Intelligent Design Discussion

[dhchristian]

The Synthesis is always far worse than the thesis or the antithesis folks. None of them possess the Truth, but the synthesis always deliberately compromises on the truth.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

I did you suggest God's uses evolution in intelligent design... and I merely pointing out the absurdity of such belief

Noted. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the conversation.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

The Synthesis is always far worse than the thesis or the antithesis folks. None of them possess the Truth, but the synthesis always deliberately compromises on the truth.

If you want to actually contribute to the conversation regarding Intelligent Design, feel free. If you just want to obscurely criticize those of us that might want to actually have a conversation, please refrain and don't derail it.

[Starman]

One.opinion

"I'm saying that I believe classical Darwinian (non-teleological) evolution is untrue. However... mechanistically, I would say that a theistic version of evolution (with God's precise desires as an eventual outcome) would be very difficult to distinguish from a non-teleological version of evolution."

I think this statement undercuts your assertion about God as Creator and contradicts the attributes of God defined in Scripture. There is a problem if we cannot distinguish the outcome of a random, undirected process from the sublime handiwork of the biblical God (a junkyard is not a 707).   We know that “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.” Thus the creation reveals the attributes and character of God, not a random undirected process. 

"ID proponents, at least at a cursory view (I have not read any of Behe's or Meyer's books), seem to believe that evolutionary mechanisms (natural selection, neutral theory, and others) are an insufficient explanation for what we can see in the living world - past and present. I would argue that an omnipotent God could absolutely (and most-likely did) establish laws of nature to bring about what we can see."

OK it sounds like you’re saying that God front-loaded the process by embedding the necessary information and some kind of intrinsic ability to move toward a pre-defined objective over geological time (like a guided missile). This sounds like “theistic evolution.”  

I need to think further about this, but initially I have some issues: First, this implies to me that God played a passive rather than an active role in creation, not intervening in the process He initially set in motion (or perhaps initiating extinction events).  This contradicts the way I read Scripture, which repeatedly describes His role as active and intentional, “creating all things through and for Christ.”  To me a viable theory of origins must be resonant with an organic reading of Scripture, not some form of pretzel logic.  For me, theistic evolution requires a big theological stretch.

Secondly, theistic evolution must adopt the circular reasoning of evolutionary theory and the faith statements needed to compensate for the lack of geological and experimental data for macroevolution (punctuated equilibrium becomes necessary to explain the data which, IMO, is just another way of saying “supernatural intervention”).  Theistic evolution then requires the same level of credulity.  I’m not necessarily denying the idea of common descent etc. but believe that intervention is required –natural processes are wholly inadequate to explain large scale phenotypic changes.

This is a good discussion. I appreciate you taking the time to respond in a patient manner

Edited February 27, 2020 by Starman

[dhchristian]

Just now, one.opinion said:

If you want to actually contribute to the conversation regarding Intelligent Design, feel free. If you just want to obscurely criticize those of us that might want to actually have a conversation, please refrain and don't derail it.

That was a Word of Warning to those who happen to stumble upon this Post. You Know my view on intelligent Design, as a viable alternative to materialistic evolution it is ok, But it is not Christian at its core and should not be mistaken for the Christian doctrines of Creation. What I see here is an attempt to mingle ID and theistic evolution, and arrive at a synthesis between the two, And as with all Hegellian dialectics the Synthesis is always far worse Than the thesis or antithesis, because the truth is never arrived at. If you cannot understand this criticism then perhaps you should investigate this concept even more. Or perhaps you understand and are willfully going about to accomplish this?

[Dennis1209]

Higher criticism is just a modern term for overly educated fools. 

Romans 1:22 (KJV) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[enoob57]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Noted. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the conversation.

This is really a Bible based site and those who ignore that much of the clear wording of Scripture to believe in theistic evolution (which is a oxymoron) should expect flak from those that are here...  I gave two examples untreated by you: 1. The clear written time frame of 7 literal days.  2. Death is how God designed thing not as a result of disobedience.  I understand why you wouldn't want to deal with these two view points as they will clearly show your disregard for the Scriptures when it comes to your personal view points on ID... 

[one.opinion]

53 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

And as with all Hegellian dialectics the Synthesis is always far worse Than the thesis or antithesis, because the truth is never arrived at.

So you completely lack the knowledge base to discuss the thesis or the antithesis in remotely intelligent fashion, but automatically assume a synthesis must be far worse. Perhaps this is a conversation better-suited to those that are familiar with the general principles of the thesis and the antithesis.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, enoob57 said:

I understand why you wouldn't want to deal with these two view points

Yes, they are extraneous to the OP. If you want to discuss the Biblical merits of a literal vs non-literal view of Genesis 1-3, then please start your own thread.

[enoob57]

On 2/25/2020 at 9:10 AM, one.opinion said:

Overall, I find myself sympathetic to ID in concept. For example, I find it more plausible to accept God's direct creation of the first living cells

This is the op and you started it... ID is God creating living cells and that is no where in The Bible... so maybe you should retract your statement if you didn't want it in the consideration of topic!