One thing I will say is that I will try to be more cautious about the ways in which I speak about Intelligent Design. It seems to me that there are several rather distinct outlooks, all using the same phrase. Some who use the phrase are indeed simply young-earth creationists who lack a sense of nuance or who have other motives for wishing to adopt this terminology. Most of the proponents of Intelligent Design I've encountered have been in the midground, and I was surprised to see how much even Michael Behe and William Dembski seem to differ in their outlook. Most recently, however, I've been in touch with several individuals who use the language of ID to refer to the fact (which many in the mainstream of evolutionary biology have themselves concluded) that there is much more to evolution than previous generations of biologists have tended to assume. The role of physics in constraining possibilities for flight, and other factors that lead to an evolutionary 'landscape' that might suggest that, contrary to Gould's famous statement, if the clock were rewound and the tape played again, we might well see a lot of repetition.

I'm not sure whether you see the 'front-loading' of evolution in the stage of biology or on the level of physics and the basic constants and characteristics of the universe. In the case of the latter, I've suggested that, rightly or wrongly, speaking about God and design is far less controversial among scientists because it is much clearer in cosmology and physics that science reaches its limits and not merely runs out of answers, but the ability to answer using the tools it normally works with.

Anyway, I won't make this reply any longer than it already is. Thank you again for taking the time to discuss and for giving me a lot to think about!

A professor of religion isn't a sectarian minister or tent revivalist - he's an academic, dealing with the broad range of religious mythologies, texts and congregational manifestations as a subject of academic study. So of course we can't expect them to be promulgating any particular belief system over any other, at least not overtly if they're honestly good at what they do.

And *as* academics in an academic setting, it's no surprise that such professors may be subject to more constant influence from anti-religious forces in the same setting than your average theologian at a seminary or preacher in a church. Even if all of 'em try to keep up with the various challenges to the faith. McGrath's blog is academic, it's aimed at his students and colleagues. All that I could hope to do is provide a little feedback on how shallow and unfair his convenient stereotypes are… especially for an academic audience.

And for all that I think he has wrong in the analysis and politics of this particular issue, I have perused his blog and find some of his material to be excellent. It tends to betray a respect for scripture that is missing from too many professors of religion these days. I personally have found the material breathtaking in its sheer breadth of wisdom, even if not always specific enough in the advice department to make things easy. The brilliance of the many authors throughout so many historically contingent eras is evident, as is the underlying thread of total consistency despite apparent anguished existential contradictions.

For some cool analysis on this, I highly recommend Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews. It's highly accessible to the regular reader.

Of course, this is from someone whose "favorite book" of the Bible is Job [if interested, do check Carl Jung's Answer to Job for amazing analysis]. That's weird enough to raise some eyebrows, no doubt!

This material may be of interest.

Yes, very much so.
To me, at least.

Thanks (again)

The infamous and overused and under-understood Galileo affair is a great case in point.

This material may be of interest.

ps.
Your point about religion just doing what it always does is good.
The religious are just people and they can't help but be informed by the ideas about the way the world appears to be.
Unfortunately, that means that accepting scientific positions and trying to accommodate them can be as harmful as rejecting them. The infamous and overused and under-understood Galileo affair is a great case in point. His "new" ideas were rejected by those with "old" ideas about the universe. Those rejecting him were doing so because they accepted the heliocentric science and had accommodated it.
St. Thomas was a great thinker and theologian but made questionable doctrinal judgments based upon his scientific acceptance of the Aristotelean science which all scientists believed.
Kant thought arguments for God were irreparably defective because of his acceptance of the mathematics of his day and his inability to see into the future and understand todays' mathematics.

Religionprof could be the next in this list who, with Ken Miller, wants a theology based upon the "consensus" view of biology.

I certainly agree with your cautionary remarks about trying to be 'hip'. (Indeed, I suspect that there is a generation appearing that would take our use of that word to be evidence that we aren't "hip" any longer!). And I think that there is a danger in allying oneself with a philosophy based on science - e.g. the idea that, if Newtonian physics is correct, then everything is determined, or if relativity in the Einsteinian sense is true then relativism must be too.

Various sects will take evidences 'current' in the life of its generation to inform its beliefs. Most more orthodox forms of Christianity carefully consider their position on current sociopolitical and ethical issues, and formulate policy by petition and GA vote. That's actually a good way of doing things.

In essence, I am concerned that if Christians (unnecessarily, in my view and the view of many other Christians I respect) line themselves up in opposition to the theory of evolution or some other scientific theory, the result will be more than not simply a loss of 'hipness'. It will, potentially, be the equation of Christianity with ignorance, lack of education, and opposition to discovery and progress.

Ah, but there is that full range I mentioned. There's always going to be congregations that align with authoritarians and draw those with authoritarian tendencies, and those generally *are* ignorant of worldly things. They are - and have always been - a minority, yet still free to be ignorant. Relatively speaking. As for individual Christians, most don't think too deeply about such things. They belong for their own practical life-reasons, many of those having not much to do with particular sectarian dogmas apart from the basics - belief in God, His Plan and Purpose, His guidance of our lives and our collective history.

Unless you're Amish (insert sect of note here), you live in the modern world just like the rest of us - you'll never meet any of them in your classroom. Calling such people "stupid" or "ignorant" isn't likely to upset them. They don't care what we think. What good is it?

Hard core Creationists haven't stopped science from doing science, and are highly unlikely ever to accomplish such a thing in our scientifically-fixated modern world. I think people take them way too seriously, and am myself very suspicious of those who pretend they're some great threat to civilization. There's no reason they can't believe what they believe. Science is chugging along just fine.

