Rigorous Arguments
Originally published in the Ottawa Citizen on November 16, 2009.
It is unfortunate that in discussing one of the leading figures in the science-religion dialogue, Philip
Clayton, a philosopher-theologian, writer Jennifer Green has fallen into the common practice of offering
bland platitudes to mischaracterize the controversies behind intelligent design and evolution. She
falsely dichotomizes evolution and intelligent design.
Green then seems to suggest that what she refers to as “evolution” is purely the activity of rational
inquiry, whereas intelligent design seems to trump reason. This is a simplistic and false outlook. There
are rigorously developed arguments for intelligent design that are attributable to both logic and reason.
An example is in Stephen C. Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell. Meyer makes the case for
intelligent design as the inference to the best explanation for the origin of information in the cell.
He even uses Charles Darwin’s and Charles Lyell’s methodology for inferential reasoning, for the
historical sciences, where one seeks to explain phenomenon in the past by currently acting causes. He
asks what the acting cause for the origin of specified, complex and functional information is. He argues
that intelligent causation is a rationally justifiable candidate.
I wonder how this type of logic can put “the squeeze on reason?”