[CS-FSLUG] Intelligent design...

[Chris Brault]

Well,

> 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.


Molding a man from the dust is a rather miraculous thing.  I can't do 
that. The internal organs alone ... sheeesh.

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

> 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.


I agree that what we discover will not conflict with God. People's 
interpretations can. That's why we explore. We need to clear up 
misunderstandings.

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

>
>     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.


Indeed, if you went back in a time machine and found that God lied about 
creation and creating the animal "kinds" then your faith should be dead. 
The interpretations of evidence change everyday. If you marry one 
interpretation today, you'll be widowed tomorrow.

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

> 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.


True enough ... a believer in Theistic Evolutoin can be saved by grace 
throught faith in Jesus Christ. However, Evolution, theistic or not, is 
inconsistant with the belief in a "literal" reading of the Hebrew of 
Genesis 1-3.  The words that Jesus referred to and the early church 
fathers believed never included anything further than a few thousand 
years. If any of you are familiar with the Hebrew construction of 
genesis, it's obviously not poetry and it's obviously not referring to 
anything outside of 6 literal days (atleast from the Earth's point of view).

That said, I agree. If someone does read it poetically, it does not 
negate their faith nor their salvation. It's just inconsitant with it.

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

> I do not advocate the promotion of intelligent design or creationism
>
> 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.


Indeed, we do disagree. Although I agree that, given enough time, 
science will eventually be compelled by sheer evidence to accept the 
correct conclusions. My problem is with negative arguements. For 
example: Evolution is so far-fetched in area "a", area "b" and area "c" 
that it couldn't have happened. I prefer positive evidence. For example: 
The major geological layers show evidence of being created by a global 
flood rather than over millions of years ... and here's why.

I firmly believe that countering the brainwashing of public schools and 
the accepted social standards will create a stronger faith. And building 
up the body in faith is a noble goal. Of course, I won't get married to 
particular model. I will, however, believe that when taken at face 
value, the facts point to God's special creation. I don't believe 
because the scientists say so, but it makes me stronger in my faith 
when, again and again, it is shown the Bible can be trusted in all areas.

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

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

I agree.

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

>> 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.


This is interesting conjecture ... but it's just that. God "could" have 
created laws to handle certain special events. God "could" have ... but 
we don't know if he did.

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

>     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.


I don't think that God changes the laws. As I've seen, He simply ignores 
them. The laws, as far as I'm concerned, are for us. He does not exist 
in time. He is not bound by the laws that bind us.

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

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

This might be true.

Gabe