Sjoerd L. Bonting on Evolution and Intelligent Design

December 23, 2005 in Science, Technology & Religion | 4 comments

From the recent essay Metanexus Institute - Evolution and Intelligent Design by Sjoerd L. Bonting:

The basic fallacy of the ID proponents is that they fail to distinguish between the questions that can and should be answered by science (how-questions) and by theology (why-questions). If scientists would have to conclude that certain complex systems cannot have originated by a traditional evolutionary scenario, then it is up to them to find out how they did originate without appealing to a transcendent cause. Theologians must ask themselves why the Creator made these systems develop, regardless of the exact mechanism by which they arose. In a dialogue between scientists and theologians it will then be possible to reach a deeper and comprehensive understanding of their respective findings.

Some interesting comments in his two-worlds approach (science = “how”, religion = “why”) on deficiencies in the ID approach.

4 comments

December 23, 2005 at 11:54 am

stu

stu’s avatar

thanks for this link. it’s exposed why i’ve been reticent to align myself with I.D. I was sympathetic at first, but after all the caffufle in the states about bringing it into the biology syllabus, i felt a strong internal reaction against it.
i agree with the idea that theology and science are partners, not adversaries; that evolution could well be part of God’s creation (it makes sense since it’s all around us in the observable universe); that we don’t need to find a God of the gaps; that the Bible stands on much firmer foundations than the literalists would ever want us to believe; that God is much more powerful and sustaining than we could ever believe; that in evolution God is still seen at work, as participating, as continually creating.
now i rant.
but thanks steve.

December 23, 2005 at 12:31 pm

Stephen

Stephen’s avatar

Hey Stu. When I skimmed through the essay I noted that it seemed to follow Stephen Jay Gould’s model of science-religion interaction (see his book “Rocks of Ages”). There he proposes what he calls Non-Overlapping Magesteria (NOMA), where in different areas of human life there are authorities. So science is the authority for facts, religion for values and others in things like the arts. And each can’t speak against the other. Of course, an area like bioethics becomes tricky then because values and facts need to be weighed together - and indeed each shapes the other.

Think I mentioned Gould’s book before. See http://www.greenflame.org/archives/2004/03/11/some_many_books_so_little_time.php

December 24, 2005 at 5:23 am

Tim

Tim’s avatar

I’m still (a) convinced that the approach that says “This evidence from the physics and biology seems to suggest design rather than chance.” is a possible approach to the facts of science. I don’t see though how it could be demonstrated or “proved”. But does that mean it should not be taught in schools? Is random chance provable? Yet this is taught… as if it were a consequence of evolutionary theory…

and therefore (b) puzzled by the fuss in the US, why should two competing theories about the significance of the facts be offered: “it” is all chance vs. someone planned “it” …

December 24, 2005 at 8:09 pm

Stephen

Stephen’s avatar

Hi Tim. I think I’ll post a reply as a separate blog post in the near future. My reservations about ID (though not about there being a Creator and Sustainer of the universe) are various and I’d need more space than a comments field to structure them.