Intelligent Design and the Contemporary Christian

14 Pages·2010·0.22 MB·English

Intelligent Design and the
Contemporary Christian
John Mark Reynolds
John Mark Reynolds is the founder A Modest Idea: many people are sincerely convinced that
and Director of the Torrey Honors Intelligent Causation design theory is not useful based on their
Institute and Professor of Philosophy at Are biological structures the product of understanding of philosophy of science
Biola University in La Mirada, California. intelligent agency or not? Theorists in the and the state of scientifi c evidence. They
He has written numerous scholarly “intelligent design movement” believe are opposed to the idea of intelligent
and popular articles, and he lectures there is sufficient evidence to answer design because they think it is wrong.
and blogs frequently on philosophy in the affi rmative. Amazingly, even the Sadly, unlike many minority positions
and cultural issues. Dr. Reynolds is the suggestion of this idea is enough to set in philosophy (one thinks of the idealism
author of Towards a Unifi ed Platonic off a “culture war” in many parts of the of Berkeley) where dissent is tolerated,
Human Psychology (University Press world. opposition to design is not confi ned to
of America, 2004) and has co-edited The notion that biological structures modest arguments against its usefulness
(with J. P. Moreland) Three Views on show evidence of intelligent design is as or plausibility, but comes with cultural
the Creation and Evolution Debate old as human thought. This idea was com- and professional sanctions and heated
(Zondervan, 1999). mon to religious theories about the origin rhetoric as any Internet investigation will
of life, but many non-religious thinkers quickly demonstrate. Why does the mere
also attributed biological structure to a mention of design infuriate so many sci-
designer. As we shall see, Plato defended entists and philosophers?
design arguments and until the time of First, many scientists and philosophers
Darwin such defenses were standard are committed to the worldview of natu-
in many biological works by eminent ralism. One sociological feature of that
scientists. view in modern times has been a disdain
The fi rst scientists were overwhelm- for theists and theistic arguments. Though
ingly believers in intelligent design in intelligent design does not necessitate
nature, a fact that nobody disputes. This a god, it is congenial to the possibility.
is not surprising given the appearance The very idea that theism might return
of the biological world. Even a critic of to respectability causes a fi erce reaction
design like Richard Dawkins must con- from fervent naturalists.
cede that the biological world appears Second, traditional religious scholars
designed. Given the intricacy of biological have suffered from “second class” status
structures, their frequent similarity in in the academy for some time. Religion
appearance to human built machines, and is not considered knowledge and some
the seeming improbability of their chance religious academicians have internalized
construction, the possibility of design is rules of discourse that do not allow them
diffi cult to dismiss. to argue from the basis of their religious
Intelligent design has a long and convictions. Many have developed theolo-
respectable history in science, but recently gies rejecting an active God who leaves
it has fallen on hard times. Of course, “fi nger prints” that can be detected by
64
scientists. Such a theological shift has intelligent design. Every effect needs an
allowed these scholars to operate in a adequate cause and some effects appear to
marginal position within the academy. justify an appeal to an intelligent cause.
Intelligent design ideas and the fierce This process of philosophical develop-
reaction to it from naturalists threaten ment culminated in the work of Plato and
that hard earned respectability. Aristotle. Plato in particular appealed
The larger problem is the inadequate directly to intelligent agency in his fi nal
understanding of the development of sci- work Laws. In X, he argues:
ence and Western culture held by many
Athenian: Quite true, Megillus and
working scientists (secular or religious).
Cleinias, but I am afraid that we
The history of ideas is often presented as have unconsciously lighted on a
strange doctrine.
a long process of eliminating religious
Cleinias: What doctrine do you
ideas from science. The myth taught is mean?
simple: as religious thinking declined, sci- Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in
the opinion of many.
ence developed. Science was born out of
Cle. I wish that you would speak
philosophy. Philosophy, the secular myth plainer.
claims, favored the elimination of reli- Ath. The doctrine that all things
do become, have become, and will
gious explanations in favor of “natural”
become, some by nature, some by
ones. People used to think the gods did art, and some by chance.
