Canadian Christian science writer: “ID is not just an unnecessary choice; it is a harmful one.”

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 4, 2012

Christian Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective”(Huffington Post Canada
01/ 2/12 09), science and religion writer and teacher Paul Wallace announces, “Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective,”

For a person of faith, ID is not just an unnecessary choice; it is a harmful one. It reduces God to a kind of holy tinkerer. It locates the divine in places of ignorance and obscurity. And this gives it a defensive and fearful spirit that is out of place in Christian faith and theology.

He gets through an entire column without clearly explaining to readers a single thesis offered by ID theorists on the probability of natural selection creating great gains in information – the central point at issue.

But then how many people in Wallace’s position could actually afford to know what the issues are? Reading this sort of thing makes it much easier to understand the contempt that the typical real Darwinist feels for the Christian Darwinist.

Comments

That would be odd, as ID offers no religious implications that God failed and then had to tinker. It's silent on such details. A person can be a devout Christian believer, and ID neither specifically supports nor detracts from it. If someone believes that God created the universe and life, I can't imagine why they would feel threatened by a scientific observation that certain things are the result of intelligent design. It reinforces the stereotype that religious believers are backwards banjo-pickers who hate science, don't go to doctors, make our kids play with rattlesnakes, and shun any form of dancing except the ballroom variety. Is that actually a stereotype, or am I making it up like my mental image of darwinists as old men with unkempt beards (just the way nature evolved them) and/or turtleneck sweaters?ScottAndrews2_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

tjguy wrote Death is called the “last enemy” in the Bible. Why would God use something that He views as an enemy, something that is certainly NOT “very good” to create His world? It doesn’t make sense intellectually or biblically. -------------------------------------------------------- This is why a little knowledge, can lead to misunderstanding. Adam and Eve were created perfect. With free will. they chose badly. They withdrew from God and basically said with their actions, that we can do this ourselves. The result is what we see today. Because they chose Satan's side Satan is the ruler of the earth. Just like any parent that makes a bad decision, it affects the whole family. So we inherited Adam and Eve's disloyalty. Doesn't this make sense , when you look at the world today? What God did was to set a predetermined time before he would step in, before man ruined the earth and himself. Science today is part of that ruining of the earth. The bottom line for science is that they have given man the ability to destroy everything. This time period is nearly up. Man has proved he is not able to rule himself. Just as prophesied. So things are lined up just as what was written thousands of years ago. The original intent for man was, everlasting life in a perfect body, no sickness or death. Living in a paradise earth. That still is the purpose. Nothing has changed. So yes it was very good. Its just that most people don't want that. They want to go their own way, still. So God has to step in to change things. Science is no savior, it is part of the problem. I'm not saying all science is bad, but the bottom line is it could be totally destructive. We are in fear all the time of who gets nuclear power. The USA has used it twice. Man did this to themselves. http://patternsofcreation.weebly.com/MrDunsapy_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

I have never had a problem reconciling God in a world of desease and harmful mutations. This is a finite world we live in, and these things are all part of our finite journey in this realm. The eternal perfection comes in heaven. If we lived in a perfect universe how would we know right from wrong? The answer is we wouldn't , and if we don't know right from wrong how could we ever know God? We can't really say that he would let us go through it and not experience it ourselves. In fact he came to this earth and lived as a homeless poor man during his ministry and dies in the most painful and embarressing way anyone during those times could have died. He could have said no to this but he loved us too much to do that. It is only in a reality where we have this choice can we grow spirituallywallstreeter43_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

If you're God creating a temporal material Universe in eternity, then the concept of "tinkering" in time makes no sense. Whether you set everything up to unfold from the big bang, or move all the pieces by hand you're doing it all in the eternal "now". I make a drawing on paper. Whether I start with the clouds, the background, the main subject, or I work pixel by pixel is my privilege. I might even blow ink with such skill from my mouth as to do the whole thing at once. I might have good reasons for doing it one way or the other, but they are all equally creative, and if someone tells me touching in details at the end is "tinkering" I'll tell them to go to hell. The viewer need know nothing of my technique: in my mind was the finished image, and that's what the viewer sees. The rest is detail, and nobody has the right to jusge my artistic merit by my methodology.Jon Garvey_{January 5, 2012
January
01
Jan
5
05
2012
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

