the sheer complexity of things (additional thoughts on ID)

In a reply to comments made on the previous post on ID, I scribbled down a few things that (with a couple of minor changes) I would like to reproduce here.

When it come to the notion of intelligent design and in light of the sheer complexity of many living things (which Darwin himself was willing to admit on certain occasions), I am somewhat astounded that many Darwinists are so quick to dismiss this complexity or else dogmatically characterize it as merely “apparent.” It simultaneously amuses and saddens me that we can so easily re-frame that which gives every appearance of design, in order to, I suppose, take God out of the equation.

On a related note, which is consistent with my broadly Christian worldview and, I think, fits life as most of us know it, it is my opinion that for a theory, idea, or body of facts, to be received, it must be accessible to most people. To the degree that something is truly relevant to know, it ought to make sense to common folks.

Now, please don’t misunderstand. I am not talking about taking polls to decide truth or basing our claims on political correctness. God forbid! Nor am I denying that non-experts can know a truth sufficiently, while experts know it at a deeper level. I’m simply saying that one does not have to be an expert in everything to understand the truth. While experts do indeed have a greater understanding about certain matters, we can learn a lot from non-experts, as well. Sometimes, however, elitists promulgate the idea that people should embrace their views simply on the basis of trust; that is, we can trust the experts to lead us down the right path. A better approach, in my opinion, would be to still utilize and appreciate expertise but never in such a way that the experts become the scientific version of the Pharisees (i.e., the self-proclaimed religious experts of Jesus’ day). Some Darwinists, and some Christians, as well, seem to miss this point. The important thing to convey here is my belief that if something is worth believing, and if God has placed both truth and truth-detectors (i.e., us) here, somehow the public at large will be able to grasp it. Part of the reason why people accept belief in God (and see his imprint) is due to the fact that this makes perfect sense of numerous aspects of the world in which we live. This human tendency should not be dismissed, for–in its best form–it may prove to be an outworking of an impulse that is consistent with reality. Of course the research must continue, and the facts must be interpreted honestly. But if we are all philosophically driven, as I believe we are, this seemingly (only apparent?) intuitive awareness of a divine imprint may be something worth considering.

In saying all this, I am not at all arguing against continued research and debate. Nor am I embracing every statement made by an ID expert simply because it fits my theory. All I’m saying is that some of the attempts to create a scenario in which incredibly complex features of human beings were supposedly created by blind chance and without any help from an information provider, seems a stretch. Most people know this intuitively. Thus, whatever the outcome of ID in history, I truly find it hard to imagine that this amazingly complex universe in which we live just happened to be. This is one of my general presuppositions. I may be wrong, and I am reasonably open to altering my assumptions. Still, these are my views, and I hold them with a measure of confidence. Indeed, I think it is reasonable, defensible, and legitimately appealing to do so.

Note: I should mention here that science is not my area of expertise, per se. I’ve operated in this realm on many occasions, but my personal focus has been in areas of theology, philosophy, postmodern studies, apologetics, and related fields. This emphasis has both influenced my approach to ID (and everything else), even as my research has (I believe) helped shape my views. In my opinion, current opinions (what we currently maintain) and openness to discovery (new insights, etc.) must be held in tension. I’m not sure if I do this, but it is my intent. :-)