Cle. Is not that true?
things, but then they began to understand
Ath. Well, philosophers are probably
that gods were not needed. Darwin simply right; at any rate we may as well
fi nished the long process of getting rid follow in their track, and examine
what is the meaning of them and
of divine explanations begun by Thales,
their disciples.
Anaximander, and the other Pre-Socratic Cle. By all means.
philosophers. Ath. They say that the greatest
and fairest things are the work of
Instead, the move from Thales to Plato
nature and of chance, the lesser of
can best be understood as removing unin- art, which, receiving from nature
telligent agency (the Homeric gods) from the greater and primeval creations,
molds and fashions all those lesser
explanations. Zeus was too whimsical to
works which are generally termed
be part of any theory of the world. Heracli- artifi cial.
Cle. How is that?
tus and other pre-Socratics were attacking
Ath. I will explain my meaning still
a grossly inadequate theology that was more clearly. They say that fi re and
useless as a knowledge tradition. They did water, and earth and air, all exist
by nature and chance, and none of
not, for the most part, move to secularism,
them by art, and that as to the bodies
but to monotheism or pantheism. They which come next in order—earth,
substituted inadequate personal causal and sun, and moon, and stars—they
have been created by means of these
theories from Homer with better ones. For
absolutely inanimate existences.
example, Heraclitus fi ercely attacked the The elements are severally moved
Homeric idols, but substituted a “divine by chance and some inherent force
according to certain affi nities among
logos” as the organizing principle of the
them—of hot with cold, or of dry
cosmos. with moist, or of soft with hard, and
according to all the other accidental
Early philosophy began to defi ne what
admixtures of opposites which have
could be considered intelligent effects been formed by necessity. After
and when it was justifi ed to appeal to this fashion and in this manner the
whole heaven has been created, and
65
all that is in the heaven, as well as one of us of an “I” that appears to be
animals and all plants, and all the
irreducible to matter and energy sug-
seasons come from these elements,
not by the action of mind, as they gests that naturalism is inadequate as a
say, or of any God, or from art, but as theory of everything. I am surer that I
I was saying, by nature and chance
exist as “I,” than that the external world
only. Art sprang up afterwards and
out of these, mortal and of mortal exists. There seems to be no good reason
birth, and produced in play certain to explain the thing I cannot doubt (“I”)
images and very partial imitations
by something I can doubt (the world of
of the truth, having an affi nity to one
another, such as music and painting matter and energy).
create and their companion arts. There is no adequate naturalistic expla-
And there are other arts which have
nation for human agency, but science can
a serious purpose, and these co-
operate with nature, such, for exam- still proceed. Any science that deals with
ple, as medicine, and husbandry,
humans accepts human intelligence as a
and gymnastic. And they say that
politics cooperate with nature, but possible cause, a brute given. The same
in a less degree, and have more of general procedures could be used when
art; also that legislation is entirely a
looking at biological phenomena. Was
work of art, and is based on assump-
tions which are not true. this organism created or not? The scientist
Cle. How do you mean? need not know the nature of the creator to
Ath. In the first place, my dear
ask this question. Surely he knows what
friend, these people would say that
the Gods exist not by nature, but intelligent agency looks like from his own
by art, and by the laws of states,
personal experience! If the intervention
which are different in different
of a human-like intelligence is the best
places, according to the agreement
of those who make them; and that explanation for the existence of a biologi-
the honorable is one thing by nature
cal structure, then a biologist ought to be
and another thing by law, and that
the principles of justice have no able to entertain that possibility.
existence at all in nature, but that The advantage to this “open philoso-
mankind are always disputing
phy of scientifi c causation” is that it does
about them and altering them; and
that the alterations which are made not demand that a scientist fi nd intelligent
by art and by law have no basis in design. If design is not the best explana-
nature, but are of authority for the
tion or a better natural explanation is
moment and at the time at which
they are made. These, my friends, available, any scientist is free to propose
are the sayings of wise men, poets
such a solution. The present naturalistic
and prose writers, which fi nd a way
regime demands, indeed assumes that
into the minds of youth.
