kind of ‘intelligent’ design, but that has no theological implications in any Biblical context. The ID groups thus compete with Darwinists with their own fallacies.
Exploiting evolution’ for theistic or atheistic claims fails in both cases.
In fact, Marx reserved for socialists, his historicism aside, Hegel just might be right but we can’t prove it. Marx’s reductionism is hardly an answer to Hegel.
It stands to reason that a true biology will be something very different from physics, and that ‘evolution’ is not what we think.
In fact a look at the eonic effect can help to see in one and the same breath that history shows ‘intelligent’ design as long as we don’t mix that with Biblical theism.

We are the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. We support research, sponsor educational programs…

Source: Center for Science and Culture | Discovery Institute

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s