Posted on 04/07/2008 6:25:03 PM PDT by FewsOrange
As a Christian, I believe that the universe and its living creatures are the products of intelligent design. This belief is not merely derived from theology but is also supported by rational considerations. There is enormous intelligence embedded in the laws of nature. The greatest scientists over the past few centuries have worked to decode the intelligence mysteriously imprinted in the workings of nature. Scientific laws, as spelled out by Kepler, Newton, Einstein and others, reveal nature as exquisitely orderly. So who encoded this intelligence in nature?
Since the universe had a beginning, how did it get here? There is no natural explanation, since the universe includes all of nature. It is more than absurd to posit that the universe caused itself. The most reasonable explanation is that our rational universe is the product of some super-rational or omniscient intelligence. An intelligent designer is not the only explanation, but it certainly is the best explanation.
How the creator went about His business of making the universe and its life forms is another question, and this is a question for science to answer to the degree that it can be answered. Darwin's theory of evolution posits that chance, mutation and natural selection largely account for the transitions between one life form and another. Man, as an animal, is also the product of evolution, having descended from the same evolutionary "tree" that produced gorillas and chimpanzees.
Did God order things this way? Certainly if you read the Bible you would never predict Darwin's theory of evolution. But neither from the Scriptural accounts could one predict that the earth goes around the sun. The Bible is not and does not purport to be a science textbook. It takes no position, for example, on the heliocentric theory. Unfortunately, in past centuries, many Christians interpreted a few casual references to the sun "rising" to mean that the earth must be stationary and the sun must revolve around the earth. These interpretations were hasty, to say the least: the Bible is describing sunrise from a human or experiential perspective. Still, these narrow-minded Christians opposed Copernicus and Galileo until they were forced to admit that they were wrong. It wasn't the Bible that was mistaken; it was the foolish certainty of its interpreters that was exposed and discredited.
Today some Christians may be heading down the same path with their embrace of "intelligent design" or ID. This movement is based on the idea that Darwinian evolution is not only flawed but basically fraudulent. ID should not, however, be confused with bible-thumping six-day creationism. It does not regard the earth as 6,000 years old. Its leading advocates are legal scholar Phillip Johnson, biochemist Michael Behe, mathematician David Berlinski, and science journalist Jonathan Wells. Berlinski has a new book out The Devil's Advocate that makes the remarkable claim that "Darwin's theory of evolution has little to contribute to the content of the sciences." Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" provides horror stories to show that the case for ID as well as critiques of evolution from an ID perspective are routinely excluded or censored in the halls of academe.
ID advocates have sought to convince courts to require that their work be taught alongside Darwinian evolution, yet such efforts have been resoundingly defeated. Why has the ID legal strategy proven to be such a failure, even at the hands of conservative judges? Imagine that a group of advocates challenged Einstein's theories of general and special relativity. Let's say that this group, made up of a law professor, a couple of physicists, several journalists, as well as some divinity school graduates, flatly denies Einstein's proposition that e=mc2.
How would a judge, who is not a physicist, resolve the group's demand for inclusion in the physics classroom? He would summon a wide cross-section of leading physicists. They would inform him that despite unresolved debates about relativity--for example, its unexplained relationship to quantum theory--Einstein's theories are supported by a wide body of data. They enjoy near-unanimous support in the physics community worldwide. There is no alternative scientific theory that comes close to explaining the facts at hand. In such a situation any judge would promptly show the dissenters the door and deny their demand for equal time in the classroom. This is precisely the predicament of the ID movement.
The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. Textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. my book What's So Great About Christianity provides several examples of this.
Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether Darwin's theories can account for macroevolution or only microevolution. What they care about is that evolution is being used to deny God as the creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as science, there is a better way. Instead of trying to get unscientific ID theories included in the classroom, a better strategy would be to get the unscientific atheist propaganda out.
Because ID is religion in disguise, dishonestly trying to sneak into classrooms. Everyone knows it. And its not even a very good disguise.
Argue against ID on these threads and you will eventually be greeted by scriptural passages or condemned to hell. (Lots of scientific evidence in those rebuttals, eh?)
I SERIOUSLY DOUBT you’ve been condemned to hell by anybody on this board.
You might be surprised.
The leaders of the ID movement mentioned in the article have NEVER sought to have ID taught in the classroom. The author has erected a strawman!
Here is just one example of what you asked for ...
To: BuckeyeForever
Oh, and where you’re headed, you have two choices...
...Terriyaki or Barbeque sauce?
;-/
711 posted on 06/30/2007 8:45:41 AM PDT by Gargantua
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1851882/posts?page=711#711
Now, I suppose you could go with the idea that this poster was talking about cooking something in his home, but given the context of the post, I doubt it...this ‘Terriyaki or Barbeque sauce?’ quote was just not a one time thing either...it has been repeatedly used by this poster, towards those who say they support evolution...perhaps the poster himself can tell us, just what he means by this...however, I would wager, that most folks take that phrase to mean, that where you are going, you are gonna burn, so what is it to be, Terriyaki or BBq Sauce...perhaps you have another interpretation
This is certainly not the first time, this type of sentiment has been directed by other posters to those posters who support evolution.....
