I assume that Egnor is accurately quoted here, but I haven’t listened to his talk.
If this quote is accurate, I think it reveals a fairly limited/shallow view of Bacon’s understanding of “atheism” and the design argument–similar to some things I’ve seen others from the ID movement say. I would never pretend to be an expert on Bacon, but he did say this in his famous little essay “Of Atheism.” (Of Atheism - Collection at Bartleby.com). I’m not confident this is the most reliable version of that piece, but I haven’t time to check it as carefully as I should. If someone does, please share the findings. With these caveats, here’s the passage, with my note in square brackets:
" And therefore God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy [“science” as we would say today] inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. Nay, even that school which is most accused of atheism doth most demonstrate religion; that is, the school of Leucippus and Democritus and Epicurus. For it is a thousand times more credible, that four mutable elements, and one immutable fifth essence, duly and eternally placed, need no God, than that an army of infinite small portions or seeds unplaced, should have produced this order and beauty without a divine marshal. The Scripture saith, The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God; it is not said, The fool hath thought in his heart; so as he rather saith it by rote to himself, as that he would have, than that he can thoroughly believe it, or be persuaded of it. For none deny there is a God, but those for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others."
So, Bacon’s view is quite a bit more nuanced and complicated that Egnor apparently realizes. Ironically, here Bacon expresses precisely the view that ID holds–namely, that the chain of causes is just too complicated to be accidental, that a God must lie behind it. At the same time, elsewhere he cautions against appealing to final causes without also pursing the secondary/efficient causes–that is, don’t use design as a science stopper. That’s the part that seems most to bother ID folks, as far as I can tell. But, Bacon absolutely did not deny the general validity of design arguments, nor did he advance “materialism” as Egnor apparently thinks.
It’s worth adding that Bacon’s view of “atheism” and design was standard stuff among 16th & 17th Century Protestant authors. Genuine “atheism,” truly denying God’s existence, was seen as a literally incredible position that was almost never actually found in a given person. Rather, Protestant apologists typically held that the real problem was “practical atheism,” living as if there’s no divine judge for one’s actions. A serious problem still today, IMO, while genuine atheism of course is quite prevalent.
When Bacon invoked the complexity of the chain of causes, he wasn’t being original there either. A classic example is DuPlessis Mornay’s work on “The Trewnesse of the Christian Religion,” where he used the clock metaphor to refute “atheism,” a century before Boyle did the same thing. Mornay, Bacon, Boyle, Richard Bentley, and Samuel Clarke all basically held the same overall view of “atheism” and its refutation by design arguments.
