User:Filll/IDandreligion

The theological problems of intelligent design
Natan Slifkin, in his work The Challenge of Creation, condemns the intelligent design community as presenting a theologically problematic perspective of God, and which, is thus, surreptitiously very dangerous to religion.

Slifkin criticizes intelligent design's advocacy of teaching their perspective in biology classes, wondering why no one claims that God's hand should be taught in other secular classes, such as history, physics or geology. He asserts that the intelligent design movement is inordinately concerned with portraying God as "in control" when it comes to things that cannot be easily explained by science, such as the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system, but that he is not in control in respect to things which can be explained by scientific theory, such as planetary motion and the formation of the world. There is a risk in undertaking such a project, of course, as the theistic evolutionists constantly remind us by referring to the need to avoid resorting to a "God of the gaps." If the naturalistic understanding of reality is truly correct and complete, then God will have to retreat out of the cosmos altogether. I do not think the risk is very great, but in any case I do think theists should meet it with a preemtive surrender. Slifkin challenges Johnson's statement that "God will have to retreat out of the cosmos," because he asserts that a "complete explanation of the celestial bodies by astronomy, or an explanation of the formation of the mountains by geology, or of rain via meteorology, does not paint God out of the picture, but instead means that He works through science," something that Johnson denies. Slifkin concluded by emphasizing that intelligent design is no friend of religion, in that it "denies the role of God in 99% of the universe...and implies that He was only able to engineer processes that would accomplish 99% of His objectives. Postulating the intelligent design of organisms means postulating the unintelligent design of natural law." This point is built on comments made by Kenneth Miller in his work, The Flagellum Unspun: [T]he struggles of the Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.


 * http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=19-05-028-f