Joe, probably because there are so many harmful mutations and changes that lead to extinction. Finally after many attempts failing, there is a lucky mutation that supposedly provides enough benefit to become a permanent part of the genome, at least for some period of time until something better comes along. It removes intelligence from the equation and makes it seem as if God is creating via trial and error. In other words, God didn't have enough intelligence to get it right the first time is what they seem to be saying. The Bible tells us that God looked back on his creation and called it "very good". Since when is a creation filled with death, sickness, bloodshed, suffering, and extinction "very good"? Death is called the "last enemy" in the Bible. Why would God use something that He views as an enemy, something that is certainly NOT "very good" to create His world? It doesn't make sense intellectually or biblically. In the new heaven and earth, there will be no more death, pain, sickness, bloodshed, or suffering. This is the state we will find the world after He restores it to it's original condition. These things exist today simply because of sin invading God's perfect creation and are ultimately the responsibility of man.tjguy_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, I agree with you in that any god who created by means of evolution certainly picked a cruel and rather inhumane way to create that involves a lot of suffering, bloodshed, competition, and death. This is not the God who presents Himself to us in the Bible, which is why I even have trouble with the IDer's who believe in common descent. However, I do not necessarily think that it is wrong for a parent to allow a child to experience pain while learning. In fact, I believe God actually does this with His children. It may not always be physical pain, but sometimes it is. Trials are no fun to go through, but they are necessary for true growth to take place. God does allow this kind of thing to take place.tjguy_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Agreed Cheesman! The two terms "Christian" and "Darwinist" are mutually exclusive in my mind. Although I acknowledge that some brothers/sisters in the faith would claim to be this. You have to have an awfully low view of the Bible, one that allows you to ignore some of it and also reinterpreting a lot of it to fit with Darwinism in order to put those two terms together and still try and remain intellectually honest. It is clear to everyone that this is just a desperate attempt to try and please both sides of the fence. In the end, it pleases neither side of the fence. I think it goes without saying that the Creator Himself is not pleased at how His Word is being treated by people.tjguy_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

These writers are not true Christians , I have to accuse so, but instead just silly enemies of historic and popular convictions that God and genesis are true and self evident in nature. These people are the people one will shake ones head at in the future . Useful to stir up the issue but useless for worthy intellectual contribution. They should allow the readers some kind of creationist reply. What are they afraid?Robert Byers_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

I think the theological problem is that God didn't do it perfectly in the beginning so he has to keep coming back to fix problems. A perfect God wouldn't have to tinker. That's how I understand the objection anyway.Collin_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

I don't know that a holy tinkerer is worse than a god that does it "through evolution." Besides, I kind of like the idea of a kindly old watchmaker God. If He can make something more complicated and beautiful than this, then he deserves admiration. http://www.ablogtoread.com/vacheron-constantin-packard-grande-complication-pocket-watch/ and http://merciarising.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/10-most-beautiful-machines/Collin_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

It reduces God to a kind of bystander.
Or a parent that allows children to experience pain while learning. I find that a better image than the image of a bystander who randomly assists a few while overall ignoring pain. In general I find all such metaphors unsatisfying.Petrushka_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

In what way does ID reduce God to a kind of holy tinkerer? Put this in the "Christians" acting unchristianly columnJoe_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

In a religious context, which is the harmful part? Calling God intelligent, or saying that he designed something? Wow, that's blasphemous.ScottAndrews2_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Wow. I have a rewrite that actually makes sense: For a person of faith, Darwinism is not just an unnecessary choice; it is a harmful one. It reduces God to a kind of bystander. It locates the divine in places of ignorance and obscurity, or at least far enough away to make no effective difference in this world. And this gives any Christian involved with science a defensive and fearful spirit that is out of place in Christian faith and theology.SCheesman_{January 4, 2012
January
01
Jan
4
04
2012
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply