|
Post by Al Moritz on Sept 29, 2008 20:21:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Sept 29, 2008 20:35:08 GMT
I am not violently opposed to the attempts by the ID thinkers to try out their ideas, but I am very, very skeptical that the universe is such that God must intervene from time to time just to implement his grand design (miracles, like the Resurrection, are a different matter). I think that God is a better designer than that.
I do believe that God ordered the energy-matter system in its fundamental principles so that it would do what it has done, produce the wonder of the universe and the mystery of life. I once asked a Christian chemist if she believed in miracles. Her response was "The whole thing's a miracle."
Linking theism to "hard" ID is making faith unnecessarily vulnerable to the progress of science. We don't need this to have reasonable belief in Christianity. I once expressed to a Christian life scientist among my colleagues that my main objection to ID was that it was inelegant. His answer? "Exactly."
If the ID explanation turns out to work, fine. If not, I have lost nothing.
Best,
Richard Moorton
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Sept 29, 2008 20:50:14 GMT
I am not violently opposed to the attempts by the ID thinkers to try out their ideas, but I am very, very skeptical that the universe is such that God must intervene from time to time just to implement his grand design (miracles, like the Resurrection, are a different matter). I think that God is a better designer than that. I do believe that God ordered the energy-matter system in its fundamental principles so that it would do what it has done, produce the wonder of the universe and the mystery of life. I once asked a Christian chemist if she believed in miracles. Her response was "The whole thing's a miracle." Linking theism to "hard" ID is making faith unnecessarily vulnerable to the progress of science. We don't need this to have reasonable belief in Christianity. I once expressed to a Christian life scientist among my colleagues that my main objection to ID was that it was inelegant. His answer? "Exactly." If the ID explanation turns out to work, fine. If not, I have lost nothing. Best, Richard Moorton Well said.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 29, 2008 22:00:07 GMT
I can't help wondering whether the two ideas (that God set it up to work from the beginning, or that God intervenes from time to time) are only distinguishable because of our perspective. If it is true that God lives outside time (which most christians seem to accept, although it seems Richard Swinburne doesn't), then from his perspective either option would mean him making choices and actions in eternity.
I have argued previously that even if God did poke his finger in every now and again (e.g. for abiogenesis), it is difficult to see how we would know, and be able to distinguish this from an as yet unknown naturalistic effect, but it seems to me that the actions are not practically distinguishable if we try to take God's perspective.
But then again, perhaps I've been out in the Aussie sun for too long! : )
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Sept 29, 2008 23:08:51 GMT
Dear Umklee,
I really don't see a logical problem here. Although God presumably lives in an eternal now (to use words to describe the ineffable, but what else can I do?), he nonetheless has an exquisite sense of timing if he is omniscient. He can in the formation of the universe (in his eternal now) decide to design a system that generally runs itself (though the contingent reality of being requires the constant support of Unconditioned Reality, God, to continue to exist imho) as opposed to tinkering every time he wants a new species to exist (on the time line which is present to him in its entirety). I certainly don't want to exclude God's intervention in time (from our perspective). But there is a difference even to God between a grand design and a continually improvised reality. And he can certainly choose to act at point A rather than point M in a timeline.
This does not prohibit him from particular interventions. They are eternally known and willed by him but they are time bound events to us. Examples might include the "ensouling" of men (however actuated), the Incarnation and the healing of a cancer because of the prayer of the faithful.
This whole view of things can be and has been attacked by philosophers as incoherent, but I know enough about the history of philosophy to be undaunted. Philosophy, it seems to me, "killed" the divine and then ate itself, lacking the bread of life. In this, if I am right, philosophy is rather like the mythological character Erysichthon, who defied Ceres by cutting down a tree in her sacred grove and killing the spirit of the Dryad who lived within it. As punishment she sent him a hunger so insatiable and savage that eventually, having exhausted all available sustenance, he devoured himself.
Please understand, I respect philosophy, but (as Ben Johnson said of his regard for Shakespeare) "this side idolatry."
If this doesn't confuse the hell out of everyone then I am not up to it.
Best,
Richard
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Sept 30, 2008 15:39:17 GMT
Well, I didn't mean to imply the whole ID program in the post. I am also wary of accepting miracles outside of those the Bible records. However, I don't automatically refuse to accept the possibility of natural theology either. I agree that if natural processes can account for the origin of life it would not hurt my faith. If there is evidence that natural processes cannot account for the origin of life, however, I find that significant. The book by Rana and Ross argue very well that this is the actual state of affairs. As to the claim that God tinkering in the universe seems to point to shoddy workmanship on his part: this was an old Deist claim in the 19th century, and has, as far as I can tell, been abandoned as an argument. For one thing, there's no particular reason for thinking that an engine which runs without further input by its inventor is an appropriate metaphor for an ordered universe created by a loving God who wants to interact with it. For another, it seems to assume that any "tinkering" on God's part would be contrary to the system of the universe. But as C. S. Lewis wrote in Miracles, the reason some people find miracles intolerable is because, "they start by taking Nature to be the whole of reality. And they are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. ... To find out how is interlocked with the previous history of Nature you must replace both Nature and the miracle in a larger context. Everything is connected with everything else: but not all things are connected by the short and straight roads we expected."
As to God's relation to time, a good book on this is God and Time: Four Views by Gregory Ganssle. I say that, but I haven't actually read it yet. And as to Mr. Moritz's counter-argument, I'll get to it when I can; it looks interesting.
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Sept 30, 2008 16:04:39 GMT
Dear Jim,
I didn't mean to attack your blog, and I certainly didn't mean to attack you. I simply have doubts about whether or not the argument of Rana and Ross will hold up. I agree with most of your followup post. As for the issue at hand, let's see where the science takes us.
