News

“Jesus Christ Our Intelligent Designer”

Spread the love

The famous co-author of the book The Genesis Flood has recently written the book:
Jesus Christ Our Intelligent Designer: An Evaluation of the Intelligent Design Movement.

Jesus Christ Our Intelligent Designer

To my knowledge, the Discovery Institute nor any high ranking ID proponent has had anything to say about this book, written by a very prominent creationist.

From Amazon:

Is Intelligent Design the Christian’s answer to evolutionists and their naturalistic explanations for origins, or is it an unacceptable compromise that sacrifices the true Creator for an undefined designer? Is it a powerful apologetic for the biblical faith or a watered-down version of creation that intentionally leaves out the gospel of Christ? Renowned theologian John Whitcomb addresses these issues in a succinct and careful analysis of the Intelligent Design Movement, arguing that while intelligent design is essential to biblical Christianity, it is infinitely insufficient.

Here is something from the opening of the book:

The tragedy of the ID movement, however, is that it stops far short of honoring God’s written revelation, the Bible….
Apart from the revelation God has given to us of Himself in the Bible, everything in the universe remains a “black box.” Not even the Intelligent Design Movement can penetrate this box, because they have officially denied the Lord Jesus Christ

[posted by scordova assisting News desk for 1 week]

28 Replies to ““Jesus Christ Our Intelligent Designer”

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    I’m separating my comments from the news reporting of the book. I don’t agree with Characterizing the ID Movement as officially denying the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Saying “the Intelligent Designer could be Jesus Christ” is not the same as saying the “Intelligent Designer is officially not Jesus Christ”. The Intelligent Design claim:

    Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.

    I don’t know how that can be distorted as some sort of rejection of Jesus Christ

    How is saying something looks designed a denial of Jesus Christ?

    IMHO, the words quoted above are a smear of Christian creationists who are in the Intelligent Design movement.

    If I had to wish someone would respond, I would hope ID proponent and YEC Paul Nelson will have some words for the author of this book.

    I self-identify as YEC (though have many doubts), but words like those highlighted above are the reason I don’t fit well in YEC circles. I really don’t like a culture that frequently demonizes other Christians with such false accusations as highlighted above.

  2. 2
    tjguy says:

    I think I agree with you on that, Sal.

    I haven’t read his book and II don’t know his line of reasoning, so the wording seems too strong. It isn’t a helpful explanation of the ID proponents who do believe in Jesus.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Whilst most people, YEC’s included, who see Intelligent Design in Nature, from the fine-tuning of the universal constants to the unfathomed integrated complexity of molecular biology, readily admit that the evidence clearly points to a generic Designer of some sort, most of those who admit to seeing Intelligent Design in nature, again YEC’s included, believe that it is impossible to get from that observation for design in nature to an inference of Jesus Christ as the Intelligent Designer. A “Black Box’ that cannot be opened to use Whitcomb’s term. And believe that only the Bible can seal the deal, as it were, so as to reveal Jesus Christ as the Intelligent Designer.,,, Well, I hold that getting from that observation of Intelligent Design in Nature to a fairly strong inference of Jesus Christ as the Intelligent Designer is not as wide a chasm as is commonly believed by YECs (and many OECs). For instance Anton Zeilinger, arguably the best experimentalist in Quantum Physics today, stated this:

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    And in Molecular Biology we find that even Werner Gitt, a YEC whose credentials in information science are very impressive, wrote a book about the information in life which was entitled,,

    In The Beginning Was Information – Werner Gitt – video
    http://vimeo.com/22652852

    Thus, while it is not conclusive scientific proof that Jesus Christ is the Intelligent Designer of the universe and life in it, there is certainly some suspiciously strong pieces of evidence implicating the ‘Logos’ of John 1:1 as the Intelligent Designer. But not to the level of being a rigorous scientific proof (at least not to that level so far as I can tell right now).,,, But why would Whitcomb object so strongly to Intelligent Designs’ minimalist claim, (from what can be said directly from the science itself about the specific identity of the Intelligent Designer), and say that IDists have quote/unquote ‘officially denied the Lord Jesus Christ’??? That simply does not follow. And is a statement I personally find to be patently false and offensive.

    Footnotes:

    “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.”
    St. Augustine

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive – Live
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc

  4. 4
    Noremacam says:

    As a YEC, this book claiming that ID doesn’t go far enough by co-opting the Bible and all that… What utter nonsense. I suppose this person rejects E=mc2 because Albert didn’t take it far enough. *Facepalm*

  5. 5
    vjtorley says:

    I’m heartened to see that John Whitcomb uses the language of the Intelligent Design movement in the title of his book, but as a Christian I’m deeply disappointed at his claim that members of the ID movement “have officially denied the Lord Jesus Christ.” Nor would I agree with the statement that the ID movement “stops far short of honoring God’s written revelation, the Bible.” I wonder what he’d make of my 2011 post, Why morality cannot be 100% natural: A Response to Professor Coyne which defended the Biblical morality contained in the book of Leviticus. I might add that Rev. William Paley didn’t quote the Bible to bolster the arguments contained in his Natural Theology; he simply appealed to reason. Finally, I would gently remind John Whitcomb that when St. Paul preached to the Athenians, he didn’t quote Scripture either. Neither do we, and for the same reason.

  6. 6
    Joe says:

    I have denied Jesus was God for decades. Even Newton denied that- ie he did not accept the fabricated concept of the Trinity.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Semi related: Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics – July 1, 2013
    By Dr. Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: For thousands of years, the Bible has been on record stating that the physical laws governing the universe do not vary. For example, Jeremiah 33:25, God declares that he “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (NIV, 1984).,,,
    Laboratory measurements have established that variations any greater than four parts per hundred quadrillion (<4 x 10-17) per year cannot exist in the fine structure constant, which undergirds several of the physical laws.3,,,
    ,, they confirmed with 99 percent certainty that possible variations in the fine structure must be less than two parts per 10 quadrillion per year over the past 10 billion years.6 This limit is about a thousand times more constraining than the one I described in More Than a Theory.7
    http://www.reasons.org/article.....ng-physics

  8. 8
    ForJah says:

    This stuff is so hilarous. Both the evolutionist and even creationists don’t understand the Intelligent design movement. I would chalk this up to the idea that “faith” as used in the bible is merely a “without evidence” claim. That is not what the word faith in the bible means. It means trust and that it’s built on evidence. Christians don’t understand this…and they also don’t understand how to separate science from philosophy or theology.

    OHh and Joe…I have long denied the concept of Jesus as God also.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Without getting into too many details of the necessity for God to provide justification for man through Christ (propitiation)

    William Lane Craig Q&A: What Is Hell? Is Hell Compatible with a Loving God? – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CjSy9CWEeU

    and without getting into Newton’s nuanced view of Christ which allowed Newton to, on the one hand, deny the significance of the Trinity, yet at the same time allowed for him to calculate, from Daniel, the time frame for Israel to be restored as a nation as well as for Christ to return to the earth to rule and reign over the earth,,,

    Israeli library uploads (Sir Isaac) Newton’s theological texts – February 15, 2012
    Excerpt: He’s considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time.,, However, the curator of Israel’s national library’s humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who dealt far more in theology than he did in physics,, “He (Sir Isaac Newton) took a great interest in the Jews, and we found no negative expressions toward Jews in his writing,” said Levy-Rubin. “He (years before it was remotely feasible) said the Jews would ultimately return to their land.”
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....gical.html

    Sir Isaac Newton’s Prediction For The Return Of Christ (A.D. 2060) – Sid Roth video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041154

    Instead of getting into the details of those two issues, I would like instead to offer a piece of evidence from physics itself, and a scripture that goes along with that piece of evidence, that supports the claim that Jesus Christ and God are ‘one’, and to thus, from another angle, compromise Whitcomb’s assertion that IDist ‘have officially denied the Lord Jesus Christ’:

    Hugh Ross PhD. – Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (Expansion Of The Universe)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/

    Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by ‘Dark Energy’, that speak of God ‘Stretching out the Heavens’; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses since it gives, at least to me, a pretty strong hint that Jesus Christ and God are ‘one’:

    Job 9:8
    He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

    Verses and music

    JESUS Walks on Water – Matthew 14:22-33 – Music by: Phillips
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKLOqe2Ipxk

    Phillips, Craig & Dean – Great I Am – music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSoz6L1vqm8

    Jesus Walks On Water – video clip
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6VnZZOFkRU

    John 10:30
    I and the Father are one.

  10. 10
    leebowman says:

    There is a distinct reason why ID does not name a ‘designer’. First, ID in essence is based on a design hypothesis within the extant evolutionary data, to account for currently regarded IC or NEC [non-evolvable complexity], and/or structures and systems which display inferences of having been ‘specified’ [CSI], i.e. ‘designed.’

    ID as a ‘movement’ however, has been viewed by some as having a theological impetus. If you divide the ID camp between those who seek to fit ID within the default scientific inquiry modality, and those who have added the concept of ID to an a priori religious belief as a kind of ancillary verification or proselytizing argument, there are obvious distinctions. There are those of course who hold to both.

    ID as an ancillary evolutionary hypothesis applies to biology, rather than to Cosmic formations IMO. Reason being, while there is evidence of ‘fine tuning’, there are no direct evidences of design per se [modalities proposed]. And to allow ID a more viable entry into the current ToE, Cosmic formations must be excluded from its premises, again IMO.

    Since ID as science is based upon design inferences, which are based solely upon statistical improbabilities of natural causation, naming a specific Deity, designer or designers, or implementers/surrogates that may have performed genetic modifications, either cut-and-try, by upstream calculations, or perhaps by directives from a higher authority is speculative. ID within science has no data to so conclude and of the above.

    And while specific design inferences may be in refutation of alternative natural explanations, an accumulation of such inferences adds to the probability of designer interaction. And at some point, an overall design conclusion may ensue, which would then relegate the current RM/NS premise to falsification, except for adaptive modifications perhaps, possibly a ‘designed in’ function.

    Fritz Ward’s review is well stated.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: ‘Cosmic formations must be excluded from its premises, again IMO.’

    Perhaps you can run that line of thought by Michael Denton:

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    He who laughs last laughs longest, Forjah, and I guarantee it won’t be you, since you have failed to even grasp such a simple truth as the fact that theology and metaphysics (in that order) are as high above base empirical science, as the heavens are above the earth.

    Why worship dirt? Anything but a God who will hold you to account, I suppose. Meat-head materialists, one and all.

  13. 13
    Axel says:

    Let me amend that: ‘materialist meat-heads’. Alas, quite literally.

  14. 14
    leebowman says:

    I agree with the all of the compelling arguments for a designed universe and earthly realm, based on the requirements for carbon based life. And yes, I see the physical realm as designed. It’s just that the arguments in support of ID for biologic forms is more easily made, and even empirically testable, to a degree.

    By insisting upon Cosmic creation as well as bioforms, the evos will just fall back upon their multiverse nonsense, and continue to exclude ID.

    If ID is indeed a viable biologic hypothesis, and allowed in as valid investigative science, “one giant step for mankind.” The Cosmo will survive its exclusion even though evident, and yes, a requisite for conformance with Scripture. But remember what scientific inquiry alone embodies. And hey, just sneak it in at a later time!

  15. 15
    LarTanner says:

    the fact that theology and metaphysics (in that order) are as high above base empirical science, as the heavens are above the earth.

    This made me laugh. Not a long laugh, but deeply satisfying.

    Hoo-boy.

  16. 16
    leebowman says:

    Correction:

    I wrote:

    “I agree with the all of the compelling arguments for a designed universe and earthly realm, based on the requirements for carbon based life.”

    Revise that to:

    “I agree with the all of the compelling arguments for a designed universe and earthly realm, based IN PART on the requirements for carbon based life.”

    There are many other argument, other than those.

  17. 17
    ForJah says:

    Axel. Such a hostile remark towards a fellow ID proponent. I am not a materalist per se…and I am and ID PROPONENT. I find Steven Meyers arguments convincing, along with several others. I just am not a Christian. More agnostic pluralist.

  18. 18
    Axel says:

    ‘This made me laugh. Not a long laugh, but deeply satisfying.’

    Now that’s more like it. That’s the kind of laughter you need. It seems especially cruel to ‘he who laughs’ – as Delboy might put it – when such mirth turns out to be correspondingly ill-founded, and in turn, deeply comforting to the laughee, but that’s by the by.

    I wish you joy as you briefly luxuriate in that low-key, but profoundly blissful kind of state. Such comfort can be described so simply, and we all instantly recognize it. I get that feeling at my first mouthful of a really strong cup of tea, with possibly more milk added than the boiling water.

  19. 19
    Axel says:

    Sorry, Forjah. You made such sweeping statements, apparently in disparagement of the intelligence of Christians, that they seemed facile, and it came across to me that you were sneering. Don’t take it to heart. I’ll be more circumspect in future.

  20. 20
    Axel says:

    Good for you, Forjah. I have a lot of respect for agnostics.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: The Cilium: (Irreducibly Complex Multi-tasker) – July 5, 2013
    Excerpt: “Cilia are microtubule-based protrusions of the plasma membrane that were first noticed for their role in generating fluid flow, such as the flow of mucus in the airway. In recent decades, it has become clear that cilia also have important sensory roles and act as antennae, sensing the cell’s environment: for example, kidney cilia can transduce calcium signals mediated by mechanosensitive channels sensing fluid flow; photoreceptor cilia capture light and transduce visual signals to electrical signals via the G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) rhodopsin; and cilia from olfactory sensory neurons can detect and transduce odor stimuli also via specialized GPCRs. In addition, cilia can play roles in processing signals within cells; for example, developmental patterning of vertebrate limbs is regulated by ciliary transport of Hedgehog signaling components. Given the varied functions of ciliary signaling, defects in conserved ciliary structure often result in disorders with seemingly unrelated pleiotropic phenotypes. A new finding reported in a recent issue of Current Biology by Wood et al. reveals an interesting twist on the signaling roles of cilia, by showing that the motile flagella of the unicellular green alga Chlamydomonas can release biochemical signals into the extracellular environment via membrane budding of enzyme-containing ciliary ectosomes. If anyone still doubted the importance of the cilium in essential cellular functions, this new demonstration of the multitasking abilities of this nearly ubiquitous organelle should convince them otherwise.” – http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74121.html
    Image:
    http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/ce.....igure1.jpg

  22. 22
    Blue_Savannah says:

    But…..but……I thought I.D was creationism, at least according to certain darwinists. 😉

    I love UD and ENV and value the posts/articles, but anyone who thinks I.D = creationism, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

    As a Biblical creationist, I’ve taken exception with some of the things written here and at ENV, and that’s OK. Different opinions and ideas must be allowed to be heard and I fully understand that not everyone will agree, but we all have a right to be heard especially when the scientific evidence points to design!

    Jesus IS my Lord, my Saviour and yes, my CREATOR.

  23. 23
    Kaz says:

    I don’t want to start a religious debate, but it sounds to me like Whitcomb is not only using theology to argue that ID should be something it isn’t designed to be, but he’s using bad theology to boot. If one takes a look at the creation accounts in which either the LOGOS or Jesus is specifically mentioned, there are passive verbs showing that Jesus isn’t the creator, but that it is the God who creates dia (through) Jesus. For example, in relation to the language used in Colossians 1, Eduard Lohse observed:

    “EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but not EK (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (EX hOU TA PANTA) is said of God in 1 Cor 8:6. He [God, the Father] is and remains the creator, but the pre-existent Christ is the mediator of creation.” (Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, from the Hermenea series, Fortress Press) p. 50

    What Lohse observes in relation to Colossians 1, Emil Brunner observed in relation to the New Testament as a whole:

    “…there are works of God which as such are precisely not works of the Son. This non-identity of God and the Son is based upon the fact that God alone is Creator, but that the Son is called simply and solely the mediator of the Creation. In the New Testament the Son, or Jesus Christ, is never called the Creator. This title is given to the Father alone. It is He who has ‘granted unto the Son to have life in Himself’.” (The Christian Doctrine of God), p. 232

    and

    “In this connexion the truth which we have already seen acquires new significance, that the world, it is true, was created through–[DIA]–the Son, but not <i)by–[hUPO]–the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator.” (ibid, p. 308)

  24. 24
    Kaz says:

    Looks like I messed up with the HPML tags.

    Replace this:

    “In this connexion the truth which we have already seen acquires new significance, that the world, it is true, was created through–[DIA]–the Son, but not <i)by–[hUPO]–the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator.” (ibid, p. 308)

    with this:

    "In this connexion the truth which we have already seen acquires new significance, that the world, it is true, was created through–[DIA]–the Son, but not by–[hUPO]–the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator.” (ibid, p. 308)

  25. 25
    Barb says:

    I agree that Jesus isn’t the same as the Creator, God. With respect to Kaz @ 24: So it was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, as it were, that Almighty God created all other things. The Bible summarizes the matter this way: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” —1 Corinthians 8:6, RS, Catholic edition.
    The distinction between the two is very clear.

  26. 26
    Kaz says:

    @Barb: Agreed.

  27. 27
    ericB says:

    Kaz and Barb, regarding the From/Through distinction, you might also find it interesting to consider Isaiah 55:11 regarding the word that is sent (but see 55:6-11 for more context).

    With that prophetic passage in mind, consider John’s Gospel. Not only does the first chapter identify Jesus as the word through whom all created things were made, but if you read through the book in one sitting, I think you will be surprised at the emphasis John repeatedly gives to the word “sent” and the fact that Jesus acts not on His own initiative but as one who was sent. He comes from the Father to faithfully fulfill the Father’s will.

    One could also compare this with the account in Genesis 1 where God is portrayed as creating through speaking. God said … and it was so.

    Beyond this, one could look at the Apostles Creed and what it says about Father and Son, specifically identifying the Father as the Creator/Maker. This is not to treat the creed as Scripture, but it does reflect the fact that this perspective has been long established and accepted as a central Christian understanding.

  28. 28
    ericB says:

    About John C. Whitcomb’s book (and other statements that find fault with the ID movement), I find it difficult to believe that the ID position and the reasons for it are too hard to understand. For example, Casey Luskin summarized the matter long ago.

    Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 1)
    Casey Luskin October 31, 2007

    and
    Principled (not Rhetorical) Reasons Why ID Doesn’t Identify the Designer (Part 2)
    Casey Luskin November 1, 2007

    The distinction between what individuals affirm (based in part on information that includes not only science, but also history, philosophy, theology, etc.) and what one can infer solely from the data accessible within science — this is not too hard to understand.

    Yet, it seems there are those who are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that distinction made by ID proponents. Even if one doesn’t adopt the same perspective, I would hope that they could at least accurately acknowledge the nature of the position, which has been made clear enough many times.

Leave a Reply