#137 – Putting it all together

After a seven-episode deep-dive into Intelligent Design, we finally arrive at our better informed opinion of our position on this worldview.

We started this 7-part mini-series introducing the Intelligent Design proposal that many creationists hold, and also shared our position at the outset on it: at that time, we were not convinced, feeling like we should embrace it but still a bit skeptical, and not really knowing what to do. It took seven episodes — three in which we gave you, the non-expert, some conceptual foundations to follow the scientific arguments (what is Intelligent Design; how do genes work; how are proteins made), and then the interviews with two leading Intelligent Design proponents (Michael Behe; Jonathan McLatchie) and the counterarguments from three scientific experts (Nick Matzke; Matt Miller; Mark Pallen). We now feel ready to make a better informed opinion about the ID worldview.

In this episode, Scott and Luke pull the threads together, compare notes, and try to make sense of the differing arguments presented. Points that we covered include:

• the reasons why we decided to do this deep-dive into ID, despite the warning that listeners might not be too interested
• the leaders in this new wave of creationism (Michael Behe; Stephen Meyer; Jonathan McLatchie) are much more highly credentialed in relevant academic fields than those in the first wave (Duane Gish; Henry Morris; Ken Ham)
• the leading ID proponents and the scientific experts that we brought in told very different stories!? Non-experts listening to these two groups aren’t well-equipped to discern the differences, and to evaluate which side is bringing the better information or interpretation.
• both Luke and Scott went into this deep-dive willing to give ID a fair chance, but both found the perspective conveyed by the ID-advocates quite unconvincing (and their modus operandi annoying), and the perspective from the scientists to be not only convincing, but even exhilarating
• despite the protests of its advocates, ID still comes across as God-of-the-gaps thinking
• the talking strategy that ID advocates tend to use is:
  • selectively cherry-pick the scientific papers/studies they’ll consult or refer to when addressing any given issue;
  • use technical jargon which goes far above the heads of most of their listeners;
  • use glitzy, well-produced videos to mesmerize their audience into an absorptive state (just like watching TV at the end of a hard day);
  • misrepresent (or misunderstand?) the opposing or contradictory scientific evidence;
  • use a lot of hyperbole (e.g., genetic mutations cause “cataclysmic” failure of the organism).
• ID advocates love to bring up the “junk DNA” story as if they were the ones to set the scientific world straight on this point, but we explain why they have no more claim over this than secular scientists themselves
• Luke is annoyed when they tirelessly defend arguments that have been repeatedly debunked: this persistence borders on wilful ignorance …. or even deception?
• we wondered if the tendency towards ID thinking arises from nature (the human tendencies to perceive agency and to be awe-struck) or nurture (Sunday school upbringing; a culture that is increasingly skeptical and questions authorities; the internet encourages us to think we can be our own experts; a culture that replaces credentialed experts with celebrities, athletes, or anyone with a degree who will say what they want to hear)

We also took time to respond to some questions/comments from our listeners:

• Skyler: ID isn’t (and can’t be) a scientific theory;
• Edward: what’s the difference between ID and Theistic Evolution?
• Nathan: what’s the difference between ID and Biologos?
• Nick: what are the falsification criteria for ID? (the problem is, ID advocates hide behind “we don’t know the design constraints” to shut down the conversation, just like AiG use “were you there” to do the same thing);
• John: ID is making God look deceptive;
• Mi K.: too much God-of-the-gaps argument;
• David: ID adherents reject the consensus opinion of a majority of experts, and instead latch on to a minority opinion
• anonymous pro-ID person: they know at least one scientist out there studying the flagellum who is pro-ID (Luke wonders why that person is so unheard-from);
• Ian: was pleasantly surprised and pleased with our episode featuring three experts describing an emerging scientific consensus on the origin of the flagellum.

As always, tell us your thoughts on this topic …

To help grow this podcast, please like, share and post a rating/review at your favorite podcast catcher.

Subscribe here to get updates each time a new episode is posted, and find us on Twitter or Facebook.

Back to Recovering Evangelicals home-page and the podcast archive