Mailbox: A reader writes from an island in Mediterraean to ask,

_{Denyse O'Leary
April 3, 2009

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Don’t you think Evolution excludes God from being the Creator? How can you support it them being a Catholic?

After I got over raging at that guy for living in a place that is actually warm and sunny (how dare he?), I replied:

Friend, thank you for writing, and apologies for any delay in getting back to you.

Essentially, I think God can create however he wants.

He can use direct creation and various types of evolution, including Darwin’s natural selection. Or other methods beyond my ability to imagine.

He’s God. and I’m not. So I don’t worry about whether God can do something, but rather whether evidence suggests that he has.

Indeed, for certain purposes – weeding out losers, for example – natural selection is doubtless an important mechanism.

I use it myself sometimes when I garden. I often just scatter flower seed broadcast – knowing that the losers will die, and the survivors will not need interventions that I can’t afford and don’t have time for.

Where I differ with the exponents of “Evolution” is:

1. I am not an atheist or a “liberal” Christian.

2. Therefore I do not need to prove that there is no design in the universe or life forms.

3. Therefore, I can acknowledge that design is evident in the universe and in life forms.

4. Therefore, I do not need to pretend that my method for weeding out loser plants in my garden actually creates any new information. All it does is distinguish between good and bad examples of the information that already existed.

5. I think that once we get things like that straight, we will be on the verge of another science revolution. But as along as we are stuck with no-design nonsense, we will be stuck with stupid projects about stuff we know that ain’t so.

I do hope this is a help.

Comments

Cannuckian Yankee said: "Why wouldn’t a YECer accept the Cambrian explosion? " Well yes, the timeline would be a problem for a YEC! But more than that - YECers believe in the literal account of creation in the Bible. Therefore they must believe that at least the large majority of species (including mammals) were created as detailed in the Genesis 1 & 2 accounts. That's at least what a YEC is too me - somebody who believes in the inerrant literal account of Genesis. "A YECer would accept anything that there is evidence for just as you would. " I would say a YECer does not accept evidence in the same way as I do but puts an priori emphasis on an ancient text whose provenance is disputable (and is more likely based on earlier myths than inerrant revelation). But the current science behind the Cambrian explosion holds that mammals did not basically exist prior to this event. Of course remember I'm not a believer so I personally think the YECer has got just about everything dead wrong.JTaylor_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PST}

JTaylor: "If ID can’t at some point start to answer these questions, I have to wonder what the point is? Isn’t ID too narrowly circumscribed to ever be of any useful application? I think too human curiosity cannot stop people naturally wanting to ask these questions - yet ID tells us that no only is this out of scope, but unfortunately there doesn’t appear to another sub-disciple (or is there?) and/or forum where these kinds of questions can be addressed." The questions you referred to fall more in the area of philosophy and metaphysics than in science. ID does not address the metaphycical questions: thus, ID theorists do not address them. This is something that many materialists fail to do: separate their metaphysical assumptions from the science. You have to separate the metaphysical implications (designer vs. no designer) of science from the physical evidence (complex specified information / irreducible complexity vs. gradual unplanned and undirected natural selection) of science in order to do science. ID is useful because it shows that something other than unguided unplanned natural selection is going on. It shows that complex specified information is behind the irreducible complexity found in biological organisms, and as such, it implies that such information came from intelligence.CannuckianYankee_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST}

JTaylor :How can you accept an ID ‘methodology’ which suggests that God intervened at various points throughout history (e.g., the Cambrian explosion which presumably a YECer would not accept)." I think you presume too much. Why wouldn't a YECer accept the Cambrian explosion? A YECer would accept anything that there is evidence for just as you would. the only thing a YECer might differ with is the time of the Cambrian, not necessarily the event itself. Besides this point, the Cambrian event is used as evidence in favor of ID. By itself it is not the main argument for ID. Therefore, a YECer could be in favor of ID, while rejecting the Cambrian event.CannuckianYankee_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PST}

"ID methodology does not suggest God intervened. It does not suggest that God didn’t intervene. It is silent on the matter. ID methodology states that if certain characteristics exist, an object is design. It doesn’t say how, who or why. It just says is. If ID can't at some point start to answer these questions, I have to wonder what the point is? Isn't ID too narrowly circumscribed to ever be of any useful application? I think too human curiosity cannot stop people naturally wanting to ask these questions - yet ID tells us that no only is this out of scope, but unfortunately there doesn't appear to another sub-disciple (or is there?) and/or forum where these kinds of questions can be addressed.JTaylor_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PST}

