Christianity Today article placing creationism in opposition to ID

_{William Dembski

April 25, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

Christianity Today, Week of April 24

The Other ID Opponents
Traditional creationists see Intelligent Design as an attack on the Bible.
by Rob Moll | posted 04/25/2006 09:30 a.m.

This week, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary named creationist Kurt P. Wise to replace outgoing Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski. The theological and scientific differences between Dembski and Wise are deep and wide. Intelligent Design and creationism are not co-conspirators trying to overthrow Darwinian evolution. . . .

MORE: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/117/22.0.html

Comments

Geoff Robinson, I totally agree with what you said. If I am not mistaken, the arguement you are alluding to was clearly laid out in the debate Dr Bahsen had with Dr Gordon Stein.Mats_{April 26, 2006
April
04
Apr
26
26
2006
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

You are indeed correct. They employ logic, rationality, induction, etc. When materialists employ those things, they aren't being consistent with their own worldview. They have to borrow from theism. Other theists who aren't Christians can, but they run into other issues different from those above. I would look up the work of the late Greg Bahnsen to get into this further. So when materialists complain that ID requires the supernatural (which it doesn't in the way they mean), I would require them to give up rationality, induction, beliefs in universals, and language if they want to totally get rid of the supernatural. In other words, they can't speak or argue and be consistent materialists.geoffrobinson_{April 26, 2006
April
04
Apr
26
26
2006
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

geoffrobinson: I guess I wasn't questioning the belief in Christ's divinity. I still don't see your statement as making any objective sense. There are all kinds of people who are not Christians who nevertheless employ logic, rationality, ID theory, and science quite effectively. That is why I needed you to explain why everything else is only true if Christianity is true. It sounds like a big, all-encompassing statement which contains a few not-explicitly-stated sub-statements. I was hoping you would spell those out for me.tinabrewer_{April 26, 2006
April
04
Apr
26
26
2006
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Before Christianity came about in 30 AD or so? Sure. Before Jesus existed? Well, He always existed. Again, a second order question in relation to ID.geoffrobinson_{April 26, 2006
April
04
Apr
26
26
2006
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

geoffrobinson: How is it that "the only way ID, science, the laws of logic, rationality, etc. make any sense is if Christianity is true" ? Certainly before Christ there was logic, rationality, etc?tinabrewer_{April 26, 2006
April
04
Apr
26
26
2006
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

I understand ID's official position. But as a philosopher/apologist/presuppositionalist, I would come in and say that the only way ID, science, the laws of logic, rationality, etc. make any sense is if Christianity is true. So ID makes no claims of who the designer would be. But I can take their groundwork and run with it. As ID people say, that's a second-order question. And that's OK.geoffrobinson_{April 26, 2006
April
04
Apr
26
26
2006
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Dave, Just a short comment about your previous post: at least give the YECs the benefit of the doubt. Check how do they deal with what the "telescopes say". Shane, I couldn't agree more with you.Mats_{April 26, 2006
April
04
Apr
26
26
2006
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

There are SO many convergent observations of the age of the universe being far more than 6000 years it's inviting ridicule to deny it. Science isn't catching up with any young earth account. It's growing more distant with every passing day. The universe visible through modern telescopes is littered with giant fountains of matter where the source is clearly visible and the distance the ejecta has travelled from the source takes many millions of years. What are you going to believe - all these things we can observe and measure or a handwritten account penned by beduins claming divine inspiration a few thousand years ago? There's no real choice in my mind. I know people make up stories and I know that telescopes do not.DaveScot_{April 26, 2006
April
04
Apr
26
26
2006
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

What amazes me is how some people confuse the roles we have in life. Church. State. Job. Family. I treat my wife differently than I treat my kids (and I'd better, or I'd deserve to be thrown in prison!). I don't argue theology at city hall. I don't promote my least-unfavorite political party at church. I don't fire my kid for insubordination. I don't send my employee to his room. I happen to believe that the Bible and science ultimately reconcile, but I can't "prove" one with the other. Truth is Truth. It's a rock ... no, stronger than a rock. You can't destroy it: you can spit on it, ignore it, deny it, or curse it, but you can't change it. So you might as well settle in and enjoy the ride, ponder the evidence, and be willing to change your mind if what you think doesn't line up -- call it grace and forgiveness if you wish -- because ultimately truth wins in the end. Isn't that confidence in the end result the point of faith anyway?Gandalf_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

