The ICR’s continued misunderstandings about science

_{Salvador Cordova

July 10, 2007

Creationism, Intelligent Design, Religion}

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

In Intelligent Design: Strengths, Weaknesses,
and the Differences John Morris, president of ICR, writes:

The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.

Good grief. Is thermodynamics or statistical mechanics Biblical or non-Biblical? If these disciplines can’t be shown to be Biblical, then is Morris suggesting these ideas can’t be defended or studied or promoted by the ICR? Given that Maxwell (a creationist) and Boltzmann (a Darwinist) were pioneers in the formulation of statistical mechanics and atomic theory, I suppose by John Morris’s standards, these great theories are non-Christian theories, therefore the ICR can’t join in their promotion and study.

I suppose the ICR would have issue with James Clerk Maxwell (likely a YEC himself), whose famous equations have ushered in the modern world. His famous equations require an old universe. Thus, if the ICR had it’s way, a great scientific discovery would be rejected on account that it was “unbiblical”.

Conversely, is chemistry more truthful because it is promoted and studied by “an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization”? I submit, it is because ID culture invites those who are non-professing Christians and non-creationists that people have more reason to accept IDs conclusions than to accept something from the ICR where every idea can be vetoed by theological fiat, where personal theology has primacy over empirical facts.

The ICR might do well to stop running their organization like a church, and more like a scientific enterprise. They might find they could actually be better evangelists by letting the facts have a more prominent place than their theology.

If ID theories were viewed as hypotheses like any other hypotheses in science, then it is easy to see the fallacies Morris is (perhaps inadvertently) promoting.

(HT: Mike Gene at TelicThoughts)

Comments

I agree with benkeshet. I really don't see ICR in that article describing ID as un-Christian or anti-Christian, either of which would give complete legitimacy to the complaint. I also don't think the category-error applies. A movement is defined by its goals and actions and since neither seek to officially promote Christianity in the realm of ID, it is simply non-Christian. The YEC position's goals and actions seek to promote Christianity first and foremost, therefore it is an unabashedly Christian movement. Saying something of the movement says little about the content the movement espouses. Chemistry is neither Christian nor non-Christian, Irreducible Complexity is neither as well. But a movement that seeks to speak about Chemistry specifically as God's hand in creation, to the glory of His name, while teaching the concepts of Chemistry would be a Christian Chemistry Movement. As it stands, the current way Chemistry is taught is a non-Christian movement. Not un- or anti-Christian, just non-Christian.rswood_{July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

As a Christian, I don't mind that ID is religously neutral, and agnostic on the identity of the designer. And also that it has agnostic, atheist, and otherwise non-creationist proponents - it makes it all the easier to debate evolutionists without the smear tactics and ad hominems that they try to use. Of course, I do desire that these folks come to a saving knowledge of God, but as far as the single, narrow issue of disproving macroevolution is concerned, it often stymies the arguments that they use as a crutch. If all you want to do is prove to the darwinian that design exists in the universe, then it becomes very easy to do so.Mathetes_{July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

