[CS-FSLUG] Intelligent design...

[Timothy Butler]

> I have'nt chimed in on this topic but want to inject my opinion, and
> that is all this is, regarding the presuppositions behind your
> comments. From your comments you serve a very limited, deistic, God.

     Nah. :-) Note that deists, like Jefferson, explicitly rejected  
miracles. I do not. I simply think if the Bible describes something  
that sounds like God working within the confines of the laws he  
created (e.g. molding man from dust rather than only saying "Let  
there be man"), that seems to indicate something, and I think it is  
worth taking note of that. If I was strict deist, I wouldn't be able  
to agree with a lot of things on the statement of faith for CS, not  
the least being the idea of the resurrection of Jesus.

> You presuppose that God's intervention must be explainable naturally.
> To make such an assertion places God in subjection to His creation. I
> would say that the method by which God raised Jesus or created Adam is
> completely irrelevant.

     It is irrelevant to salvation, yes, but does that mean we should  
simply shut off our brains and not inquire?  I think God gave us  
rational brains to explore the depths of the universe he created, and  
I am convinced that in the end, whatever we discover will not  
conflict with God.

     Now, think about it: if we are talking about something made of  
matter, such as Jesus' body, presumably some process had to happen --  
even if it was instantaneous -- to convert the dead flesh back to  
living. Jesus had the same body, albeit glorified, hence how he was  
able to show the wounds from the cross.

> Theistic Evolution is an interesting idea
> except that it produces theological problems because it places man in
> descendency from animals which the biblical account does not do. Man
> is a special creation, seperated from God's creation of other animal
> species so any adherance to evolutionist ideas becomes problematic for
> theological reasons.

     I agree. Thus, why I do not believe in theistic evolution of the  
species. I do believe evolution is occurring at present, but I do not  
believe you can trace man back to lesser species. But frankly, I do  
not care terribly much, if we could take a time machine back and show  
that evolution did happen just as the evolutionists claim -- my faith  
is not dependent on stuff like this, hence why I do not mind looking  
at fairly casually.

     As a mentor and friend of mine once dubbed it, this is the  
"nonchallance of faith." Because our faith depends only on the  
redeeming grace of Jesus, it matters little how everything else  
happened as with regards to or belief. Genesis 1-3 itself can be made  
to fit fairly well with evolution, presuming you decide to take it  
poetically,  the big problem arises in the region of theodicy, as we  
try to justify the problem of evil. Let's not concede to evolution,  
but also let's avoid making people feel they must throw out what they  
believe about our origins before they accept God. If someone believes  
in evolution, they can still be saved.

     But, again, I'm a creationist, myself.

> I do not advocate the promotion of intelligent design or creationism
> as a science because it is fundamentally rooted in theology. But I
> reject evolution and even its theistic branches because they produce
> theological difficulties.

     Well -- and perhaps this is where we disagree -- I am quite  
convinced that science can, if given enough time, explain how things  
began here on earth to a substantial extent. If Archbishop Usher's  
calculations were correct, then, if science is someday perfected,  
that will show up. So, I do think there is room to discuss things  
like creationism and intelligent design, but we must approach them  
from the opposite way that we'd like to. That is, we must examine why  
evolution is problematic from a scientific standpoint. Doing so  
allows us to say, "well, we can't explain this -- it would virtually  
never happen randomly -- so take that for what you will." Those who  
have an inclination of faith will obviously see where this leads:  
back to God.

     The finite creation cannot point back to the infinite God in  
full, but it does have his fingerprints.

> I also submit that it is unreasonable to subject God to our
> naturalistic understanding of the universe because it is far too
> deistic and shrinks God. God can override the natural order and I
> would assert does. I would say that the ressurection accounts in the
> Bible are wholly unnatural because our universe is defined by death
> and decay due to the fall which is overriden by ressurection. Also
> think of the account of the Sun standing still from the Old Testament,
> this is a wholly unnatural occurence and can only be explained if we
> allow God the sovereign ability to override the natural.

     Sure, He can, we must simply ask why. I think God is fairly  
economical concerning breaking the laws He created. God is nothing if  
He is not consistent. Why would He break what He created? Is it not  
more reasonable to presume that God simply has created laws, perhaps  
ones we'll never even be able to detect with our imperfect ideas and  
equipment, that allow Him to manipulate the universe without breaking  
its laws?

     Obviously coming back from the dead does not happen just by  
itself. God had to be involved, but I wonder if he didn't some how  
"set up the lab" just right so that the processes He designed did  
what He wanted.

     As Karl Barth said, God is the only one to have true freedom.  
But, God's freedom is the freedom to be Himself. We know from the  
Bible that God is unchanging. If He is unchanging, it seems to me  
that maybe implying that he keeps changing laws of any sort does not  
make sense.

     A lot of people disagree with what I am saying because they  
think I am saying miracles do not happen. Au contraire! A miracle is  
not so much a violation of natural law as it is God causing, leading,  
doing something, regardless of how. For example, if I pray that I can  
talk to a given person, and not thirty seconds later, the said person  
"just happens" to walk in the door -- have any natural laws been  
broken? I don't think so, but it still seems like a miracle to me and  
you'd be hard pressed to convince me God did not have his hand in  
such things.

     Here's a real life example: last year a teen was reported  
missing somewhere on the East Coast. She'd been missing for days. One  
night a person who did not know her couldn't sleep and felt led to go  
take a walk alongside the road. There off the side of the road, she  
spotted the wreckage of a car. She called the police, they went down,  
and they found the said teen alive and just a bit dehydrated. Now, no  
laws of nature were violated, but I'd say this is very much  
miraculous. Think, for that matter, of Joseph -- everything that  
occurred (other than the interpretation of the dreams themselves)  
seems fairly natural, but God has His hand in the natural as well as  
the supernatural.

> To require natural expalnations damages the sovereignty of God and is
> something I would absolutely reject. We do not have a picture in the
> Bible of a God who is bound by nature but of one who is supreme over
> the natural.

     Right. I do not deny that God can violate the laws of nature, I  
just don't think he does so gratuitously.

     -Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "Do  not forget that  the value and interest of
Editor, OfB.biz   | life is not so much to do conspicuous things...
tbutler at ofb.biz   | as to do ordinary things with the perception of
timothybutler.us  | their enormous value."
                                       -- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin