Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The ICR’s continued misunderstandings about science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In Intelligent Design: Strengths, Weaknesses,
and the Differences
John Morris, president of ICR, writes:

The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.

Good grief. Is thermodynamics or statistical mechanics Biblical or non-Biblical? If these disciplines can’t be shown to be Biblical, then is Morris suggesting these ideas can’t be defended or studied or promoted by the ICR? Given that Maxwell (a creationist) and Boltzmann (a Darwinist) were pioneers in the formulation of statistical mechanics and atomic theory, I suppose by John Morris’s standards, these great theories are non-Christian theories, therefore the ICR can’t join in their promotion and study.

I suppose the ICR would have issue with James Clerk Maxwell (likely a YEC himself), whose famous equations have ushered in the modern world. His famous equations require an old universe. Thus, if the ICR had it’s way, a great scientific discovery would be rejected on account that it was “unbiblical”.

Conversely, is chemistry more truthful because it is promoted and studied by “an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization”? I submit, it is because ID culture invites those who are non-professing Christians and non-creationists that people have more reason to accept IDs conclusions than to accept something from the ICR where every idea can be vetoed by theological fiat, where personal theology has primacy over empirical facts.

The ICR might do well to stop running their organization like a church, and more like a scientific enterprise. They might find they could actually be better evangelists by letting the facts have a more prominent place than their theology.

If ID theories were viewed as hypotheses like any other hypotheses in science, then it is easy to see the fallacies Morris is (perhaps inadvertently) promoting.

(HT: Mike Gene at TelicThoughts)

Comments
That attitude is exactly what makes ICR and most YECs so unnattractive. I pay them a great compliment, comparing them to some of the most honored American heroes of WWII, and he feels insulted. Thank you for the backstory Sal. My dad pretty much became a Christian in medical school after delving into the evolution/creation debate. He used to go around giving seminars about it so I was pretty much inundated with it growing up. As I learned more about the opposing worldview, I began to see each one as no better or worse than the other. Going back and forth in the argumentation, there seemed to be no conclusion that could be made without the other side answering with its own argument. I saw shoddy arguments on both sides, as well as devastating ones. The whole thing became less and less attractive. Then in high school I read Darwin's Black Box, which my dad recommended to me. I was a bright student in a Christian school that did not have the means to give me advanced education, so I sat through half of each year while the teachers repeated everything the other students had forgotten during the summer. Behe was literally an eye opener. Before I read his book, I didn't even know what a protein was, not really. All of the sudden I got excited about science. Been that way ever since.tragicmishap
July 18, 2007
July
07
Jul
18
18
2007
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Mats: I am sorry if I bothered you. My only aim is to try to reconcile persons by offerring an apology on behalf of my YEC brothers, who are so often unnecessarily devisive. What I meant by my statement was that ID is appropraite for the public school--YEC is not. Of course paying lip service to any number of truths is not enough for salvation--even the truth of ID. Salvation is about having an intimate relationship with the living God, not about knowing lots of correct information (although that can be useful). Is this a reason to be devisive concerning those truths, and the people who represent them? "By all means, peace." I agree that universities are under the control of a religion--humanism. All I implied what that ID does not necessitate the God of the Bible, or any one other god. The identity of the Designer is beyond the scope of ID.bioinformaticist
July 15, 2007
July
07
Jul
15
15
2007
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
tragicmishap wrote: BTW, I am a YEC just like scordova, or Sal I guess.
