Welcome to the conversation here. I don’t think it’s unimaginable, there just isn’t a current scientific model for how cells came into being. RNA world is a whole productive realm of research though. Even if scientists were to establish a model for how cells came into being (abiogenesis), it wouldn’t somehow disprove that God created them. Christians believe God is sovereign over and works through natural processes to accomplish his will. We don’t need to be afraid that scientific knowledge will somehow erode God’s role in the the world. Science can’t explain or model how God does or doesn’t interact with nature.
2 Likes
These are all subjective assertions of personal preferences and feelings. It doesn’t make them wrong but it undermines the argument for knowable, independent, objective standards. It suggests one would choose an standard because of need rather than because a rule is objectively correct. Basically, functionality based ethics. And in the end, I think that’s how things actually work, in practice, in the world.
1 Like
I have directly engaged with several of the serious thinkers in ID, studied Dembski’s methods in particular, and while I agree they are creative, fun, thoughtful, intelligent, etc., they have yet to produce any working science. In all the ID literature the only example that comes close to a testable hypothesis is The Dependency Graph (Ewert, 2016), and that idea hasn’t exactly taken the world by storm. We are left with creative and fun ideas that don’t actually accomplish anything. Science is in the business of producing material results, so if ID is ever to be any sort of science then it is completely fair to ask that it produce material results. Isn’t it time we recognize ID as an apologetic claim and get on with more practical matters?
… but it looks like you’re getting your data from ID haters.
I have engaged more than my share of haters, and am continually disappointed that the serious thinkers in ID do nothing to reign them in. I could go on at great length detailing the many problems, but that’s not the point. ID is it’s own worst enemy in any effort for ID to be taken seriously. From all appearance that is all that ID was ever meant to be.
Watch Bechly’s testimony and tell me he’s insincere or trying to shut down science:
It’s too late to ask poor Bechly what he really wanted, and I think it best to leave him in peace. If I need to see people trying to shut down science I can read today’s news.
3 Likes
From time imamorial people have looked around and decided that creation must be the result of a creator. Why? Because they see intrcassy and beauty that belies chance. Id is just a continuation of that. The fact is that to have an ID you need an I(ntelligence).
Science is notorious;y aetheistic. God cannot be a part of the scientific method as long as He remains invisible, by design or no. ID will therefore never be a part of science, but to claim that makes it inpractical or irrelevant would seem to be not just atheistic but anti-God and derisory to religion and faith.
Regardless of my personal convictions about God, there is a vast community of people who find religion and faith beneficial at least. Perhaps there needs to be a little tact, from both camps? Instead of making blanket assertions that enforce one view or the other.
Richard
No argument there. I think people will always be in awe of the intricacy and beauty found in nature, and some of them will interpret that in support of faith. My point is that it should be recognized for what it is; an apologetic claim. There is no crime committed in doing so.
Science in a methodology which can be equally applied by anyone no matter their beliefs. God cannot be part of the scientific method because it would require a material definition of God, which is (as I understand it) a theological atrocity. It would also require cooperation from God in providing material evidence of their own existence. For whatever reason, God does not do this.
There really shouldn’t be any problem with the idea that we can’t have a scientific hypothesis for/of God, and for most Christians it is no problem at all. What value is there in asserting a controversy which, by definition, cannot exist?
Oh certainly, there is obviously great value in faith. I can even make an entirely secular argument in support of this. But one can have faith without resorting to bad-faith arguments. And ID has a long history of bad-faith arguments that do nothing to support the value of faith, whatever you define that value be to. If one has real faith in a Creator, then (IMO) there is nothing to be gained from the fallacious arguments so common in ID literature; Quote-mining, Poisoning the Well, Bait-and-Switch, Begging the Question, Equivocation, bad math, etc.. Where is the tact in any of that?
Above I wrote that I could go on at great length about this, and I can, but I don’t think it necessary. It is far simpler, far more peaceful, far more honest, to simply recognize ID as the apologetic argument that it is. And apologetics are no more a crime than is atheism.
1 Like
Both ID and IC suffr from the fact that they were either coined or promoted by extreme Biblical Christians using it to justify their beliefs. It is a shame that ad hominum rears its ugly head so that any legitimate claim is lost because of who said it rather than taken in its own right.
Richard