Over the years I’ve heard just about every attack on intelligent design (ID) that you can imagine. The amusing irony is that quite frequently the attacks are directly contradictory! Some examples: “Too religious.” “Too scientific.” “Too high level.” “Too simplistic.” “Too philosophical.” “Not enough philosophy.” “Too much biology.” “Not enough biology.” “Nobody cares about ID enough to persecute it.” “ID is dangerous and it must be persecuted.” “Too meek.” “Too combative.”
I don’t mean to brush these off — sometimes these critiques are made in good faith and/or innocent ignorance — and they are usually easily answerable. The more unusual critiques often simply reflect the personal idiosyncrasies and preferences of the critic rather than some objective problem with ID. But one critique that strikes near and dear to my heart is the claim that ID is “Too combative.”
Defining the Term
What does it mean to be “combative”? I have some ideas — I think it at least encompasses being uncivil or making personal attacks, and it probably also includes making broadside attacks on the character of entire classes of people who might be considered “critics.” But typically this particular critique is left vague, undefined, and unsupported by actual examples that would purportedly show us being “combative.” I think this is all often done deliberately so the critic can posture himself like he’s the good guy, and we’re the bad guys — but by leaving off any specific details the critic becomes conveniently insulated from making any concrete claims that can be answered or rebutted.
Other critics think that any time a person is pointing out flaws in the prevailing evolutionary paradigm, then that makes them “combative” by definition — even when it’s being done with civility and strong intellectual backing. There’s not much one can do to help such critics.
For example, consider Stephen Meyer’s recent debate with Phil Halper over whether God is the best explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the universe. The two are locked in strong disagreement — towards the end Halper says it was “the toughest debate I’ve ever had” — but they remain friendly and cordial throughout the entire nearly three-hour debate! Meyer then returns the compliment saying “you’re very good too” and then they both agree they debate was “fun.” Does that qualify as combative? I’m not sure — but I do know that they are modeling how to engage in civil — though strong — disagreement. If this kind of discourse is wrong, then I don’t want to be right! In any case, certainly simply making an argument or disagreeing does not make you “combative.” It has far more to do with the tone than the substance of the argument being made.
Finally, there are folks who claim we’re too “combative,” but then accompany the critique with truly combative accusations that ID proponents are “dishonest” or “liars” or otherwise immoral, etc. Again, such critics probably can’t be helped (perhaps other than by buying them a mirror). I’ve seen it all.
Civility Is Important
Despite the common weaknesses in this criticism, the claim that ID is “combative” matters a lot to me because I am a huge believer in the importance of civility. My personal ethic teaches that we should always treat people in a loving and dignified manner — even, and especially, when they disagree and aren’t doing the same towards you! I’m not claiming to be perfect in this department, but this is what I strive for.
In an interview last year with Salvo Magazine, I explained where I’m coming from on this issue. The interview gets into my personal Christian faith (quite separate from ID) and you can read it for details. But the upshot is this:
I don’t feel the need to respond to every critic — especially those who substitute distortions and personal attacks for serious engagement. But sometimes the right response to a nasty critic can move the discussion forward, especially when done with civility. Loving your opponents is not only Christ’s command, it’s also quite effective in public debates: it helps you remain more objective, opens people up to hearing what you have to say, and attracts reasonable people in the “undecided middle” by showing that you use arguments rather than name-calling.
It’s my experience that a lot of other folks in the ID community feel generally the same way, be they Christian or otherwise. Our heart’s true desire is simply to make strong, defensible, scientific and philosophical arguments so people can decide for themselves if they agree or disagree. And if they do disagree, that’s OK with us — provided we know we’ve made a strong argument in good faith. This is where we’re coming from.
Our heart’s desires are seen in the fact that the vast majority of articles here on Science and Culture Today (formerly Evolution News) are science-focused cut-and-dry arguments for intelligent design (and/or against materialistic scientific views on origins). We don’t do name-calling or personal attacks. Again, all we really want to do is make strong and defensible good-faith scientific (and philosophical) arguments. That’s our heart.
Are we perfect? Not 100 percent of the time. But if you consider the “hate dished out” to “hate received” ratio of intelligent design, our ratio is pretty astonishingly low — and far lower than virtually any ID critic of note that you can find out there.
A Challenge to Critics
For some critics, none of this is enough. They want to paint us as “combative” because that’s part of their own combative agenda to paint ID in a negative light. They’re determined to squeeze us into the “combative” box if it’s the last thing they do! For these folks — and anyone else who (like me) cares about civility — I have a challenge: Go see the new documentary film The Story of Everything!
The Story of Everything offers about as non-combative a presentation for ID that you could wish for. Highly credible scholars and scientists like John Lennox, Jay Richards, Tim McGrew, James Tour, Doug Axe, David Snoke, Richard Gunasekera, and of course Stephen Meyer seem interested in just one thing: making a positive, intellectually compelling, hope-filled case for the design of life and the universe. There’s no nastiness or shade thrown at ID’s critics, because there’s no desire to do such a thing. We’ve got an extremely strong, positive scientific and philosophical argument, and that’s what we want people to see! This comes out in the tone of the film.
And the funny thing is that if you pay attention to what ID has been saying over the years, you’ll find that, quite happily, such a non-combative presentation really is not uncommon.
The Story of Everything expresses the true heart of the ID community. It’s focused on making solid scientific and philosophical arguments. It’s made by credible people. It’s all done with a gracious and non-combative touch. And most of all, it’s hopeful.
Go see The Story of Everything and appreciate the non-combative heart of intelligent design. Even if you disagree, I think you’ll enjoy the film.
Showtimes can be found here.