To My Faithful Readers -- Both of You

Dr. Potomac is shocked to have found his post concerning Intelligent Design both read, commented on and linked to. In appreciation to the two individuals who took the time to respond to my thoughts, Dr. Potomac answers back.

First, in response to TLKS2MYHRT, Dr. Potomac did not mean to leave the impression that ID and the debate over human origin is somehow unimportant. On the contrary, he believes both subjects to be well worth deep reflection and inquiry. His own ability to argue for the created nature of humanity has been immeasurably strengthened by studying the work of Philip Johnson, Nancy Pearcy and others. This is, quite simply, the most important foundational question any of us can address. Getting these issues wrong has been the source of incalculable harm, and getting them right is essential to a right relationship with God, ourselves and each other. To all those working in the field of ID, Dr. Potomac says, in the words of Winston Churchill, "KBO -- Keep Buggering On!"

To Eric Phillips, Dr. Potomac can't agree that ID is science because it doesn't seek to measure anything nor is it testable or verifiable through observation -- yet. Rather, ID is, at its best, a philosophical and logical objection to Darwinism and a very good one at that. Taking the world as a whole, it asks the question: Is it really possible that the complex beings (human and non-human) are simply the product of chance and time? If one finds a watch on the beach, is it possible that it assembled itself out the raw materials at hand? (Frankly, anyone who believes that will believe anything. According to a chemical engineer I know who has made something of a study of this, the math -- the number of mutations necessary to move from single-cell organisms to homo sapien -- just doesn't work in the available time-frame. Math, he tells me, is where Darwinism really falls apart.)

The other contribution ID makes is to point out the gaps in the Darwinist argument, marshaling the facts that are available to say, "Wait a minute. You have no evidence to support your assertion." Forcing science to clean up its act and behave like a good citizen is all well and good. The problem here is that science is pretty persistent about filling in its gaps, and if we base our case for creation solely on the gaps in the Darwinist system, little by little those gaps will be filled in with a mechanistic explanation. Once the gaps are explained away...what, exactly, will be left?

Dr. Potomac believes that one of the worst aspects of the way that we are engaging in this argument lies in strengthening the notion that the scientific method is the only way by which we can know things. This, he believes, is a betrayal of our full humanity. God created us with more than one faculty for perceiving and understanding the truth we find around us. Let's open as many new fronts in this fight as we can, including a robust engagement of the humanities that speak to the mind and soul.