JTaylor--How does that work? If you are a YECer you presumably believe in the literal 6-day creation of the entire Universe. How can you accept an ID ‘methodology’ which suggests that God intervened at various points throughout history (e.g., the Cambrian explosion which presumably a YECer would not accept). ID methodology does not suggest God intervened. It does not suggest that God didn't intervene. It is silent on the matter. ID methodology states that if certain characteristics exist, an object is design. It doesn't say how, who or why. It just says is.tribune7_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PST}

JTaylor: "At several times in the history of the universe and the earth, God has made several design “interventions”. Although there is no clear-cut evidence of when or how these took place, events such as the Cambrian explosion could be inferred as an intervention point (or perhaps the initial design of RNA/DNA and/or the cell). 2) Even though God has used design (as described above), there is no explicit mention of this in the Bible, although perhaps design is inferred in part. Does this suggest that God not is particularly bothered whether believers accept creationism or ID? (I don’t know, but it is something I’ve always been puzzled about. Would you say these are fair assumptions?" The Bible does not address how God created, you are correct. There are several hints in Scripture about the creation process in Genesis, but nothing exhaustive. The scriptures speak largely about God's nature and character, and as such, one can glean how He might have created. For exhample, the scriptures speak of God as holding the universe together. This suggests that God is a non-material force of some kind. It also suggests that the laws that govern the universe come from God. Paul's epistle to the Romans suggests that God's existence is evident in what He has made, and this evidence also hints at His divine nature. Now to address the interventionist question - yes, I think that there are times when God creatively intervenes in nature to create a (for example) Cambrian explosion of new species. However, it is possible that he also creates by a process of front-loading - whereby he sets in motion an evolutionary process of development, by providing the basic information that is needed for such a process allong with the basic building blocks. None of these ideas are compatible with unguided natural selection, simply because natural selection denies that complex information is required for evolution. I don't envision God as a tinkerer. I think that he knew exactly what he wanted and created exactly that. He even allowed for the possibility of the disintegration of what He created(through the process of the fall), so that what we currently see in nature is not the perfection that God has in mind for His creation. The mistake is to assume that God created only a physical universe. To make that assumption is to miss all the important points of who God is. This is what materialists do all the time when addressing what theists believe, by saying that for example: "God couldn't have designed nature because nature is flawed." This does not take into account that God also created consciousness (which most materialists assume is simply a construct of brain function). Consciousness allows us to make certain decisions and as such to do good or evil. The existence of evil allows for the disintegration of a perfect creation. So God's not a tinkerer, he allows the evil to have it's full effect in order to bring about a more perfect creation, one where good is chosen apart from evil. This is the primary Biblical theme. I think it's interesting that you mention that the Bible does not mention design. This is precisely why ID is not religious. ID is complatible with the Bible as far as supporting creation rather than unguided unplanned evolution. But ID is not based in the Bible as is creationism. Incidentally, ID and creationism are not "either or." One can be an ID supporter and a creationist, and the other way around. The important point is that not all ID supporters are creationsists. I think God is concerned that His believers believe what is true. He's more concerned with their faith and love for him and for each other than what they believe about science and what-not. However, God is truth. He does not support anything that is not of the truth, so his believers should be aligned with what is the truth. If ID is more true than Darwinian evolution, then believers should support ID. Above all, however, believers should believe in God as the creator of all that exists.CannuckianYankee_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PST}

tribune7 said: "You can be a Young Earth Creationist and accept the methodology of ID. " How does that work? If you are a YECer you presumably believe in the literal 6-day creation of the entire Universe. How can you accept an ID 'methodology' which suggests that God intervened at various points throughout history (e.g., the Cambrian explosion which presumably a YECer would not accept).JTaylor_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PST}

Nullasalus @27: "There’s several different perspectives on what qualifies as ‘inerrant" I'm not familiar with what these different perspectives are (other than inerrancy based on different translations?). I think the Wikipedia definition puts it well: "Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts." Nullasalus @27: "no ID proponent I know of views the bible as a ’support’ for ID." Fair enough - but then why are the majority of ID supporters evangelical Christians? For whatever reason they believe that the Designer is the Biblical God (as opposed to Allah), yet there seems little Biblical evidence for that viewpoint (arguably the opposite, even if you take a mythical or inerrantist viewpoint). Yes it is possibly a distinct theological question. But presumably though many ID supporters must have given this some thought at least in their own minds? I know some have tried to mesh theology and ID together but to an outsiders viewpoint at least it seems more of a mish-mash than a good fit, let alone one that establishes any kind of causal relationship.JTaylor_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PST}

