Jun 192006
 

I will make my comment to Krauze’s post here. I think between the YEC and TE, there is a spectrum of Christian positions on ID. Hugh Ross is a OEC with progressive underpinnings. There are also those who are OEC that does not subscribe to progressive creation. Where we stand in that spectrum is less important than how we view Scripture.

As a fundamentalist I view the Bible as the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. The problem comes from how we interpret that Scripture. Do we interpret it willy-nilly or do we apply certain hermeneutic principles to the perspicuous understanding of that Scripture. In other words, the Scripture was written to be understood and followed by its adherents. In that sense it follows the same construct and literary principles of all other ancient documents.

With that being said, let’s address Christians like Murphy, Van Till, and Miller and how they’re being courageous and progressive. First I don’t think that is true by the majority of Evangelical Christians. Most evangelicals still considers TE as a abandonment of Scripture. What is worst is that abandonment of Scripture to junk Darwinian science.

Here is why. The main problem, without getting too deep into theology, is that the TE’s position and as illustrated by Krauze’s quotes is that these men don’t have any sound Biblical ground for there theological thinking. The Bible clearly says that God’s Creation is reveal to all Men (which includes women). The only way that TE gets around these Scriptural references is to ignore sound hermeneutics and put their own desire into what the Bible actual say. So when people like Murphy say that they have a theological problem with ID. His theological problem is not based on what the Bible actually said. His theological problem is that ID does not conform to how he views the Bible through the prism of his evolutionary predisposition.

As for the comment by Douglas Yu about faith is more valuable in the absence of evidence, that is just plain wrong. Just as the apostle James said that faith is demonstrated in action. Biblical faith is not absent of evidence. The Bible says that Hope is valuable in the absence of evidence. The Bible never asked for blind faith but reasonable faith. It was the prophet Isaiah speaking for God that said “Come let us reason together” . The OT believers including Abraham had their faith in God through many signs and miracles. NT believers have our faith on what we can comprehend and reasoned. The writings of the apostle Paul are demonstration of that impeccable logic at work.

However, faith is not proof. Faith does require a bridging of what we know and that which is unseen. In other words, you can’t have faith that there is no gravity. That sort of faith is contradictory to all evidence and reality. However, you can have faith that if you jump off a build God can save you or raise you from the dead. The only problem with that is do you have any reason why God would save you. Or a better example would be Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the book of Daniel. They have faith that God is able to save them if He wills. Faith is not a blind on the account of what they know God had done, but it is a bridge between reason and the uncertain future.

As far as his accusation that ID is like poking our fingers through Jesus’ hand is ridiculous. ID does not seek to prove the existence of God. ID from this Christian’s perspective only shows that God has left His marks in His Creation. “The Heavens declare the Glory of God. The Skies proclaim the works of His hands. “. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities– his eternal power and divine nature– have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

Finally, IMO science of our day is not neutral. It is dominated by atheistic materialists who are peddling their metaphysics under the guise of science. If you have any doubt between the intimate connection between Atheism and the science of Darwinian materialists just look at Myers, Dawkins, Forrest, Provine, Dennett, Pigliucci and many others. I agree science should be neutral and I think ID’s approach to science is certainly more neutral than Darwinism. At least in ID’s approach, evolution and design are both allowed to exist as long as it can be empirically based. Contrary to Darwinian devotees, ID (as least from this Christian’s perspective) is not the cornerstone of our faith. It is just good science.

  2 Responses to “Christianity and ID”

  1. […] The kind of faith and belief that Keith Miller is proposing almost reduces Christianity to the level of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’ve posted on what does authentic Christian faith means in the context of the Bible here. Exiled from GROGGS also has a nice post on faith here. God is intimately and actively involved in what we perceive as “natural” or “law-governed” processes. I thus see no distinction between God’s activity in “natural” and “miraculous” events. If one accepts this theological view, which I believe is thoroughly orthodox, then a completely seamless evolutionary history of life would be entirely acceptable theologically. In other words, such a scientific description would not violate one’s understanding of the nature and character of God. […]

  2. […] I will acknowledge that many Christians just as many atheists come to their belief from an uncritical path. The point I am making is that neither Atheism nor Christianity automatically mean that critical thinking and empirical evidence is devoid in the decision process. (Read Christianity and ID) In reality, Biblical scholarship in terms of archaeology, culture, history and language, all employ the modern scientific methods. There is no conflict between scientific methods and the theists who practice natural sciences on the weekdays and Biblical studies on Sundays. […]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.