Posted on 08/04/2005 8:06:43 AM PDT by Tomax
Intelligent Design Takes Center Stage
In the past, schools were urged to teach creationism or 'teach the controversy.' Now, intelligent design is the new war cry.
By Larry Witham
The debate over "intelligent design," a topic on the borderland between science and theology, has climbed its way to two new pinnacles lately: the White House and the Vatican.
Larry Witham is a Maryland writer who has published three books on science and religion, including 'Where Darwin Meets the Bible' and the forthcoming 'The Measure of God' (HarperSanFrancisco).
(Excerpt) Read more at beliefnet.com ...
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.
(1)An "evolutionary paradigm," in this case known as "intelligent design" requires that at some point hominids reached the point God planned them to reach and this is when He ensouled them with Immortal souls in His image. Prior to the giving of the Immortal soul, they were just animals. It is only when God breathed His Life into them that they became human.
(2)God did not "at this point" declare them in need of redemption. "At this point" they were capable of higher function, of acting above instinct, of knowing right from wrong and choosing among these. Thus, it was able for them to fail, to fall, to sin.
Then they were in need of redemption.
The Tree in the Garden of Eden is not called "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" as a lark. This is a description of the awareness in the fully human mind, which elevates us from the instinctual animal mind.
(3)Adam and Eve are not metaphors, but real ancestors. We really did descend from them and we really do share in their fallen state.
And, of course, this leaves open the door that at some future point, the descendents of chimps will also evolve to the point where God considers them made in His image as well. Will He then send another Christ for them?
I think one Christ is more than sufficient for the redemption of any and all creatures God decides to imbue with His Image.
SD
My question to all 'Christians' who believe in evolution is: At what point along the evolutionary line did man acquire a soul?
---
When God gave the first man one. His name was Adam.
SD
---
Do you believe in evolution?
If you mean "Do I believe life is a random hapenstance in a godless universe?," no.
If you mean "Do I believe God created the universe in a manner more complex than the creation story in Genesis, which was never intended to be a history lesson?," yes.
SD
That's another interpretation, although it assumes God is actively directing evolution, which, of course, violates evolutionary theory, which states that there is no intelligent directing agent at work.
It also begs the question as to why God created life this way. It does seem a bit of a roundabout way to go about manufacturing a vessel worthy of receiving a supernatural "soul."
Adam and Eve are not metaphors, but real ancestors. We really did descend from them and we really do share in their fallen state.
Evolutionary theory predicts there would be an entire populaton of humans, not just two. If God simply chose a random male and female humaniform hominid and put souls into them, what did he do with the rest of the soul-less human-animals that had to be present? Did he kill them? If not, they would also have had soul-less "animal" descendents. Where are they?
I think one Christ is more than sufficient for the redemption of any and all creatures God decides to imbue with His Image.
Well, since you have God only imbuing souls upon humans that He considers worthy vessels, the problem goes away. No matter how intelligent and reasoning chimp descendents may become, they will remain souless and in no need of a redemption from a fall, I suppose.
As you can see, trying to shoehorn evolutionary theory into traditional Christian theology is an ill fit, at best.
Let me tell you what is really going on, here. There are some people whose faith is more in science than scripture. They use the theories of men as the yard stick by which scriptural truth must be measured, so when there is a conflict, they bend the scriptures to fit the theories of men, rather than realizing that men have been so wrong so many times about so many things that to measure God by man is an exercise in foolishness.
Personally, I think this has come about because the science of physics has produced so many materialist miracles, that many of us have deified it, and those pseudo-sciences like evolutionary biology get to ride on the coat-tails of physics for free and receive the same level of credibility.
If you mean "Do I believe God created the universe in a manner more complex than the creation story in Genesis, which was never intended to be a history lesson?," yes.
---
Oh, okay.
So you are a 'buffet Christian'. Taking the things that you like and passing over the rest.
Yes, exactly. It is another interpretation. You want to argue as if the only two alternatives are a simplistic literal reading of Genesis or a godless random evolution.
I'm not sure why you can't conceive of a middle ground, a God-driven process.
It also begs the question as to why God created life this way. It does seem a bit of a roundabout way to go about manufacturing a vessel worthy of receiving a supernatural "soul."
