Intelligent Design Belittles God
 |
Steve Verdon | Tuesday, January 31, 2006 |
Via the Commissar is this interesting article, Catholic Online – God is not needed to explain the scientific picture of lifes origins in terms of religious belief.
I have to admit, I’ve often wondered at the desire by many to put limitations on God. It seems to me that many who believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design see God as being constrained. After all, the Intelligent Design argument can be summarized as: stupid therefore designed. That is Behe’s basic premise. Remove one single solitary part from the flagellum and it doesn’t work. The design is brittle. Hence God, whoops…I mean…the Designer was a dope, according to Behe, because mutations could wreck the flagellum until God comes back and fixes it again, again, and yet again. According to Dembski God…errr sorry the Designer while transcendant and extremely powerful he is also not all that powerful. After all, God…dang it…the Designer created a fallow universe initially that in no way could give rise to life. Nope, the Designer had to come back again and again and create each new life form since it is impossible for new information to arise naturally (i.e., macro-evolution is impossible).
The idea that the Designer…oh Hell can we just call him God? The idea that God is actually supremely intelligent and can do things we cannot understand or detect does not even enter into the discussion. Suggesting that God does indeed work in mysterious ways and that evolutionary theory could be part of God’s plan is rejected outright by assumption. Funny, we don’t see the IDers arguing for this kind of a controversy.
About the Author: Steve has a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, Los Angeles and attended graduate school at The George Washington University, leaving school shortly before staring work on his dissertation when his first child was born. He works in the energy industry and prior to that worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Division of Price Index and Number Research.
- None Found
- Making Jobs More Expensive
- House Trades Freedom for Health Coverage, Senate’s Move
- Hasan a Muslim First, American Second?
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Taking “No” As Iran’s Answer
- Update on the Fort Hood Massacre
- OTB Latenight – Soft Cell
- Caption Contest Winners
- Breaking: Shootings at Fort Hood (Updated)
- Pentagon Expected To Ask For Supplementary War Funding. As Usual.
steve;science is pretty mysterious to those that don't understand it. yet,how many scientists are saying "science works in mysterious ways"? just as science holds no mystery that won't be revealed to those who patiently seek the truth; God's ways hold no mystery that won't be revealed to those who patiently seek them in truth.
I disagree that the search for, and the inclusion of evidence supporting the idea that the universe is orderly and therefore, elegantly and simply designed somehow demeans or belittles God, but I agree with you that proponents of ID quickly discard anything that doesn't follow their narrow interpretation of Creation.
I'm confident that God exists and what's more, He created everything including me. How He did it is immaterial, but some people aren't satisfied unless it aligns with the first chapter of Genesis.
Charles,
Actually, nothing the order and other aspects of the universe point to naturalism, or at least don't help the idea that it was God who created the universe.
Im confident that God exists and whats more, He created everything including me. How He did it is immaterial, but some people arent satisfied unless it aligns with the first chapter of Genesis.
I don't see any problems here, unless one has to try and apply this view to science. Including the supernatural in science stops science dead in its tracks. Might as well go back to the dark ages with alchemy, witches and other nonsense.
Gods ways hold no mystery that wont be revealed to those who patiently seek them in truth.
I know I'm being redundant, but this is precisely the problem. With science the assumption is that there is nothing that is outside of nature and eventually we'll detect it (directly or indirectly). God on the other hand is above nature and hence you can't make the analogy you are making Floyd. The only way one may ever find out is when one is no longer able to communicate one's findings.
steve; you have precisely stated the problem. "with science the assumption is that there is nothing outside of nature". therefore without seeking God's ways, you can't be qualified to make the statement that death is a prerequisite to such knowledge,besides such knowledge is apparent in nature as seen from the perspective of the spirit.i recognize that these can be separate areas of exploration,but not mutually exclusive since each can aide in the understanding of the other.now; what is the meaning of the seeming non-sequituer, "and eventually we'll detect it". what is "it".
Comments are Closed