That is correct. For the readers benefit, here is my background. Like Michael Behe and a large number of ID proponents, I was raised an Old Earth Darwinist in a Roman Catholic home. Upon reading ICR material as a teen, in one day I rejected the Darwinian account of the evolution of life, and never returned to the Darwinian view. My involvement in ID has only reinforced this conviction. Howver I never accepted ICRs "appearance of age" arguments, and was till relatively recently an OEC. [For reasons unrelated to creation or ID, I switched denominations, and eventually joined the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).] Sanford's Genetic Entropy strongly suggests the possiblity of recent special creation of life (and hence affirmation of the Geneaology of Christ in Luke chapter 3). The biological trajectory he predicts may be empirically measurable in the coming decades with the cheap gene sequencing technology Solexa is developing. However, the work of the greatest creationist scientist, James Clerk Maxwell, suggests that even if creation of life may be recent, the universe is old. Hence, though I classify myself a YEC, consider me only 85% convinced on empirical and theoretical grounds. Maxwell's equations have made the modern world possible (TVs, radios, computers, theory of relativity, lasers, you name it). Unlike Darwinian evolution, it won't be so easy to just toss them out because his equations conflict with a literalist interpretation of the Bible. The solution is to show why Maxwell's equations are in reality very good approximations. This would require Maxwell's equations be more accurately described in a: 1. light-speed decay (CDK) cosmology (Setterfield, Brown, others) 2. non-isotropic universe (Starlight and Time, Russell Humphreys) 3. Something else Until a convincing scientific case is made, the hypothesis of a YoungCosmos will be pretty hard to believe by many of the finest minds in Christendom (like say William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, others). Overturning Darwinan evolution on a scientific basis is piece of cake compared to overturing the work of the greatest creation scientist in James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell for all I know may well have been a YEC, but when Hubble realized the Universe was far more enormous than Maxwell was aware of, it seemed YEC from a scientific standpoint was doomed. The irony being it was Maxwell's equations as written, that suppposedly spelled the death sentence for YEC. That situation may have a remedy. I and some friends are building a set of 3 websites (under the name of YoungCosmos.com) with a mission of helping explore and solve these scientific problems. If one truly believes in YEC, perhaps a bit of prayer is in order. Let the reader appreciate the magnitude of the task at hand, and what needs serious insight and revision. It may not be theology that needs revision, but rather the following: Maxwell's Equations.scordova
July 15, 2007
July
07
Jul
15
15
2007
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Bioinformaticist
Hey: haven’t read everything here, but I just wanted to ask for some forgiveness on behalf of YECs.
Err...who exacly named you the represantive of the YEC community? lol
I am a YEC, and invovled with ICR, but am SO THANKFUL for ID and its approach.
So are almost all YECers.
I think it’s productive, and I think (unlike YEC) it’s appropriate for the public school.
Actually, YECers think that ID is appropriate for public schools. We, however, don't want it MANDATED it in public schools.
And I’m frankly ashamed that some YEC organizations make such hullabaloo about the fact that ID does not necessitate the God of the Bible.
I think you misunderstand YEC. What Biblical Creationists say is that ID is a valid scientific theory. However, what we defend is that, for a Christian, ID is not enough for someone to have a saving knowledge of the Creator, the Lord Jesus.
Contrarily, I feel this characteristic (autonomy from any religious system) is the one which makes ID an unbiased, scientificially verifiable concept which may be taught in the classroom.
THe problem, of course, is that when you talk about origins, it's a bit complicated to be autonomous "from any religious system". Presently, most high level universities in the world are under the control of the religious humanists.Mats
July 15, 2007
July
07
Jul
15
15
2007
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
tragicmishap
And ID has not rescued YEC. Not yet anyway.
Rescued YEC *from what* exacly ? If you say that ID will "rescue YEC", you have to point out from what is ID suposedly saving YEC.
And I made the point that YECs will themselves be unlikely to admit that they need or ever will need rescuing.
Could it be bkz we don't need that saving?
The truth of the matter will never be known, because ID is coming.
