In talking about the upcoming Ben Stein movie, John Derbyshire made a provocative comment yesterday about creationists, intelligent design, and the theory that intelligent design is a backhanded way of promoting creationism without playing the religion card:
[It's something] I've said before here, and repeated as politely as I could in panel discussions with creationists: they're not just wrong, they're shifty. In my opinion, they wandered off the straight and narrow when they started pushing this "intelligent design" stuff. My advice to them — frequently offered but, for reasons that are baffling to me, never taken up — is to drop the i-d b-s and go back to good old Biblical creationism. At least that's an honest point of view founded in Scripture. I understand why the move to i-d was made: to try to get out from under current church-state jurisprudence (not all of which I agree with). However, the constant strain of keeping a straight face while insisting that theirs is not — no way! absolutely not!! — a religious campaign, and talking about the mysterious-but-definitely-not-supernatural "Designer," has corrupted them irredeemably.
Let's ignore for the moment his claim that creationism is wrong. I'm interested in his accusation that some Christians are taking an inherently religious idea (creationism, in this case) and wrapping it up in non-religious clothes ("intelligent design") in order to "sneak" the idea into culture without setting off church-and-state worries, and to prevent a knee-jerk rejection of the idea just because it's religious.
I've heard this claim leveled against intelligent-design proponents before. I don't know if it's true in this case—I don't follow the creationism/intelligent design movement enough to know. But from time to time I have noticed instances where I think Christians do employ this tactic. One example is with the topics of abortion and pre-marital sex. Go to many Christian websites or books about abortion and you'll find a lot of arguments about why abortion is a dangerous procedure, can cause health complications in women, can lead to emotional problems for women, etc. These arguments are legitimate, but the real reason that Christians are worked up is not that they're concerned about the health risks of abortion—it's that they believe abortion is morally wrong and against God's will. They just don't dare phrase it like that.
I see something similar in the way a lot of Christians talk about premarital sex. They're against it, and have a load of good reasons why: it's unsafe, it can result in disease, it can produce children you're not ready for, it can be emotionally damaging—all good reasons, but lurking behind them is the real reason: God.
I'm curious what you think of all this. Let me try to boil it down to a few discussion questions:
- Do you agree with the charge that the intelligent design movement is "creationism in disguise"? Are there other issues where Christians are stealthily promoting Christian ideas, without labeling them as such?
- Is it dishonest to hide your religious motives when talking about controversial issues? Would it be more "honest" to just be upfront about your religious goals, or would that just needlessly sabotage your message?
What do you think?
(Via Patrick Appel at AndrewSullivan.com.)
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (28)
I know that's not a perfect example, but you actually see this issue out there today. There has been controversy recently about certain vaccines that drastically reduce the chance of contracting certain STDs. Some conservatives and Christians oppose this because (I think) they believe it removes one of the rationales behind telling kids not to have sex. Does that make sense? At a certain point, if you are relying on these rationales, you can be backed into a corner of having to admit that your real motive is religious in nature.
There are many psychological and psycho chemical changes that occur after someone has sex. The experience is chemically seared into the minds of those who do it. The Bible explains it as "becoming one flesh". Separating two people after they've had sex is like tearing a person in half.
The emotional baggage left behind is tremendous and damaging to future relationships.
This is something modern science can't change and if it does it begins removing the very purpose for sex in the first place. To bond two people together for life as a testimony of God's love for the church. Religious AND factual.
There is no more need to talk about the subject and then the person I'm trying to reach will go away with an understanding that I'm too hard headed to be able to spend time explaining what I believe and why. "Because God said so" is great between believers. It doesn't work when I'm trying to show someone God and what He stands for.
Lead by example, show God through love and through your life and the person will want to know what you have that makes you what you are. Then, they will be open to hear about God. The Holy Spirit works on them, we plant the seeds so that someone else can water them, and when they are ready God will give them the increase.
I do think Christians should be more upfront in their opinions and message. Is our goal just to end abortion, or to defeat evolution, or whatever? No, while those are worthy goals, primarily we ought to be desiring to win souls for Christ and further God's Kingdom. And that won't happen unless the Gospel is preached. By using medical evidence and scare tactics, you might talk someone out of supporting abortion, and that is a wonderful thing! But if you really love that person as we are supposed to, you don't just want to stop the abortion. You want to introduce them to Jesus. So I think Christians should take a both/and approach by telling people why these things are destructive, both on the immediate and on the spiritual level. This, of course, should be done with discernment as to the timing and wording, and always in love.
