Saturday, December 6, 2008

ID Concerns

I know this is "old news" but I still think it's interesting.

Apparently the scholars at Answers in Genesis share similar concerns as the scholars at Reasons To Believe regarding the Intelligent Design movement.

"The Intelligent Design Movement: Does the identity of the Creator really matter?" by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. (May 2, 2006)
[T]he major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.

In today's culture, many are attracted to the ID movement because they can decide for themselves who the creator is—a Great Spirit, Brahman, Allah, God, etc.
They also seem to have a second concern:
The current movement focuses more on what is designed, rather than who designed it. Thus, leaders in the movement do not have problems with accepting an old age for the earth or allowing evolution to play a vital role once the designer formed the basics of life.
This is interesting because many Christians don't pick up on the subtle endorsement of theistic evolution that is embedded within the ID movement. One of the pillars of the ID movement Michael Behe, for example, is self-described theistic evolutionist. In fact, his latest book explores the boundaries between design and evolution.

So then, the obvious question in my mind is, why is ID more readily accepted into many churches than Reasons To Believe even though RTB takes an explicitly creationist stance? Meanwhile, secular scientists frequently reject ID because they perceive it to be closet young-earth creationism. Ironic, huh?


Jenny said...

I've noticed, in general, that Christians espousing a specific view are more tolerant of and more willing to explore "commonalities" with non-Christians who disagree than of and with other Christians who disagree.

Anonymous said...

ID arouses lots of opposition because it is often used by YECs to "get the foot in the door" - e.g., the Dover school board members trying to get ID in the HS curriculum were YECs. I think ID lost in the Kitzmiller vs Dover because the the plaintiffs lawyers used the clever tactic of linking ID to YEC using the drafts of "Of Pandas and People." This allowed them to coin the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" and the judge bought it. It made for a great legal strategy, but "poisoning the well" is fallacious logically - just because one ID person (Kenyon) might have had YEC tendencies doesn't mean all do.

RTB has put out lots of useful information and I've bought a few of Ross and Rana's books myself. However, I think Christians don't wholeheartedly support the RTB model because it pushes day-age creationism. If RTB could divorce itself from day-age, it might have more success, but Ross would never allow that because it is so foundational to him.

BTW - have you checked out Martin and Vaughn's "Beyond Creation Science?" It's an interesting read. Ross gets cited in there several times.

Tim Helble