If one abandons one's committment to a literal interpretation of "day" in Genesis 1, an interpretation which is most certainly not consistent within the Bible, the Bible and an ID science cease to be all that far apart. (There do remain significant issues: the effects of sin, special creation of man, Noah's flood, the extreme longjevity of the ancients, etc.) Does this suggest that ID is "Biblical"? Consider this. If one abandons the literal interpretation of "day" in Genesis 1, the first two verses sound uncannily like the big bang. "In the beginning God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). And the earth was without form and void (singularity). Then God said, let there be light (the big bang) and there was light. And God divided the light from the darkenss (coalescing of galaxies.) If the big bang does a good job of fitting the Bible, and it does fit a lot more easily than ID does, does that establish that the big bang is religion, therefore not science? If science ultimately demostrates a more complete understanding of what the Bible says, well, so be it. If science ultimately establishes that history is fundimentally different than the Bible says, so be that too.bFast_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

"I've had personal conversations with a couple of leading systematic theologians who believe that the fall had a cosmic impact," Mortenson says. "You can't have millions of years of death and suffering and extinction of the dinosaurs millions of years before man ever was created, and then have a cosmic impact of the Fall."
And Dr. Dembski says: "Combined with NewcombÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s paradox, divine omniscience and omnipotence now yields an interesting insight into divine action, namely this: God is able to act preemptively in the world, anticipating events and, in particular, human actions, thereby guiding creation along paths that God deems best."j_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Sal, you're a young-earther? And Dembski lets you post here? I firmly believe it would be in the best interests of IDers to repudiate the young-earthers among them. Of course, they can't, because much of their support comes from the young-earth community, but I'll settle for DaveScot admitting that a young Earth is rather, um, silly? Not justified by the evidence? Harmful to the ID cause? Anything along those lines.
Sal is an author here at my invitation, not Bill Dembski's. Nothing about ID, which is design detection not designer characterization, precludes YEC. I haven't been shy about saying that I think the evidence of common descent with modification over the course of billions of years is overwhelming. Lots of people believe silly things that go against all the evidence. The silliest is the belief that inanimate chemicals self-assembled without any intelligent input into the basic cellular machinery in every living thing today. The belief that a supernatural creator created the universe and all the life in it over the course of 144 hours 6000 years ago is less silly IMO than thinking it's all a big accident by a considerably wide margin. -ds jt636_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

One of Ken Ham's guys has attacked me via email for moving into the teaching of ID. They are quite opposed to it, more-so I think than this article lets on. I do lean towards a 6-day creation model, though I am open to being shown otherwise, IN THE SCRIPTURE. I have learnt that as with our findings that support design, science is catching up to the Bible and not the other way around. I believe as time goes on, we'll gain more evidence that backs up the 6-day creation model, and a young earth model. I am a little curious how one can believe in the God of the Bible, and yet not hold to a 6-day creation model, especially when we're all well to aware of how nearly all scientific findings are skewed to fit Darwinian Evolution. It is in my opinion hypocrisy, to decry the findings of darwinian scientist working in the biological fields as being misinterpreted because of an established a priori, and yet accept the findings of darwinian scientists working in paleontology untarnished truth. As ID spreads and becomes more commonly held, I expect to see paleontologists present findings that strongly support a 6-day creation, young earth model.Shane_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

"Not only that, says Mortenson, ID proponents say theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not even interested in the Bible.Ã¢â‚¬Â YECs bearing false witness against other YECs (Paul Nelson is a YEC and ID proponent, so am I). I've said time and again, I don't like AiG.scordova_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

"ID isn't opposed to evolution, says Ham; it's really just opposed to naturalism. Not only that, says Mortenson, ID proponents say they're not even interested in the Bible."

That's not even true. While it is true that ID is not opposed to evolution, the question of naturalism is irrelevant. While many detractors in the darwinism camp insist that ID somehow implies a supernatural designer, it simply isn't so. The question of naturalism with regards to the designer of life on this planet is DISJOINT with any notions of a supernatural. Perhaps one might argue that a supernatural is ULTIMATELY necessary (I don't think it is, personally), it certainly is not a necessary condition for the designer of life for THIS planet.

"So you've got this group that's not about the Bible," says Ham."

Correct.

