Darrel Falk’s Theology
|September 22, 2009||Posted by Clive Hayden under Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion|
As noted by Dr. Dembski in a previous blog, Darrel Falk has written a theological blog about what God would and would not design:
So while we may love to think about the Intelligent Designer as being the great engineer in the sky drawing up magnificent plans to make things like the mammalian eye, the blood complement system, the immune system, or even the bacterial flagellum, it is not that simple. Countless millions of these structures and processes are designed to make people very sick and even to kill them. The Creator described in the Bible is not a sinister God who is off in a great machine shop “intelligently designing” machinery to make people very sick. Some will say that these switches in lethal organisms are a by-product of the Fall–of sin entering the world. But this view that irreducibly complex structures were built in response to Adam’s sin is highly problematic.
Notice the following advice for theologians written by Falk here:
The biblical account of Job is a fascinating story about theology. Job is shown to be a righteous man, but some things happen which don’t fit with his theology and he gets very frustrated. His three friends come along and, through the lens of their own inadequate theologies, they try to explain Job’s current circumstances to him. They fail miserably… Job, for the first time, had come to see that the ways of God are infinitely greater than his own puny mind can comprehend. Job came to see that theology–to be meaningful–needs to be shrouded in mystery.
Yet when it comes to the creative ability of God, and God creating the living order, Falk has no need for the “shroud of mystery” and posits his own theology of what God would or wouldn’t create. That’s the first inconsistency. The second is that it is only through the theological understanding of Job that Falk claims that theology should be mysterious. It is only through non-mysterious theology that Falk can even claim a precedence for theology that he claims should be mysterious. But what gives him the right to determine what part of theology should or should not be considered mysterious? The obvious conclusion is that some theology has to be taken at face value. So from whence comes the rule of precedence in what theology shouldn’t be taken at face value? According to Falk’s theology,the parts of theology that interfere with his belief in evolution are what should be mysterious, regardless of whether they actually are mysterious. But there is no precedence in scripture for this. Falk’s point of view that God would leave creation to a third-person arbiter called “Evolution” and not dirty His own hands with things that kill, and that God is off the hook when it comes to an explanation, is a theology if I’ve ever seen one. A misguided one, but a theology nevertheless. Well, which is it Falk?
Then there is the obviously flawed position that he takes which claims that those of us who think God created life are heretical, that life had to have come about in a “freedom zone” where things kill each other and natural selection is to blame, not God. Which is tantamount to saying “I’m sorry that my pit bull killed your children, he has a mind of his own and I can’t put him on a leash.” Falk’s attempted theodicy to account for natural evil doesn’t even get off the groud, it only attempts to shift the blame to “evolution.” In personal evil, done by actual people, there is free-will, and so accountability. Here Falk is giving the process of evolution free-will that doesn’t have accountability, and so there is no accountability for anything evil any living creature does by extension; not even personal evil. For the created person has been removed, and replaced by a process that has it’s own freedom to create as it sees fit, and he has to take that evolutionary outcome as a whole, bad deeds and all. And the driving force of this process is survival of the fittest. How is our freedom differentiated from evolution’s freedom? Is evolution not our keeper and the reason we are here Falk? How can we help how evolution made us, evil and all? In removing the created person from his equation, he removes the equation. For if there is no person to determine evil, separate and apart from an evolutionary process, that can pass judgment on that process, of which judgments are themselves not a product of that process, then there is no real evil.
All of this just to support evolution. Incredible.