[disclaimer: what follows is the opinion of an arm-chair observer; not a professional in philosophy or science of any kind. Take it FWIW.] I believe JGuy has hit the nail squarely on the head by pointing out the evidentialist vs. presuppositional approach. A similar debate seems to have been raging for sometime within Christian apologetics in general. Do we attempt to demonstrate the rationality of what is being defended (whether it be YEC or Christianity or Theism in general) by starting with a requirement that the conclusions should be premised with an evidential case, or do we start with the conclusion and work backward looking for evidence to support the conclusion? The former, I believe, is the approach Salvador is suggesting be taken. The latter is open to the accusation of question-begging. It is possible to have a synthesis of the two (which, actually, is closer to where I think Salvador is coming from). The synthesis would involve a presupposition of sorts, but not so rigidly held. It would look something like this: 1) The proponent says: "In my heart of hearts, I believe X (in this case YEC), but I don't have enough clear evidence (yet) to present a convincing case." It is more like a cool confidence than a rigid dogma. The hypothesis or presupposition can be questioned. The proponent has confidence that he will be vindicated, but he is not so demanding that he requires every bit of evidence to be tortured into what he thinks fits his hypothesis. A few enigmatic anomalies that run counter his presuppostions are allowed. These are simply chalked up to something like "well we don't know enough yet to know what that means." 2) And therefore, because of #1, we say "for the sake of argument," let's assume that either X or non-X is equally plausible, examine the evidence and see which direction it leads. Where those of a more presuppositional bent would differ is in #2. They would instead say, "No, X or non-X do not have parity; all interpretation is colored by presuppositions, and I choose X as my presupposition and refuse to believe non-X under any circumstance." This is the distinction I see in the approach taken by some of the mainstream YEC organizations versus the approach taken by people like Salvador and other YEC's who see no problem "joining" in with the IDM. (I don't know this for certain, but doesn't Paul Nelson also lean toward YEC? If so, I would expect--though I don't know enough about him to say--that being involved with IDM would also partake of this more epistemologically nuanced YEC position). I think some of this comes from differences in opinion as to the meaning of "faith." Many people, both inside and outside of Christianity and theistic beliefs see "faith" as adhering to a set of ideas, no matter how badly they seem to be at odds with reality. This can lead to a fear of being "confused by the facts" and thus disallowing any sort of questioning. However, to me this seems to indicate a lack of confidence in one's own presuppostions. Time and space, however, does not allow for the digression into a discussion fundamentalist/YEC epistemology that seems to be related here, and which I keep wanting to go into (and keep back-spacing over). I for one am one of the people who got confused by the false dichotomy of "either" YEC or Atheism. Part of this also had to do with recognizing the question-begging nature of SOME YEC's epistemologies. Having thought it through, I now see that there is plenty of room for an OEC or even TE point of view within genuine Christianity. This is one things that helped prevent me from going completely over the edge into unbelief. Having backed away from that precipice, I now see there are some YEC's who do not take such a question-begging stance, and this has warmed be back up to the ideas of YEC. Some of those who have helped point me in this direction are people like A.E. Wilder-Smith, and... well, Salvador Cordova. So don't beat him up too badly here. That said, Salvador, I see that you have to carefully watch your step to prevent stepping into a pile of doo-doo when you state your opinion on these matters. On the one hand it is healthy and necessary to put these differences on the table and discuss them; on the other hand, you have the potential of angering and alienating many potential allies within the YEC sphere. It's a fine line you have to walk, and I'm praying that God will give you wisdom.jb_{July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