We covered this yesterday. It is no more "roundabout" than God creating a race of people, letting them fall, flounder about for a while, sending a Redeemer, and then raising them up to Glory with Him. If God's ultimate goal was to have a perfected humanity living in Eternal Union with Him, He sure tokk the scenic route.
Point being that one can not say God does not use processes to acheive His goals.
Evolutionary theory predicts there would be an entire populaton of humans, not just two.
Again, please try to understand that I am not arguing for a random, godless evolution. I have specifically stated otherwise.
If God simply chose a random male and female humaniform hominid and put souls into them
He didn't choose at random. God planned it. You really can't get past this, can you? God planned the first humans by planning the development of their brains and bodies to prepare them for ensoulment.
, what did he do with the rest of the soul-less human-animals that had to be present? Did he kill them? If not, they would also have had soul-less "animal" descendents. Where are they?
There are no "soulless humans." You have a confusion of terms. Other "potentially could have been made human" hominids obviously died out. God no more "killed" them than He killed the dodo or the dinosaur.
Well, since you have God only imbuing souls upon humans that He considers worthy vessels
That He planned and made into worthy vessels. He didn't do it as a reward for these pre-human's merit. Is it that difficult to grasp that God had a plan and then executed it?
No matter how intelligent and reasoning chimp descendents may become, they will remain souless and in no need of a redemption from a fall, I suppose.
If God, at some point in the future, decides to ensoul some type of intelligent chimp, it is no skin off of my nose. Why does it bother you so much? We are laborers in the vineyard. If the Master pays us our wages for a full day, we are not cheated if he pays another the same for a few minutes' work.
As you can see, trying to shoehorn evolutionary theory into traditional Christian theology is an ill fit, at best.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The point is you refuse to incorporate scientific fact into your theological worldview. That's fine, if that's how you want to be.
SD
If you are not interested in learning, then don't ask questions.
SD
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Of course they can. The late Pope John Paul wrote an encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) on the very topic. Reason leads us to the necessity of a God, Faith has us make the leap into belief in God as he has revealed Himself, and reason helps us understand this revelation.
It is only the relatively recent phenomenon of American fundamentalism which makes reason into an enemy of faith.
SD
If you are not interested in learning, then don't ask questions.
---
I am interested in learning. You answered my questions for which I thank you.
My last post was a conclusion.
Fair enough. If you want to believe the creation tale in Genesis was written as a history and should be read as such, that is your right.
May I ask you a question? If you believe the earth is only 6000 some years old (which I am assuming you do), what accounts for science which reveals a vastly older age?
SD
The Bible does say that the earth was without form and void.
Without form and void for how long? I don't know.
A proto-earth void of life and form until God created life in, yes, six days.
SD
I don't know everything.
(Working to get there.)
I have read some of the debates over the dating systems and it raises questions in my mind about validity.
This is one piece of scripture where I think there really is little or no room for debate. God, I suspect, is unconcerned with your physical well being. We are born, we live a short time, we die and we turn to dust. God's concern would have to be for our spiritual death and life everlasting.
If you do this, you are basically taking the Urantian point of view, which states that life evolved until a point had been reached where humans were sufficiently developed to be "uplifted."
Not at all, to think that God is more concerned with your cholesterol level and blood pressure than your spiritual health is something I will never be able to wrap my arms around.
That's only if you assume that "in His image" means a physical image, which would mean that 1. no other intelligent species is possible in the universe and that 2. God, who is in everything and everywhere who is unfathomable and undefinable (we Orthodox use negative definition to define God, as in the things he's not) is restricted to looking like a human being. Hmmm, any particular race of human beings? Either way, this is a rather egotistical human view of the Almighty.
The point of "in His image" is spiritual. We have it within us to be like God in the way we lead our lives and that is what Christ was sent for, to bring us back on the correct spiritual path, to save us by teaching us that not only are we supposed to live like God but that God understands our needs and our suffering by becoming Man and still being able to live like God regardless of the physical difficulties.
Actually its the unconventional positions that are anti-evolution since the Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran churches all accept PHYSCIAL evolution and that is 3/4th of Christianity.
When you see God, you can ask Him that, along with the mystery of the Trinity and all other Mysteries of the Christian faith.
Does Contemperary Calvinism still hold to the false doctrine of Predesposition?
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.