Blake believed in a kind of Intelligent DesignRecently we have seen a spate of discussion about "Intelligent Design. " Over at The New Republic they had the cheeky idea of asking members of the broad conservative movement what they thought of the theory of evolution and what they thought of intelligent design.

It seemed that to the first question: Do you personally believe in evolution? -any answer other than an unqualified "Yes" was meant to merit some giggles.

I'll provide my own answers in the manner, and often with similar results to Ross Douthat's original response at The American Scene.

Do you personally believe in evolution? Well that depends doesn't it? Micro-evolution is an observable phenomenon. To deny it would make you deserving of the satire at the Onion. That said - do I believe in evolution? I guess I do- just as Chesterton did. I believe the preponderance of scientific evidence points to the conclusions put forward by evolutionary biology. However because there can be no experiments done to test the theory of macro-evolution I do believe the theory lacks the refinement of other scientific theories. There are some other little qualifications. I also personally believe in Creation. I do not believe the universe is eternal. If one took the text of the first three chapters of Genesis literally - (not saying I do) - the theory of evolution still is not entirely discarded. If you took a scientist in a time machine to day six of the creation story and introduced the scientist to Adam - would scientific investigation tell us that the adult male standing in front of us is only a few hours old? Of course not. If the universe has a beginning, if one admits a creator at all - that created the universe ex-nihlo it is no surprise that science cannot account accurately for the creation - as the creation itself is a one time non-natural event. Scientific investigation is done on natural phenomena - and so by definition science cannot infallibly tell us about the first days of the universe or the first forms of life on this planet. Science can only give us make reasonable conjectures from the natural evidence. Do I believe therefore in a literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis? Again- depends on what you mean by literally. There is nothing I see contradictory in the next two statements -both of which I believe with a full heart. The Scriptures are infallible. The first three chapters of Genesis however do not ngive or were meant to give an accurate scientific account of the creation of the universe and the earth we live on.

What do you think of intelligent design? I agree with Ross when he says: 

At its best, what people call "intelligent design" is a legitimate critique of Darwinian theory, pointing out aspects of biological life that modification-through-natural-selection has difficulty explaining. The mistake of the intelligent designers lies in their belief that they have produced an alternative to Darwinism - that is, a consistent, coherent and testable theory of how life on Earth developed. Even if the intelligent designers are right (and I certainly think they are) that life is ultimately the work of an intelligent Being, saying so is not a substitute for a theory of how life actually happened. If I were to ask, how are cars put together?, it wouldn't answer my question to say: By a designer at the Ford Motor Company. Instead, you would need to talk about how an assembly line works, who works on it, where it happens, and so forth. - Ross Douthat

I also agree with Ross that Intelligent Design is on the whole, bad for conservatives and I agree with him in his approval of John Garvey's article in Commonweal that the God in Intelligent Design is not really like the Biblical God at all.

The problem with the God rejected by Darwinian atheists and the God of those who believe in intelligent design is that neither is particularly biblical. (By the way, I think it is fair of those who believe in intelligent design to complain that they are not, as some allege, a wedge into the schools that will lead eventually to teaching biblical literalism. This is not, in fact, part of their argument, and the intelligent designer they posit has little to do with the God of the Bible.) The intelligent designer seen by both camps--rejected by one, accepted by the other--is essentially the God of the deists, a generally benign designer compelled to create the best of all possible worlds, a world in which profound flaws and seemingly mad design would be unthinkable. If intelligent design were science, if it could be supported by fact and not what amounts to aesthetic speculation, it might be a good argument for a Gnostic demiurge, a deranged creator-god. Yes, the intricacy of the eye and the elegance of flagella are amazing and the details beautiful. But a designer with his, her, or its hand in at this clockwork level could surely do something to prevent anencephalic babies or Alzheimer’s disease. What about all the apparently useless parts of the DNA strand? Couldn’t praying mantises have been designed with a way to mate that didn’t require the female to devour the head of the male during intercourse? I’ve seen a mother hamster devouring her young with blank eyes, preferable to grief, I guess, under the circumstances. The designer’s eye is upon the sparrow, the mantis, the mother hamster eating her young, the brainless baby - John Garvey

This in fact sums up my position on the difficulty of reconciling Intelligent Design with Christianity.

Whether schools should teach intelligent design or similar critiques of evolution in biology classes: In biology classes? Maybe not. In school? Yes. Students should get a dose of the history of science as well to get a good feeling for the fallibility of human beings who happen to be scientists. I also agree with Pat Buchanan that all students, believer and unbeliever, in public school should at least be taught the Biblical stories . Not teaching them deprives them of actual literary capacity and cultural fluency.