Theodicy — A Big Stack of Papers

2008.08.31   prev     next

Here’s an interesting quote from Michael Behe’s interview on Point of Inquiry:

I would summarize the situation with immunology and Darwinism as follows:

1. A lot has been written about immunology, and nearly all of those writers would happily agree that Darwinian, mutation-selection evolution generated everything in biology.

2. A few of those papers might actually outline some tentative explanation of how the immune system might have arisen via Darwinism, but none of those explanations stand up to detailed scrutiny.

3. Some of those authors may claim that empirical problems with their explanations will be solved someday — in a purely Darwinian framework, of course — but there is no evidence that such claims are anything but bluster (i.e. faith). And many of these claims are of the vague form, “Somehow or other, this must have come together with this. We may never know exactly how; it happened so long ago and may have been a very rare fluke.”

4. Many of these authors take the position that the search for a Darwinian explanation of immunity should continue indefinitely, no matter how long it takes, and that while the search is going on, we should continue to assert through education that Darwinism did create the immune system.

5. The idea that the immune system was designed, however obviously inferred from the evidence, is unacceptable because it is thought that it would open the door to the wholesale corruption of science by unscientific nonsense. It is thought that strict, 100% naturalism is like a dike that protects society from reverting to a pre-scientific dark ages. All freedoms, comforts, and technical achievements of modern civilization are thought to be at stake.

What’s spooky about this list is how closely it parallel’s the ID community’s feelings on theodicy, the attempt to reconcile a loving God with the existence of war, disease, pestilence, malcontents, and the like:

1. A lot has been written about theodicy, and nearly all of those writers would happily agree that humanity was created by a singular, omniscient, loving God.

2. Some of those writings might actually outline a tentative explanation of how bad things could happen in a world designed by a perfect, all-loving God, but none of those explanations stand up to detailed scrutiny. (E.g., what is the point of “punishment” that the punishee does not even know is associated with the crime, and/or that may occur long after the crime, and many similar crimes like it, have been committed? or that may occur even before the crime?!)

3. Some of those authors may claim that logical problems with their explanations will be solved someday — in a way compatible with the idea of perfect monotheism, of course — but there is no evidence that such claims are anything but bluster (i.e. faith). And many of these claims are of the vague form, “Somehow or other, it makes sense for God to punish people this way. We may never understand it; you might have to be God to see why it makes sense.”

4. Many of these authors take the position that the search for a logical theodicy should continue indefinitely, no matter how long it takes, and that while the search is going on, we should continue to assert through religious education that we do live in a world created by a singular, omniscient God.

5. The idea that we were created by multiple, human-like, videogame-author-like designers, who intended that the typical human’s life be fraught with troubles, trials, and challenges — however obviously inferred from the evidence — is unacceptable because it is thought that it would open the door to wholesale corruption of the moral fabric of society by irrational impulses. It is thought that a God-ordained moral code is like a dike that protects society from disintegrating into chaos and mass destruction. All freedoms, comforts, and technical achievements of modern civilization are thought to be at stake.

To the Darwinists I can only say: Good luck with that Darwinian explanation of immunity. And to the religious ID proponents (i.e. virtually all ID proponents): Good luck with that theodicy.

You’ll need it.