nothing in the cosmos will require an intel-
Instead of being the story of seculariza- ligent designer.
tion, the birth of philosophy could better One problem with language in this
be presented as the refi nement of a better debate is that “creation” is frequently
theology and natural philosophy. made to sound like a mere gap in the
Intelligent agency is not, after all, a explanation . . . creation is a miracle
miracle. Unless one assumes that human that only contributes mystery to science.
behavior is the product of purely natural A famous cartoon shows a standard
causes (such as brain chemistry), intel- scientifi c formula with the words “and
ligent human agency is something all then a miracle occurs” appearing in the
around. The mere existence within each middle of the explanation. This common
66
confl ation of “creation” with “miracle” ties (numbers) that cannot be reduced to
(where miracle is the mysterious and matter or energy. If metaphysics is not
unexplained) does not seem justified reducible to physics, then science is not all
based on our experience with identifying of knowledge. Science would be unable to
human artifacts. A scientist can sensibly explain human agency if something like
say, “This object shows signs of being cre- the human soul exists as an immaterial
ated by intelligence. It is an artifact.” This entity.
is not invoking a miracle. Naturalists should not demand that
There are many questions that can be everyone must limit themselves to natu-
asked when we know that a man has cre- ralism and then become offended when
ated a thing. Why did he create it? How non-naturalists (such as theists) do not
did he create it? What is it for? Knowing listen, but this is often what happens.
that a thing is a creation of an intelligent Having defi ned science as “applied natu-
being (whoever that being is) does not end ralism” and having limited acceptable
investigation—it guides it. causes to natural causes, the naturalist is
Often opponents of intelligent design pleased to discover the theories produced
act as if they already know that all of real- by such scientists support metaphysical
ity must be reduced to physics. But what naturalism.
if this is too simple a picture of reality? Defi ning terms is crucial to shaping
Surely it is possible that metaphysics has philosophical debates. Terms such as
an irreducible role to play in any full “the- “creation” or “design” have been hollowed
ory of everything.” Perhaps in areas such out by naturalists for some time. Charles
as human psychology, science comes to its Darwin desired to remove all non-natural
natural limits and metaphysics plays an “fi nal causes” from biology and dismissed
essential part in expanding knowledge. “creation” as a vacuous explanation. Dar-
If naturalists wish to say “intelligent win could not imagine design as anything
design” is by defi nition unscientifi c (since but fruitless terminology that explained
science is, on their view, limited to natural nothing. Picturing the word “creation”
causation), this is no real attack on intel- as a pious platitude was good Victorian
ligent design as an idea. Naturalism can- rhetoric and Darwin made strong use of
not explain everything, therefore science it. To cite but a few examples from Origin
cannot explain everything. Intelligent of the Species:
agency would be part of a different fi eld
He who believes in separate and
(philosophy?) and not science.
innumerable acts of creation will
The discipline label should be no deter- say, that in these cases it has pleased
the Creator to cause a being of one
rent to fi nding the truth. If the goal of
type to take the place of one of
human investigation is to fi nd the truth, another type; but this seems to me
and it is possible that biological entities only restating the fact in dignifi ed
language.
were created, then humans will develop a
discipline to discover that truth or expand Nothing can be more hopeless than
their defi nition of an old one. This is not to attempt to explain this similarity
of pattern in members of the same
surprising since naturalistic science is
class, by utility or by the doctrine of
blind to certain things. The very language fi nal causes. The hopelessness of the
attempt has been expressly admitted
of science and mathematics contains enti-
by Owen in his most interesting
67
work on the “Nature of Limbs.” On tions of such defi nitions. At think tanks
the ordinary view of the indepen-
like the Center for Science and Creation
dent creation of each being, we can
only say that so it is;—that it has so or in graduate programs in science and
pleased the Creator to construct each philosophy at Biola University, such work
animal and plant.
is on-going.