I do hope you're beginning to understand that ID isn't Creationism in this vein. Some are interested because their faith informs them there is design and purpose mediated by the Mind of God. I honestly see no problem with that (since when do motivations for belief determine the validity of beliefs?). Other ID supporters are not religiously motivated or even affiliated, they just don't buy the current NDS-derived metaphysic that forbids design in life or purpose in evolution for ideological reasons.

A good many intelligent, highly educated people - including scientists - don't believe the NDS is particularly explanatory. Its weaknesses are such that important, potentially valuable avenues of approach to phenomena are being shut off for all the wrong reasons. Coming from science, I think that represents a corruption that is more damaging to science - and to modern science-dependent civilization's progress - than any denials coming from obscure (or loud) religious corners.

IOW, my opinion from watching these debates for a number of years is that efforts by scientists to turn provisional theory into metaphysics/religion is a lot more dangerous to science than any efforts by the religious to hold to their fundamentals of pre-existing faith. We have a constitution that regularly prevents Creationists from forcing their metaphysics onto public science education. We've also lots and lots of people vigilantly guarding against such attempts. But this very same constitution should prevent a metaphysical scientism from being taught as public science education. If evolution makes itself into that 'ism', it'll be as illegal as Creationism is. That's fair.

Christians don't have to be prevented from believing what they choose to believe, by anyone. Scientists and other religionists do not have that authority over their choices. And, finally, taking issue with provisional scientific theories is normally encouraged in science - everywhere but biology. Science is designed to be progressive, not to be absolute. Thus to my mind it's wannabe mind-tyrants in science who are the real problem. Religion's just being what it is and always was.

Religion hasn't changed. Science has.

Thank you again for your comment and for the opportunity to engage in this stimulating conversation!

I thank you as well, Dr. McGrath. It's been nice conversing with you. §;o)

In essence, I am concerned that if Christians (unnecessarily, in my view and the view of many other Christians I respect) line themselves up in opposition to the theory of evolution or some other scientific theory, the result will be more than not simply a loss of 'hipness'. It will, potentially, be the equation of Christianity with ignorance, lack of education, and opposition to discovery and progress. What happened in the case of Galileo was simply unfortunate, since all the data necessary to change the paradigm and prove his case had not yet been amassed. To repeat that unfortunate historical incident in our time and unnecessarily seems to me to be far worse, since in our time we have the benefit of historical precedent to guide us.

Thank you again for your comment and for the opportunity to engage in this stimulating conversation!

I thought I was pretty clear. As a Christian, I am committed to embracing the best information the sciences have to offer.

Following the progress in fields of interest is an enjoyable pastime for sure. It keeps one sharp and exercises cognitive and critical faculties that are kind of like bodies in that they need to be kept fit in order to last a long time. And of course you can approach it however you believe it is best appreciated.

I'm not a religion professor. I have been a scientist. I've known a lot of scientists, hung out with scientists. It is that experience that informs my caution about "the best information" science has to offer at any given moment. It shouldn't necessarily be embraced unless one makes that embrace as provisional as the science.

Also in my experience, people tend to forget - if they ever knew - that it's provisional. Think of their embrace as Unconditional Love. Human nature, I suppose. I think students should be taught about the philosophy and methodology more than just forced to memorize and regurgitate data and theory.

Christianity has always expressed itself in the language of the culture and science of its time. Genesis does it, Paul does it, and as a theologian I am persuaded that this gives us a Scriptural model to follow. What troubles me is that many people who have never studied the Bible and its historical context in any depth are focused on repeating the words of the Bible without seeming to understand what the Biblical authors were doing when they wrote those words.

You'll have this. There's a range of cognitive ability in humans, thus a range of skills associated. Christianity offers a range of congregations, toward which like-minded people tend to gravitate. Thus you'll get fringes on both 'sides' of a median with interpretations and understandings that seem completely oppositional. Again, human nature and human abilities.

Literalists are IMO a rather misguided bunch, but they're free to believe as they choose. Even if I think it's silly. Most of them live fine productive lives anyway, just like most other people.

But there is no way that we can be perspective-free, and so the best we can do is to seek to express the heart of our faith in the medium of contemporary language and imagery, hopefully without wedding it to these things in such a way that later generations have to fight over whether they can do the same in their time.

Being contemporary [i.e., 'hip'] can work for as long as the fashions are contemporary. Then they're passe, and some other fashion comes along. I agree we cannot be perspective-free. That's why I think it's important that we be tolerant of perspectives so long as they aren't directly harmful.

Generations have been fighting about their fashions ever since generations were invented (er… forever). "Kids these days! What will happen to the Republic?" was a common complaint in ancient Greece, too. For many, their faith represents an absolute. Something rock-steady to hold on to while buffeted by the winds of fate.

I don't have to agree with any of them about what's absolute. I just have to appreciate the diversity. Mind control is not something humans have ever been very good at, so the perennial battles over that very thing can be quite entertaining. In my opinion (humble or not), it's a mistake to 'embrace' provisional science *as* data to shape one's baseline faith.

Unless one wishes to embrace scientism, that is. While that's certainly a right just like rights others have to believe, it's not Christianity. I hope you don't teach about the Christian religion in terms of what YOU think it should be, but in terms of what it was and *is* for the people who embrace it.

Thanks for your response.

I am certain that science will progress, as it has up until now, and that future discoveries will show how limited our current perspective was. But there is no way that we can be perspective-free, and so the best we can do is to seek to express the heart of our faith in the medium of contemporary language and imagery, hopefully without wedding it to these things in such a way that later generations have to fight over whether they can do the same in their time.