ID "is not coming". ID has been around since the ancient greeks, and perhaps even further than that. The Apostle Paul used his version of ID in Romans 1. The *modern* incarnation of ID, using the modern knowledge of biochemistry, information science and mathematics, is what is the "new". However, ID itself, has been around for a long time.Mats
July 15, 2007
July
07
Jul
15
15
2007
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Hey: haven't read everything here, but I just wanted to ask for some forgiveness on behalf of YECs. I am a YEC, and invovled with ICR, but am SO THANKFUL for ID and its approach. I think it's productive, and I think (unlike YEC) it's appropriate for the public school. And I'm frankly ashamed that some YEC organizations make such hullabaloo about the fact that ID does not necessitate the God of the Bible. Contrarily, I feel this characteristic (autonomy from any religious system) is the one which makes ID an unbiased, scientificially verifiable concept which may be taught in the classroom. Of course we must join! Really, I think YEC is a precise perspective on ID. YEC is a proponent, if you will. I don't know if it's at all edifying to speak of one group "saving" another; it seems likely to me that ID has largely kept YEC afloat in academia. But that is of no consequence; the bottom line is, we're all trying to show that design is an objective inference that is supported and informed by empricial observation (which it is!). Just wanted you to know I appreciate you. Keep surging forward in this "dry and weary land, where there is no water"; keep thinking logically, creatively, and objectively, though the masses discourage us with their venomous hate and many words. You're all an inspiration to me.bioinformaticist
July 14, 2007
July
07
Jul
14
14
2007
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
Mats: Um, the 101st Airborne and Patton's Third Army were on the same team. Also, the fact that the 101st Airborne held Bastogne for as long as they did slowed the German advance by clogging up a crucial node in their supply lines. It was important, otherwise they would not have been told to hold it even though it was known they would probably be overrun. And ID has not rescued YEC. Not yet anyway. And I made the point that YECs will themselves be unlikely to admit that they need or ever will need rescuing. The truth of the matter will never be known, because ID is coming. BTW, I am a YEC just like scordova, or Sal I guess.tragicmishap
July 14, 2007
July
07
Jul
14
14
2007
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Here is AiG's advertisement for Behe's book: Darwin's Black Box
This author [Behe] does not come from a biblical Christian/literal Genesis viewpoint. Used with this caution in mind, it can still be extremely helpful.
Well by golly, even AiG recognizes the value of using "unbiblical" sources in education and evangelism. I have argued that YEC institutions that say they argue from the authority of the Bible, do not necessarily do so in practice. What they preach and what they practice are not consistent. IMHO, at least what they practice is more consistent with what the Bible actually teaches (ala John 10:38 and Acts 17). Good for them.scordova
July 13, 2007
July
07
Jul
13
13
2007
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Tragicmishap, I don't know how you can say that YEC is doomed, when in the most scientifically trained nation in the world, almost half of the population endorse it. Secondly, with or without ID, YEC would go on quite nicely, so I don't see how ID "rescued" YEC. Rescued from what? Thirdly, the sucess of ID in the USA is due to the obvious fact that nature itself displays sign of design, but also due to the decades of YEC being almost the only ones publically resisting Darwinian totalists. YECers have spread a lot of information around the USA, and even in many parts of the world, making people more open to the design arguement. I don't see why some ID proponents want to open a war with people who, in general, are sympathetic to ID as a valid scientific theory.Mats
July 13, 2007
July
07
Jul
13
13
2007
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Smidlee: I never said they didn't believe in what they were doing. Has politics so disillusioned you that any reference to the term means "insincere"? YECs are the Battered Bastards of Bastogne. ID is Patton's Third Army. YEC is cut off, surrounded and doomed, but once rescued they will never admit defeat was a possibility. Indeed, that belief is what sustains them. They will never admit that they were "rescued" by ID or even needed rescuing. It's entirely possible that they are right, but it's equally obvious that their situation will improve once ID gets there, provided of course the YECs don't mistake ID for the enemy.tragicmishap
July 13, 2007
July
07
Jul
13
13
2007
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Clarification: Re: (There was no written word back then.) I meant There was no written "Bible" back then. Writing was very prolific in the (mostly) untranslated Sumerian.Graceout
July 13, 2007
July
07
Jul
13
13
2007
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Honestly, I can't believe Sal made a separete issue out of this. Won't even bother to commment on his false dichotomies, bad analogies, and essencially, bad conclusions suported on fallacious permises ;-)Mats
July 12, 2007
July
07
Jul
12
12
2007
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
I just wanted to point out that ID concepts are used in the Bible for the purposes of proving God's existence. Roman's 1:19-20 "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." According to this, God expects those who do NOT have his revealed word to be accountable to Him based on the "Natural" revelations of his existence. (ID) Imagine early societies who did NOT have the Bible, but wanted education of God's existence. The Principles of ID are NOT new. The have merely been suppressed for a little under 200 years. The book "The Days Of Peleg" (advertised on this site) presents a pagan (read secular) Peleg who is confronted by Shem (son of Noah) who uses ID in a Socratic way to prove the existence of God. (There was no written word back then.) ICR needs to be more open to ID, simply as co-belligerents (common enemy = Naturalism.) The defeat of naturalism simply benefits everyone. Both truth-loving secularists AND evangelical Christians. The goal is the same: Intellectual choice as we all exercise our God-given right of free-will.Graceout
July 12, 2007
July
07
Jul
12
12
2007
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
glenj wrote: I have been an Acts and Facts reader since 1975. Henry Morris’ “Scientific Creationism” was instrumental in my change from a very unhappy rebel to a person who loves life.