Although I am fully convinced
of the truth of the views given in The Idea of Design
this volume under the form of an
and Creationism
abstract, I by no means expect to
convince experienced naturalists Critics of the idea of design try to dis-
whose minds are stocked with a
miss it as a form of “creationism.” This is
multitude of facts all viewed, during
only possible because in popular usage
a long course of years, from a point
of view directly opposite to mine. the word “creation” refers to the handi-
It is so easy to hide our ignorance
work of a god. The broader convention is
under such expressions as the “plan
of creation,” “unity of design,” etc. still around, since the work of any intel-
ligent human agent can still be called his
Darwin prefers any natural theory creation. One can say that Joss Whedon
to any appeal to intelligent agency. This is the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer
makes sense if “creation” and “design” are without becoming a creationist!
defi ned as “ignorance of natural causes.” Intelligent design scientists observe the
There are good reasons to doubt this biological world and believe the evidence
defi nition. points to a “creator.” This is a “creator” in
First, if biological entities are the prod- the broad sense (“intelligent agent who
uct of intelligent design (“creations”) then makes things”) and not in the restricted
the search for unintelligent causation is sense of “the deity who makes things” The
futile. Design is not ignorance of natural broad sense is useful in any design theory
causes, but knowledge (based on observation) while the narrow sense is a term needed
of an intelligent cause. Is scientifi c observa- for a creationist explanation of things.
tion the search for truth or naturalistic To avoid popular confusion, some
answers? If naturalists assume such an design theorists avoid the words “cre-
answer must exist, then they are likely to ate” or “creator” and prefer “intelligent
fi nd clever answers, but not the truth. I fail agent” or some other term. However,
to see how a classifi cation system based on other design theorists continue to use the
ancestry (like those of Darwinists) is more words in the broader sense. Ill informed
robust as an explanation than a classifi - or hostile people can use public confusion
cation system based on design patterns. about word usage to confl ate intelligent
Only if natural accounts (such as descent) design theory with “creationism.” But
are always preferable to non-naturalistic what is a creationist? Creationists are
accounts (such as mathematical model- (generally) defending a particular religious
ing to fi nd body patterns) can one make theory about the identity and methods of
this claim. the creator. For example, I am a Christian
Second, modern design theorists like and a young-earth creationist. Based on
William Dembski and Stephen Meyer are my reading of the Bible, philosophical
attempting to provide robust defi nitions arguments, and some scientifi c evidence,
of design and then examine the implica- I believe that the earth is roughly ten
68
thousand years old, much of the fossil to the truth of a religion without itself
record should be explained by a global being religious. If ancient Israel did not
fl ood, and the phyla (at least) were created actually exist in the past, this would have
as we fi nd them today. This is a creationist serious ramifi cations for traditional Chris-
theory about the origin of the design in tians. Fortunately archeology discovers
the world. that Israel did exist in Palestine which is
Design theorists who are not creation- good news for the Christian. Does this
ists make much more restricted claims. mean archeology is a form of Christian
Biology cannot possibly yield such a rich apologetics? In the same way, the use-
theory of reality as young earth creation- fulness of design concepts to Christian
ism by itself. The design biologist can only theists does not make intelligent design
extrapolate to the existence of a designer religious!
(intelligent agent). This designer may or Concerns about getting this distinction
may not be the God of the young earth right must not produce an even worse
creationist. As a result of this distinction, error in Christians. Some Christians end
design theorists need not be creation- up treating religious knowledge as if it
ists. Design is not “weak creationism” is unfi t for public consumption! Just as
or “sophisticated creationism.” Design design theorists are free to be atheists, so
theory is the sort of supporting idea that some design advocates should be free to
must be true if creationism is true, but become creationists and free to pursue
design theory could still be true if every their studies using all their sources of
form of creationism was false. If aliens knowledge. Fundamentally, intelligent
from Vulcan seeded our planet with life design or the notion that intelligent
they designed, then a design hypothesis agency could have played a role in biol-
would be true, but all forms of creationism ogy, is compatible with theism, but is not
would be false. necessarily theistic.