By keeping the Creationists bond to the the realm of the religious, evolutionists are free to run rampant with the "Look how more beneficial Science is than religion" gambit. Creationsist have an uphill battle ahead of them in order to mount a defense against such an attack.
Any discussion between evolution and creationism that does include religion throws up barriers and roadblocks for everyone involved. It is comparing apples and oranges -- it cannot be done. The only way any true dialogue can take place is on a level playing field. Either include the God/Anti-God aspects to both sides of the discussion or exclude them both.
Creationism is defined in multiple ways by different people. For some, any suggestion that nature has been influenced from outside the regularities of natural law, working on matter and energy, is creationism. I don't endorse that view, but I see it often. A far more useful definition is that creationism views nature as being the product of God's unmediated working, accomplished as described in Genesis 1 and 2; and that creationists generally look to Genesis as their primary guidepost for research into origins, rather than looking first to nature.
In addition to the mere definition, though, there is also the baggage carried by "scientific creationism," which has adherents among Christians but is universally sneered at by scientists elsewhere, who strongly object to starting with Scripture rather than with nature. The very term "creationism" is tarred by this connection. Putting it very bluntly, there are many evolutionists (Robert Pennock being at the forefront) who pin "creationism" on "Intelligent Design," creating a new term, "Intelligent Design Creationism." It seems quite clear that their purpose for coining this term is to make their audience--scientists, mostly--smell "creationism" when they encounter "Intelligent Design," and thus to reject it based on the emotional association. It's a rhetorical trick--a cheap one.
Derbyshire has long been opposed to ID, which I think is because he buys into this connection, so this article is nothing new in that regard.
What ID definitely shares with creationism is an openness to some kind os non-natural or supernatural hand in natural history. That position alone drives many scientists crazy; but there is no scientifically based reason that they should presume it cannot be possible. Their position is metaphysically based, not scientifically based.
What ID does not share with creationism is its method and direction of attack. Its approach is from the direction of nature, not Scripture; it seeks to find evidence of design from within nature. Virtually all ID proponents know quite well that whatever such evidence they may find, they cannot draw grand conclusions from it. We can conclude that a designer has been involved in history, they believe; but they know we cannot speak much to the designer's identity, based on just that natural information.
Many (certainly not all) ID proponents are Christians, and these ID advocates would conclude that the designer is God. They know, however, that when they do that, they are stepping beyond the scientific work of ID and into theology and philosophy. Theology is not a part of ID proper.
As a Christian I realize that. When God speaks there is a reason. A nonbeliever doesn't understand that and likewise Christians who fall into particular sins and immoral acts or ideas don't either. So I don't think its "sneaking" so much as it is putting it into terms someone can understand.
It becomes nonsensical and circular to say implicitly or explicitly, "I warn you against this because God says not to!" when that person doesn't believe in God. People need to be convicted by God before seeing their sin as just that: sin, which brings eternal judgment along with worldly consequences. Convincing them it's unwise behavior might help a little, but it's addressing the outward symptom without dealing with the underlying spiritual disease.
However, it also depends on the activity you're referring to. With certain activities like abortion and drug dealing, it's a bit different, as you're not just addressing the sinner (abortionist/drug dealer), but the victim (baby/suffering addict). It therefore brings in not just an evangelism dynamic, but one of justice and good samaritanship.
Maybe someday hypothetically there would be a "magic pill" to remove all visible earthly consequences from our sinful actions (like you mentioned with STD's). Until that happens (and I'm doubtful it ever would/could), it isn't wrong to point out hazardous practical consequences of sin as they still exist today -- as long as one isn't disingenous and denies any spiritual motives for one's interest/concern. "We are not ashamed of the Gospel"... right?
I believe that for many of us, having a relationship with God has opened our eyes to the absurdity of much of the secularists' positions and we can sincerely say that even if we weren't believers it's hard to imagine accepting some commonly held positions in our culture.
For instance, if I am discussing homosexual practice with someon who is a believer in evolution and also claims that homosexuality is in-born, I would question him on how homosexual traits can survive natural selection, since non-procreating homosexuals would tend to disappear over time.
Or, to someone who says abortion is a legitimate choice, I would point out the slippery slope of saying that we may terminate the life of any being who is not deemed "wanted". Hence, the increase in the incidence of abandoned infants or pulling the plug on the eldery or severely handicapped.
Helping a person to recognize the societal consequences of his/her positions, and thereby changing that person's worldview, can and should be done whether or not we ever confront him/her with spiritual matters. I would love to see the day when there would be "pro-life" atheists. Or, when the most devoted evolutionist would call homosexuality an abnormal, un-natural practice that should be treated as a personality disorder.