What should I think about Intelligent Design?

[Love4All]

Without quibbling over the definition of “designer”…
God did create a perfect creation. God made everything, and “saw that it was good”.
God can not create imperfection.

It gets messy though, because…
God is love, and we are created in love.
So we are in relationship with God. We have a part in maintaining this relationship, pursuing perfection (holiness).
We chose (and continue to choose) to reject perfection.

But it seems to me that “design” indicates God’s plan in all things, including scientific discovery.

I disagree that God created a perfect Creation. I hold, rather, that God Alone is perfect, i.e. complete within Himself, and that all creatures find their perfection in Him, or they do not find it. So a human being alone, cannot ever be perfect. Only a human being in God can be perfect. The same applies to the angels. One way of looking at the Sin of Lucifer is just this: he sought to be perfect in himself alone, and that is impossible. He wished to find his perfection in himself, apart from God, and so he is forever imperfect.

Now if you wish to maintain that God created a perfect Creation meaning that He created it perfectly to find its perfection in Him, that is acceptable. But Creation per se is not perfect in and of itself, but only in and of God. The world, as it is, is in fact very imperfect, standing in dire need of God.

 

[Love4All]

Buddhism has many gods. All gods are included among the “others” who you should love. That includes the Abrahamic God. In this context we should love all living beings, and gods are living beings.

rossum

While it is true that we ought to love others, it is not true that God has need of our compassion. Your statement that God is included among the gods the Buddha talked about is inaccurate. Gautama did not in fact know the God of Abraham. If he did, he most certainly would have gone to Jerusalem and asked to be included as a Jew.

If the Buddha were here today, he would correct you to your face. If you are capable of receiving it, the Buddha is here today and he is correcting you to your face.

There is indeed a synthesis; but you have not yet attained it. Keep striving!

 

[clem456]

I disagree that God created a perfect Creation. I hold, rather, that God Alone is perfect, i.e. complete within Himself, and that all creatures find their perfection in Him, or they do not find it. So a human being alone, cannot ever be perfect. Only a human being in God can be perfect. The same applies to the angels. One way of looking at the Sin of Lucifer is just this: he sought to be perfect in himself alone, and that is impossible. He wished to find his perfection in himself, apart from God, and so he is forever imperfect.

Now if you wish to maintain that God created a perfect Creation meaning that He created it perfectly to find its perfection in Him, that is acceptable. But Creation per se is not perfect in and of itself, but only in and of God. The world, as it is, is in fact very imperfect, standing in dire need of God.

Possibly. I am thinking of the Garden, the original state, before original sin. And connecting the observation that “God saw that it was good”.

 

[edwest2]

Freedom as in free will

Nope. We’re only talking about design. God did not wind up a clock and let it go. He designed. He made things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Linusthe2nd]

our response to eachother will become long I will only qoute those things I disagree with, anything I skip I agree with.

before we go into this lets get some clarification of terms

what I see as designer is like a set of dominoes or a chain reaction scientist set up for fun. For example A mentos drops into a can which causes the soda to overflow hitting a switch which turns on a fosit of water. The water filling up a cup causes the balance to stop being even. The balance then causes a ball to fall down a ramp which then hits a robot ect. When I think of God as a designer I think of a God who has fine turned the universe in such a way that humans would come out earth would be created and so on and so forth. He is creating it like a set of dominoes which have to go in a certain way and fall in a certain way. I’m not sure if this really agrees with good natural theology. Can we say we are free when God has set up the universe to work in a specific way.

Note: if you believe design to be a different thing please let me know. I would hate us to be arguing about two different views of design.

I see God doing it a-little more like this. He is causing the universe to exist for all eternity, he is the uncaused caused the unmoved mover and is always actuality. He is constantly for all eternity upholding all things that have potentiality. God is the law giver for the universe and not the guy who sets up a chain of dominoes. He sets up laws and directions for the universe to follow that will lead to its final end (everything in union with him) and he governs his creation like a parent may “govern” children or parent their children. Parents don’t make their kids robots and make them do certain things so they can become a great doctor or something. Rather they guide their children then given them guidelines rules, and laws to follow in hopes that they have a successful life. God works in the same way but he knows that his rules will work and how exactly they will work.

I’ll say this before I move on to the next quote, any philosophical/theological explanation must explain why there is evil choas and violence, and at the same time must explain how we can have freedom in this model.

yes the final cause, union with God

no it doesn’t, but I need to make sure I know what your talking about with design in creation.

I believe God directs the universe (which would allow intervention and governance of the world) to its final end, and this final end is perfection and union with Go.

If God has designed the universe it would seem to necessitate that everything that happens in the universe is designed by God, so evil would be designed by God, which is absurd. My question to you how can God design the universe and at the same time allow it to go on its way, would that necessitate that there are parts of the cosmos that are not designed? Any thing God designs must be perfect, if there is evil in this world and God cannot will evil or create evil how can God design everything in the cosmos?

I believe God giving the universe direction to a final end answers these questions. God allows evil to happen because of freedom and because in a mysterious way evil works towards a final end a better end.

we need to make clear what you mean by designer. If you mean that God fine tunes the universe to make something come out of it then we have problems.

