Ch. 6: Evolution and ID

[Pseudonym]

Even look at the book we're reading. The authors of this book aren't what I would consider extreme or overzealous, [...]

I'm not saying they're extreme, but they seem to come from the same branch of American Protestantism that all such books and debates come from. I couldn't imagine a Roman Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox or even an Episcopalian or a Methodist write a book like this, if you know what I mean.

[Pseudonym]

I found this analogy quite provocative. Which is not to say it irked me, it's to say that it got me thinking - thinking that you've got an absolutely terrific analogy there!

Yeah, I've always thought of this kind of Christian as having a faux persecution complex. Murphy's post got me thinking a bit deeper about this, too.

By the way, I've enjoyed reading all your posts in this thread. I think they're what this forum should be all about. Expressing your point of view, from the heart. Thank you.

Let me second that.

[Emery]

Plus, look at almost any abusive relationship and you'll see that one person usually demands power over someone by both claiming to be infallible, at the same time pointing out the persons flaws. This is what I consider to be manipulation at it's highest form. When you hear Christians talk they're always pointing out why it must be their fault things are the way they are. I know I'll catch flack for this, but they sound exactly like battered women. If we just all try harder then he won't do it again, it really is our fault for not making sure the beans were warm when God got home. Humans have had the blame put on them from day one, so to admit he himself was imperfect would invite people to gain courage to stand up to him and demand answers.

More on this idea here.

[ScottBarger]

As I pointed out in the show, I think the book comes from the same segment of Christianity that has decided to "defeat evolution" at all costs. This decision is driven by a hermeneutical philosophy (how should we interpret the Bible and specifically the Hebrew cosmology). That's why I said that the issue may SOUND scientific (and it is, to a degree) but it's primarily interpretational.

[crazylegsmurphy]

Thanks for the kind words guys. I'm enjoying dusting off the old brain cobwebs and getting some new perspectives on things.

As I pointed out in the show, I think the book comes from the same segment of Christianity that has decided to "defeat evolution" at all costs. This decision is driven by a hermeneutical philosophy (how should we interpret the Bible and specifically the Hebrew cosmology). That's why I said that the issue may SOUND scientific (and it is, to a degree) but it's primarily interpretational.

I'm not sure I agree completely that the intent is to "defeat evolution" at all costs. I personally think the intent is to control information at all cost. At this point in time trying to convince the population of the old world views on Christianity would make the church look like morons. If you tailor evolution to fit the bible however you can put a pretty convincing spin on the whole thing which adds more validity. Behe and his irreducible complexity argument is a pretty good example of this.

As I pointed out before there are so many Christian publications that spend a lot of time and effort to control the flow of information. Churches don't hand out, or recommend books on evolution from the secular camp, yet want schools to teach the "other side of evolution". It's double standards all the way.

Remember, controlling information is power. Smart people ask questions, and questions lead to answers that lead to more questions.

[OzAnt]

More on this idea here.

Nice find - thanks for the link, Emery! Also, thanks for reminding me I haven't checked the site out in quite a while

Ant

[tonyenglish7]

I really wish I had the words to convey why using modern human achievements is a really annoying argument for design. Sure, Mount Rushmore looks designed, but where in all the rest of the universe do we see this? Watches look designed, but we don't see watches naturally occurring in the world.

It drives me insane that ID proponents use these things as examples of design. If anyone can put together a better thought please do. I have tried so many times to twist the "watch" analogy back around as Emery did, but I think the problem is that it's flawed in the first place. There has to be a way to show that human design is not the same as naturally occurring "design" in the rest of the world. There has to be a way to show that just because humans can mimic natural design does not mean it's the same thing.

Does anyone get what I mean?

I get what you mean but it sort of begs the question. You are saying that "life is just a natural event, it doesn't compare to something designed like a watch." Yet then you disqualify the subject of the analogy, namely life. So you are begging the question. Life shows design as compared to the watch. Of course it is different then the watch yet both show design. That is the analogy. If life shows complexity and design, it is up to the materialist to explain why. It is not enough to say, "nah, it is not really designed."

[tonyenglish7]

Dunc289,

I believe that God is interested in our "everlasting bodies" which will be freed from the constraints of death and decay and will be able to experience a vast, physical universe that has likewise been freed from the constraints of death and decay.

Interesting point comes to light here Scott, and please don't think I'm taking the piss, because I'm not, but I am interested in exploring the implications of your world view

This large physical universe etc. would it also be freed from the constraints of all the other laws of physics? ie Relativity? Gravity? The second law of thermodynamics? (Scratch that, no decay means no entropy, although that implies no heat transfer, which means our eternal bodies will be jolly hot without the ability to ever radiate. )

I'm all for finally being able to explore the universe as an immortal, presumably we'd still be able to perform science in the new world, could we build spacecraft? Would there be any point in learning anything, or would we just know everything already, or just go and ask the relevant angel?

Will our everlasting souls in our everlasting bodies be invincible? (I think I heard you say we could still skin a knee). What about head injuries and the changes in personality which can result. Could a believer enter heaven, get a whack on the head, change personality, and go atheist? Wow, what then?

Much more importantly, will there be children?
I know God, in his wisdom has chosen to take more children into heaven (or hell) than any other category of human, but would they remain childish? Surely after even only a 1000 years of the afterlife they'll be a little too much like the rest of us to bring us they joy they give us now. Just annoying short people, bit like the French.
(Why I feel I can make a racist jibe about the French but not the Chinese or Mexicans is a mystery to me, although there is Emery to consider)

Given the choice of an eternity with only the love of and for the Father , rather than the love of and for children, I'd prefer the latter.

This rabbit hole just gets deeper the more I think about it.

Fond regards

dunc
Allahu Ackbar. (Blame Tony)


ps I know the answer to all of the above is "God will make it so", but still, you can't blame me for asking

Materialist always say, well, if there is a God that is Good, why do all these bad things happen and why all the non=perfection? Well, the story isn't over yet. Someone smart enough to cause this universe is able to cause the perfecting of it. No mind can conceive of what is planned by the creator. He revealed to us that he is going to finish the project in a real way. You cannot use imperfection to both argue against God and against any standard thereof.

[tonyenglish7]

Where I came from, it was not necessary to put the word "Liberal" before "Christian". It was implied.

Where's that, if I may ask?

For what it's worth, I use the word "Liberal" to distinguish it from "Mainline". I respect Mainline Christianity, but I'm on the fringe of it in that direction. Evangelicals and fundamentalists are on the fringe of it in the other direction.

I was wondering what you mean by liberal? Does that mean you do not care if Jesus really raised from the dead? i.e. Jesus Seminar or does that mean you think all roads lead to God? or ???

[tonyenglish7]

Plus, look at almost any abusive relationship and you'll see that one person usually demands power over someone by both claiming to be infallible, at the same time pointing out the persons flaws. This is what I consider to be manipulation at it's highest form. When you hear Christians talk they're always pointing out why it must be their fault things are the way they are. I know I'll catch flack for this, but they sound exactly like battered women. If we just all try harder then he won't do it again, it really is our fault for not making sure the beans were warm when God got home. Humans have had the blame put on them from day one, so to admit he himself was imperfect would invite people to gain courage to stand up to him and demand answers.

More on this idea here.

Regarding the abusive God article.

1) Story is not over, he is judging God in mid stream.
2) He admits he is just a physical device, unable to decide for himself in the article and is therefore self refuting.
3) God is fair and takes in all the factors known by us and otherwise.
4) God gives mercy and gifts to those He desires and fairness to all the others.

[crazylegsmurphy]

I get what you mean but it sort of begs the question. You are saying that "life is just a natural event, it doesn't compare to something designed like a watch." Yet then you disqualify the subject of the analogy, namely life. So you are begging the question. Life shows design as compared to the watch. Of course it is different then the watch yet both show design. That is the analogy. If life shows complexity and design, it is up to the materialist to explain why. It is not enough to say, "nah, it is not really designed."

Argh...I find this almost impossible to explain because I'm having trouble finding a way to show the difference between human/animal design, what is considered natural design...and then distinguish that from what you consider intelligently designed.

See, what I don't agree with is that life shows the same evidence of design as compared to a watch. When human achievements are used as analogies it brushes over one major key point, and that is intent. Lets assume for a second that life is naturally "designed" meaning we as humans may recognize patterns and anomalies in the natural world, but it's simply a result of a "reactionary" process. What I mean by this is that nature doesn't start out with a plan, it's more of a trial and error process. Nature uses the "tools" it has to work with and the "design", no matter how bad is...is what it is until it can or needs to be naturally improved upon.

A watchmaker on the other hand is designing a watch from square one with an intent. Every step of the way is planned out using prior knowledge to get to a final result. If a tool is needed, it is made and used for a specific purpose. To me this is a huge distinction between the two. It's looking at a final design and not putting any context behind it. It's not accounting for all the factors and processes involved in getting to that point.

Secondly...when we talk about seeing design in nature we tend to forget that humans are really susceptible to seeing things that simply aren't there. We see faces in car grills, faces on mars, and even Jesus in a jam sandwich (I'm gonna copyright that by the way). So we have to be careful that we're not falling into this kind of trap when we look at nature. My friend and I were just hiking in Arches National Park and it's amazing how many of those rock formations look like giant penises....now we can assume two things from this....a) our brains will naturally see these things as a byproduct of our evolution b) God has a pretty juvenile sense of humor.

One last point is that of irreducible complexity in the ID debate. You say that it's up to the materialist to explain why things look designed, and more often than not they do. With the eye and the flagellum for example, "materialists" have shown that these are not IC as the ID proponents would argue. In almost all cases complex organisms and structures can be broken down and explained in a way that we expect to see if evolution is true. This is why I feel this whole watch in the desert thing just won't die. The ID proponents don't seem to want to accept that just because something looks to be so intricately designed, doesn't mean it's not coming from many simpler processes.

And yes...I realize the idea is to show evidence of design, but I think it really is comparing apples to orangutans.

Regarding the abusive God article.

1) Story is not over, he is judging God in mid stream.
2) He admits he is just a physical device, unable to decide for himself in the article and is therefore self refuting.
3) God is fair and takes in all the factors known by us and otherwise.
4) God gives mercy and gifts to those He desires and fairness to all the others.

I'm not sure I understand your points.

You say that he is judging God mid stream, but if we bring it back to the comparison that is like saying we should forgive the abusive husband/boyfriend because he still has some growing up to do. Abuse and manipulation is wrong no matter what the excuse. You can't give God a free pass simply because we're once again too dumb to fully see things for how they might be. In fact if you saw an adult abusing a child you would be outraged, yet God is allowed to make us all feel small and dumb, all the while demanding perfection and complete obedience.

You say God is fair, but you're basing this on what? Unless I am mistaken, you're basing this on his word. So if this hypothetical abusive husband claimed that he was fair and just when he smacked around his wife, we're supposed to take that for face value? Again, it's not an excuse. God should be held to the highest of standards and if we are in fact to small minded to get it, then he should be taking extra precautions to not be misinterpreted. When you're trying to gain trust and loyalty you don't do that by doing whatever you want and then yelling, "I'm the adult so I know what is best, as long as you're under my roof!!"

God also crushes Christians in falling bridges. God also gives Christian people cancer. If you know anything about how psychics use cold reading to appear to read minds you'll see that people are generally really good at remembering the "hits" and forgetting the "misses" no matter how many there are. I find this to be the case in religion as well. We're all happy when God shows us mercy and fairness and rewards us with something good, but every reason in the book is used when something bad happens.

Personally, I think God gets a lot of free passes based on his own word. There are so many examples in the bible (and in life) where God is not what he claims to be, yet we always justify this behavior in the same way abused people do. We lay blame on ourselves. Our self esteem and self worth are taken away from us, and all the while we continue to protect the abuser.

[Pseudonym]

I was wondering what you mean by liberal? Does that mean you do not care if Jesus really raised from the dead? i.e. Jesus Seminar or does that mean you think all roads lead to God? or ???

As far as my liberality in theology goes, I'm pretty close to people like Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann and Leslie Weatherhead while not being quite as far along as people like Richard Holloway and John Shelby Spong. I hope that helps you out.

Having said that, I do respect the work of people like Spong and Crossan. I think that they've identified the right problems with Christianity and are thinking about them creatively, though I think they miss the mark on what the right solutions are.

[JustJim]

There are so many examples in the bible (and in life) where God is not what he claims to be...

And that tells me two things: 1) it's humans, not God, making those claims about God, and 2) God is not like God is portrayed to be in the Bible. It doesn't tell me "there is no God" - only that there is no God like the God of the Bible.

Pseudonym: I also am intrigued by folks like Tillich and Spong (whom I agree often misses the mark on the the solutions). I've also read some of Marcus Borg's stuff, and find his a very pleasant liberal Christian position. Have you read any of his stuff? A very good book I read was The Meaning of Jesus - Two Visions, by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. It's a presentation of the debate on the historical Jesus, done by way of alternating essays by the authors on the subjects. Quite thought-provoking.

Jim

[crazylegsmurphy]

And that tells me two things: 1) it's humans, not God, making those claims about God, and 2) God is not like God is portrayed to be in the Bible. It doesn't tell me "there is no God" - only that there is no God like the God of the Bible.

Very true indeed. Using Occam's Razor we can pretty much assume whenever you add humans into the mix, that is a huge red flag.

[yjoeyh]

Regarding the abusive God article.

1) Story is not over, he is judging God in mid stream.
2) He admits he is just a physical device, unable to decide for himself in the article and is therefore self refuting.
3) God is fair and takes in all the factors known by us and otherwise.
4) God gives mercy and gifts to those He desires and fairness to all the others.

Yes, I read the article that Emery posted as well. I don't understand who the abuser or "perp" is supposed to be. Wasn't this article written by an atheist who claims that God doesn't exist or at least cannot be proven? Is it possible to have abusive relationship without an abuser? I get the idea of a religious leader or institution abusing their followers, but if you take those authorities out of the mix, can a person or group of people really be abused by no one?