Christian anarchist says there are better arguments against Intelligent Design. He says the argument has been around for a while, but its roots can be seen in St. Thomas of Aquinas. The argument is based on the idea that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end.
Christian anarchist says there are better arguments against Intelligent Design. He says the argument has been around for a while, but its roots can be seen in St. Thomas of Aquinas. The argument is based on the idea that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end.
Christian anarchist says there are better arguments against Intelligent Design. He says the argument has been around for a while, but its roots can be seen in St. Thomas of Aquinas. The argument is based on the idea that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end.
reading this as I attempt to state my case and make it clear. I am not here to prove any sort of theological, philosophical or scientific argument for Gods existence, but rather I am mainly addressing the Christians and other theists who hold to this classical evidential argument which has been around for a while known as the Intelligent Design argument. The reason why I take issue with it today is because when I see some people in
the academic field like Stephen C.
Meyer, Johnathan Wells and David Berlinski promoting this as a science, including some internet people with influence in the Christian world like TrueEmpiricism promoting this idea as science, then I see that the problem strikes when a Christian promotes this as science instead of what it actually is from its roots and origins. Just to be clear, I am not trying to attack Gods existence, but rather say there are better arguments than Intelligent Design. While some forms of the Intelligent Design argument had been around since Socrates, the really noticeable form can be seen from a Dominican friar and Roman Catholic priest by the name of St. Thomas of Aquinas. In Thomas of Aquinas written material
known as Summa Theologica,
Thomas gives his argument at the last paragraph of Question Two, Article Three of his section entitled The One God. In his fifth argument, he explains it like this: The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent
being exists by whom all natural
things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (1). In a short summary by Minnesota State University Moorhead philosophy professor Theodore Gracyk, it can be explained like this: 1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. 2. Most natural things lack knowledge. 3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being
exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (2). Now I personally think there are some good points, but this will not be convincing to others though and Thomas of Aquinas was only making really solid and good arguments that would be good for his time. Thomas made four other arguments that were very good during the science and philosophy of his own time. However, time has passed and the argument just doesnt hold anymore in my opinion. This type of argument eventually got another revival through William Paleys watchmaker analogy in his book, Natural Theology. In the very first page, he says: [S]uppose I
found a watch upon the ground, and it
should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground?] For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it (3). And since then, it has been simplified to a simple argument for
that because something is so complex
and wonderful, that this is the obvious proof and evidence of a creator deity. Now where do my objections of this start for Intelligent Design as a science? I would first off like to say that the faulty argument of if its uniquely complex, then it was made by a designer to be quite silly and just begging the question. This is similar to theologian Anselms argument for the existence of God that he proposed in his book Proslogion (Discourse for the Existence of God). The argument that he proposes is simply summarized as if God can exist as an idea in the head, then he can exist in real life as a deity. Anselms argument would learn to receive criticism by his peers, especially from other theologians like
himself. If you simply start with
something so basic as if its the main and only point, then you come to a problem in the road. If unique complexity is what it takes to be considered created, then the question that should be asked is who is the creator? People would like to know who this creator is and Intelligent Design needs to account for this. Also, is this creator of human beings another human itself? Is this creator a divine being? What if this creator is an alien from another planet? What if the creation is that of a program and the intelligent designer has created us in a computer program? This dives more into philosophy than science. I believe that Intelligent Design should simply remain as a philosophy and not as a scientifically academic field. It is
mainly a philosophical worldview
perspective for the religious who believe in the possibility and option for a creator. Now concerning Intelligent Design, it has developed a movement that is aimed to push it as a scientific theory. Not only is it deceptive, but it is also causing the Christian to compromise some of his/her own views. In Intelligent Design Versus Evolution, John G. West, an Intelligent Design Proponent, defines Intelligent Design as such: Design theory is a scientific inference based on empirical evidence, not religious texts (4). If you do some searching, youll find that John G. West has also written some Christian books as well, so its obvious he is a Christian. But in his quote, he is promoting something that
is not based on a religious text? So
either he is keeping his religious life separate from his science or he is just not taking his view for a creator from a biblical standpoint. I would prefer he keep his religious life separate from his secular life as a scientist, but concerning the latter, you would understand where that worries a Christian. It also seems to be nothing but an obsessions with trying to point out why Evolution is false. I noticed that in the same book, John G. West says the following concerning Intelligent Design and our education system: In reality, what most states are considering is not the teaching of design but teaching the weaknesses as well as the strengths of modern Darwinian theory (5). So that is it? At least with
the Darwinian Theory of Evolution,
which I disagree with for religious purposes, it can offer scientific advances in biology when it comes to things like medicine. With what Intelligent Design has shown to me, I see no reason for the theory to exist as a scientific endeavor if it only dabbles in the realm of theology and philosophy. I would much rather have this taught in a philosophy class as a branch of thought concerning the question of Gods Existence rather than seeing it promoted or seen as a form of science. So my solution to those who hold to and/or defend Intelligent Design is to consider that though it may be a terrible science and possibly not the best argument we have for the existence of God or a creator, we do
not have to simply just give up. We
can still hold to a belief in a creator deity and handle things in an age even when the Theory of Evolution has supposedly debunked the need for a creator. Somebody who was around during the time Darwins theory was being proposed as a fresh insight into the scientific community was Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, a well-respected theologian and was a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. In his essay, Calvins Doctrine of the Creation, he explains why he as a Calvinist was not only to see that there was a form of evolution in the creation process in mind, but that even the church WAY before Darwin held to a similar view that Warfield would. In his essay, he states: It
should scarcely be passed without
remark that Calvin's doctrine of creation is, if we have understood it aright, for all except the souls of men, an evolutionary one. The indigested mass, including the promise and potency of all that was yet to be, was called into being by the simple fiat of God. But all that has come into being since - except the souls of men alone has arisen as a modification of this original world-stuff by means of the interaction of its intrinsic forces. Not these forces apart from God, of course: Calvin is a high theist, that is, supernaturalist, in his ontology of the universe and in his conception of the whole movement of the universe. To him God is the prima causa omnium and that not merely in the sense that all things ultimately - in the world-
stuff - owe their existence to God; but
in the sense that all the modifications of the world-stuff have taken place under the directly upholding and governing hand of God, and find their account ultimately in His will (6). So here we do not have to compromise anything nor do we have to take anything out of the context of scripture. We just have to acknowledge and take into consideration that as somebody who believes in an Intelligent Designer, this is a designer so intelligent and so powerful that he could create in many ways and everything works out to the will that he ends up laying down in the end for his plan of creation. May God Bless this article and the person who is reading it. Amen.
Citations and Notes
1.) Summa Theologica: 1st Part, Question 2, Article 3 2.) Gracyk, Theodore. "Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove That God Exists -- The Arguments." Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove That God Exists -- The Arguments. Web. 18 May 2016. 3.) Paley, William. Natural Theology, Or, Evidences of the
Existence and Attributes of the
Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Albany: Printed for Daniel & Samuel Whiting, 1803. p. 1 4.) Gerdes, Louise I. Intelligent Design versus Evolution. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. p. 28 5.) Gerdes, Louise I. Intelligent Design versus Evolution. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. p. 29 6.) From The Princeton Theologial Review, xiii. 1915, pp. 190-255, continuing the series of