Because of this

anything that is perfect can not become better, if it had to become better it couldn’t be considered perfect. If the universe is in motion if the universe is changing it means that you can’t say that at moment X the universe is perfect, with the exception of the final end. Now you could look at time as a whole and say with the entire view of the cosmos it is perfect, but to say that at this moment in time the universe is perfect denies the fact that the universe is moving towards its final end and the closer it gets to that the better its fulfilling its purpose anything that is moving towards its final end isn’t perfect.

I believe that God’s perfection works in this way he has created the universe for an end and when the universe reaches its final end it will be considered perfect, until it reaches that end the universe is still on its journey is still not perfect.

but I’m going to leave it at this, my response was kinda influence how atheist deal with these things, maybe I was wrong in putting it to you.

But again I believe God to be a creator who directs the universe towards its final end. He doesn’t design the universe because a perfect designer would create a perfect creation. Someone who creates something so that it will journey towards a final end doesn’t have to create something perfect from the get go, as long as that final end is perfect.

cut stuff its to long

Will answer by P. M. ( eventually ). All of us are in a state of journying. And this applies as much to knowledge and learning as it does to Faith and Christian living. Linus2nd

 

[catholictiger]

Will answer by P. M. ( eventually ). All of us are in a state of journying. And this applies as much to knowledge and learning as it does to Faith and Christian living. Linus2nd

this is fine I’m on a journey to with knowledge, but I have a great passion for philosophy so I LOVE discussing this stuff.

Have a blessed night.

 

[jonathan_hili]

jonathan
Yet I see many ways that science has been misused as a weapon against religion. Some scientists have been doing this since Darwin’s day. Look at Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, for just two examples living in our own time. The distrust of science is not warranted so much as the distrust of scientists who draw false and sometimes even stupid conclusions from their science.

I agree there, just as philosophy is misused. Some do this unintentionally because they begin from false presuppositions; others, like Dawkins and Hawking, really seem to go out of their way as much as possible to try to prove the non-existence of God. It seems God’s existence really bugs them.

 

[jonathan_hili]

What’s wrong with being extremely conservative? And what’s wrong with believing in a young earth? even the Church hasn’t decided that one. Literalistic? Like what? All the miracles Jesus actually did or just the book of Genesis?

Peace,
Ed

Well, I’ll interpret “conservative” as Chesterton did (though he was speaking politically - I still think the principle applies): progressives go on making mistakes and conservatives refuse to correct them. My problem with conservatism is that sometimes, not always, this approach to the faith is closed to change, and it is evident throughout history, for example, it was conservatives who opposed Aquinas and Galileo. In some ways though, I admire conservative approaches when the genuine concern is to conserve what is true and right, rather than be blinded to any opportunity for change.

What’s wrong with a young earth? Well, the scientific data is against it, overwhelmingly so, and to ignore that is to ignore an important aspect of God’s creation.

“Literalistic” as in opposed to “literal”. A literal reading of Scripture reads it as the author intended, for example, using exaggerated numbers or specific numbers to prove a point or make a theological point. A literalistic reading of Scripture reads it as meaning precisely what it says. So when Jesus feed 5,000, it was literally five thousand men; or the number of years given for the pre-deluvian lifespans were literally these figures. I think it takes discernment to read properly, not simply a literalistic reading.

As for the miracles of Jesus, it seems obvious that the author intended these to be taken as fact, that they actually happened as described.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I’ll say this fundamentalism is a attitude that you will always believe what you believe no matter what evidence is presented to you. I don’t think its a good idea to only put Protestants under the fundamentalist branch, there can be fundamentalist Christians, atheists, Jews Muslims and so on and so forth.

Very true.

But “Fundamentalist” in the use of the word literally relates to those who subscribed to The Fundamentals. That’s why to say “Fundamentalist Muslim” is wrong because Muslims don’t subscribe to the fundamentals of Christian doctrine, and neither do Jews.

 

[catholictiger]

Very true.

But “Fundamentalist” in the use of the word literally relates to those who subscribed to The Fundamentals. That’s why to say “Fundamentalist Muslim” is wrong because Muslims don’t subscribe to the fundamentals of Christian doctrine, and neither do Jews.

that is fine I like to use the true defintion of the word.

Fundamentalist= someone who believes in their truth no matter what anyone says, or what ever happens in their life.

 

[catholictiger]

I agree there, just as philosophy is misused. Some do this unintentionally because they begin from false presuppositions; others, like Dawkins and Hawking, really seem to go out of their way as much as possible to try to prove the non-existence of God. It seems God’s existence really bugs them.

the big problem with using science against philosophy and religion is that it oversteps the bounds that science can handle. Science can’t tell philosophy, God doesn’t exist. The issue of God is a philosophical question always has been and always will be. When a scientist says science proves no need for the existence of God they are making philosophical points. Most of the new atheists who argue against the existence of God have very little understanding of philosophy. Someone who has an undergraduate degree in philosophy shouldn’t be able to easily make argument against new atheists and have ones they just throw mud at us after making. Most new athiests are scientist who want to reduce everything to science, without knowing the implications of that.