1) It is difficult, if not impossible, to be an inerrantist and a supporter of ID ID tells us that life is designed. It doesn't say how or who or why it was designed. You can be a Young Earth Creationist and accept the methodology of ID. You can believe in an old Earth and common descent and accept the methodology of ID. You can be a Hindu or a Moslem or a follower of Quetzecoatal or a Scientologist or an atheist believer in ancient astronauts and accept the methodology of ID.tribune7_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PST}

JT, As to 1 - not at all. There's several different perspectives on what qualifies as 'inerrant', and especially with regards to Genesis, dispute over just what is the proper reading is not a new discussion by a longshot. That rather puts aside 2 and 3, though as far as 3 is concerned - no ID proponent I know of views the bible as a 'support' for ID. The ID question is its own, divorced from theological questions. Whether ID meshes well with theology is a distinct question from the science queries.nullasalus_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PST}

DaveM: "Job 38:4-6 (New International Version): 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone?” I agree that this is suggestive of design...but the fact that it mentions cornerstones and foundations is suggestive that this was initial design at the time of creation - not the ongoing design-intervention that I believe ID proposes (if there is any mention of that in the Bible that would be interesting to know).JTaylor_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PST}

So can we now surmise 1) It is difficult, if not impossible, to be an inerrantist and a supporter of ID? Although I think they do exist? 2) If the Bible is not inerrant, but more mythical/spiritual, than God is not that much concerned with revealing the true nature of origins? And since this is an intelligent designer, we must assume that it would have been in their power to easily reveal the mechanisms (and timeline) used in the ID process - but for whatever reason has chosen not to. So the ID community is left with a hypothesis that the designer performed some design interventions at key points in history, but with no testable way to verity this. 3) Or as gpuccio @9 suggests that He/She wants us to embark on our own search? (although 2 above suggest it might not be fruitful). If so we still must deal with a text that, mythical or not, if it does not actually contradict ID, at least provides very little support.JTaylor_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PST}

riddick
At which point does the book of Genesis cease being a myth and become historical narrative?
I'd say Genesis 12. It's not that the events prior to Genesis 12 didn't happen - it's just that the account in Genesis 1-11 is likely to be based on earlier accounts, compiled by people from other cultures (e.g. the Babylonians). The author of Genesis 1-11 may have simply taken certain historical data in these accounts as established fact (having no reason to question it), but woven it around a monotheistic account of the origin of the world, rather than the polytheistic one favored by the people living in the Fertile Crescent at that time. That's why I think it is vitally important to discern the intentions of the author, when expounding a Scriptural passage. It makes no sense to argue that the author of Genesis 1-11 intended to assert some historical fact X if he was addressing people to whom it would never have occurred to question that fact. On the other hand, the story of the call of Abraham marks the beginning of a people set apart by God. The Jewish people are likely to have treasured Abraham as their spiritual father (as he was also to the descendants of Ishmael), and to have jealously guarded their traditions relating to him and the other patriarchs. For that reason, I'd be inclined to credit most of the historical events narrated in Exodus, despite their highly miraculous content and the total lack of secular evidence for their occurrence. That isn't to say that all myth in the Bible stops at the end of Genesis 11. But it does mean the shoe is on the other foot: Christians have a strong prima facie reason to treat events recorded in the Bible as historical from that point onwards, except for those books which make no claim to be such.vjtorley_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PST}

Science has shown that the creation of the universe depicted in Genesis is a myth in the Campbell sense. What has to be remembered is that science changes. Right now, very good science indicates a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and that the sun came before plants. But if one should be of the opinion that 50 or 100 or 500 years from now, or at the very end, the data will indicate a picture more in line with Genesis, that is not a delusional faith.tribune7_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PST}

Really, the reverse is the case. Science has shown that the creation of the universe depicted in Genesis is a myth in the Campbell sense. It makes very powerful points about the ultimate ground of the universe, but it is not literally true. That does not detract from the spiritual truth for the believer.hazel_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PST}

JTaylor: "If I was a liberal or non-literalist Christian I suppose I could say this is a “myth” in the Campbell sense of illuminating a general truth but not a literal event." At which point does the book of Genesis cease being a myth and become historical narrative?riddick_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PST}

That's not a heretical thought, but rather the position many Christians, and Christian denominations, take on the Bible. (Well, it's heretical to the Biblical inerrantists, but that's only a subset of all believers in the Bible.)hazel_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PST}

