The End of Christianity now available at Amazon.com

_{William Dembski

October 13, 2009

Evolution, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science, theistic evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Although its official release date is not until November 1, THE END OF CHRISTIANITY is now in stock and being sold at Amazon.com (go here). Even though argument in this book is compatible with both intelligent design and theistic evolution, it helps bring clarity to the controversy over design and evolution. In particular, it resolves the problem of dysteleology and natural evil by introducing a conception of the Fall that is theologically sound and also compatible with modern science (i.e., with standard astrophysical and geological dating that places the earth and universe at billions of years old).

THE END OF CHRISTIANITY

Comments

My approach, in a nutshell, is to argue that just as the salvation in Christ at the Cross saves backward in time as well as forward (the OT saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so the effects of the Fall can be retroactive
It hurts my soul and I'll let Angelus Silesius speak for me: Had Christ a thousand times, Been born in Bethlehem, But not in thee, thy sin Would still thy soul condemn. Golgotha's cross from sin Can never ransom thee, Unless in thine own soul It should erected be.Cabal_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Mr. Dembski, are you familiar with the work of Mr. Barry Setterfield dealing with Variable Light Speed? http://www.setterfield.org/ Also, thought you might find these notes of interest: http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/10/a-response-to-ellen-van-wolde-on-genesis-1.html http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1535&cpage=1#comment-193924 http://science-and-values.blogspot.com/2009/10/god-is-not-creator-claims-academic.html Full disclosure-I am a Young-Earth Creationist (not the AiG/ICR brand, though), though two of the above posters are not, making their remarks all the more interesting. I will gracefully bow out now. One more bone to toss for the road: http://www.creationbiology.org/JGoodard_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

I was able to get the book at Baker Book House last Friday. I think the retroactive effects of the Fall would explain it. We could just say that creation had been subjected to futility from the beginning, because Adam and Eve rebel in the garden of Eden (an island paradise in a fallen world). If Behe's argument is correct, then things like the malaria parasite were actually designed, not just devolved. In that case, Satanic design seems the most likely explanation. Prof. Dembski suggests that Satan was given authority of the Earth retroactively, because of the Edenic Fall. I think C.S. Lewis would have offered a different explanation of why Satan had authority over Earth. But either way, we have a planet that in some way is under the dominion of a fallen angel, which would explain designed natural evil. I applaud Prof. Dembski for adopting Lewis's view, which is certainly against today's "mental environment."Bilboe_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, I read Chapter 1 of your book when you made it available online, and found it very interesting. What perplexes me about you and ID is your transition from characterizing the intelligence of the Designer of life as non-natural, as Phillip Johnson did, to characterizing it as natural. Does your book explain your change in perspective? In any case, would you please explain it to us now?Mystic_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

So there was suffering and death for millions of years before the fall but this was "caused" by the fact that the fall was going to happen? Seems like this allows the fall to be as close to not actually existing as possible.TempHut_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Barry: Thanks for the link to the First Things article. The debate whether Genesis teaches that God created the world from nothing versus whether it teaches that God merely stepped into an already existing world is actually longstanding. I remember studying the history of Genesis 1-3 interpretation in depths at seminary (I took a whole course on it). As I recall the medieval rabbis disputed this question. We see this dispute implicit in contemporary translations, such as the NRSV, which starts "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth..." The word "when" suggests that Genesis 1 is describing an "in medias res" creation rather than a creation from an absolute beginning, as Genesis 1 has traditionally been interpreted. In any case, the Church Fathers and orthodox Christian tradition have been clear that Genesis 1 denotes an absolute beginning with a creation from nothing. The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew is consistent with this understanding.William Dembski_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

vpr: You'll need to read part II of the book. You're right about not being able to have certainty in these matters -- that's why I am always willing to look at young-earth arguments to see if I'm missing something. But certainty seems the wrong epistemic category here. What is the evidence and of what does it convince us? I personally am convinced of an old earth. Might I be wrong? Of course. But we go with our best understanding at the time.William Dembski_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Bill I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. How can we have any certainty if our dating methods when many of our assumptions are variable i.e. the speed of light, etc.vpr_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Sorry bevets, Recent scholarship has shown that the text does not mean that God even created, much less created in six days.* Go here for the story: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/12/breaking-news-god-didnt-create-the-heavens-and-earth/ *sarcasmBarry Arrington_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

JGuy: The problem the book addresses is how to maintain a classical conception of the Fall (as the occasion for all evil in the physical world, both natural and moral) if long ages of animal suffering and death precede the Fall. My approach, in a nutshell, is to argue that just as the salvation in Christ at the Cross saves backward in time as well as forward (the OT saints were saved in virtue of the Cross), so the effects of the Fall can be retroactive. This, it seems to me, preserves the most important thing that young-earth creationism has attempted to preserve, namely, that the sin of Adam brought ruin on the human race and on the physical world. Bevets raises an interesting point about what the writers of Genesis intended to convey. Since ultimately the inspiration behind the Bible is God himself, it seems that what's ultimately important is not what the writers intended but what God intended and what the text actually says. It is true, however, that the history of interpretation on Genesis 1-11 has, until the rise of modern science, been overwhelmingly a young-earth interpretation (I trace this up through the 16th century, showing that even Thomas Aquinas was a 6-day young-earth creationist). As I note in THE END OF CHRISTIANITY, I would be a young-earth creationist in a heart-beat if I didn't see the evidence for an old earth as so strong. The young-earth old-earth debate, however, is only about 20 percent of the book. Most of it will be of interest to Christians of either stripe and even to theistic evolutionists. For the front matter to the book, go here. For the endorsements, go here. William Dembski_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in Englandbevets_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Brilliant. This book looks really interesting. Do you know when it will be available from Amazon UK? [The Paternoster version, for distribution in the UK, has been printed -- I have a copy -- so it should be available shortly. Go here to pre-order. --WmAD]Green_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

I realize it might not be a topic of conviction in the book, but.. ..Does it have a bias on the age, young or old, of the earth or universe? ..Does it promote or pay credence to any of the dating methodoliges? (ie.whether supporting old or whether supporting young) For some reason, the description above gave me a slightly different impression than my prior impression, but still sounds interesting.JGuy_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply