Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Engand Journal of Medicine & ID

DouglasD
May 24, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It seems even the New England Journal of Medicine is unable to honestly charactarize what ID is.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277

Comments
Theologically speaking, God has not left us clueless on this planet that the universe, and ourselves, are His handiwork. Is it mere coincidence, another lucky Darwinian fluke, that we inhabit a three-dimensional material universe and the God of the Bible, who claims to be the One true Creator God, self-reveals as a trinity -- a three-in-one, three-as-one, three-is-one entity? People who make things like to put their mark on their creation; a logo on their product; a label on their design. By so doing, the human race is only imitating what its Creator did when He made the universe. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse,” should they claim there is no God, says the New Testament book of Romans (1:20). God's "divine nature," the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is encoded in the very structure of the cosmos. Thus we have a universe manifested as a "trinity" of Time, Space, Matter. Time streams as a "trinity" of Future, Present, Past. Some theologians and Bible scholars even elaborate this further to say that Future represents invisible God-the-Father before Whom we will all one day stand, and from Whom comes the Present (the gift Who leads to eternal life, the visible God-the-Son, Immanuel, “God with us,” Jesus Christ). Past represents the invisible God-the-Holy Spirit Who came to earth only after the Son returned to the Father, and now lives in Born-again believers as an ever-present and active reminder of the Eternal Truth (Christ) Who was and is, and is to come. Space exists as a "trinity" of Length, Width, Depth. Atomically, matter is a "trinity" of Protons, Neutrons, Electrons. Our Solar System is a "trinity" of Sun, Planets, Moons. The Bible declares that God made man and woman “in His own image” (Genesis 1:26-27). And so we are a "trinity" of Spirit, Soul, and Body functioning correspondingly through Thought, Emotion, Action. "All that distinguishes the personal life of a human being from the life of an animal is part of the natural image of God," according to the book 'Exploring Our Christian Faith,'(pp. 191; W.T. Purkiser, Ed., Beacon Hill, 1978). "Intellect, conscience, the capacity for moral self-direction, the intimation of immortality, the rational powers of abstract intelliegence are all part of the likenenss of God, the finite reflection of what in the Creator is infinite truth, beauty, and goodness." Secular anthropology posits human society and culture as by-products of Darwinistic evolutionary needs (naturally!). From a biblical perspective, however, a God who is relational, as evidenced by the three-fold nature of the Godhead, created us purposely for relationship, first with Himself, and secondly with one another. His “trinity” design is again noticeable in our relationships: Family is a unity of three: Husband, Wife, Children. Society (or tribe, or nation) is a composite "trinity" of FAMILIES governed by moral laws (RELIGION), and obligated to uphold civic responsibilities (enforced by GOVERNMENT).Emkay
May 29, 2006
May
05
May
29
29
2006
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
timothya says: Exactly what was dishonest about the report in the journal? Ask, and ye shall receive. From the journal article: The Catholic Church, through the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, has also reacted, describing the opinion as "correct" in that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.14 Oh yea? Note that the "14" is a footnote reference to the NYTimes, and not the Vatican Newspaper article. Now, from the Panda's Thumb, since the NYTimes article is now behind the paid wall: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/evolution_sunda.html The official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, has published an article by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, praising Judge John E. Jones III’s decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover and calling intelligent design unscientific. According to the New York Times, “The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.” The PT, no friend of ID, quotes the NYTimes, again no friend of ID, as saying the article was NOT presented as an official church position. Quite in contrast to what the journal article claims.Roger
May 29, 2006
May
05
May
29
29
2006
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
DS--exactly! George is reasoning from his religious assumptions: God is so far above us that there's no way we could identify his handwork. But this is the beauty of ID. As science we go with what we know. We know how to detect design and we know of no unintelligent mechanism that can produce "the "appearance of design".Rude
May 26, 2006
May
05
May
26
26
2006
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT

Rude:

Not sure what you mean by "would that be OK?". I'm simply saying that we have no reason to expect to find material evidence of God's handiwork. Saying "it looks designed" isn't evidence because how are we to know what God's design looks like? Can an ant distinguish between man-made and natural things?

For what it's worth, I think God's screwdriver is evolution.

