Arnhart provides an overview and critique of the ID movement, with attention to recent work by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, and concludes much as he did in his Books & Culture piece. At some points Arnhart's criticism is persuasive—as when, for example, along with many other critics, he notes ID's failure so far to mount any sort of research program that would offer alternatives to Darwinian orthodoxy. Some criticisms misfire. For example, having summarized Dembski's argument about analogies between everyday uses of "the design inference" (when we assess whether or not an event has occurred as a result of purposeful intent) and evidence for a "cosmic designer," Arnhart faults Dembski for not specifying the precise manner in which the Designer has worked. But that is simply not Dembski's brief, and his argument must be assessed on other grounds.
Much of this—much of Arnhart's piece—will of course sound familiar to readers who have been following the ID debate in the pages of B&C and elsewhere. But one aspect of Arnhart's treatment of this debate in the Salon piece stands out: the way in which he frames ID as an arm of the "religious right." So for example he makes much of the fact ...1
Already a CT subscriber? Log in for full digital access.
Find hope and historical insight. For a limited time, explore 60+ years of CT archives for free!
- Daily devotions from Timothy Dalrymple during this pandemic.
- Hundreds of theology and spiritual formation classics from Philip Yancey, Elisabeth Elliot, John Stott, and more.
- Thought journalism that inspires you to think more deeply about your faith.
- Learn more