C
Contrabass101
Guest
Instead of hi-jacking the other thread in Apologetics main forum, I thought I’d share my thoughts here.
When it comes to the claims of the Intelligent Design Movement (those rightfully called so, not just the “new branding” of creationism
), I am generally indifferent and ignorant. However, I do find the overall focus of the movement a little off, as an argument or God’s existence.
Imagine four people walking in a garden. They come upon a beautiful classic statue.
The first, Bertrand, remarks that he finds it highly unlikely, that there is an artist behind this work.
The second, whose name shall here be Thomas, argues, that the existence of the marble itself needs a cause. There must be a creator, or first cause - matter is not self-explanatory, and must have come from somewhere. The existence of things is evidence for the existence of a Thing.
The third, whose name is Jack, is wonder-struck by the enormous beauty of the statue, the life and beauty of it. He too, argues, that there must be a Creator behind. So while Thomas argued from Reason, Jack argues from Beauty. And in my opinion, the arguments are quite compelling (although unbelief is always an option, the evidence is great enough for the believer.
The fourth, Michael, takes a different approach. He doesn’t ponder the great wonder of Existence, like Thomas, nor the mystery of Beauty, like Jack. Instead, he takes forth a looking glass, and starts searching the statue for visible signs of the use of tools. He concludes that he finds it impossible that this or that minor detail arose by chance. Bertrand disagrees strongly, pointing out that a stone that breaks must necessarily break in some way, but that it is impossible to predict beforehand which of the infinitely many ways it will actually break. Besides, the breaking of stones is a relatively new science, and we do not yet know all the factors at work.
What is the problem with this last approach, which is by far the one most popularly presented by Christians of today? First, it is much less compelling than the other two. To get around St. Thomas, you must deny the principle of sufficient reason - you may not believe in causality. To get around Jack, you must make beauty into something purely subjective and relative. That is, you must cease to believe in Beauty in any meaningful sense of the word.
But to get around Michael, you only have to reject his hypothesis and his conclusions. You may argue, truly of falsely, that Michael is biased, that he is ignorant, that he is speculating and a number of other things. But rejecting Michael is relatively easy, especially since he is a controversial figure, and has contributed little or nothing to the Scientific Community of the Study of Stones.
There is also the problem, that we do not know what tools the Creator actually used to create the statue. So we don’t know what to look for.
Yet, Creator-ists in an age which worships Scientific Method (Scientific Methodists
) as the highest good, and regards it’s results as the only means to arrive at certain knowledge, will naturally feel that the third argument must be the strongest because it “seems scientific”.
To me, this approach seems dubious at best, and in any case, it is by far the weakest of the three. But nonetheless the world has now been caught up in discussing what is “design”, what is “complex” and what may or may not have been caused by chance.
I wish that once in a while, everybody would step a few steps away, look at the statue in its entirety and see the Beauty and Reason of it all. Then they might start looking for an Artist rather than a Designer, and a Creator rather than an Engineer.
When it comes to the claims of the Intelligent Design Movement (those rightfully called so, not just the “new branding” of creationism
), I am generally indifferent and ignorant. However, I do find the overall focus of the movement a little off, as an argument or God’s existence.Imagine four people walking in a garden. They come upon a beautiful classic statue.
The first, Bertrand, remarks that he finds it highly unlikely, that there is an artist behind this work.
The second, whose name shall here be Thomas, argues, that the existence of the marble itself needs a cause. There must be a creator, or first cause - matter is not self-explanatory, and must have come from somewhere. The existence of things is evidence for the existence of a Thing.
The third, whose name is Jack, is wonder-struck by the enormous beauty of the statue, the life and beauty of it. He too, argues, that there must be a Creator behind. So while Thomas argued from Reason, Jack argues from Beauty. And in my opinion, the arguments are quite compelling (although unbelief is always an option, the evidence is great enough for the believer.
The fourth, Michael, takes a different approach. He doesn’t ponder the great wonder of Existence, like Thomas, nor the mystery of Beauty, like Jack. Instead, he takes forth a looking glass, and starts searching the statue for visible signs of the use of tools. He concludes that he finds it impossible that this or that minor detail arose by chance. Bertrand disagrees strongly, pointing out that a stone that breaks must necessarily break in some way, but that it is impossible to predict beforehand which of the infinitely many ways it will actually break. Besides, the breaking of stones is a relatively new science, and we do not yet know all the factors at work.
What is the problem with this last approach, which is by far the one most popularly presented by Christians of today? First, it is much less compelling than the other two. To get around St. Thomas, you must deny the principle of sufficient reason - you may not believe in causality. To get around Jack, you must make beauty into something purely subjective and relative. That is, you must cease to believe in Beauty in any meaningful sense of the word.
But to get around Michael, you only have to reject his hypothesis and his conclusions. You may argue, truly of falsely, that Michael is biased, that he is ignorant, that he is speculating and a number of other things. But rejecting Michael is relatively easy, especially since he is a controversial figure, and has contributed little or nothing to the Scientific Community of the Study of Stones.
There is also the problem, that we do not know what tools the Creator actually used to create the statue. So we don’t know what to look for.
Yet, Creator-ists in an age which worships Scientific Method (Scientific Methodists
) as the highest good, and regards it’s results as the only means to arrive at certain knowledge, will naturally feel that the third argument must be the strongest because it “seems scientific”.To me, this approach seems dubious at best, and in any case, it is by far the weakest of the three. But nonetheless the world has now been caught up in discussing what is “design”, what is “complex” and what may or may not have been caused by chance.
I wish that once in a while, everybody would step a few steps away, look at the statue in its entirety and see the Beauty and Reason of it all. Then they might start looking for an Artist rather than a Designer, and a Creator rather than an Engineer.
- CB