About the author

Erick Erickson

View all posts

3 Comments

  • The Roman Catholic Church does not support the teaching of intelligent design in science class. I don’t understand why Dignan thinks a SCOTUS with a RC majority will give any case involving ID a “sympathetic hearing”.

  • Very true. Other than Behe, how many Roman Catholics are deeply involved with ID? What to do with rather (historically anti-Thomistic) Dooyeweerdian Neocalvinists like Nancey Pearcey who are boosting ID? Some NeoCals have hitched onto postmodern and continental-philosophical positions to further the Doyeweerdian critique of scientific naturalism and theoretical thought in general. (This is what Stanley Fish’s limited critique of ID addresses in the latest Harper’s, although he does not note the NeoCal element and probably doesn’t know about it.) Thomism would be difficult to hitch to this sort of stuff. But there may be people on ICS who have been working on such things and who could better address the issue.

  • Why are Dooyeweerdian Neocalvinists boosting ID? I don’t know. That’s a good question. That individual’s professing a particular theology are promoting an idea doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the idea is consistent with their theology. I have no problem with the Dooyeweerdians’ general critiques, and I agree that an affirmation of design as ontologically real is essential to a healthy science, but ID is allowing an epistemologically antecedent affirmation of radical doubt and pure contingency by insisting on its neutrality and objectivity. That is not consistent with Calvinism, old or new. It is not even consistent with Dooyeweerd. It is consistent with Thomism.