Thanks Phil. The two-week CS Lewis summer conference was in 1994, and it still remains the best conference I have ever attended. It was a who’s who in the origins debate. Days & evenings filled with incredible conversations. Blessings, Denis
2 Likes
I wonder what you think you know?
As a preacher i have to acknowledge that this is what I am expected to preach. However, personally, I am ambivalent. Although the idea of a “perfect” world is naturally appealing my intellect tells me the cost will be too high. On the other hand, if I understand the dynamic correctly, I will not know or care.
I disagree. It is a real problem. For paradise to exist people have to be controlled. If yoy are going to ban evil and death then you are going to have to remove the abilities to commit the acts involved. What I dsipute is that people will have anything to do with the power involved Or that the church is somehow trying to force this. Paradise is a dream. The Bible does claim that Christ will return to take over this world, and that it will be wonderful.
I have no idea how you think this fits.Or what children specifically have to do with the abuse of power.
As for the view of God.
Yes I believe God has the power to do it, but the fact that it is not here now indicates that it is not His priority. The world He has created does not turn to this sort of control and that was by His design. So your view of designing is flawed. Your view would be of that controlled world rather than this one. Why do you think He could not have designed and created this one (as well)?
Richard
That’s not a starting point; consideration of that comes after the conclusion that science points to design.
The people starting with that and proceeding to design are doing bad science and bad theology.
Um, really? I have yet to meet one who would qualify for any of the items on your list!
I am baffled by this - how does science point to anything, let alone design? And how do you jump from this to Gen 1:1? Just to elaborate, science deals with theory and experiment. A scientist may design an experiment to a particular question or seeks to examine a theory.
As for this,
It is beyond baffling and perhaps a nonsensical statement.
,
Please go read the original post. This thread is about atheists and agnostics who due to their study of science concluded there must be a Designer. So consideration of Genesis 1:1 comes into play when the investigation into whether there is evidence that the Designer has made an effort to communicate with His/Her/Its intelligent creatures.
No, it is an entirely accurate statement: those who start with Genesis 1:1 and from there try to find design in science abuse the Creation accounts by failing to respect them for the ancient literature they are and thus do bad theology and then they promise to ignore anything that doesn’t fit their thus bastardized views of Genesis. They are actually following a principle of scientific materialism, one that cannot be found in the least in the scriptures.
So when that sort of folks showed up to the informal intelligent design club they were quite rightly sent packing because they were doing things backwards.
1 Like
I was responding to the general question,‘why a designer’?
Will try, Randy. To me, it seems the Discovery Institutue version of ID is very much a God of the Gaps type approach, where God is intervening episodically to direct the results. That results in a situation where as scienctific knowledge increases, there is less and less seen that God has done, lessening God. The approach Denis describes Gingerich as having instead sees Gods hand and glory in all things, including evolution, and further knowledge only increases the appreciation and vision of God’s work in creation.
A imperfect analog might be comparing a photograph of a water lily pond with a painting of the same scene by Monet. From a distance they look similar, but when examined closely, the awe of the painter’s touch only increases. The instantaneous capture of the image by a photograph seems magical, but learning how the camera works seemingly diminishes the image value (not that photography is not a highly artistic field) whereas learning about how Monet used his skill, pigments and brushstrokes to produce an image that up close appears rather chaotic only increases the appreciation of the work.
From a scriptural standpoint, I think such passages as Psalm 19 and Romans 1 19-20 support the idea that we see God’s hand in creation if our hearts are open to it, and the more we learn, the more we appreciate that. No doubt the DI approach would claim that as true as well, but the difference being that I have yet to see that approach yield results.
2 Likes
What “Christian faith” do you represent? Just curious.
The majority of Christianity which accepts evolution.
And the majority of atheists do not say any such thing. They simply do not see sufficient evidence to believe there is a God. But they typically will grant that they also don’t see sufficient evidence to say there is no God of any kind. Though most people, Christians included, will deny the existence of the gods of other religions and even the portrayal of God by different sectors of Christianity.
1 Like
Considering the way you view the church as a whole this would not be a very large number.
A bold assertion.(see above)
Richard
“I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”
Christian B. Anfinsen (1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)
You seem deeply offended by "Christian B. Anfinsen’s “idiot … atheist” comment … yet you are not an atheist. Interesting.
Perhaps you’re also offended by this:
"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.'”
(Psalm 14:1)
Yeah I am not one of these who equate their own little cult with the whole of Christianity. Is that what you do Richard? Must be so if you believe the majority of Christianity does not accept evolution. My definition of Christianity is more inclusive than most, going with the very earliest ecumenical agreement.
1 Like
I accept that life-forms on earth have changed over vast periods of time (evolution), but I don’t accept that those changes can be explained by science.
I don’t accept that science can even know WHAT happened during the history of life on earth, so naturally I don’t accept any theory that attempts to explain HOW the aforementioned changes in life-forms happened.
But having said that, I accept that neo-Darwinism is the best scientific explanation (for what it’s worth) for the history of life on earth.
If you consider the majority of the churches in the Uk a little cult then fair enough.
That would be hard to prove.(either way)
As I put elsewhere, I think the majority have a sort of protective cognitive disonance that separates what they are told about evolution from their faith and just assume “God did it” (Which is not evolution as taught)
If it came to the crunch, I doubt that hardly any true Christian would be able to reconcile Godless evolution with their faith. (assuming they understood that evolutionary theory)
But it is outside of the recognised catholic (small c) church.
You insult me and my faith enough to pour doubt on yours. (But it is not my place to cast judgment)
Richard
What “very earliest ecumenical agreement”?
The council of Nicaea 325 AD… Nicean creed without the later modifications to cut out more and more portions of Christianity which do not agree with the changes.
not very clear response… are you saying you equate the majority of churches in the UK with the whole of Christianity?
If it came to the crunch, I doubt that hardly any true Christian would be able to reconcile Hindu evolution with their faith. If it came to the crunch, I doubt that hardly any true Christian would be able to reconcile Satanism evolution with their faith. If it came to the crunch, I doubt that hardly any true Christian would be able to reconcile Wiccan evolution with their faith.
You seem to find statements like this meaningful. To me they look like word games rather lacking in sincerity.
Well said, Richard. The Creator God who doesn’t create - a fascinating “Christian” concept, I must say.
1 Like
Which church was that?
Many churches… it was a gathering of church leaders from all over the Christian world. Look it up yourself, if you want to know more. I don’t see why I have to tutor you.
Perhaps God was so disinterested in his creation that he left it’s development up to mindless biological mechanisms (known as neo-Darwinism) … but I dont think so.