I think Dr. Morris blurred the two issues - ID a formal component of science and ID the cultural "Movement" - in the closing sentence. Nevertheless, in reading the article I didn't get the impression that Morris was potentially "tarring" anyone in the movement. He'd said previously in the article: "The strengths of the IDM are several. It has drawn a large and capable cadre of scholars of many persuasions. Major contributors include agnostics, New Agers, Christians, and evolutionists. It is strictly secular in its writings, lectures, and policy. The two principles above are the glue that binds proponents together. All desire to see science and education freed from the religious shackles of naturalism." So Morris apparently does not disparage Christians in the ID "Movement." I doubt if ICR would join a Thermodynamics Movement or an Entropy Movement, but I'm sure they would support and make use of all suitable information such movements might produce, as Morris says about the ID Movement. Best Regardsbenkeshet_{July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Scordova (reply to comment #8): thanks for your reply. First para: I don't see statements that ID is not Christian (in the sense that it does not begin with explicitly Christian presuppositions and then build on them) as "tarring". ID is different in its starting point, but that doesn't mean its useless by any stretch. I think it's one of ID's strengths that it can take on the materialists on their own grounds and defeat them from there. Second para: I don't read the statement "ID is strictly a non-Christian movement" the way you do. I see Morris as talking about the presuppositional level. As such, it's a neutral statement and not one I'd get worked up about. ID is non-Christian in its presuppositions at a formal level; that doesn't mean it's got to be anathema to Christians. Pagan prophets in Acts 17: A sermon I recently preached on this passage is here: http://www.gracebelper.org.uk/media/Acts/GCB-MorningActs-28.mp3. I agree with you that one does not need to be a Christian to appreciate certain truths; Paul's point, though, is that the pagan philosophers had stolen truths which belonged to God. This is presuppositional apologetics; I show my non-Christian "debate partner" that he keeps borrowing elements from the Christian worldview which his own materialistic philosophy can't explain. This is what Paul did: showed that however much the non-Christian tries to suppress the truth, he can't do it consistently. I think we're not in much disagreement on that point. I agree with you that it is possible to come to truth "without God" formally; but I disagree that it's possible to come to truth "without God" absolutely - I'm not sure if that's what you're saying. After that, you seem to be arguing that to do proper research, we must leave aside all credal commitments. I have a major problem with that, for two reasons. One; it's impossible - we're simply not wired that way - that's the enlightenment myth of scientific impartiality. Such impartiality doesn't exist. Secondly, the "no creeds" position is itself a creed; it relies on several assumptions from philosophy, specifically materialist philosophy. When someone tries to argue why we should have "no creeds", they will have to support their case using axioms of their own thinking: those axoims are their creed. I agree with your next point that the "requirement to believe" can be abused; people can be driven from the faith by irrational dogmatists. Such, though, is abuse of the faith, not support of it. It's a different kind of abuse to Dawkins-style assaults, but still abuse. The abuse of a thing does not invalidate the right uses of that thing. I agree with you that scientific claims are rarely final. I don't see though how that undercuts the validity of beginning with non-negotiable presuppositions (as ICR do). Everyone has non-negotiable presuppositions - it's just a question of which, not whether. Let me give an example from your penultimate paragraph. You say, "There is good reason to separate secular enterprises from sacred ones, so long as the secular enterprises are within moral limits." The concession here is essential; but I think fatal to the position you're staking out. How can you determine morality without the sacred? In your "so long as" statement here, you've smuggled the creedalism back in in the small print. That's what I'm trying to say - the absence of creeds can be made to sound desirable and plausible, but isn't actually possible; they always get smuggled back in. So it can't be anti-science be explicit about them; I think you do the ICR a dis-service here. I do appreciate the ID movement and its work because IMO it defeats the materialists on their own grounds. That's extremely valuable in my mind and I've very grateful for it, but I still have to say as a YEC that that's only a limited part of the I want to see done. IMO you've reacted too strongly to Morris; I really don't think he's trying to cause division. He's trying to achieve clarity. If you can receive it from me, I'd submit that your original post may have a far more divisive effect than what he wrote. Kind regards, David http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.comdavidanderson_{July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

My understanding of the issue is quite simple: ICR is promoting a particular type of ID, if you like. They put in the front row the Bible, and the need to defend the Bible through science. They display freely their believe in Christian religion and they are trying to defend Christian values. IDM is different. Not being a religion oriented movement, thus is not defending and is not related to any religion. No particular religious values are defended. I see IDM as a pure scientific approach to the Question Of All Questions: Who Are We And Where Did We Came From ? So, I - also - don't see any problem with Morris's statement...Sladjo_{July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

"Is thermodynamics or statistical mechanics Biblical or non-Biblical? If these disciplines canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be shown to be Biblical, then is Morris suggesting these ideas canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be defended or studied or promoted by the ICR?" I would imagine that the ICR does study them, but defend and promote thermodynamics or statistical mechanics? I rather doubt it. The only thing they are there to defend and promote is YEC. They study thermodynamics and statistical mechanics to defend and promote YEC, and I have little doubt that they will use ID the same way.StephenA_{July 11, 2007
July
07
Jul
11
11
2007
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them. (Morris) These are NOT fightin words. If these disciplines canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be shown to be Biblical, then is Morris suggesting these ideas canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be defended or studied or promoted by the ICR? (Scardova) Not that I can see. personal theology has primacy over empirical facts YECs would call it 'normative theology over personal facts'. Therein lies the rub.bevets_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