There are good rhetorical and politi- Why are so many leading design theo-
cal reasons for critics of intelligent design rists Christians? Since there are millions
to associate it with creationism. Though of Christian theists in the United States
creationism is very popular in the gen- (over eighty percent), it is sensible to
eral population, it is very unpopular assume that most design theorists will
amongst intellectuals. Associating intel- be theists. One assumes that a huge per-
ligent design with “creationism” also centage of most activities in the United
makes it “religious.” In the United States, States contain overwhelming numbers of
courts cannot forbid legislation mandat- Christian theists!
ing merely foolish ideas in schools, but Creationism is a religious idea that
it can ban religious instruction from the utilizes some design theory. It claims to
classrooms. Calling intelligent design know the designer based on philosophical
“creationism” helps suppress discussion and theological grounds. Christians are
of design theories (or advocacy by indi- free to use all our knowledge to assert
vidual teachers) in government schools. that the creator of all life is the God of the
The modern intelligent design movement is Bible. To do this, we will have to develop
not religious, but it does have implications for a more fl exible philosophy of science than
religious people. An idea can be important that given to us by our culture.
69
Christians and Creationism: A New with the freedom a different philosophy
neo-Platonic Philosophy of Science of science might allow. Plato was the fi rst
In his dialogue Timaeus Plato says, great creationist, if one means by that term
a thinker who accepts that the universe
If we can furnish accounts no less
began with a creator.
likely than any other we must be
content, remembering that I who It is easy to derive some important
speak and you my judges are only
principles for a creationist philosophy of
human, and consequently it is fi tting
that we should, in these matters, science founded in Platonism. Creation-
accept the likely story and look for ists should take as their goal the sort
nothing further.
of “likely account” of the origins of the
world that Plato places in the mouth of the
Here is the start for a solution to endless
wise Timaeus. The freedom that young
debates of the roles of “religion” and “sci-
earth creationism can potentially give
ence.” One should read Plato for his own
the philosopher of science is an important
sake, not just to proof text him for answers
reason for my embracing young earth cre-
to contemporary problems. However, it is
ationism. Traditional science is locked into
appropriate after reading Plato and trying
an established Darwinian view that does
to understand him in his own context, to
not allow for such freedom of thought.
see if his ideas can be helpful in solving
Oddly, creationists have, by and large,
modern debates. I believe Plato can help
adopted methodological naturalism while
reframe the questions in religion and
rejecting philosophic naturalism. No cre-
science discussions in the conservative
ationist believes that “nature is all there
Christian community.
is, was, or will be.” But too often, he acts
Sadly, Christians have not benefi ted
as if naturalism were true in his research.
from this friendly philosophy of science.
He will not allow a “miracle” or consider
Creationists have not spent much time
evidence for divine intervention any more
developing a philosophy of science. Those
than his secular peer. The diffi culty is that
creationists who have thought much about
methodological naturalism closes the door
the nature of reality have tended to be
to God’s detectable action in nature. Too
simple Baconians. Too often creationism
often it leads creationists to make fruitless
has been merely a hermeneutic in search
attempts to falsify some particular notion
of an apologetic. Too few creationists have
that naturalists currently maintain, using
given themselves the intellectual freedom
naturalistic assumptions, while failing to
to examine their own point of view criti-
develop their own model of the world.
cally. Ironically many creationists have
Creationists forget that a fully naturalistic
more in common with David Hume than
fl ood model might be as destructive to
with such religious fi gures (and neo-Pla-
theism as Darwinism.
tonists) as A. E. Taylor or George Berkeley.
What is truth? Since Pilate asked that
This is not surprising in a movement
question of Truth Himself in the Gospels
dominated by scientists and pragmatic
men have puzzled to fi nd a resolution.
