withallyourmind.net

After both Woodward and Ruse had offered their opening 25 minute presentations, they each asked one question of their opponent. Woodward asked Ruse how he might correct a physics professor at an ivy league school who was seriously considering ID theory. This question did not seem very effective. Ruse, quite reasonably, answered that he would have to sit down and speak with this professor in order to address any specific concerns he might have. The debate was not advanced with Woodward’s question.

Ruse then asked what I thought was a very important question. He stated that Phillip Johnson makes it very clear that ID is not about fossils and such, but about issues of morality. He questioned Woodward as to if this isn’t really the case. Ruse suggested this debate is really more about naturalism, materialism, atheism, and non-theism. He characterized it as a battle for the American soul. He asserted the ID issue has less to do with science, and more to do with an agenda which is anti-gay, anti-abortion, and pro-death penalty.

I think Ruse’s question is important to consider, and has been considered often. There are certainly many issues involved with Dariwinian theory and ID theory. Both ID and Darwinism are supported by underlying philosophical presuppositions. Darwinism is built on a materialistic universe. ID theory is at least open to supernatural intelligence, although it explicity makes no claim regarding the identity of the designer. Darwinism does remove any objective basis for morality and leads to a morally relativistic world (this statement much to the protestations of many Darwinists, but readilty admitted by others). At any rate, I think it is important to point out that their are issues of morality which play into the discussion. However, to state that ID theory and Darwinism have associated moral implications and to imply that this is what ID is all about does a great injustice to the science involved. One can debate the scientific merits of ID and Darwinism apart from the moral issues. Unfortunately, Darwinians refuse to admit their are scientific concerns at all. Ruse’s question appears to me to be an attempt to throw up a smokescreen, obscuring the real issues at hand.

Again, to my disappointment, Woodward didn’t directly address Ruse’s question directly. He did make a good point however: Intelligent design does not prejudge any moral issues. ID is open to all possibilities (I’m assuming Woodward includes moral issues, here). Atheists prejudge the answer. There can be no correct answers involving the supernatural. All there is is the material.

My next post will probably be the last on this debate. There I will comment on questions from the audience at the conclusion of the debate.