This side up

October 8th, 2007 midwifetoad Posted in News |

A COUPLE OF DECADES AGO, I worked for a software company whose primary development machine was an AT&T 3B2. It shared a feature with many current computers, an external disk drive. The drive was connected by a flat cable, similar to the ones that have for many years connected hard drives in PCs. One day the computer was moved from one room to another.

In its new home, the critter refused to boot. Several hours of phone calls and diagnostics ensued. Among other suggestions, tech support asked us to be sure the drive cables were installed correctly. They were checked. The cables were clearly marked in plain English, This side up.

Finally it was decided to pack the thing up an take it to the shop. When the drive cable was disconnected, by pure chance, someone looked at the other side of the cable. It also said, This side up.

I am reminded of this incident while reading the introduction to William Dembski’s Mere Creation, a collection of essays by the fellows of the Discovery Institute, published about five years before the Dover trial that determined that Intelligent Design is just Creation Science renamed.

Folks at the Institute were a bit more forthcoming about their motives and goals back in 1998, before it became law that promoting a specific interpretation of Christianity in science classes might be construed as having a religious purpose.

For a book about the science of biology, the books gets off to a somewhat unconventional start:

Why should Christians bother with “mere creation” when they already have a full-fledged doctrine of creation? Sadly, no such doctrine is in place. Instead we find a multiplicity of views on creation, many of which conflict and none of which commands anywhere near universal assent. As a result the Christian world is badly riven about creation. True, Christians are united about God being the ultimate source of the world, and thus they are united in opposing naturalism, the view that nature is self-sufficient. But this is where the agreement ends.

Bill is a bit slow to explain how opposing the methodology of science will bring about new and useful discoveries, but he is not shy about explaining his motives:

There is, however, an alternate approach to unifying the Christian world about creation. Rather than look for common ground on which all Christians can agree, propose a theory of creation that puts Christians in the strongest possible position to defeat the common enemy of creation, to wit, naturalism. Throughout history common enemies have been invaluable for suspending in-house squabbles and uniting people who should otherwise be friends. Although approaching creation through its common enemy may seem opportunistic, it is quite illuminating. We learn a great deal about something by learning what it is not. Creation is not naturalism. By developing a theory of creation in opposition to naturalism, we learn a great deal about creation. Mere creation, then, is a theory of creation aimed specifically at defeating naturalism and its consequences.

So who are the Christians who will overthrow the wicked scientists who insist on following Newton’s methodology?

One advocate of creation thinks it is essential that God intervene in the causal structure of the world. Another thinks it is essential that God not upset the causal structure of the world. One advocate of creation thinks it is essential to read Genesis literally and accept a young earth. Another thinks it does not matter how old the earth is.

So Bill Dembski is proposing the genesis of a new science, one far more inclusive and ecumenical than the stuffy old science lorded over by mean people who insist on logic and consistency.

Bill will give us a science in which 4 billion is indistinguishable from six thousand.

Both sides up.

[Edit: fixed the number.]