I agree with you, riddick. For my part, if the basic history in the Bible were proven unreliable, then why would I consider it trustworthy for spiritual matters–about which I have no insight of my own?
Just a heretical thought: What if the Bible is a mixture of folklore and spiritual insight? That what we should realize is the spiritual message and not so much ancient attempts at figuring out how the world came to be? We are born with the potential for spiritual life within but without knowledge about the physical world.Cabal_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PST}

merlin
Why is Noah's flood not considered a possibility?
I suggest you look at this link: http://www.aigbusted.com/Noahs_Flood.php See also: http://www.aigbusted.com/Radiometric_Dating.php and http://www.aigbusted.com/Young_World_Evidence.php I accept that the Earth's history may well be filled with more catastrophes than we presently imagine. Sean Pitman makes a strong case for catastrophism on his Web page at http://detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html , but I don't think he is persuasive when he claims that a single flood can account for it all. However, a global catastrophe may well be the basis of the Biblical account of Noah's flood. See this link: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood The scientific evidence remains controversial, but IF it withstands scrutiny (and that's a big if), then I think it could reasonably be taken as confirmation of the Genesis account. Quibblers may object that the comet strike, if it occurred, would "only" have killed 80% of humanity, leaving far more than eight people, but 2 Peter 2:5 merely says that God "did not spare the ancient world but protected Noah, a righteous preacher, along with seven others when he brought the flood on the world of ungodly people." That means that eight people were explicitly saved by God when the Flood struck, but that does not necessarily mean that only eight human beings survived. We have to be very careful, when looking at 3,000-year-old documents written in a foreign language for a culture with a different mindset from our own, to discern what the sacred author intended to communicate. In other words, there is no such thing as "the plain meaning of Holy Scripture." That's an Elizabethan notion. Scripture is never plain. The meaning of Scripture can only be understood by, and within the context of, the Christian community that has treasured it since the time of Christ.vjtorley_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PST}

bFast and others It seems to me that there is evidence for a world wide flood (or at least a series of huge local floods). 1. massive fossil beds all over the world 2. braided channels in many locations 3. sediments that seem to have been deposited in a short period of time 4. genetic entropy (John Sanford) 5. anthropological evidence 6. fossilised worm burrows only in the Cambrian (S. Conway Morris) 7. fossil footprints found in older strata than the fossils themselves etc. You all have heard the arguments. I have found little to contradict YEC's. Why is Noah's flood not considered a possibility? Please direct me to a book or books or any other source of info on this particular aspect of the debate. Thanks.merlin_{April 4, 2009
April
04
Apr
4
04
2009
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PST}

JTaylor, 6 - "Even though God has used design (as described above), there is no explicit mention of this in the Bible" Job 38:4-6 (New International Version): 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone?"Davem_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PST}

Gpuccio - thanks for the reply. As I said I'm not a believer myself, but my intent here was to try on different viewpoints to see how they "feel" and where they might lead. I think 1) is a logical outworking of how an ID supporter would probably interpret natural history. It would be interesting to see if a research programme could be designed around this idea. As for 2), I'm not so sure I would agree with your statement that "but He is not necessarily advertising His role". I think the creation accounts in Genesis very much advertise God's role. And of course that this creations accounts from the very opening of the Bible tells us presumably that God wants us to understand origins, and that this is important to all that follows. In fact if God wanted to be more ambiguous about this, maybe it would have been better not to have had a creation account at all. I think then if I was a believer (particularly one who was a literalist) I'd probably find it hard to reconcile ID with the fact that not only is there a creation account, but quite a detailed and specific one too. If I was a liberal or non-literalist Christian I suppose I could say this is a "myth" in the Campbell sense of illuminating a general truth but not a literal event. But then given the time, passion, and fascination that people have with origins, why would God seemingly mislead us with a creation account/myth? Even if this is a myth then, wouldn't a better myth have served that would be more congruent with ID?JTaylor_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PST}

" How can you support it them being a Catholic?" ?Davem_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PST}

Denyse, you said in your point #4: "Therefore, I do not need to pretend that my method for weeding out loser plants in my garden actually creates any new information. All it does is distinguish between good and bad examples of the information that already existed." Already existed? I agree with you, but I think that is where the writer misunderstands your position. Not nearly enough people can distinguish between natural selction, and evolution. Are you advocating special creation 'de novo' of some form? The only alternative is the TE right down to the level of abiogenesis. Information, by definition is complete, complex, and organized. And it is useless without the cell structures to surround it. So... if I were to rephrase your position, I would say that 'we need a whole self replicating organisim before natural selection can occur'. But if that is the case, why would this person have thought you a believer in evolution? ???Lock_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PST}