Americans. I believe such a blind com-
The full answer is beyond the scope of
mitment to certain naïve Enlightenment
this or any article. It is suffi cient for this
forms of realism is not benefi cial. At the
article to make a small distinction in the
very least, it prevents Christian scientists
way we normally use the term “truth.”
from exploring the world around them
70
The fi rst way is a term to describe what compelled to do so or by logical necessity,
Francis Schaeffer called, “True truth.” but for other less secure reasons. A theory
These are truths that are logically neces- may be adopted, for example, because it is
sary and I would include in this category the best answer available at present. Fully
mathematical concepts, logical relation- natural incompatible theories that both
ships, and facts about the past. The second fully explain the data are possible. If one
category of “truths” are things for which allows for a broader view of science, with
we have good reasons to justify our belief, supernatural explanations allowed in
but which might still be false. Confusion some manner in one’s meta-commitments,
between the two categories leads to prob- then the possibility of logically incompat-
lems, as we shall see. ible but working theories is even greater.
Scientists often sound as if they are Divinity is a powerful, indeed at times too
expounding some necessary truth about powerful, explanatory tool.
the cosmos. Plato would caution moderns This does not mean that some theories
that such truth is hard to fi nd. Platonism are not very secure. Many, like theories
suggests that stories are all one can tell about gravitation for example, are very
about the cosmos. It is simply a subject secure indeed. It is not my intention to
about which developing orthodoxy is suggest that one can discard very secure
impossible. theories at will or on a whim. Such theo-
Theories about gravitation are often ries are very important human artifacts
held to be descriptions of necessary rela- that should only be abandoned for good
tionships in this or any other universe. and suffi cient reasons. They may come
In the same manner, theologians often very close indeed to fully describing some
make the same sort of claims. Theo- necessary truth about the universe. But at
logical descriptions of the Universe, like the end of the day, unlike mathematical
Arminianism or Calvinism for example, relationships discovered by humans, sci-
often claim to be necessary because they entifi c theories are human artifacts after
are rooted in the unchanging nature of all. Mathematical relationships are neces-
God. The problem is that both sorts of sary relationships. No mathematician will
theories may be claiming too much, if this discover that 2+2 is not 4. On the other
is indeed their claim. As descriptions of hand, it may be hard to imagine certain
reality developed by human minds, they scientifi c theories receiving large scale
are always incomplete. Our knowledge modifi cations, but our experience with
of their truth is under-determined by the Newton and Einstein’s physics should
evidence. help us see that such modifi cations are
Scientists can never have all the facts possible, if unlikely.
about any matter. Scientists must, there- The same thing could be said about
fore, be somewhat skeptical about any theological systems. No matter how com-
idea in science. No theory, no matter how plete or how profound they might seem
secure, is beyond the reach of some theo- to be, theological systems are human
retical bit of new evidence. Every theory artifacts based on divine revelation. Is
is subject to modifi cation and so none fi ts there any theologian so bold as to claim a
our earlier defi nition of True truth. One complete and perfect systematic theology?
adopts these theories, not because one is All such theories are open to modifi ca-
71
tion or falsifi cation with the passing of a theoretical possibility, even within the
time. Once again, this is not to introduce Church. Theories about the physical world
some sort of cheap relativism. Certain will always be under-determined by the
formulations, like the “Apostle’s Creed,” evidence.
would seem to be very secure indeed. It is It will be claimed of course that to
unlikely that much modifi cation will ever dissent from a theory that was very well
be needed to such creeds. In some reli- established would require an alternate
gious traditions within Christianity, such theory to already be in place. This is not
creeds are, of course, felt to be part of the the case, however. Since theories always
Divine revelation or deposit of necessary carry the logical possibility of logically
truths. This only removes the problem to incompatible alternatives being devel-
another level, however. Such Christians oped, a person might seek out another
would still have some theological system explanation for a phenomenon because
based on the Creeds that would not be the current theory fails on some scientifi c
necessarily true. or metaphysical grounds for that person.
