In February of this year, the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution rejecting the teaching of intelligent design as science. The Council is the APA’s “supreme legislative and oversight body” that “speaks for its members on matters advancing psychology as a science, as a profession, and as a means of promoting health, education, and human welfare.” (http://www.apa.org/governance/rephandbook.pdf), so this resolution is notable. In doing this, APA “(1) recognized evolutionary theory as a major unifying force in contemporary science; (2) affirmed that fully understanding the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of humans and other animals requires attention to evolutionary heritage and processes; and (3) reaffirmed previous APA resolutions that endorsed the importance of teaching and research activities grounded in evolutionary reasoning as vital to psychological science.” (http://www.apa.org/science/psa/apr07id_prnt.html).
The complexity of the issues involved here precludes an adequate discussion in a single blog. However, a few things can be said.

Most obviously, this resolution strikes at the heart of the differences that distinguish modern psychology and Christian psychology. In passing the resolution, the APA unsurprisingly endorsed the neo-positivist sentiments and naturalistic worldview that undergird the project of modern psychology.
But the action reveals some assumptions regarding the nature of science. According to modernism, true science is based on methodological naturalism and a corresponding empiricism that requires it be restricted to describing reality solely in terms of natural processes. Consequently, reference to any transcendent influences on human dynamics is forbidden.

But shouldn’t a science strive to understand its object as fully as possible? How scientific is it to rule out a priori any causes other than natural? Can it be empirically proven that transcendent factors are not involved in human life? No. Can even the validity of the assumptions of naturalism be proven? No. Worldview beliefs are assumptions everyone must bring with them to their science. It would likely be embarrassing for modern psychologists to admit it, but their science too is based ultimately upon faith: faith in their system of psychological knowledge, their procedures for gathering knowledge, and the boundaries which they have established for their science. We are all in the same boat here. Christians are just more aware of this fact, simply because being in the minority has forced us to think more deeply about our knowledge-gathering assumptions. Nevertheless, this resolution by the APA is nothing other than science established by fiat, the naturalist majority enforcing its unfalsifiable assumptions regarding reality as the “Truth.”

I recognize that there are good Christians who hold to evolutionary theory, and that evolutionary theory is able to explain well many aspects of phylogenetic development that no one disputes (like new species of bacteria), including some simple psychological dynamics involved in mating and survival behavior (e.g., attachment; though I personally think the biblical and empirical evidence require some form of creationism to explain the history of life on earth). However, pure evolutionary theory is useless for explaining a whole host of higher psychological dynamics that would have been of no survival value in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA: the African savannah a few hundred thousand years ago), when all homo sapien characteristics were supposed to have arisen, including advanced mathematical understanding (algebra and beyond), language of the complexity of ours, formal logic and advanced philosophical reasoning, religious experience and belief in supernatural beings, musical ability, and narrativity, to name a few. None of these would have led to greater reproductive or survival success back in the EEA. To suggest, as evolutionists have to, that they are exaptations—by-products of other evolved psychological dynamics—is fanciful, and no more scientific (according to their own rules) than the belief in the dependence of all humans upon God for their psychological well-being (Acts 14:17).

The resolution is also important for what it implies about what counts as scientific knowledge. Christians have long understood that humans are fundamentally relational—being made in the image of God—and influenced by indwelling sin—which unconsciously moves all people away from their Creator, and they have understood Christians to be regenerated, joined in union to Jesus Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and in healing relationship with God. These are all psychological assertions, and they entail spiritual dimensions that transcend empirical observation, and cannot even be investigated according to the research rules of neo-positivism. Does that mean they are not psychological knowledge or that the study of them is not scientific. Again, no. Not according to historic Christianity. As a result, intelligent design theory and Christian psychology would seem to be fundamentally allied in today’s culture wars.

There is much at stake in how one defines science, and the APA’s willingness to pass the anti-ID resolution reveals its absolute commitment to naturalism and also makes clear how challenging will be the road ahead for Christian psychologists (as well as other believers in Transcendence in the field).

For more information about intelligent design theory visit
http://www.iscid.org/
http://www.designinference.com/
http://www.idthefuture.com/.