 

[rossum]

the big problem with using science against philosophy and religion is that it oversteps the bounds that science can handle. Science can’t tell philosophy, God doesn’t exist. The issue of God is a philosophical question always has been and always will be. When a scientist says science proves no need for the existence of God they are making philosophical points. Most of the new atheists who argue against the existence of God have very little understanding of philosophy. Someone who has an undergraduate degree in philosophy shouldn’t be able to easily make argument against new atheists and have ones they just throw mud at us after making. Most new athiests are scientist who want to reduce everything to science, without knowing the implications of that.

It is however legitimate to use science when religion moves into areas where science is valid. If someone says, “My religion tells me that the Earth is 6,000 years old,” then that religious belief can be correctly challenged on scientific grounds because the age of the Earth is well within the boundaries of science.

Discussion as to the existence, and number, of kinnaras are purely in the realm of religious belief, at least until an objective kinnara detector can be made.

rossum

 

[catholictiger]

It is however legitimate to use science when religion moves into areas where science is valid. If someone says, “My religion tells me that the Earth is 6,000 years old,” then that religious belief can be correctly challenged on scientific grounds because the age of the Earth is well within the boundaries of science.

Discussion as to the existence, and number, of kinnaras are purely in the realm of religious belief, at least until an objective kinnara detector can be made.

rossum

Yes when philosophy and religion oversteps its bounds and makes claims about science on philosophical and religious grounds science should refrute it

 

[edwest2]

Well, I’ll interpret “conservative” as Chesterton did (though he was speaking politically - I still think the principle applies): progressives go on making mistakes and conservatives refuse to correct them. My problem with conservatism is that sometimes, not always, this approach to the faith is closed to change, and it is evident throughout history, for example, it was conservatives who opposed Aquinas and Galileo. In some ways though, I admire conservative approaches when the genuine concern is to conserve what is true and right, rather than be blinded to any opportunity for change.

What’s wrong with a young earth? Well, the scientific data is against it, overwhelmingly so, and to ignore that is to ignore an important aspect of God’s creation.

“Literalistic” as in opposed to “literal”. A literal reading of Scripture reads it as the author intended, for example, using exaggerated numbers or specific numbers to prove a point or make a theological point. A literalistic reading of Scripture reads it as meaning precisely what it says. So when Jesus feed 5,000, it was literally five thousand men; or the number of years given for the pre-deluvian lifespans were literally these figures. I think it takes discernment to read properly, not simply a literalistic reading.

As for the miracles of Jesus, it seems obvious that the author intended these to be taken as fact, that they actually happened as described.

There is no guide or list to define what is progressive or conservative. I prefer right or wrong. Who exactly were these conservatives who opposed Aquinas and Galileo (who is a secular saint today)? Or do you mean Copernicus?

You know what is obvious here? A campaign to make certain that all conform science to the Bible, which makes me believe that without a doubt, the goal is not about science - at all. The Church is unsure about the age of the earth and I’ll go with that. This has nothing to do with God - at all. But the monitors will bring this up endlessly to force science onto the work of God. Again, the Church has the final say.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It is however legitimate to use science when religion moves into areas where science is valid. If someone says, “My religion tells me that the Earth is 6,000 years old,” then that religious belief can be correctly challenged on scientific grounds because the age of the Earth is well within the boundaries of science.

Discussion as to the existence, and number, of kinnaras are purely in the realm of religious belief, at least until an objective kinnara detector can be made.

rossum

Not so. The Church, not science, has the final say. This age of the earth issue has nothing to do with science. That much is obvious - at least here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Not so. The Church, not science, has the final say. This age of the earth issue has nothing to do with science. That much is obvious - at least here.

Bwahahahaha! You have a great career as a comic ahead of you ed. “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

Tell us, what parts of this piece of science are incorrect: Best Image of Big Bang Afterglow Ever Confirms Standard Cosmology.

Be specific, please, and show us your evidence. I would be interested to see what either the Bible or the Catholic Church has to say about the variations in the CMBR.

rossum

 

[InJesusItrust]

It’s like a driver in whom all reason tells him that nobody is around for miles, and as he speeds up passing a billboard a police officer suddenly pops out from behind.

This is how I regard scientific certainty.

 

[clem456]

Not so. The Church, not science, has the final say. This age of the earth issue has nothing to do with science. That much is obvious - at least here.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, respectfully, the Church would not agree with that.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, respectfully, the Church would not agree with that.

Thank you for your polite reply. You may want to consider the following from Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Best,
Ed

 

[clem456]

Thank you for your polite reply. You may want to consider the following from Catholic Answers:

"The Time Question

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

Best,
Ed

Ok, yes, the Church does not infallibly define the age of the earth. The common wisdom from Church fathers through Agustine through modern scriputure scholarship and popes is that the Genesis timeline is not to be taken literally. It is allegory. The theological truth, however, stands on it’s own. Although no one can precisely pin down the age of the earth, and the Church does not endorse anything specifically, the scientific evidence is simply overwhelming that the 6000 year scenario does not work. The best scientific estimates are that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. That doesn’t detract one bit from scripture. Scripture is much more substantial than to be nullified by a set of scientific facts.