I'm thinking here. It it because of dimensional size? Is it because Man creates skyscrapers will a hundred million tons of concrete and steel, that we think it outrageous a Mind could create an Universe with N gabillions of tons of rock, and distances of gabillions of light years. What is the fascination with weight and distance? Why does it affect us conceptually? Heck I've already travelled OOB to Asia when I was 15. I'm working on going to the Orion Nebula the next chance I get. I haveta work on will and Mind a bit more, though. :)Oramus_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PST}

It seems many (our atheist friends, maybe?) have a hard time wrapping their minds around a 'being' that created everything since they could not imagine a 'being' that could create so much and manage so much since the universe is 'so' large. So they laugh off this notion as the musings of an ignorant mind. But maybe its because they can't 'picture' it in their minds that they are having trouble. If we could picture a 'being' in our minds, would that not reduce God to just a step ahead of us? Rather, if we could conceive of God as 'being' not 'a' being, that the universe is an expression of God's being, that all things exist within His being, it is not at all difficult to wrap your mind around concepts of design embedded in nature; i.e peering into Mind. Whenever I see the flagella, I see Mind. Whenever I look in a telescope is see Mind. When I look at a picturesque scene of an ocean, a forest, a mountain, I see Mind. What is ironic is that this concept should be easily understood by a scientific mind that spends countless hours considering abstract concepts. Yet, why in the particular of GOD would they reject out of hand the idea of the physical Universe as an expression of Mind. I know, the implications are tooooooo scary to contemplate. Weeeeee are NOT aaaloooone.Oramus_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PST}

I agree with you, riddick. For my part, if the basic history in the Bible were proven unreliable, then why would I consider it trustworthy for spiritual matters--about which I have no insight of my own? In that case, I would say that design is fairly obvious and that there probably is/was a transcendent being responsible for it--but logically it couldn't very well be God as portrayed in the Bible. JTaylor - Point 2: Not a fair assumption, I think. God is on record as having explicitly claimed the role of Creator; and, indeed, it is asserted that God's divinity and eternal power are clearly seen from the creation. Upright - ID is about one kind of evidence. The Bible has evidence of another kind--historical, for instance. Of course you wouldn't look to a history book for instruction in mathematics; however, you might be concerned about the scholarship of the history book if it contained egregious mathematical errors when it happened to touch on the subject.RickToews_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PST}

JTaylor: As you are asking, I will try to answer. Obviously, these are only speculative answer, nothing which we can demonstrate at present. 1) Even if I personally believe in a continuous, and probably in part gradual, intervention of the designer, I agree with you that there are specific points where the design seems to be implemented in a rather sudden way. OOL is certainly the most astonishing (notwithstanding the imaginary scenarios of darwinists, indeed, there is not a single reason to believe that life ever existed in a form simpler than what we can observe today in prokaryotes). The emergence of eukaryotes could well be a second point. And the various "explosions" (Ediacara, Cambrian, flower plants, and probably others) are certainly other critical steps. The birth of humans could also be an important saltation (don't believe the trivial concepts that humans are so similar to chimps, there are many reasons to believe that the organization in humans is a definite leap of complexity). 2) I think that most religion describe God as Creator, intelligent and purposeful. As far as I can understand, the Bible certainly describes God as acting in his creation, both during "creation proper" and after. But He is not necessarily advertising His role. If He wanted, He could easily print in the sky in golden letters what He wants us to believe, but that is not His usual way. Perhaps he appreciates that we use some of the gifts He has given us to search for truth. IOW, I think that God is very tolerant, and does not impose truth on us. If He is interested to what we believe, that is certainly out of His care for us, and for what can happen to us as a consequence of what we think and do, and not because he is "bothered" about our beliefs. At least, this is my personal view.gpuccio_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PST}

ID is about evidence. I would not expect the Bible to be a math book.Upright BiPed_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PST}

Although I'm not a believer myself, if I was to think about the possibility of design, and especially that God had an involvement in the design, it could lead me to a couple of tentative assumptions: 1) At several times in the history of the universe and the earth, God has made several design "interventions". Although there is no clear-cut evidence of when or how these took place, events such as the Cambrian explosion could be inferred as an intervention point (or perhaps the initial design of RNA/DNA and/or the cell). 2) Even though God has used design (as described above), there is no explicit mention of this in the Bible, although perhaps design is inferred in part. Does this suggest that God not is particularly bothered whether believers accept creationism or ID? (I don't know, but it is something I've always been puzzled about. Would you say these are fair assumptions?JTaylor_{April 3, 2009
April
04
Apr
3
03
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply