Quick position summary: I'm not a blind advocate of Intelligent Design (ID) as a "scientific theory". Neither am I an evolutionist proponant. But I do believe dialog should take place regarding these issues. And for that, my faith position as it relates to science is being mocked as unreasonable.
In fact, anyone in Kansas (and beyond) who questions the current scientific dogma of naturalism is up for ridicule. Case(s) in point: The Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory, Intelligent Falling Theory, and of course, the book, What's The Matter With Kansas? (For those unfamiliar with the discussion, the Kansas School Board is grappling with science standards again.)
At issue is whether Christians can bring their faith to the table of scientific, political, cultural debate. The assumption is that faith (or religion for that matter) is simply an expression of one's opinion not backed by reasonable conclusions. My inclination is that most thinking Christians would disagree with that assumption and have valid arguments to explain their position.
As for ID, I'm not a scientist. But it seems to me that one of the strengths of Intelligent Design is that it demonstrates that apprehending truth goes beyond mere scientific investigation. There is the historical method, there is logical deduction. Epistemology is not limited to the natural sciences. ID points out that Christians can have reasonable grounds for believing that something is true, even if that belief doesn't reflect a naturalistic worldview.
Of course, we have to be careful that faith doesn't become the handmaiden of science (which is one of ID's downsides - ie, trying to "prove" the existence of a supernatural being using natural means). Nevertheless, we can affirm that the universe is an orderly place and rationally inquire as to the origins of this order. And faith plays a role in this discussion. It must. Because evolution can't speak to this ultimate issue. If that's the case, then it would be unreasonable on the part of evolutionists to exclude faith-related positions from the dialog.
Reflecting on Psalm 19:1-3
GT
My wife is doing BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) this year. I don't know if they are studying Genesis or if she was just there by chance but when God is talking about the creation on (or before) the first day. Notice Gen 1:1 " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. " I had never seen this before but it says in the beginning God Created. This beginning is not necessarily day one.
So the question I posit here is could God have create stuff and then some time later come back and done more work and then called it day one?
This is just an interesting thought that my wife was mulling around.
What do you think?
Posted by: Wayne M at September 19, 2005 10:42 AMWayne,
You make a valid observation, one which biblical scholars with a literary bent often point out. The first chapter in Genesis is poetic in that there is a symmetry to the created order. First comes light and darkness, then on the fourth "day" we have the sun and moon to govern or rule the day and night. The very tools we use to measure a day didn't come into existence until later that week!
As for the rest of the symmetry, the second act of creation was separating water and sky. (Note: This is the only day not observed to be "good".) Then on the fifth day God created the birds and sea creatures to inhabit and rule the water and sky.
And finally, the third act of creation involves bringing forth land and vegitation. The corresponding "rulers" to inhabit the land appear day six - land creatures, including man who is called to rule over all creation.
A quick theology lesson, then, is that God is a God of order and rule, the structure of creation is not chaotic or random. It is good, orderly, and abundant. In my opinion, a forced (not even literal, because this is poetry) "6-day" reading of Genesis 1 misses the point and causes us to miss an opportunity to address a basic tenet of evolution, that of random selection.
GT
Posted by: Garth at September 20, 2005 07:49 AMWhile I find myself closer to a literalist, I am also a scientist and mathematician. I understand the sciences pretty well. What I find sometimes of my friends that call Genesis 1 poetry is that they imply that it is therefore not true and reliable. I would have to disagree with that. Literature can be both poetry and 100% true. I think the issue comes in when something is 100% true but not all of the truth if you know what I mean. We do not have the entire picture, we only have the part of the truth that God decided to give us.
Posted by: Wayne M at September 20, 2005 08:16 AMDoes anyone realize that since this summer the libs are running quite scared and for the first time since the President used the words Intelligent Design, folks are sitting up and taking notice. It isn't an accident this is happening in this time and place. God has, since last Christmas, used mighty displays of His power and grace, to show He is the creator of the Universe and Mighty in power.
I see a revealing of His power, His judgement, His grace....all for us. It is so powerful at this moment in history....as we may be drawing near to His coming, that He wants all to believe in Him and in His son, Christ Jesus....and the heavens and earth are SHAKING.
Blessed be the name of the Lord!
Texas Rancher
One further thing to consider regarding ID.
I am coming to believe that a large flaw exists in it's central logic, namely that "chance" and "design" are distinguishable. I do not believe that they are, simply bucase I do not believe that absolute chance exists at all.
I believe instead that each "chance" random event in the universe is ordered by God, and that it appears random solely because the pattern is either too large, or too dense for us to perceive.
This is, I believe, a near fatal flaw, and may in the end cause ID to be reduced to another "God of the Gaps" theory.
For a lucid exposition of this, I refer you to Stephen Barr's essay on Intelligent Design in the most recent issue of First Things.
Posted by: Aaron at September 23, 2005 05:44 PMNice post. I'll return. Play Pair is very good Pair: http://groups.google.com/ , to Do Pair you should be very Central Con Round is very good Boy , when Corner Fetch Stake Do when Girl is Circle it will Do Cosmos
Posted by: Charles Campbell at December 11, 2005 08:06 AMright plane will con opponents without any questions memorizing is feature of black slot: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/ , rape soldier is very good slot
Posted by: Carlos Ford at April 8, 2006 06:49 AM