What does this imply? This means that A person could also seek a new scientifi c
in both science and theology it is logically theory for the sheer joy of developing
possible that two logically incompatible new theories. To deny the human joy of
theories may be developed that both (even seeing things from a new perspective
fully!) explain the evidence. This does not is to develop anti-intellectualism in the
mean that two such theories currently name of scientifi c orthodoxy. So long as
exist. In science, one is hard pressed the person deals fairly with the evidence
to think of any particular example. In and the rules of rational discourse, he
theology, any such example would be should be free to pursue other research
hopelessly controversial. However, the vantage points.
logical possibility of such theories exist- Yet in the case of human origins, it is
ing has profound implications for the clear that large numbers of people have
creationist. powerful and rational reasons to seek a
First, it means that naturalistic theories new scientifi c theory. The conservative
and theistic theories of origins will always Christian, for example, has a powerful
be adopted for reasons independent of and satisfying set of religious experi-
necessity. It will never be logically neces- ences to explain. He is perfectly rational
sary to be an evolutionist. Once again, to seek to preserve those experiences
this does not mean that it might not be if he can. Preserving those experiences
sensible to be an evolutionist and not a and the belief systems that support them
creationist given the state of the evidence at the cost of reason and honest dealings
or conversely that some theory of creation with the data would be to go too far.
might be preferable to some theory of Exploring openly and honestly for some
evolution. It might be that the only reason- theory of science in order to preserve his
able thing to do given the evidence as it functional and elegant epistemology is a
stands at present might be to choose some reasonable action. Why should a person
particular theory of origins over another, not value his metaphysical orthodoxy
but it is not ever a compulsion laid on a over a scientifi c one? If no scientifi c theory
rational soul. Rational dissent is always can be developed to account for his view,
72
then he should abandon that view in between two radically different cultures!
the end. Meanwhile, he should be free Both groups would benefi t from the cross-
to pursue his vision of science without fertilization.
harassment. If all sides of the origins debate admit
I am not saying that any old scientifi c that they are at best telling “likely stories,”
theory will do. There are many theories then they can, in humility, continue to
that are not possible. A Platonic philoso- use their metaphysical assumptions to
phy of science says developing incompat- spin new theories to explain the ever-
ible theories is possible, not that any given increasing amount of data collected in our
theory is possible. Creationism may be a universe. In fact, philosophy of science
dead end. I do not believe it is. In any case, is beginning to come to the conclusion
it is sensible to explore the intellectual that this is what they are doing whether
avenues opened by a creationist world they admit it or not. This has been the
view if for no other reason than that such great lesson taught to us by feminist
intellectual exploration is good for its own philosophers of science. Feminist phi-
sake. The “story” of Genesis is a powerful losophers and scientists have shown that
one that has had a great hold on the minds science is value laden and value driven.
of humans for many ages. To explore that Ideology does make a difference in how
view and to show that it cannot be made we interpret the data of the world. Each
to accord with the facts of the universe person, to use Quine-like language, has a
would be a great service to science, theol- web of belief. The individual is willing to
ogy, and philosophy. The careful creation- modify outer strands of that web in order
ist researcher stands, therefore, in the very to preserve the more central aspects of her
highest intellectual tradition. world view.
The second implication of these general What should be central to our view
concepts is the attitude that non-creation- of the world? To some rational men and
ists should adopt to those pursuing this, to women, the area very near the center
their minds, fruitless task. The naturalist touches on naturalistic explanations of the
or the theistic evolutionist should welcome cosmos. Any belief is altered to preserve
the creationist into their midst with joy. that view. This is a rational thing for that
Even if the creationist is chasing down the person to do if naturalism is a core com-
wrong track, if he is working carefully, his mitment. Assuming that a conservative
failure should be illuminating. Creationist Christian point of view is also rational, it
critiques of current theories and reformu- is equally sensible for a person to modify
lation of current data can only enable the their scientifi c theories (so long as they do
members of the academy to see that data so honestly) in order to preserve that pre-
in a new light. Imagine for example the cious set of commitments. In short, a natu-
opportunity for biologists to examine a ralist will prefer a less robust metaphysics
completely creationist biological classifi - that is being worked upon, if he gets a
cation scheme. Even if the creationist view fully naturalistic theory of everything. A
fails in the end, such a scheme would have conservative Christian theist will prefer
enabled the non-creationist to examine a less robust (at least in its early stages)
relationships from a new point of view. In scientifi c account of the world, if it pre-
some ways, it would simulate the contact serves his metaphysics. Neither is acting
73