Moore or Less To The Point

While I happen to like Russ Moore's writings very much, I do not like some of his philosophical convictions. On his blog (Moore To The Point) at the Henry Institute web site, one of his entries for today is about Darwinism and the Intelligent Design movement. Moore says:

I have long been concerned with what I call the "dark side" of Intelligent Design. I am supportive of ID as far as it goes, pointing out the intellectual incoherence of Darwinism. But, at the same time, ID, left by itself, proves too much. Without divine revelation, the "design" of nature is red in tooth and claw. Unless we point to an alternative story, one that shows us that death is ultimately unnatural, the result of a cosmic curse (Gen 3; 1 Cor 15), we will have the same result as that of natural theology: namely, those most attentive to nature will recoil from the Creator as, at best, inattentive, and, at worst, malevolent.

There are several things stated here to which I would like to call attention. First, I congratulate Moore on wanting to show that Darwinism is incoherent. However, I am left a little confused as to how the ID movement contributes to this at all. Surely the only way to show Darwinism to be incoherent is on an ad hominem basis. One must assume the premises of Darwinism and deduce a contradiction. Perhaps part of the ID movement does this, but it seems that the ID movement qua the ID movement adds little to this. Merely giving a different interpretation of the "facts" of science does not show Darwinism to be incoherent at all.

Second, Moore says that the ID movement proves too much. On the contrary, the ID movement does not prove anything. It seems the best argument that could be given for the ID movement is "If God created the universe, then we would see significant evidence of design. We do see significant evidence of design, therefore God created the universe." This is, of course, the fallacy of asserting the consequent. It seems that the ID crew would love to construct a modus ponens akin to "If there is significant evidence for design in the universe, then God created the universe. There is design. God did it." Or in predicate logic it might be stated (x)(Fx->Gx) where x, in our particular instance, is equal to the universe and F is "shows evidence of design" then G is "is created by God". However, I don't know any Darwinian who would accept this conditional.

That is, the falsity of a conditional is determined by the consequent (in this case, Gx). If this is false while the antecedent is true then the conditional is false. If they are both false, then it is true. The Darwinian has two options. They can deny that there is design in nature and then deny that God created the universe. In this case, the conditional asserted by the ID proponent is true, but pointless. There is no x to which this conditional actually applies. The Darwinian may also affirm the antecedent (i.e., that there is design, or apparent design, in nature) and deny the consequent and thus the conditional is false. Their elucidation of funcational explanation seems to "explain" the occurance of apparent design.

We must also give heed to Hume. What does nature prove? Does it prove too much or not enough? Hume said that if it be granted that nature tells us anything about the creator, then we cannot ascribe to the cause more than the effect requires. As a Christian I think that Hume is correct. If we look at nature, we could either postulate a powerful, but not omnipotent, good God or a powerful, but not omnipotent, demon.

Third, Moore seeks to bring in divine revelation only to "correct" what nature proves. If this is the case, then why appeal to nature at all? It is as if Moore says, "Look at the design in nature, it proves God!" And then when people start questioning what kind of design nature actually shows, he says, "Don't look at the design, look at the Bible!" Which one is it? Shall we draw conclusions from the supposed design in nature or not?

Fourth, this is an example of another evangelical who has made an issue to question particular conclusions of particular scientists instead of questioning the foundations of science itself. This seems to betray a lack of understanding of the issues currently and historically debated in epistemology and the philosophy of science. It pleased the Lord that man could not come to know him through the wisdom of the world; this means science--eye has not seen, nor has ear heard.

Contrary to reports published abroad by leading evangelicals, Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, is not on a rapid decline. The academy is still committed to it; in fact, scientific creationism or ID is routinely given as the paragon of pseudo-science. Let us not trust in the vagaries of scientific pontification; let us return to the Scriptures.