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 ...
Animals have to die off to be replaced by evolutionary descendents. With no death prior to the fall, this could not have happened.
Therefore, evolution can't be true.
Animals don't have immortal souls. Eternal life entered the world with Adam. It is that which is the subject of the creation tale. Eternal life and eternal death.
To read this as a historical narrative is to miss the forest forthe trees.
Regardless, this is your perogative and I see no great harm with this. It is only when the claim is made that those who read the tale allegorically are somehow unGodly that I object.
SD
Both sides think their Book is right, and the other is wrong.
What's fascinating to me is that if you try to prove them inconsistent, you are amazed at how difficult it is. That can't be simple coincidence. If the Bible were false, it would be very easily disproven.
You constantly hear scientists say that the mere fact that we don't understand certain things doesn't mean that God is behind it. That's true. But it's also true that the mere fact that you can explain certain aspects of God's creation doesn't mean that God does not exist.
No matter how much scientific discovery we make, we'll never be able to prove scientifically that God exists, or that he doesn't exist. But the Bible tells us that it's a matter of faith anyway, so that does not surprise me.
In fact, it really just confirms what the Bible says in that respect.
Macro-evolution and God are.
An excellent distinction!
If God had wanted to use evolution than He wouldn't have described Creation the way He has in the Bible.
He was dealing with mental midgets when the Bible was constructed. Anyone who takes the Bible literally is a mental midget.
That's quite a statement. Care to elaborate?
Please address, first, the audience for the written work and the message that is to be taken from the creation tale.
SD
Jesus took the Scriptures literally, so I think I'll stand with mental midgets like Him. ;^)
I don't think I need to elaborate.
In the Bible God describes a distinctly NON-evolutionary method of Creation. If He used evolution then He wouldn't have made up some fairy tale to describe what He did.
No? I asked a specific starter question.
In the Bible God describes a distinctly NON-evolutionary method of Creation.
Yes. The question is whether this was intended as a history lesson or as something else.
If He used evolution then He wouldn't have made up some fairy tale to describe what He did.
That is your thesis. I am asking you to elaborate on it and reflect on the audience for the work and whether the story was indeed intended to be a scientifically accurate historical record.
SD
How do you conclude that? Do you really think that Moses would have understood, if he'd explained it the way Darwin did?
And besides, what is the theological reason for explaining it the way Darwin did? If he used the process that Darwin describes to create man, then wouldn't he just say "God created man?" (which is exactly what he did).
Why go into the unnecessary detail? Particularly if it might cause someone to say, "This can't be right. This is just not believable."
I just think that there is a danger in assuming that we have all the answers. The question of how God created man is just not important. All we need to know is that he did it.
Neither are you able to scientifically prove that others beside yourself have a mind and aren't just pre-programmed robots.
The key thing is the fact that it is not irrational for sane people to hold certain presuppositions.
To have faith in the existence of God is no more irrational than having faith in the existence of other minds.
Alvin Plantinga: ".....[the] inability to establish belief in other minds is similar to the inadequacy of the teleological argument for God's existence ....
...our only viable argument for the existence of other minds is based on an analogy from the experience of our own bodily and mental states. ...
...Although the arguments for God's existence fail, the grounds offered for our belief in other minds are also inadequate. The inability to establish belief in other minds is similar to the inadequacy of the teleological argument for God's existence. Yet despite the weakness of the grounds one can offer, we believe in other minds and we hold that such a belief is rational. ". . . if my belief in other minds is rational, so is my belief in God"
~ (p. 271) God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God By Alvin Plantinga
Theism, Atheism, and Rationality - Alvin Plantinga
Thanks for that excellent point.
The obvious stated anew.
It's probably best you do.
You have, perhaps, access to his Divinity School thesis, or are you just imprinting upon Him your own prejudices?
SD
It was intended to be both. The New Testament says that the Old Testament accounts are there for our examples. So the Old Testament is history with a point. But just because the history recorded in the Old Testament is used to give us instruction doesn't lessen its historical truthfulness.
That is your thesis. I am asking you to elaborate on it and reflect on the audience for the work and whether the story was indeed intended to be a scientifically accurate historical record.
I think the account was meant to be an accurate representation of what happened in the first seven days of the universe.
In Exodus 20 God even emphasizes that the seven days of Creation are seven literal, 24-hour days (Ex 20:8-11).
I do.....it's called the Bible..available in any bookstore. ;^)
Every place Jesus mentions the Old Testament He takes it at face value. He speaks of Noah and a worldwide flood actually happening, He speaks of a real guy named Jonah who got swallowed by a real fish, etc.
Moses wasn't an idiot. He had the best education that the world could give. He was raised in the house of one of the most powerful men on the planet at that time. So yes, I believe Moses would have understood perfectly well if God had described evolution to Him if that was what He had used to Create.
And besides, what is the theological reason for explaining it the way Darwin did? If he used the process that Darwin describes to create man, then wouldn't he just say "God created man?" (which is exactly what he did).
That question presupposes that God did use Darwin's method and assumes there is some theological point to Darwin's method. I don't think there is any theological point to evolution......well, except to resist God.
I just think that there is a danger in assuming that we have all the answers. The question of how God created man is just not important. All we need to know is that he did it.
The bigger danger is not being willing to say that we really do have an answer where God has clearly spelled something out. Too many times we refuse to say that we KNOW what God was saying because it sounds presumptous but God gave us the Bible so that, through the Holy Spirit, we could understand.
Different portions of the books of the Bible are intended for different purposes. We can't just say that the creation story is supposed to be both history and a morality tale. There is no reason why this must be so.
I think the account was meant to be an accurate representation of what happened in the first seven days of the universe.
That's fine. Just as long as you recognize that others may differ and not be in opposition to God. We can accept completely the moral message while recognizing allegory as such.
In Exodus 20 God even emphasizes that the seven days of Creation are seven literal, 24-hour days (Ex 20:8-11).
No, He doesn't. He makes use of the creation tale to make the point that a once-weekly rest is part of God's design. You read into this what you want to see.
SD
He is speaking to a people who take these stories "at face value." He did not come to earth to correct peoples' views of cosmology.
(And for the record, I don't think the flood was an allegory anyway.)
SD
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.