Slicer is indebted to JR Daniel Kirk for drawing attention to this useful clip:
Slicer agrees with the comment made by another viewer:
"The error of ID is that it undermines scientific inquiry by substituting philosophical/theological answers too quickly."
But it's even worse than that. As the clip highlights, Intelligent Design often pretends to be a scientific proof of design when it's nothing of the sort. Slicer holds to the notion of teleology (purpose) in the universe (and indeed in people's lives), but is quite happy to accept that this is a matter of how he chooses to read the available info, rather than claiming that the data unambiguously demonstrate that to be the case. Some readings of data are just plain wrong, but the position with the greatest integrity is to accept when the method being used/data do not resolve ambiguity.
Bona fide scientific enquiry has the ability to correct errors in theological thinking based on false assumptions or mistaken dogma in interpreting a text. Those who promote Christian dogma attribute a high value to divine revelation, they maintain that all truth emanates from God, and they champion integrity and honesty in all things. Yet those who maintain that the earth is a mere few thousand years old, and reject scientific results which they find unpalatable, seem to feel it is their place to deny God the scientific route as one means of his ongoing revelation and blessing. (They often seem quite happy to pocket the blessings tho!)
They compound this self-elevating role, appointing themselves as determinators of where God reveals his truth and where He doesn't, with self-deception. Having been careless with their own ethics, some then go further and wilfully continue to promote their ideas as if they were truth. (Others, of course, make the opposite mistake that scientific methodology is the only valid route to truth in all matters, and in their hubris reject anything which is undetectable/unmeasurable by scientific method). What is more, they are so noisy in promotion of their mistakes that they bring discredit on any doctrine of Creation - the term creationism is unfortunately close in sound and seems to have almost completely replaced the former in public discourse.
After the last post, referencing a dream of Martin Luther King, Slicer has a dream - a decent theology of design, rather than a half-baked designer theology...
Whilst claiming to have theological objection to scientific findings, they in fact are often unwittingly making the case for deism rather than theism - restricting God to lighting the blue touch paper and standing back - rather than his ongoing role in creation and new creation, and sustenance. They seem to only see God acting if He chooses to set aside the natural order and do something unexplainable by natural means. They restrict him to the supernatural, misguidedly (and perhaps unwittingly) attempting to gatekeep his very presence within the natural. Thus they actually end up with a theology of their own making undermining God even as Creator, since the very texts they abuse indicate that the natural world is both his 'handiwork' and the theatre in which He has chosen to work, to the point of incarnation and redemption.
What puzzles and sometimes infuriates Slicer is that many of those who cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears when it comes to human scientific understanding don't seem to exercise the same filtering principle when it comes to human economic understanding, models for business success, human legislative process, military proliferation, or gun ownership.
They often resort to arguments based upon "common sense" when it comes to these areas and the means by which they try to achieve other ambitions and aspirations. They may even use "common sense" in an attempt to justify behaviour which is at odds with the very scripture they claim to honour, in terms of looking after the weak and the marginalised, and living without putting their own interests ahead of others'. Now that's what Slicer calls designer theology - and it's over-rated and comes at an unacceptable price.
Posted by: |