I have notices for some time in ID-evolution debates (or evolution-ID debates, if you prefer), that while ID defenders stick with arguments based on empirical evidence, defenders of evolution are more often veering off into arguments about the nature of God: For example, “Why would God make an organ that..” I first noticed this theology problem with evolutionists claiming that ID theorists were just trying to sneak God back into science (the main reason why evolutionists try to push ID theory into a subheading under creationism). Early on, when ID theorists responded that ID does not specify who or what the “designer” is, Eugenia Scott’s quip was, “If it’s not God, then it’s someone with the same job description!” How does an atheist come off drawing conclusions about the job description or any other characteristic of God?
Now, as Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute points out, the evolutionists’ argument has digressed so far as to call ID “bad theology.” When asked why he thinks this is happening, he proposes that there are strategic reasons for atheistic evolutionists to build alliances with theists who have bought into evolution. “Religious people are falling for intelligent design,” and the majority of evolution’s outspoken critics are Christians (though not all). Jay Richards does a good job of pointing out that there line of reasoning is not reasoning at all. What business do atheists have telling Christians, or any other theists for that matter, what they should believe about the nature of God?
I kept waiting for another point to come out in this broadcast, but it didn’t. I guess one point per broadcast is best, but I found it frustrating.
That other point is not minor. It should be irrelevant what spurs one into investigation. What do the data say in relation to the hypotheses? The assumption by neglect is that belief trumps findings. Excuse me, but isn’t that supposed to be a hallmark difference between science and theology?
Why a person originally proposes a theory could be based on materialism, revelation, superstition, whatever. It’s irrelevant to the scientific method: Theory > refutable hypothesis > observation > findings consistent with hypothesis or no. Suppose I theorize, for whatever reason, that the earth rests on the back of a giant sea turtle that moves our planet around the solar system. I hypothesize that if this is true, then we should detect that the earth moves in relation to other planets. There is evidence of this, so that hypothesis can be submitted as evidence supportive of the theory. It is evidence, regardless of whether one thinks it is conclusive, and the scientific response is to pursue other hypotheses, whether one agrees with the theory or not.
I quickly follow this line of reasoning by acknowledging that there are many other hypotheses that could be proposed with observations from public data to refute the theory, for example, photographs of earth from space (no turtle). Notice that this refutation requires no theological arguments. Science needs no theological arguments to do good science, and the fact that evolutionists are gravitating to theological arguments to debunk ID is a strong evidence that they can no longer find strong scientific arguments to refute ID! The evidence for ID is building in science, and the evidence for ID is also building in the kinds of arguments that evolutionists are choosing.