Scientifically there's no reason to believe we can't expect to find material evidence of creation. What's the difference between saying "it looks designed" vs. saying "it looks like the result of billions of years of chance & neccessity"? It appears to me the key difference is that we have some firm knowledge of what design from intelligent agency looks like (our own designs) but we have no firm knowledge or experience of billions of years of chance & neccessity because we've only been recording our observations of chance & neccessity for a handful of centuries and there have been no observations of chance & neccessity accounting for chemical evolution or the subsequent creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans. -ds George
May 26, 2006
May
05
May
26
26
2006
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
George: "I fail to see why God’s ways and means should be comprehensible to us or why we should expect to find his blueprints or AutoCAD code lying about the place." But if God's ways and means involved some form of variation and natural selection, would that be OK?Rude
May 26, 2006
May
05
May
26
26
2006
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
"Someone needs to fix Wikipedia’s ID article too, while they’re at it. Comment by jaredl — May 25, 2006 @ 11:04 am" As I recall, Wikipedia's "quote-mining" entry slams ID as well.russ
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Someone needs to fix Wikipedia's ID article too, while they're at it.jaredl
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Mats: "Notice that “Christian” Francis Collins shoots himself in his foot..." Seems like a very succinct summary of a theistic evolutionary perspective. How is this foot-shooting? "Since God had a “plan”, does that mean that we can detect the activity of planning in biological life forms?" No. Why would we be expected to? "Is the plan God made an “Intelligent Plan”?" From whose point of view, mine, yours or God's? "What is elegant in a mechanism that involves the death of the majority?" Elegant in this context means simple yet powerful (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elegant). It doesn't mean pretty. I fail to see why God's ways and means should be comprehensible to us or why we should expect to find his blueprints or AutoCAD code lying about the place.George
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Trash like this is infuriating! What a challenge we face. The worst is probably peer pressure—that would explain the utter ignorance and lack of effort to understand. Popularity is so much more popular than honesty and truth. People don't think. Only a tiny minority do that, which is why an entire world can be deceived by a handful of men like Darwin and Marx and Freud. Sometimes we hear that ID must produce results comparable to Darwinism before it can speak with the authority of science. Nonsense! Darwinism has never been anything more than fairy tales. If ID contributes anything at all it's more than Darwinism which has only confused and retarded, especially in its spin-off into the humanities. In fact one can consider a hierarchy of immunity with mathematics at one end and the humanities at the other and biology there somewhere in the middle. Nevertheless it's the biologists who are the high priests of atheism—this because biology is the laboratory where ID dare not be tested. Now all you doctors repeat after me, There is no god but Secularism, Darwin is the apostle of Secularism.Rude
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
As a journalist, I'm appalled that at the editorial bias in this piece. Perhaps it isn't dishonest, but it's written from the assumption ID has no merit, while asserting Darwinism's inability to provide all the answers is just par for the course--and woe to anyone not willing to take that leap of faith. I wish I could get paid for writing articles that fit my bias and trash someone else's.kathy
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Russ@2 Notice that "Christian" Francis Collins shoots himself in his foot. "Many scientists, including myself [Francis S. Collins], find perfect harmony in belief in a personal God who had a plan to create creatures with whom He could have fellowship, and who chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to accomplish this," he says. Since God had a "plan", does that mean that we can detect the activity of planning in biological life forms? Is the plan God made an "Intelligent Plan"? What is elegant in a mechanism that involves the death of the majority? - "The God of the Galapagos is careless , wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical ...” David Wall, Philosopher of ScienceMats
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
Exactly what was dishonest about the report in the journal?timothya@hotmail.com
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
George Annas feels safe after Judge Jones. It's all over. Students will not be "encouraged to keep an open mind." The "compelling evidence that ID is creationism re-labeled" is there for all to see. ID claims clearly "subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation or religious belief." He reassures us that "neither scientists, nor citizens should be concerned." Thank you George for saving us medical doctors the trouble of looking into ID for ourselves. We can trust your analysis as authoratitive. In reality, was it not Judge Jones who subordinated "observed data to statements based on authority" the National Academy of Sciences? I think I remember reading something from before the trial where JJ called ID "ID- Creationism".idnet.com.au
May 24, 2006
May
05
May
24
24
2006
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
I see that the artical also suggests that medical schools not "teach medical students the alternative theory that storks deliver babies." As the father of two adopted children, I will assure you, the stork is alive and well. Further, the stork has upgraded significantly, now providing cribs, car seats, high chairs, play pens, toys, and a reasonable quantity of both clothes and diapers. How these guys have lost sight of the stork is beyond me.bFast
May 24, 2006
May
05
May
24
24
2006
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Don't know how to give a heads-up, but the University of Virgina Alumni Magazine has a short piece on ID: http://www.uvamagazine.org/site/c.esJNK1PIJrH/b.1615369/k.D8AE/Ultimate_Questions.htmruss
May 24, 2006
May
05
May
24
24
2006
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
Didn't we recently have a huge debate on this forum, in which someone argued that it was inappropriate for physicians to lend their support to ID? It was argued that since M.D.s had no relevant expertise as evolutionary scientists, such an endorsement of dissent from Darwinism would be an abuse of the public's faith in the medical profession. I guess the New England Journal has put this issue to rest.russ
May 24, 2006
May
05
May
24
24
2006
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply