A new First Things post by Stephen Barr contends that Intelligent Design argument have “done positive harm” (“The End of Intelligent Design?, HT: Davey). It’s an interesting article with an interesting thesis. Yet, Barr’s post feels sloppy, for a couple of reasons.
First, he doesn’t really explain any of his significant accusations. It’s clear that he’d prefer to condemn ID on theological grounds; yet, since he has to address the science (at least in part), he seems to content himself with flat generalizations. I say “seems” because I admittedly know very little about science or ID—I complain because I’d like to know why he makes these statements and why I should trust him over, say, Ben Stein. For example:
It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists.
Pretty bold and interesting statements. And I’d honestly love to see why he makes these claims: I’m persuadable! Yet, this is all the evidence he provides. This sort of reasoning occurs at least two more times in the article, which leads me to suspect that Barr isn’t writing for ID sympathizers. Why else would he make these broad statements and assume that we see things the way he does? And that makes me ask another question: just who is this article for?
Second, Barr’s central complaint about ID is that it hurts Christians in the eyes of unbelievers. He ends his article by saying, “Religion has a significant number of friends (and potential friends) in the scientific world. The ID movement is not creating new ones.” But so what? Should Christian scientists be aiming to make friends? Is Barr complaining about poor behaviour by ID folks, or is he simply annoyed that ID folks make it harder to be respectably Christian? That’s a harsh question, I know, but I can’t help but ask it. Even if Barr is right and ID does more harm than good, I find it hard to stomach an argument based on embarrassment. Which, at the end of the day, is all I get from this article.