Read up on them: Academic Freedom bills
They "Discovery" Institute is not promoting these "academic freedom bills" because they love science.
The whole sordid plot was laid out in the Wedge Strategy which was inconveniently leaked and posted on the internet.
Here's a sample. What do you think they are promoting?
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
D’Souza’s been assimilated. You expect this of a lockstep statist; disappointing to see a conservative gorked out on the kool aid.
A person telling a non-believer in the God of the universe, that they are going to hell, is not a condemnation or sentence, its a stated fact.
Myself or any one else on this planet have the power or authority to send anyone else to hell. Neither does anyone have the ability to prevent it.
But I will admit, that some of my brothers and sisters can be rather harsh in their statements.
I find this very difficult to believe. I have read numerous biology texts and never seen such a comment. If deSouza has found examples, I have to wonder if they aren't in books that are rarely used.
I am sure I have spent far more time in biology instruction than Dinesh. I never once had a teacher or professor suggest that evolution makes the idea of a Creator superfluous. But I've had the opposite experience--teachers affirming their belief in both evolution and a Creator.
You seem to making the assumption, that those who support evolution, are all atheists, you seem to equate those who support evolution with those who do not believe in God...if indeed, this is your assumption, then you are mistaken...millions of people who consider themselves to be Christians, also support evolution...If I am misinterpretating what you are saying here, then please tell me...but you do seem to be making the general assumption, that anyone who supports evolution, is also a non-believer in the God of the Universe, and if this is what you are stating, it is in error...
So your example does not work in this case, not at all...telling someone they are bound for Hell, for the reason, that they support evolution, is just plain silly...and yet that is what happens...because all too often, those who are do not support evolution, automatically suppose that all those who support evolution, must be atheists....millions of Christians would disagree with that..
But indeed, you are right, no one here, or anywhere else, has the power or authority, to send anyone to Heaven or Hell, they are completely powerless in this regard...and that is quite comforting, to know, that it is the Lord, alone, who decides these things....I regard anyone who decides that they know where I am bound, to be irrelevant and unimportant to the Lord, when it comes to the Lord’s decision about me...he can judge on His very own, He does not need any human advisors...
placemarker
Where in that statement do you see the words “classroom” or “school” - they have specifically stated they are not interested in the classroom.
As far as evolution, I don't believe in it. BUT, I have no problem with evolution BY intelligent design. But I don't believe in evolution WITHOUT intelligent design.
Does this clarify???
From the Wedge Strategy:
We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.To the lurkers -- read the Wedge Strategy and see if anything there looks like real science, or whether it is religion in disguise.
That is old strategy. If you look at anything written in the last several years, that is no longer applicable. You might want to catch up.
I’ve never seen proponents of “intelligent design” put forward any testable theories. Are there any?
“Because ID is religion in disguise, dishonestly trying to sneak into classrooms. Everyone knows it. And its not even a very good disguise.”
ID is no more a religion than a Protestant work ethic is a religion. It may be religiously motivated. It may be held by people who hope it will soften other’s hearts to their religious viewpoint. But it does not constitute a uniform agreed upon set of tenets regarding DUTIES toward the Creator and the specific means of discharging those duties.
To make ID merely a religious ploy would require you to consider the entirety of our legal system a religion. Our laws are based on natural rights such as ownership. The right to own property and other possessions is the basis of most law. Yet it is merely an extension of the religious proscription against theft. (Thou shalt not steal.)
Your assessment does not fit within any reasonable definition of religion. Would you disqualify Michelangelo from being an artist because his art had religious elements?
The problem with ID is not its lack of volumes of supporting data, experimentation, calculations and testing (though it is admittedly in my mind somewhat lacking). The real problem is that too many well-meaning Christians hope to convert people with scientific arguments which is not according to the principle of faith. And the Bible says whatever is without faith is sin.
Sin and faith are not scientifically quantifiable concepts.
However, it could be possible for God to prove His existence by scientific means. All He has to do is show up.
But what if He did? What if mankind were to discover that the real Deity is not as imagined - some gentlemanly, bearded old man in the sky? What if He is an angry God Who sees mankind as His enemy?
What if the vast majority of mankind is so full of greed, hate, selfishness, theft, murder, betrayal and unrestrained violence that it is a blight upon His creation?
What if the Supreme Being could only respond to mankind’s moral depravity with wrath and unbridled destruction?
What if, due to the supreme dignity of the Creator’s office and authority, not a single person who ever lived proved worthy to see God or enter His presence?
What if there are no good people? Like a man once said to me, just because you don’t rob seven-elevens does not mean you are a good person. What if the best people are not good enough? What if no one is fit for survival?
What if God hid from mankind?
Could any amount of scientific effort ever find Him?
And if it could, what good would it do if it only resulted in God destroying the scientific seekers?
Still no dice. I believe God set the universe in motion with a built in self-organizing process, of which evolution is but one part.
But I believe it was the evolutionary process, not intelligent design, by which life evolved on this (and, likely, other) planets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.