EPS Article Library
Atheists Against Darwinism - Page 14
Johnson's question about the relationship between worldviews and scientific theorising has proved to be the right question:
In my mind the most important thing is to get people to ask the right questions, not to try to tell them how to answer the questions. In a sense, all who are willing to address the right questions are participants in our program regardless of what answers they want to give . . . the right question has been whether science and naturalism are really the same thing, or whether scientific evidence may be moving away from the materialist answers. If someone thinks this is a good question which deserves fair-minded investigation, he or she is travelling side-by-side with us ? even if he or she thinks that naturalistic science will eventually solve its problems. . .
Many critics remain willing to deploy the "it's not science" objection against ID. However, Johnson's log-splitting question has successfully shaped a growing debate about origins. Not only are an increasing number of atheists prepared to travel "side-by-side" with Johnson's philosophical point that there is a distinction between science and naturalism that means ID is a scientific theory; but growing acknowledgement of this point appears to have opened up space for atheists to express dissatisfaction with Neo-Darwinism as a scientific explanation. Monton is standing on solid and mainstream ground in arguing that "We shouldn't get caught up debating whether ID counts as science; the focus should be on the empirical arguments for and against ID."
When one combines Nagel's acceptance that ID is science (even if it were to explicitly identify God as the designer!) with the fact that he all but endorses Behe's Edge of Evolution argument, and the fact that Richard Dawkins concedes life on Earth might be the product of design (just so long as the designer/s have a naturalistic explanation), one can see that the "wedge" has gone mainstream:
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing . . . visibly making evolutionary naturalism the subject of critical investigation based on evidence, rather than allowing it to rule by default as the unquestioned philosophical position to which science must by definition adhere.
Endorsement of the scientific status of ID by the likes of Dawkins, Fuller, Monton and Nagel represents a genuine breakthrough for the "wedge". What Johnson calls the "modernist log" is no longer cracked: it's split.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14