"You've got the secular press saying this is just a way to get the Bible back in the schools, because many of the Christians who think ID is great think it is a way to get the Bible back into schools."

And both camps are blind and falling into the ditch.

"[At the same time] the ID movement's trying to divorce themselves from that saying it's not [about the Bible]."

Again correct.

"The secular press is saying yes it is."

The secular press is full of knuckleheads.

"And many of the Christians who are behind them are really doing it because they are Christians."

Many people beind NeoDarwinism are atheists, and Marxists have a field day with it. What does this matter? Either an idea is science or it is not.

"But Christians are being duped, Mortensen says. "Most if not all of the ID books are published by evangelical Christian publishers, which are marketing to an evangelical audience. And our concern is that [although] in those books there are good design arguments, there are statements sprinkled in them implying or stating openly that Genesis isn't important."

Perhaps. Many authors write many things. Quite beside the point of ID.

"We're concerned about the influence it's having on the church," says Mortenson, "causing Christians to not be concerned about what Genesis says."

Heh, well, I would be concerned too. Many Genesis is wrong. Maybe the evidence points away from such a view. Are we all, atheist and bible-believe alike, willing to follow the evidence whereever it leads?
That's not even true. While it is true that ID is not opposed to evolution, the question of naturalism is irrelevant. While many detractors in the darwinism camp insist that ID somehow implies a supernatural designer, it simply isn't so. The question of naturalism with regards to the designer of life on this planet is DISJOINT with any notions of a supernatural. Perhaps one might argue that a supernatural is ULTIMATELY necessary (I don't think it is, personally), it certainly is not a necessary condition for the designer of life for THIS planet. Nicely put, Mike. I couldn't possibly agree more. A supernatural cause is ultimately necessary for the creation of the universe itself as by definition the creator of the universe must be outside the universe but after that point everything seems explicable without further resort to anything beyond the observable universe or the laws of nature governing its operation. -ds mike1962_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

"I don't think the ID movement would be where it is even now if it was not for the general creation movement," says Ken Ham, president of AiG. "They're riding on the coattails of the creation movement." (Sigh.) They are welcome to their theology, but either ID is science or it isn't. ID has a logical disjoint with creationism (literal bibical interpretation.) If what he means to say is that the ideas behind ID were brought about by people willing to consider the possibility that some designer created life, then so be it. But so what? That hardly matters when it comes to science. Various motives may grease the wheels of certain ideas (Marxism/Atheism and Darwinism) but ultimately the ideas either stand or they don't, despite anyone's motives. What are these Christians afraid of? Are they really worried about some 6-day creation event being true or not? What if it turns out to be an allegory? Who cares? The real issue IMO is whether ID is science or not. Whether it supports a particular traditional views is irrelevant. They don't seem to be able to see the distinction. Pardon my rant. :)mike1962_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

I really tire of all the "religion" talk in and about ID. Religion is religion and ID is ID. They are not the same, and any idiot should be able to see that. I am not religious. (I do not believe in a supernatural, per se.) As an engineer I am intrigued with the question of design, and it's detection in nature. The shrill voices in the NeoDarwinist camp are getting quite old. I hope the ID adherents (religious or not) keep pushing the objective nature of this thing, and keep a rigid code of honesty about that is and isn't knowable "scientifically", and leave theology out of it altogether. I wish the religiousists as well as the NeoDarwin ideologues would just shut up. Surely, Reality is greater than our limited philosophies.mike1962_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Sad sad sad... Although I agree w/ Ken Ham that without the Bible everything ultimately falls short, much like what Dr. Dembski said in "Intelligent Design" if science (everything) doesn't point to Christ. But looks like both sides creationist and evolutionists don't understand ID. As a YEC, I want to say to other YECers here that ID is a scientific way to explain the fingerprints left by God and fortunately for us He has left irreducibly complex things (upon many other) that we can detect w/ SCIENCE with things like the complexity-specificty explanatory filter. Also, just intrinisic to its nature -for now-, ID cannot show which designer did it (unless of course inside cells there are signs flashing "Yahweh" or something). ID proponents have given us much fodder and scientific, dare I say "naturalistic" ways, to detect design that God has left. That's why ID is so great, its not biased to any predisposition (technically not even to naturalism... they believe in statistics right?).jpark320_{April 25, 2006
April
04
Apr
25
25
2006
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply