Creationism?Intelligent design?
Just plain natural evolution, without any ‘divine breaking of the natural laws’ or ‘God of the gaps’?
What do you believe?
Of course, ever since Darwin Christians have been divided on these issues, and have generated all kinds of heated, but to my mind fun, discussion / stone throwing.
I used to be a creationist. Yep. Six literal 24 hour days, Adam giving all the animals a name, the smurfs, goats and the dinosaurs all went in the Ark two-by-two, etc.
But that was only during the first few years of my (then largely teenage) Christian life. I’m not a ‘creationist’ anymore.
And while I’ve been tempted by ‘intelligent design’, it too has its significant problems. One of the most thought-provoking posts I read on this was back in October 2005, a post by Ben Myers of Faith and Theology entitled ‘Darwin on Intelligent Design’. Reading this pushed me to purchase Küng’s Der Anfang Aller Dinge, in search of informed discussion - which I found, btw, and which I’ll be sharing here in the nearish future to not only finish off my review of Küng’s book, but also to address the questions I went searching to answer. Plus I’ve got some amusing things to post in this direction, and, anyway, I really think I could enjoy insensitively blundering my way through another ‘hot potato’.
However, before I start that series, I’d like to share a shocking piece of evidence that I recently found on the net – hard evidence that the ‘intelligent designers’ have had it right all along.
Ben, against ID, gave us Ichneumonidae the wasp.
In response, I give you Fido the dog.
5 comments:
Yeah, yeah, yeah...the dog. So he can skateboard.
The more important thing is...does he piddle on the carpet?
;-)
Chris states: "I used to be a creationist. Yep. Six literal 24 hour days, Adam giving all the animals a name, the smurfs, goats and the dinosaurs all went in the Ark two-by-two, etc."
One could still be a creationist and not adhere to the above "criteria." That seems to be more "creationism via fundamentalism."
As you get into this, can you give a definition of ID?
It seems to me that stated at its most basic and primitive, Intelligent Design is scientifically unassailable and above critique.
At its heart ID represents the belief that everything we see and know about the universe could not exist without a designer. On the opposite side is the claim that everything could actually exist by chance.
At this basic level, neither belief is susceptible to scientific verification, and can't really be disagree with other than on presuppositional grounds.
Once you start doing the number crunching on the probabilities, etc., things start getting into an evidentiary realm.
So, I think defining ID would be useful.
Hi Ellen! Welcome to my blog.
TB and Nelmezzo, thanks for your comments - in light of your comments, I guess it will be important to define my terms carefully before I start. Cheers.
BTW, no one's telling me the smurfs happened by chance.
Post a Comment