As for the interaction between a timeless God and a temporal universe, I don't pretend to understand it. But I do believe that it is real.
Best,
Richard
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Sept 30, 2008 16:59:27 GMT
I didn't take it as an attack at all, don't worry about that. Did I sound snippy? If so, sorry. I was just responding to your points, most of which I agree with. And yeah, thinking of God and time together is a gargantuan task, so I'll leave it to my betters as well.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Sept 30, 2008 17:04:50 GMT
I agree with the posters here that God's timelessness is important to the issue, and the views voiced here seem to be close to what I once posted before:
Some appear to be concerned that God’s special providence, an active involvement in the world beyond just maintenance of creation, seems to be diminished by the idea that God may have let nature take its course during evolution. There would have been no or little special providence for billions of years. Only recently, all of the sudden, when humans appeared, God would have acted in the world with special providence in an intense manner – an unsatisfying temporal disjunction in God’s involvement in His creation. However, could it not be that these concerns are based on a naïve anthropomorphic projection of our own perception of time onto God’s works? God lives outside space and time. From God’s perspective the temporal aspect of creation may look entirely different than for us, since everything can exist for Him in an instant. God can intervene with special providence whenever He chooses, with the “whenever” not necessarily related to our own experience of time as a sequence of events.
***
I would go so far as to say that God's timelessness has to be an essential part of any creation theology that can be taken seriously. Alas, there is not much of good creation theology out there (so I guess at this point we have to make our own...) -- most theologians appear to be afraid to tackle the issue for a lack of knowledge of science. John Haught makes good attempts, but in my view his theology puts too much emphasis on kenosis. Some of the best stuff that I have seen out there comes from believing scientists like Ken Miller, Francis Collins.
The following from a Time magazine debate between Dawkins and Collins also plays into the timelessness issue:
COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.
TIME: When would this have occurred?
COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Sept 30, 2008 17:07:00 GMT
As to God's relation to time, a good book on this is God and Time: Four Views by Gregory Ganssle. Thanks for the recommendation.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Oct 17, 2008 21:54:13 GMT
Intelligent design has theological implications just as naturalistic evolution has theological implications (as Dawkins says, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist). The implications themselves are not what should be argued.
In simplest terms the design argument says that certain features of the natural world display characteristics best explained by intelligent activity. In that case the living cell is a prime target for investigation. It is the simplest building block of living systems and yet the number of interlocking components needed to make it work is simply mind-boggling. Even evolutionists have acknowledged that the first cell, whatever it was, must have been vastly less complex than even the simplest self-replicating cell we know today.
Yet how much simpler could it be and still be capable of all the feats that a cell is required to engage in?
Almoritz, I stopped reading your article about the point where you claimed that Miller and Urey had produced viable amino acid production in the laboratory. Chirality (left and right handedness) of the amino acids was even in the Miller experiment, it is not in nature (left handed amino acids dominate in living systems). The tar produced as a byproduct of the process would have been destructive to the amino acids and toxic to any living cell formed. Also the heat applied to induce the process would have also degraded the amino acids if Miller hadn't included a cold trap for them. He also used an oxygen free environment in order to avoid the inevitable oxidation. Needless to say, no evidence exists for an Earth without oxygen.
In short Miller developed an experiment to produce amino acids. He was successful, but his experiments added precisely nothing to the origin of life debate. Well unless showing that it was far more difficult than imagined prior to the experiments counts.
Can an intelligent mind conceive of, and then construct a process to produce amino acids and then combine them into proteins, then use those proteins to build cells that can themselves produce more cells? Of course it can.
Can undirected natural processes (i.e. the natural processes of chemistry) achieve such ends? No evidence exists that it can.
My criticism is not new, Biblical creationists have been pointing to the same errors in Miller's work (or more specifically the evolutionists' use of that work) probably since the work was published. Try reading material outside of TalkOrigins (of which the more I see the more I understand the general contempt for).
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Oct 18, 2008 16:16:41 GMT
Intelligent design has theological implications just as naturalistic evolution has theological implications (as Dawkins says, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist). I don't think we should let Dawkins dictate the metaphysical implications of science to us. He is not a particularly bright metaphysician.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Oct 18, 2008 16:54:34 GMT
Even evolutionists have acknowledged that the first cell, whatever it was, must have been vastly less complex than even the simplest self-replicating cell we know today. Yet how much simpler could it be and still be capable of all the feats that a cell is required to engage in? You might have found that in my article, but you stopped reading: I quote the evidence. Also, I didn't say that the Miller-Urey experiment was producing "viable amino acids" and that it solved the origin-of-life riddle (I attach far less importance to that experiment than many others do). I just said correctly that it produced amino acids, period. As for chirality, I tackle this issue expansively later in my article, where I point out that, even though we may not yet know or never will know the exact sequence of events that led to homochirality, the issue does not constitute a major scientific stumble block anymore (there are others left). You might want to reconsider and keep on reading my article after all.
|
|
|
Post by bvgdez on Dec 9, 2008 16:05:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on May 16, 2009 10:14:21 GMT
I was on the local footy blog (Aust) and they have a religion /politics section. A post mentioned how the building blocks of RNA could have formed by themselves stimulated by ultra violet rays. Here is the supplied link. www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/sc...=1&ref=science . This was followed by a comment that "this could be problematic for Creationists and even Theistic Evolutionists". While I can accept that it would be a problem for Creationists of the Ken Ham - Henry Morris ilk, I would not have thought that it would be a problem for the likes of Simon Conway-Morris, Denis Alexander or Kenneth Miller type of T.E. In fact, I am sure that James Hannam has made the comment that he would not be surprised if the origins of life were discovered. I would be interested in your thoughts. Why should this be a problem?
|
|