Nice to hear from you. I too renounced Darwin after reading material from the ICR, even though I was still an OEC after renouncing Darwinism. I don't think it took but one day to see the folly of Darwinian evolution..... I am grateful for the truths the ICR conveyed to me, but my relationship to the organization has not always been positive. On balance, however, I am grateful for them.scordova
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
Just to throw my 2 cents in... I don't think Morris is wrong, but I do wish he would approach ID like someone would approach, for example, thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is true/truth and it can be used to either promote Christ or not. ID is the same way. I think ICR has the right approach and say that it doesn't want to join a non-Christian identity even if its true. I doubt the Apostle Paul on Mar's Hill was using logic for anything other than overt evangelism. ID is just neutral, so why should an evangelistic org. join it? But I do agree that it shouldn't oppose it, but its is a fair warning to tell other Christians that it is not overtly exalting Christ, b/c I believe, its just pure science. I also think its funny when ppl say YEC is such a "narrow view of the Bible" - I think OEC is much more narrow. Rarely, have I seen and OECer give much thought to YEC, but vice versa for YEC; I rarely have seen a YEC not struggle w/ OEC. Before I get bashed, I helped host a Reasons to Believe lecture at my medical school and found that they really didn't know YEC arguments that well. Besides YEC is not a worldview, its just one part, of one doctrine (the doctrine of creation), albeit w/ lots of implications, but I'd say that I had way more in common w/ my OEC brethren than not.jpark320
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
I meant "govern"Smidlee
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
I have been an Acts and Facts reader since 1975. Henry Morris' "Scientific Creationism" was instrumental in my change from a very unhappy rebel to a person who loves life. I vehemently part ways with ICR on this issue. ID looks at physical evidence and upon the basis of observation theorizes Design from Intelligence. Creationism looks at physical evidence in exactly the same way but with the addition of the light of faith that knows the identity of the Designer. I am a Creationist because my faith reveals to me the identity of the Designer. ID makes sense to me standing on its own two feet without recourse to faith.glennj
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
"I loved the discussion, but most of it doesn’t address the real reason Ken Ham, Henry Morris, et al are fighting to distinguish themselves. They’ve been fighting forever against Darwinism and it scares them to death that they might have a new opponent." What makes you so sure this is their true motives? There are those who really truly believes in what their are preaching and are not government by politics /wealth.Smidlee
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
You guys have got it all wrong. This isn't about science or faith at all. It's about politics. ICR must emphasize its uniqueness in order to maintain its intellectual market share. ID does the same thing when confronting Darwinism. ID aggressively stakes its claim to its own patch of intellectual territory when the opponent is Darwinism. Yet when ID people interact with YECs, OECs and other religions, all of the sudden it's the "Big Tent" approach, where "our ground is your ground". YEC has encountered that approach before. Darwinism has used it in the past to convert theists into theistic evolutionists. YEC is once again fighting for its life against a theory they view as trying to steal minds from them. It would be nice if regular people could understand that these two theories can easily accommodate one another. But regular people, who do not spend every waking moment ironing out what they believe on these issues, will inevitably tend to see the issue in black and white. For them it's either YEC or ID, and Morris knows this. So, the leaders of YEC must distinguish themselves from ID and fight to maintain their constituency. ID doesn't do that as much because it is a young and idealistic movement, but just give it 20 or 30 years and ID will be doing exactly the same thing. I loved the discussion, but most of it doesn't address the real reason Ken Ham, Henry Morris, et al are fighting to distinguish themselves. They've been fighting forever against Darwinism and it scares them to death that they might have a new opponent. So they respond in the only way they know how. It's sad to see these war weary veterans fighting on a second front when they don't have to. I wish there was some way ID could respond to their concerns without sounding combative, but at this point war is the only language they understand.tragicmishap