jhappel wrote: Salvador, Though I respect your opinion, I think you are wrong on this one again.
Thank you, and I respect your disagreement. Speak freely.
jhappel wrote: ICR is an evangelical organization dedicated to defending the Bible and equipping the church to defend the Christian faith against attacks in the guise of Ã¢â‚¬ËœscienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. ... I must ask what is your obsession with criticizing YEC leaders? Honestly, ICRÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stand hardly differs from many OEC organizations as well.
I assail them because I believe this modus operandi of "evangelizing" is hurting Christ's church, not helping it. Not to mention Kent Hovind, Ted Haggard, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, John Mackay, and the AiG/CMI scandals aren't exactly helping the YEC cause. If these organizations really believe in the truth of YEC and the evidence is abundant for it, they would do well to find that evidence. It is scarce. If one looks at the YoungCosmos.com website one might begin to appreciate the magnitude of the scientific difficulties which face YEC. It's very hard to ask such levels of commitment of ones followers when the physical evidence is lacking. At the very least, if the evidence is weak at this time, the appropriate thing to do is to say so, and not to sugar coat the situation. I personally think the YEC hypothesis is promising, but we're light years away from a serious scientific, empirically defensible theory. We don't serve the church well by insisting the evidence is abundant when it's not (at least not yet). And even with common descent, I'll never forget one student at GMU hammering Francis Collins with the Genesis account. When the student confronted Collins with the literallist interpretation, Collins responded with all sincerity, "how do you explain chromosome 2?" The implicit question being "why does life look like it descended from common ancestors." Even the YEC Todd Wood was honest enough to point out the dilemma here: THE CHIMPANZEE GENOME AND THE PROBLEM OF BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITY. The creationist case (both YEC and OEC) would be more believable if Wood's question were answered convincingly. Wood at least had the integrity to say the case for common descent is still strong in many areas. The root problem isn't the lack of faith in YEC, the root problem is the believability of the YEC message. Plain and simple. If sincere Christians are finding it hard to believe on evidential grounds, how much more anyone else (like say those who are wanting to believe). If one insists that the Bible says the world is young, but it looks old to them, that's a quick way to deconvert people. I personally am content to say there is a right answer to the question, and that I hope I'll be led to it. I won't presume my interpretation of scripture is immutable regarding the age of the Earth. The objections to a Young Earth are sincere and not from an anti-Christian world view. They proceed from things like Maxwell's equations (Maxwell may well have been a YEC). They don't proceed from people bent on destroying the Christian faith (like Richard Dawkins). Until those problems are solved or at least look promisingly solved, it's a bit premature to be demanding people like Guillermo Gonzalez, JP Moreland, or William Lane Craig become YECs. It's heartbreaking to see these fine Christian gentleman tarred as some sort of traitors to the Christian faith. The church would do well to keep such fine minds as these in her fold rather than excommunicate them. JP Moreland and William Lane Craig have great reverence for Christianity. Yet Ken Ham would characterize such fine men as part of an attack on Christian world views because they think the Big Bang is real.scordova_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Salvadore, you've been slain pretty bad -- doesn't seem right that you should need to defend yourself, mind if I defend you. jjhappel, You don't know Salvadore very well, do you. If there is anyone in this discussion that is open to scientific evidence for a young earth, it is Salvadore.bFast_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Salvador, Though I respect your opinion, I think you are wrong on this one again. The point Morris is making is that ICR has a very different mission than the ID movement. ICR is an evangelical organization dedicated to defending the Bible and equipping the church to defend the Christian faith against attacks in the guise of Ã¢â‚¬ËœscienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. Just because that is their mission does not mean they canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t also be doing science and their scientific claims that are used to defend the Bible canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be correct. Their claims must be judged on there own merit, not dismissed out of hand just because ICR is an evangelical ministry. You must also stop your strawmen against ICR, AIG, CMI, etc. Just because they take a stand on Bible inerrancy and are upfront that their position is essentially un-falsifiable on scientific grounds when it comes to the age of the Earth does not mean they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a viable scientific model. Find me a link on ICRÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s website where a tough scientific question is asked and the answer given is "the Bible says so just believe it". ICR is involved in original scientific research with many highly skilled scientists contributing. In reality, their stand is no different than atheists, uniformitarians, etc. who start with naturalism as their un-falsifiable. Each side tries to best fit the data around their un-falsifiable starting point. The better model is the one which most naturally fits the data with the least ad hoc explanations. Of course, these conclusions are always tentative and are pending new discoveries. I must ask what is your obsession with criticizing YEC leaders? Honestly, ICRÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stand hardly differs from many OEC organizations as well. http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id So its hardly fair to single them out as Ã¢â‚¬ËœunscientificÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. It is my view that ID is a very effect medium for scholars from a variety of backgrounds to voice dissent from scientific orthodoxy. But, it is insufficient when it comes to addressing the bigger questions such as is the Bible the word of God? That is not the fault of ID since that is not its objective. But that is why ministries like ICR who have this objective must have a very different philosophy in their methods.jjhappel_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Would you then say that ID is a purely Christian movement?
