Two Bullet Points on ID and Evolutionism
-The ID/Evolution debate has mass appeal because it concerns our knowledge of God. To pretend that it doesn’t would be disingenuous. “The knowledge of God” deserves by nature to be called “theology”. It is also clearly a debate that has something to do with what is presently called “science”, by which is meant a body of knowledge that is proved with a hypothetical, inductive, experimental, metrical method (henceforth, HIEMM). Most broadly, then, the debate is about God (as intelligent designer) and Science. Even if one were not willing to concede that the debate is about God, he would most certainly concede that it is a debate about intelligent design and science.
-Either the universe is a product of intelligence, or it is not; and either we can know this by HDEMM, or we cannot. So logically, there are four options:
1.) The universe is a product of intelligence, and this can be shown by HIEMM
The position of the ID crowd
2.) The universe is not a product of intelligence, and this can be known by HIEMM
The position of Atheists-for the-sake-of -evolution
3.) The universe is a product of intelligence, but this cannot be known by HIEMM
We then either believe:
a.) it can be known in some other way, (i.e. science can be said of more than HIEMM) or
b.) it cannot be known in any way (the position of fideism).
4.) The universe is not a product of intelligence, and this cannot be known.
an odd position, and something of an irrational claim, a sort of atheist faith.
The cause of tension is from the fact that position 3a. is true, which accounts for the partial truth in positions 1 and 2. One can make this proof as rigorous as demanded, for now, we could content ourselves with the lesser proof of the kind that one finds in HIEMM: it explains the phenomena of one side always seeming to have a point on the other. Notice also that position 3 is the most conciliatory of positions: each side can preserve a large part of their claim, and it preserves a sort of happy division between “religion and science”, while still allowing a truly reasonable character to each one (if we choose 3a, at least).