Polemics & Exchanges

On Dead Monkeys

In Thomas Fleming’s otherwise excellent article “Dead Monkeys and the Living God” (Perspective, April), he makes a couple of minor missteps that add undue credence to the modernists’ case.  I have not read Steven Weinberg’s books, so I am only going on the evidence presented in Dr. Fleming’s column, but, if Weinberg does lump Intelligent Design theory into the same category as Saint Anselm’s proof of the existence of God, he does so wrongly.  The arguments of Michael Behe and other Intelligent Design proponents are not, and (I think) are not intended to be, the undeniable syllogistic demonstrations of science.  They are merely strong evidence in favor of the proposition that a creator exists (a creator who does not, we should note, need by any means to be the God of Abraham; he could well be Carl Sagan’s space aliens as far as Intelligent Design is concerned).  Saint Anselm’s proof, on the other hand, is just that: a syllogistic proof, intended to demonstrate rationally and definitively the God of Abraham’s existence.  Thus, Intelligent Design and the Ontological Proof are two different creatures entirely and should not be lumped together at all.

Indeed, if Intelligent Design should be lumped in with anything, it would be with evolutionary theory.  For evolution...

Join now to access the full article and gain access to other exclusive features.

Get Started

Already a member? Sign in here