I would say characterizing things this way is as inappropriate as asking: "Is Tuesday is purely red or is Tuesday purely white?" (it is neither). Similarly it is inappropriate to ask if Chemistry is Christian or non-Christian (it is neither). The same holds for ID. That's not to say ID won't have a powerful effect on the progress of certain religious beliefs in the lives of certain people. One could say themrodynamics had a powerful role in promoting the Christian faith and Creation Science. Even so, I would never label thermodynamics as Christian and non-Christian. I'm disturbed with the YEC community using phrases like "biblical science". Is there "biblical chemistry"? Is there "biblical calculus"? Is there "biblical information science" (from which most of ID proceeds)? Affixing the "biblical" label doesn't necessarily give the arguments more strength, it may actually weaken them. If one is on an evangelistic mission, trying to appeal to Genesis to refute Darwinism is appealing to the very thing one is trying to prove (or at least make reasonable) to the hearts and minds of the seekers. Let's say a Christian college biolgy student (like Francis Collins) starts having doubts about their faith, do you think if they came to me, and I said, "well the Bible says so right her. So why are you doubting, since it says so right here in Genesis chapter 1." Do you think that will heal their doubts? Has anyone been successful with that form of "apologetic"? I don't use it because it seems awfully circular. But that's just me.... PS Strangely enough, though Collins would feel uncomfortable admitting it, his book is rich with anti-Darwinian and pro-Design arguments.scordova_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Incidentally, go to the ICR.org online store. Notice all those "heretical" Old-Earth "non-Christian" DVD's on the ICR best-seller list here, courtesy the ID movement. What the ICR says and what they practice are somewhat at variance. I recall witnessing to a non-Christian Freethinker agnostic who was sincerely seeking in 2003. I knew she would not trust materials by any evangelistic organization like the ICR. She would have presumed they would say anything to convert people. She simply could not trust the material. Instead of pounding her with scriptures and the importance of world-veiw I refered her to a classic "heretical" Old-Earth ID book by an agnostic, Robert Jastrow. I then asked about 30 students to pray for her. 6 weeks later she accepted the Chrsitian faith with many tears. She told me a year later it was the very way I argued the case which brought her intellectual hurdles down and made it faith rationally possible. The method of argumentation which I felt was the right one to use in her case was taken right out of Acts 17.scordova_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Sal, I felt a storm coming when I saw ICR in the title of the blog post. I knew who was the author immediately. I was thinking to post my own thoughts, but I realize they were mostly encompassed in at least three of the posts above - namely: davidanderson rdwoods RickToews But I'd like to add that I feel there is some misunderstanding. I don't deny that Morris could have worded or clarified more. And I think it should be emphasized that ICR's work is inherently pro-ID. They are involved with several projects that are pro-ID... or at least very consistent wit ID. Particualrily the GENE project. http://www.icr.org/article/2460/ As I understand, the focus of this project is to:
The plan is to focus on analyzing the human genome, demonstrating the certainty that man and the animals have no common ancestor. A second goal is to establish the limits of the created "kind," delineating the limits of biological adaptation. I really do feel that in genomics we can conclusively show that "evolution by modification from a common ancestor" did not happen!
I even bought my first copy of Behe's very pro-ID book, "Darwins Black Box", from ICR's small bookstore here in San Diego. Finally, I can understand why they (ICR) might not want to compromise their worldview by pretending to be neutral evidentialist in joining a movement with no immediate focus on Christ... even though intelligent design is neccessary & consistent with Christianity. Sal, Would you then say the opposite (or a disagreeing form) of the bolded part of Morris' statement? ie. Would you then say that ID is a purely Christian movement? In a sense, I think that it seems like their is some misunderstnading here becasue some tend to favour an evidential approach (Sal, Behe perhaps et al), while others (ICR, AIG.. reformation theologies et al) might favour a more presuppositional approach. If anyone is curious, here is a farily good example of a presuppositional defense of Christianity vice an evidential defense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0khsot_hNWs JGuyJGuy_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Sal wrote: ...science is predicated on the notion that one can start with the wrong premises and still arrive at truth. [...] The Bible teaches that fallible men with their fallible methods may come to faith and knowledge of the truth. It is that way because of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s grace to help us know the truth, not because man starts off with inherently good methodology. You make a lot of good points in your post Sal, thanks for the food for thought. But man, as per Romans 1, is inherently predisposed to **deny** the evidence that nature yields up to them. This is seen in spades in the evolution camp where Crick, Dawkins & co acknowledge design but chalk it up to appearance. I'm not saying that unbelievers can't do good science - they clearly do. I'm just pointing out that it's a factor that needs to be considered. Knowing that man is prone to veer off in the wrong direction, I suspect many creationists see the Bible as a set of guardrails (I do, in any case); they won't get you to where you're going (i.e. scientific knowledge), but they'll keep you from ending up in the wrong place (i.e. the bottom of the gulch). That's not to deny that you can't get where you're going without guardrails - you certainly can. The guardrails simply increase the odds that you will get there. MIke 1962: Hmm, actually, it would be more accurate to say they employ a particular interpretation of the Bible... True enough, but words mean things; there is a 'true interpretation' of the first chapters of Genesis (whatever it may be). When taking the context, literary structure, the words actually used in contrast to all words that were available to the writer (e.g. there are many Hebrew words for long ages or indeterminate lengths of time - why weren't they used?) and the like, I think the evidence decisively points to YEC. (see http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4100/) But like you said, all that's beside the point. If the guys at ICR sincerely believe that God's Word teaches YEC, are they supposed to leave those convictions aside? Should we likewise ask Dr. Behe to conduct his research absent his conviction that common descent is true?wombatty_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen too many aspiring Christians driven from the faith by demands of absolute belief. Belief stems from inspiration to believe, not demands to believe. Well said, Sal.tribune7_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Whereas Ã¢â‚¬Å“non-Ã¢â‚¬Â negates a denotation Ã¢â‚¬Å“un-Ã¢â‚¬Â negates a connotationÃ¢â‚¬â€ID may be non-Christian (or a-Christian) but how could it be un-Christian? If what Morris means is that ID isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exclusively Christian or in some way controlled or owned by Christians (as approved by the cult-watchers), then heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s right. He therefore cannot Ã¢â‚¬Å“joinÃ¢â‚¬Â ID even though he supports it. HeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s welcome to his opinion but it seem pretty narrow to me. Rather long live IDÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“Big TentÃ¢â‚¬Â! Bfast: Ã¢â‚¬Å“In truth, the majority ID views do not comfortably support any literal interpretation of Genesis.Ã¢â‚¬Â But then neither does YEC rest comfortably with Genesis 1:2. Let me suggest that a Ã¢â‚¬Å“literalÃ¢â‚¬Â reading of Genesis forces one into a more midrashic or metaphoric approachÃ¢â‚¬â€this also in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Genesis is difficult (and contentious) and clearly a separate issue than the science ID marks out. What's wrong with the Two Books model? When studied independently cannot Nature and Scripture inform one another and agree in the end?Rude_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

