[CS-FSLUG] Intelligent design...

[Chris Brault]

Well,

> I haven't 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.
> 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.

There are some things that we only speculate about.
How did God create the universe? How was Adam
assembled and what was he like? How did God make Eve
from the rib?

Other things we can infer from what is happening
today. Natural Selection creates new species and
sub-species and each came from a genetic ancestor (a
created "kind"). The magnetic field is decaying from
an original strong field. The flood was a massive
event that left alot of evidence behind.

That said, we can only build "models" and test them
against the evidence (the facts we discover). If it
isn't testable or observable then we just don't know.

And you're right. Speculation is probalby irrelevant
... but it's fun sometimes. Curiosity ... it's just
the way humans are made.

---------------------------------------------------

> 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.

Indeed, this statement is after my own heart.

--------------------------------------------------

> 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.

I do not draw such a hard line between science and
religion. Those that do are ignorant. What the Bible
does say about astronomy, biology and geology you can
trust and can be verified scientifically. That said,
evolution will continue to reign supreme in the hearts
and minds of men (preventing or destroying faith)
until it is challenged. 

A positive argument needs to be brought. The science
in the bible needs to be put to the test
(falsifibility). When it passes the test, doubt is
crushed and faith is strengthened. So God shows
himself to be true and the devil a liar. 

I will not separate the morality of the Bible from the
history of Bible ... and I don't think they should be.

-----------------------------------------------

> 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.

Somethings were supernatural and some were part of
God's order. The miracles are still miracles,
unexplainable by man. While other things are not.

--------------------------------------------------

> 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. Also, remember that in 
> the resurrection of Jesus His body
> was different and unnatural by our estimations. I
> would reject any ideas of a spiritual ressurection 
> but acknowledge that God fundamentally changed the 
> nature of Jesus' body in the ressurection
> act, and I would submit that as another evidence of
> God's ability to override all that we understand as 
> the natural order.

If I am correct, Jesus was the firstfruits of the
Resurrection. So he put off the natural and put on the
eternal (like a tent). So He had a resurrection body.

And you are right to some degree. Miracles should stay
miracles.

------------------------------------------------

> Be very careful in subjecting God to our modernist
> and naturalistic thinkings because eventually you 
> remake God in our image and become the servant of a 
> very weak God.

This is true. Don't limit God.