“Intelligence arises from intelligence then?”
—If God created the universe, than obviously, yes.
“If they claim to follow Christ’s teachings then it would be proper to ask whether they believe and accept what he said in the Bible, would it not? Or will you argue that Christ was an evolutionist?”
—I’ve seen many say exactly that. For example, Francis Collins (who headed the Human Genome Project and is now head of the NIH, thus arguable making him the leading Darwinist and simultaneously the leading advocate of intelligent design.) Collins wrote a book called “The Language of God” and started a foundation called “Biologos” which is kind of a counterpart to the Discovery Institute (Collins is also a leading opponent of Intelligent Design).
“Or perhaps you are advocating intelligent design?”
—As an atheist myself, I’m not advocating intelligent design; but I will say I don’t see a conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design. Darwinism merely says that species arise through natural forces. Thus Darwinism is no more an argument against God or intelligent design than, say, theories of how rainbows or snowflakes form naturally.
And perhaps I missed Collin's statement on Christ's being an evolutionist, too. Where did he say that?
Indeed many advocates of intelligent design do not see any conflict between that belief and Darwinism but they also carefully avoid the identification of the intelligence with a god such as the Bible describes. I understand their reasons for so doing.
If there were no conflict between the teachings of Christianity and evolutionary theory or explanation for human origins then I would think there would be no need to develop something like NOMA to simply say, in a bit more polite terms, “mind your own business and stay out of ours”.
As an atheist, could you personally believe in an intelligent designer and be an atheist at the same time? It is that sort of dichotomy I see between Christianity and Darwinism, neo or oldo.
.
The ID movement was invented to say that not all of evolution was 'unguided'. They try to insert certain examples (the eye for one) that they say was too complex to have evolved. It always amazes me how YEC'ers buddy up to the ID'ers when they are incompatible tenents.
"Now it is easy for some advocates of Darwinism to say that the law of Natural Selection, as defined by Mr. Darwin, is in some sense, a God-ordained law, and directed by Him in its general working... But Mr. Darwin tells us that the use of the words "plan of creation" or "unity of design" are marks of ignorance. In other words, there is no "plan of creation," there is no "unity of design" in the Darwinian hypothesis." [Charmichael, Design and Darwinism, 1880]Get them here."it is not conceivable that any man should adopt the main element of Mr. Darwin's theory, viz., the denial of all final causes... and yet retain his faith in Christ." [Hodge, What is Darwinism, 1874]
—As an atheist myself, I’m not advocating intelligent design; but I will say I don’t see a conflict between Darwinism and intelligent design. Darwinism merely says that species arise through natural forces. Thus Darwinism is no more an argument against God or intelligent design than, say, theories of how rainbows or snowflakes form naturally.
Some more viewing for your list:
The Case for a Creator
and
The case for Faith,
and I think also
The Case for Christ,
all by Lee Stroebel.