I tend to agree that "ID is strictly a non-Christian movement"is a slight overstatement. (From what I have read of Morris, however, that is exactly what he believes, that no true Christian can accept an old earth view.) I would rather that Morris said, "ID is strictly an a-Christan movement." In truth, the majority ID views do not comfortably support any literal interpretation of Genesis. YEC holds to a "word of God inerant" interpretation of Geneisis, and demands 6 twenty-four hour consecutive days in Genesis 1. OEC holds to a "word of God interant" interpretation of Geneis, but views the days as a poetic tool. ID (for the most part) follows the evidence where it leads. It is followed by some with an attempt to unify that evidence with a Biblical interpretation. The fact, however, that the predominant ID views do not begin with a "word of God inerant" interpretation of Geneis, but follows the scientific evidence instead, is the single factor that debunks the likes of Ms. Forrest (discussed about 15 topics back).bFast_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

wombatty argued: if you start at the wrong place, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll likely end up in the wrong place.
That is an understandable thought, but science is predicated on the notion that one can start with the wrong premises and still arrive at truth. A powerful example of this is found in mathematics, where one presumes a false statement is true in order to utterly demonstrate it is false. See: Proofs by Contradiction. I'm afraid this is where the subtleties of what the Bible actually says are missed. The Bible teaches that fallible men with their fallible methods may come to faith and knowledge of the truth. It is that way because of God's grace to help us know the truth, not because man starts off with inherently good methodology. The scientific method will lead us to realize life and the universe were no accident. We will come to that conclusion despite our methods and ourselves, not because of them. The scientific method succeeds in helping men who start from wrong presuppositions to arrive at important truths. The scientific method succeeds because nature was ordained to help it succeed. The fact we live on a Privileged Planet where science can succeed is no accident. Salvadorscordova_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

wombatty, "ICR is simply employing the Bible as, among other things, an historical constraint on their theorizing." Hmm, actually, it would be more accurate to say they employ a particular interpretation of the Bible, one Sal probably agrees with, but that's kind of beside the point. Why can't they "join" ID where ID is non-sectarian? Sounds a bit judgemental, that's all. But, this sort of statement will do ID more of a service, so it's probably for the best.mike1962_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

wombatty wrote: I have to disagree with you a bit here Sal.
That's fine. I expect I'll get a lot of opinions on this topic. Speak freely. regards, Salvadorscordova_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

I have to disagree with you a bit here Sal. ID theorists have long sought to distinguish themselves from creationists and properly so. ICR is simply doing the same thing here. They state that their primary purpose is to bring people to Christ by employing solid science to demonstrate that evidence from the natural world can be legitimately interpreted as being consistent with the Bible. This makes them an explicitly Christian enterprise whereas the IDM is not. Morris is simply pointing out that, due to this foundational difference, ICR cannot formerly join the IDM. I just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see a problem here. There are plenty of ID theorists who would never in a million years (pun intended) join ICR for similar reasons. Such people would not join ICR, despite their good science, because their primary mission is to bring people to Christ. More power to Ã¢â‚¬Ëœem, I say. I actually think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a good thing to have varying approaches to science. I also appreciate when scientists of any stripe have the courage of their convictions and are willing to openly speak of their starting assumptions, interpretive frameworks and how those things necessarily influence their conclusions. Most creationists, and this certainly includes ICR, have always taken pains to point out that the chief difference between themselves and others lie in their starting assumptions & interpretive framework. Everybody has these things, they are necessary, unavoidable, and to a large extent, unprovable. There is no difference in the way creationists do chemistry or physics, it is those starting points that matter. And if you start at the wrong place, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll likely end up in the wrong place. Among ICRÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s axioms is that the Bible is accurate history. History necessarily constrains scientific theorizing. For instance, when a volcanic rock from an historically recorded eruption is radiometrically dated to billions of years, the date gets thrown out because it conflicts with recorded history. ICR is simply employing the Bible as, among other things, an historical constraint on their theorizing. As I pointed out above, everybody has a set of axioms/starting assumptions and most of them are unproven and unprovable. Groups like ICR simply make an explicit point of shouting their axioms from the rooftops. Mike1962: ICR has been on the frontlines of this war far longer than has the IDM. This is not to disparage the IDM, it is just to state that ICR is hardly shrinking from the battle. By the way, a young earth and/or a worldwide flood would put a stake through the Blind Watchmakers heart faster than anything.wombatty_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

DavidAnderson, Though I can sympathize with your positon, and welcome your disagreement, I am critical of ICR because I do not think they are serving even their own cause well, and they are potentially tarring people like myself (even though I defend YEC as much as anyone here), for being associated with ID. The phrase "ID is strictly a non-Christian movement" has a bad connotation associated with it. In the 19th century, when atoms were not believed, there was an atomic-theory movement. Was that a non-Christian movement since atomism had strong pagan roots? Consider what Paul had in mind when he started referencing Pagan prophets in Acts 17 in defence of the Christian faith. Or consider John 10:38, when Jesus did not presume a person even had the right theology to even properly assess the facts. If having the right theology were a pre-requisite to seeing the most important truths, then none of us fallible beings could ever know the most important truths. One can run a church like a church, where there is a common confession, but such an institution is a creedal institution, not really a research institution. If ICR is an evangelistic organization, and one where their creed takes primacy over research, they might want to change their name to something like "Believers in Creation". Doubts are only inflamed when they are suppressed by insistence on creeds. Doubts are healed when they can be put on the table and honestly dealt with. I've seen too many aspiring Christians driven from the faith by demands of absolute belief. Belief stems from inspiration to believe, not demands to believe. The insistence on making science "biblical" actually is probably an unbiblical approach in light of Romans 1:20, John 10:38, and Acts 17. Furthermore, scientific claims are never meant to be the final say, unlike theological claims. There is good reason to separate secular enterprises from sacred ones, so long as the secular enterprises are within moral limits. Calculus is not made more biblical by invoking Christian theology as its basis. The same is true of ID. The church has regrettably driven out from her ranks those who might have been best gifted to defend her. Tarring Christian ID proponents out of the church is ill-advised. Morris's essay makes this a bit too easy. Whether he means to or not is another issue.scordova_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Either ID is a Christian or a non-Christian movement. I take "non Christian" to mean having values or requiring behavior incompatible with a true Christian, or having a source or association that can be traced to those specifically not Christian. There is nothing associated with ID that a true Christian can't partake, and it's founders certainly include Christians.tribune7_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure I see the problem. ICR openly bases their position on the Bible, as a historically accurate account of origins. Of necessity, ID doesn't take this approach. The purpose of ID is not to promote Christianity or any other religion but simply--if my understanding is accurate--to scientifically recognize intelligent agency. ICR's statement does not appear to devalue either science generally or ID specifically; it just seems to emphasize that ICR is an inherently Christian organization, while IDM is not. Surely ID proponents are pleased with this distinction? Morris's statement refers to ID as a "strictly non-Christian movement." I can see how such a statement might be taken negatively; however, in the same context, he affirms that ICR "values and supports their work." Surely this wouldn't be true if his intended meaning were that ID and Christianity are incompatible. While it may be that he could have chosen a better term (though I suspect his is technically correct), I think it's clear that he's not claiming that no IDer can be Christian.RickToews_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Either ID is a Christian or a non-Christian movement. If it is Christian it needs to be advancing Jesus Christ, as ICR does explicitly. It does not, nor does it officially even claim to put a finger on the exact designer, or to be able to. This is the constant defense used by the ID movement to repel attacks that it is just religion-dressed-up-as-science. As a movement, I would agree that the ID movement, as opposed to ID'ers themselves, is necessarily non-Christian. Its findings can exist alongside Islam, for instance. If it is a Christian movement it should abandon its designer-agnostic position and present the Gospel whenever opportunity is given.rswood_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

ID, a secular thinktank? "ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."? Someone show this to PZ Myers and Ken Miller!nullasalus_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Scordova, I think you've made a mess of this. The hard fact/value science/religion dichotomy you're pushing can't be upheld. All scientists have values; it's just a question of _which_. Morris's values are that the Bible is totally accurate and must always be considered when doing anything (including science); someone else's might be that the Bible's accuracy must be discounted. The question isn't over whether you have values or not; the question is over which values. It looks to me like you're upholding a hard enlightenment viewpoint that denies these things; I'm more used to reading that kind of thing on Dawkins website rather than over here! To ridicule Morris for consistently applying his values is naive, because it perpetuates the myth that someone somewhere is doing value-free science and that we should join him.davidanderson_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, That's rather insulting. Actually, it is even bearing false witness if he said what he meant rather than simply choosing words poorly. The most literal interpretation of what he said is that no IDer is a Christian. If he said non-sectarian there would be no objection from me.tribune7_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

"ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them." Scordova: "Is thermodynamics or statistical mechanics Biblical or non-Biblical?" Right. And what does it really mean to "support" and not "join"? I guess it means they don't want to be bothered about getting on the front lines of the ID vs Blindwatchmaker war and that their time is better spent elsewhere, promoting evidence they think supports a young earth, and a worldwide flood, etc. More power to 'em. But I hope the darwinists will begin to honestly make the distinction between ID and creationism.mike1962_{July 10, 2007
July
07
Jul
10
10
2007
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply