The ID claim is that certain biological phenomena lie outside the ordinary course of nature. Aside from the fact that such a claim is, in practice, impossible to substantiate, it has the effect of pitting natural theology against science by asserting an incompetence of science. To be sure, there are questions that natural science is not competent to address, and too many scientists have lost all sense of the limitations of their disciplines, not to mention their own limitations. But the ID arguments effectively declare natural science incompetent even in what most would regard as its own proper sphere. Nothing could be better calculated to provoke the antagonism of the scientific community. This throwing down of the gauntlet to science explains not a little of the fervor of the scientific backlash against ID.Terwijl de ware godsdienst en de echte natuurwetenschap twee onderdelen van kennis zijn die elk hun eigen terrein hebben en elkaar enkel beconcurreren als ze ten onrechte op elkaars terrein willen komen. Iets wat de natuurwetenschap bewijst kan nooit tegen de ware godsdienst ingaan; maar de natuurwetenschap kan niet claimen dat ze de mens gelukkig kan maken (dat is het terrein van de religie). De natuurwetenschap verklaart (een deel van het) hoe; de godsdienst, het waarom en waartoe.
The older (and wiser) form of the design argument for the existence of God—one found implicitly in Scripture and in many early Christian writings—did not point to the naturally inexplicable or to effects outside the course of nature, but to nature itself and its ordinary operations—operations whose “power and working” were seen as reflecting the power and wisdom of God.
Whereas the advance of science continually strengthens the broader and more traditional version of the design argument, the ID movement’s version is hostage to every advance in biological science. Science must fail for ID to succeed. In the famous “explanatory filter” of William A. Dembski, one finds “design” by eliminating “law” and “chance” as explanations. This, in effect, makes it a zero-sum game between God and nature. What nature does and science can explain is crossed off the list, and what remains is the evidence for God. This conception of design plays right into the hands of atheists, whose caricature of religion has always been that it is a substitute for the scientific understanding of nature.
None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong. Nor is it to deny that the ID movement has been treated atrociously and that it has been lied about by many scientists. The question I am raising is whether this quixotic attempt by a small and lightly armed band to overthrow “Darwinism” and bring about a new scientific revolution has accomplished anything good. It has had no effect on scientific thought. Its main consequence has been to strengthen the general perception that science and religion are at war.
Waarschijnlijk legt niemand de kwestie beter uit dan good old kardinaal Newman (Idea of a University, rede 9, punten 3 t/m 5): "As to Physical Science, of course there can be no real collision between it and Catholicism..."
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten