How ID undermines Christian doctrine
5/19/2008 | 12:30 AM | Evolved Rationalist
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. [The Wedge Strategy]
Despite their religious motivations, what the IDists don't seem to realize is that ID actually damages Christian doctrine and makes it easier for atheists to undermine their religion.
God-of-the-gaps (Behe/Dembski)
Michael Behe’s version of intelligent design posits a god that tinkers now and then with his creation to design “irreducibly complex” structures such as the bacterial flagellum and the human eye. The idea that god is a tinkering mechanic does not hold water in light of the Biblical doctrine that god is actively involved in the world at all times. Behe's theology is one where god resides in the gaps of human knowledge, and that god can and should retreat every time a scientific discovery is made. Behe is claiming that the study of nature by material beings would somehow destroy faith in a god, and asserts that science is superior to religious faith.
Behe's creator is one who lies back for long periods of time, merely appearing to design one complex structure or another. The extension of William Paley’s idea of a watch requiring a watchmaker and design requiring a designer does not work in the case of Behe’s arguments, as his criteria for detecting design is merely what has not been explained by science at the time.
Behe has placed his religion in conflict with science as his argument leads to using ignorance as a reason for belief in god. This god-of-the-gaps theology ultimately undermines religion by shrinking the role of god as science marches on, and affirms the notion that religion has been disproven by the mechanisms and tools of science. When you look for god in things that science has not explained or what you think science has not explained, all you get into is a big pile of trouble.
God as a tinkering mechanic (Johnson)
Philip Johnson posits a god or an ‘intelligent designer’ which intervenes at specific moments in history to create organisms separately without any evolutionary history whatsoever. While traditional Biblical creationists claim that the earth has to be younger than 10,000 years old, Johnson accepts an old earth but rejects the common ancestry of all life due to what he claims are gaps in the fossil record.
Johnson's view is based on the idea that god is a magician who interferes sporadically in the natural world. However, if we were to look at traditional Christian doctrine, it is theologically inconsistent because god is said to be always active in the natural world. Johnson’s ideas not only rests on a misunderstanding of punctuated equilibrium and the nature of the fossil record, but also lends a disservice to his god by casting doubt on the supposed creator’s competence.
When we look at the vast number of species that have gone extinct, we wonder why Johnson sees a necessity for an all-powerful god to perform “failed experiments” in the course of creation. Explaining design that gives an appearance of evolution and the necessity of extinction cannot be tested, disproven or investigated, and would contradict the nature of god that is revealed in his own Bible.
As we have seen, ID fails as a science and as a theological standpoint. Therefore, ID is an epic failure.
Posted in
Atheism,
Creationism,
Evolution,
Science
|
Great post. If only more reasonable Christians read your blog.
Evolved, this is a good post but don't you think you are sounding like the appeasers you are so against?
Notheistards,
How does pointing out that ID is a double fail make someone an appeaser?
Enlighten me, please.
I'd say you did a good job at making a theological case against ID but I'm not sure you would take that kind of compliment from a Christian
Evolved Rationalist, a post without the word theistards to describe the IDiots? Are you getting soft? Has Mooney/Nisbet got into you?
I am a Christian and I totally agree with you. Good job!
ID is wrong, see what she says about Johnson accepting an old earth. The Biblical position is a young earth and ID is wrong because it is against the Bible! Created Rationalist the closet Darwinist is here again to destroy faith! Repent!
Christislord12 the closet brainless git is here again to destroy brains! Repent!
christislord,
The biblical position
is a young earth. It is also a FLAT earth, a SQUARE earth (four corners) under a domed canopy or vault on which the stars are..err..pasted. Once you fuckwits get your way and science teachers have to teach kids about dinosaurs getting on the ark with Noah, what then?? Smash all the globes? Denounce them for "Copernicanism" as well as "Darwinism"? Force them to teach a special "christian" astronomy? A special "christian" geography? Is there no end to your ignorance, you TALIBAN troglodyte?
Not to mention, ID acts as if it can prove god exist through what they claim is science. But when debating an atheist, Christian always argue that God is outside of scientific observation and therefore cannot be disproved. Again, if thier god is outside of scientific observation, then ID's efforts are in vain. It's ironic how ID is funded by the same christians that say thier god is outside of nature.
Punk Eek! Laughable. Entertaining. Enjoyable. Funny science though. "So sorry, the changes happened too fast for us to have any...you know...actual evidence for."
Actual scientific evidence = stasis, stasis, and more stasis.
While I do not agree with Behe's conclusions in regards to his thesis, his argument for the inability of evolution to explain change beyond a certain point (he would say somewhere just beyond the species point, I would say somewhere below the species point) is quite damaging to evolution. While there have been a lot of darts thrown and pseudo-refutations (Dawkins' refutation was pretty amusing, having to resort to dog-breeding to "explain away" Behe's thesis). No one has been able to refute his main thesis which is, no matter where you define it, there is an edge of evolution beyond which it is helpless to explain change as we see it in the world. This is hardly a "God of the Gaps" argument. It is a "deficiency of evolution" argument.
CHRISTIANITY:
The belief that some cosmic jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master,so he can remove all evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because some rib-women was concinced by a TALKING SNAKE to eat form a MAGICAL TREE
makes perfect sense
Murf,
That is not what Punk Eek actually says. Try again.
For once I agree with the Darwinists, ID is not Christian!
ID EXPOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Evolved, nice post, but you're being too kind on Behe's God of the non-gaps.
Hey Creationist, I'd like you to look at this article on my blog;
http://wwwcreatedrational.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-young-earth-creationism-isnt.html
Great site. Found you through propeller and I have you on my bookmarks now!
I am seen this site the information is really different. The information is based on Christian religion. I am non-Christian. But I am understood the points tell in this article. You can do a good job.
==================================
austin
http://www.christian-drug-rehab.org