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Thanks, jb. YoungCosmos.com does look like a sensible site: discussion without dogmatism. I'm pretty much a freak--I think Genesis demands an old earth just as geology--but we should be open to contrary interpretations and be talking to one another. I note they reference David Berlinski’s Was There a Big Bang? I'm a skeptic there too--of a lot of things: relativistic time dilation, string theory ... some just because they've become orthodoxy (as Berlinski notes) that you MUST believe, yet they are still speculative theories. But physics will improve when "soul" or the primacy of agency is incorporated. Then I suspect a lot of things will become clearer.Rude
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Salvador, While you are not happy with the position of ICR, you should be delighted by the position of the Catholic Church. In Columbia (June 2006), the magazine for the Knights of Columbus , a mens group; Stephen M. Barr had some very positive statements about ID. Stephen M. Barr is a theoretical particle physicist. He refers to Darwin's Black Box. He says 'Unfortunately, to doubt this (evolution) brings down on you the wrath of many biologists, who have forgotten that science is about asking questions.' He implies therefore that ID inquiry is science. He mentions too many positive things to list, but lastly he says Catholics are free to believe what they want about evolution (including ID). I strongly suggest you do a blog entry about this article. I found this article very balanced and encouraging. The Catholic Church is enormus. I think you could get a lot of support there.Peter
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Yes, a throwaway turns out to be precious treasure indeed. How many times have I heard that before!
I would suggest that there are no throwaway details in the Old Testament...or the New. Rude said:
There are big questions and there are lesser ones.
This is of course subjective. I would consider a big question to be: Is the Jesus Christ of the New Testament the Yaweh, the El Shaddai of the Old Testament? A lesser question might be: Is the Earth's age closer to 6,000, 600,000, or 6,000,000,000 years? I don't expect everyone will see it this way. If one gives the Bible much creedence, it's interesting to note that it begins with the creation of the earth, it ends with its destruction (arguably) and everything in between is a vector to Jesus Christ. This is not to say other subjects or lines of argumentation are unimportant. But if a person never considers the question of whether Christ is who He claimed to be, all other questions are arguably pointless. I've never heard a testimony where someone came to faith through an epiphany that the Bible has wiggle room regarding the age of the earth. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened! I won't put limits on how God is able to reach through to any individual; we are all unique and nobody knows this better than He does. I would however note that 100 years of Darwinism being beat into the heads of men, women, and children everywhere has not caused the Body's growth to cease, or even slow down, in my estimation. So apparently people, and a whole lot of them, are capable of accepting the Gospel independent of doubts about YEC vs OEC. And if the debate is never resolved, I don't expect that God's ability to bring about genuine repentance through faith in Jesus Christ is going to be affected.
1Co 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 1Co 2:1-5 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. 1Co 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. Joh 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Forgive the excessive quoting, but I thought some might find these scriptures useful.Apollos
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
[off topic] Contrary to the claim by Morris:
Furthermore, the Bible insists that God receive glory for His majestic handiwork, and it is not likely that He will bless or grant lasting success to any effort which chooses to omit Him from their thinking.
ID proponents professing Christ do not omit Him from their thinking. Let me point out somehting by Bill Dembski: The Act of Creation
Predictive prophecies in Scripture are instances of specified complexity, and signal information inputted by God as part of his sovereign activity within creation Bill Dembski
When a physical artifact conforms to a prescribed pattern, the artifact evidences design. If a clay table bears an inscription that conforms to an independently given pattern, then we presume the artifact has a layaer of design we have just detected. The indpendently given pattern of "Nebo-Sarsekim" appeared in the prophecies of Jeremiah. The credebility of Jeremiah's historical accounts have just moved a few notches higher by the detection of a layer specified complexity in a physical artifact. But the story is not that we merely detected design in the clay artifact, but something much larger. Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament
The sound of unbridled joy seldom breaks the quiet of the British Museum's great Arched Room, which holds its collection of 130,000 Assyrian cuneiform tablets, dating back 5,000 years. But Michael Jursa, a visiting professor from Vienna, let out such a cry last Thursday. He had made what has been called the most important find in Biblical archaeology for 100 years, a discovery that supports the view that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact. Searching for Babylonian financial accounts among the tablets, Prof Jursa suddenly came across a name he half remembered - Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described there in a hand 2,500 years old, as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon. Prof Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name - Nebo-Sarsekim. ... "This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," Dr Finkel said yesterday. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."
Yes, a throwaway turns out to be precious treasure indeed. How many times have I heard that before!scordova
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Rude, if you haven't already done so, you might want to check out YoungCosmos.com. It's still a work in progress at this point, but I think you'll like what you see there.jb
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Went back and read Salvador's comments. What a wise man! The only thing I might add is that not all of us will want to commit to a narrow brand of biblical faith. There are big questions and there are lesser ones. Why not extend the right hand of fellowship to those compatible on the bigger things even as we shelf our differences on the little ones? And can we not maintain friendly contact with some who disagree with us even on all the big questions? Most people are not incorrigible and all of us are in the dark or deceived to one degree or another. There is a right balance between accomodation to error and paranoia, and Salvador shows us where it is.Rude
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Morris: "ID has no answers at all which satisfy." It's not suppose to have all the answer to all of life's persistent questions (to quote Guy Noir.) Neither does physics, or chemisty, or oncology. If Morris found out that he had cancer would he resist "joining" the oncolgists and getting treatment because cancer research is non-sectarian? In short, it seems the "supporting them" without "joining them" thing is just a silly linquistic effect without any real import whatsoever.mike1962
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Fascinating! Just as the messiah is a stumbling stone between and among the three great branches of the Abrahamic faith, so also is Intelligent Design. The liberals capitulated to Darwin long ago, and in the last century the conservatives have passionately embraced YEC. And thus ID is a challenge to both, to the one because it challenges Darwin, to the other because it doesn’t make YEC the cornerstone of its challenge. Judaism is similarly divided by ID across its liberal-orthodox spectrum, except that the orthodox don’t proselytize outside the faith and hence get little attention. And even within Islam, as pointed out by Mustafa Akyol, the secularists embraced Darwin and now fight ID, and there are Muslim YECs too. ID is attractive and highly successful because it unites individuals across a broad ideological spectrum and is not bound by bureaucracy nor subject to any overweaning power or hunger for grants. And so the Book of Nature is being opened. Let me suggest that the same strategy would work for Genesis. Hitherto the liberals pronounced it myth, and conservative establishments tend to exclude all who dispute their private interpretations. But now that ID is opening the minds of an exegete here and there (with hopefully more on the way), maybe more interpretative models will be seriously discussed and challenged across these politico-ecclesiastical boundaries. There’s more, for example, than Young Earth, Day-Age, Gap- and Framework models. What is needed are just a few bright but not inflexible scholars. Materialism stands on two legs: Genesis is myth and Darwin is fact. ID is working marvels on the science front, can the same happen with Genesis? Please know that I’m not suggesting exclusion or ridicule or condemnation or anything of the kind in regard to YEC groups. I am suggesting that Genesis, no more than Nature, is the private domain of any group.Rude
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
David Anderson wrote: I agree with you that it is possible to come to truth “without God” formally; but I disagree that it’s possible to come to truth “without God” absolutely - I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying.
I can understand the confusion, so permit me to clarify. I am of the opinion no one comes to the truth except by the grace of God. We have eyes to see, ears to hear, minds that can reason -- we did not give ourselves these abilities but they came from a source beyond us. By way of extension, any truth we arrive at is ultimately through His action. This of course has uncomfortable theological implications, but that is my view. I don't believe science succeeds because of our ability, but in spite of it. It succeeds because of His Design. The situations I often deal with are where the heart is willing but the mind is unbelieving. If the heart is hardened, no amount of rational/evidential/presuppositional discourse will suffice. It didn't suffice for the Pharoah of Egypt, and I have no reason to believe it will suffice in our day and age... Which leads me to this comment by John Morris:
Another weakness follows from pushing Biblical teaching away. The Bible has answers to life’s big questions. Likewise strict naturalism has consistent answers, although quite different. ID has no answers at all which satisfy. Furthermore, the Bible insists that God receive glory for His majestic handiwork, and it is not likely that He will bless or grant lasting success to any effort which chooses to omit Him from their thinking.
Contrast this with what Phil Johnson said Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science
the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion.
At first glance it would appear that John Morris approach to the origins question is more honoring to the Christian faith than Phil Johnson's. But I would not be too quick to render judgement here in light of Acts 17 and John 10:38.
though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
The condition of man may well be that he doesn't accept the Bible or is seriously doubting. To say "the cure for infidelity is faith" is like saying "the cure for sickness is health!" I believe first and foremost faith comes through God reaching out to us, but on a more practical note, the passage in John 10:38 gives clues with how to deal unbelief. The cure is not getting a Doubting Thomas to presume the Christ's words are true (as that is like saying "the cure for sickness is health!") The cure is to let the person start where he is, flaws and all, to acknowledge that he doesn't trust the Bible, and then go from there. By God's grace and if his heart is willing there is a promise from Deuteronomy 4:29 that he will find the truth. When I gave ID seminars for Campus Crusade for Christ I often had biology majors in attendance, some were really under the stress of an anti-Christian pro Darwin environment. When they were doubting, I did not resort to making them read Genesis because its truthfulness was the very thing in question. I followed the model I believe the Lord gave in John 10:38 for those who are doubting his Words. The cure is to study His works. I acquainted the students with all the online resources available. One student was studying physiology, and I simply suggested she ask the teacher about the various theoretical transitionals needed for the formation of a 4 chamber heart. She came back next week and had a beaming smile on her face, "you were right....they have no answer." Consider the value of Proof by Contradiction. I would at least ponder whether honoring God's word means that we must always start from the presumption the Bible is true. In light of John 10:38 and Act 17, I don't think the Bible even teaches that. I think we need to reach people where they are, and if that means we allow them to acknowledge they don't believe, or they have serious doubts, then we have to work with that. If having faith in the Bible is a prequisite to believing the Bible, then I think few if any of us would be saved.scordova
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Morris’s point may be that no one who is not a YEC is truly a Christian. There seems to be too much of that sort of talk these days. The reply merely begs the question, however, since design implies a designer. We hear from IDers about a “wedge strategy” for undoing materialism. But what will fill the vacuum when Darwin is overthrown? The designer implied in ID? Who is this designer? It is perhaps ironic that the above post appeared a day after a post at Evolution News and Views about the “ID=Creationism Meme.” Seems the IDers over at DI are very busy trying to shore up their scientific credentials by distancing themselves from “creationism.” But is God the “maker of the heavens and the earth? If so, then how does the worldview expressed in the creeds differ from “creationism”? Six literal days or not, the question is sovereignty, and ultimately therefore faith. This makes it a little unclear what IDers hope to gain by pandering to the likes of Dawkins and Gould and their self-serving definitions of science.allanius
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
From #13: "From what I have read of Morris, however, that is exactly what he believes, that no true Christian can accept an old earth view." Hmmmm. This would surprise me, though I'm not familiar with much that Morris has written. If he really does believe this, though, it's a shame. From #18: "The method of argumentation which I felt was the right one to use in her case was taken right out of Acts 17." Salvador, I completely agree here. Although I'm not going to deny the Holy Spirit's finesse in opening up a skeptic's mind to a channel she's not listening to, common sense says to change the channel. If a non-Christian is unreceptive to overtly evangelistic (sorry, but I don't like that word--connotations and imagery aren't appealing) materials, why would you give them to her? There are other ways to get a person started down the path--and if an approach works, isn't that the main point? I believe the apostle Paul wrote that he became "all things to all people" in order to establish rapport with them. I commend you for your outreach efforts and for finding viable ways to connect with people.RickToews
July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply