Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Most people who don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution do so from a religious standpoint. They think that the theory goes against what is written in the bible and somehow demeans the idea of God as creator. But is it not possible that God is the creator and evolution is his method?
WOW...here's another doosy for you. BTW, Yoda: No hard feelings over Kyoto. I don't intend to offend anyone (to be honest that wouldn't stop me anyway), but I hope it won't stand in the way of intelligent discourse in the future.
OK...in order to answer this I've got to move away from my original question of is ID viable when compared against EB and put on my "religous hat". So, here goes. I've heard this attempted before, I believe one of my college professors (Western Civ) called it "The Great Watchwinder" theory. Meaning that God created the universe as evidenced by science (including evolutionary forces) and then stepped back.
I am a Christian. Speaking as a Christian, my faith (and that of the next two largest religions, Judaism & Islam) demands my belief in a personal God who actively participates in guiding us in our lives. Again, as a Christian, I pray to God on a daily basis for guidance in my life, enlightenment, etc; Taking the designed-evolutionary theory from this point, it's a non-starter for me and many other Christians (I will not ascribe my beliefs as a Christian to the entire body of what amounts to millions of people who are Christian in name only, and not in practice, just as I do not want their practices or lack thereof ascribed to me).
The problem as I see it from this stand point is not an evidentiary one, however it's a moral one that can lead to evidence of creationism. By this I mean that taking the model you described above, it means one of two things:
1. That since the God of the universe stepped back the instant he was done creating things he does not care what happens after that. This leads to a lack of absolute truth, most specifically resulting in moral relativism, situational ethics, etc; For example, if we knew for an absolute certainty that God did create the universe but did not set any rules that govern it's operation (which we already know to be false btw: laws of motion, gravity, etc) we could justify anything. That way lies chaos. If there is no absolute truth then how can one ever denounce the war in Iraq, the crimes of which any of the nation states of the world are guilty, genocide, etc; We're left with who has the power to impose their beliefs or assert their authority over everyone else?
2. That God did set rules to the way the universe operates after or during the creation (again, observable physical laws we already know about), including rules that govern human behavior (although I can already hear MeBeJedi saying "Well, you've got to be careful about calling them laws, as that's just the name we give to behaviors that we observe"...hah: Beat you to it!). We've seen this time and time again: behaviors have consequences. We choose to break those laws. That is why the world is in the shape it is in. That's one of the unique things about Christianity IMO: It offers answers to the following questions: Where do we come from? What has gone wrong with the world? What can we do to stop it? How can man move to the next level?
Which explanation makes more sense? To me, option #2 is more viable, and IMO is made even more so in that it instructs us to do that which is opposite to our nature: obey the laws that govern our behavior or face the consequences.
The folks who would agree with option #1 will tend to believe in the "better man" theory, meaning that if we just adopt the right political or economic systems, everything will be oooooookay. The great socialist failures of the 20th century are a prime example of this (although there are many who would disagree and say "That's just because the "right" people weren't in charge"). Is unbridled capitalism better? No...however the alternative of "Benign Totalitarianism" that we're being fed now is not a good alternative. But I'm straying off topic. This position also seems to me like it smacks of adolescent rebellion against authority, meaning: Fine, I'll agree to a created universe, but DON"T IMPOSE YOUR MORALITY ON ME!! Assuming a moral law in addition to physical laws, those two positions are by definition mutually exclusive, and are symptomatic of the much greater problem of moral relitivism in society today. It is now practically a crime to criticize certain "protected" groups of people based on your moral or religious belief. This type of forced tolerance is frightening to say the least, and is not true tolerance. It is a thinly veiled demand of acceptance disguised as tolerance, but I'm wandering again.
MeBe: I'm not clear on what you meant by what you said about the bible. However I'll say that when someone asks me about who wrote the bible or what was done before it, I won't say "That's science. I only teach creationism", unlike many naturalists who will immediately say the reverse when you ask what caused The Big Bang. Are there questions the bible doesn't answer? Yes. And I'll be the first to admit it.
Love and Kisses....
JediSage
