Removing the stumbling-block

Plan 9 · #71 4th September 2003, 01:41 AM

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but couldn't one not only introduce the Christian heresies, but also the teachings of Zarathustra and Krishna?

lucaspa · #72 4th September 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Vance

Basically, it would be like me saying:

1. I think an intelligent being created the universe, and here is the evidence to prove it, which is true regardless of the identity of the being.

2. I happen to believe (and strongly believe) that this intelligent being was the Christian God.

3. But even if you don't believe as I do that it was the Christian God, that does not mean you can toss out the evidence I presented in number one, since that evidence is not dependent upon it being the Christian God.

4. So, if the evidence of an intelligent designer is convincing and it can be presented in a religion-neutral way, it should be taught in schools. The teacher can add that some believe that this intelligent designer was the Christian God, others believe that it was some other intelligent designer.

This series of statements does not in any way imply that they don't believe fully in the Christian God.

Vance, the problem is not what IDers believe, but what the idea says. This is very important. Ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. Once an idea is broached, it takes on a life of its own. It is no longer tied to any other idea or belief that I might have.

This is the danger to Christianity of the Creation Science/ID idea that there is a Creator but that Creator is not God. Let me take just the relevant sentences of Vawter's essay so that it is clearer:

"'In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence." ... The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence."

See? Vawter and Gilkey are not talking about the beliefs of individual Creation Scientists/IDers. They are talking about the consequences of the idea they have put forward: the creator does not have to have the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc or even be in existence.

Now, compare this to the beliefs of Christians in the Nicean Creed:
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,"

See, the Creator is the same as Jesus and the same as gives us salvation. The idea of the Creation Scientists/IDers is directly contrary to this. It says this may not be true! In their misguided zeal to put Christianity into public school science classes the Creation Scientists/IDers have let loose an idea that directly challenges Christianity!

This is why you must be careful of the ideas you put out there and consider the consequences! When you and I state that creationism is a danger to Christianity, that idea is out there and independent of you and I. You and I may not really believe it (we do, however), but the idea is still out there running around to be considered as valid. Whether we consider it as valid or not. That's why I am always careful to test my ideas before I put them on the boards. I don't want an idea running around out there that I know ahead of time is false. I may be wrong, but at least I have tried to see if I'm wrong before I loose what may be a monster.

But the Creation Scientists/IDers didn't do this. They loosed an idea that they personally don't agree with. But now we have to deal with the idea, not whether they agree with it. And the idea is heresy.

So, they cannot, as you assert "continue, as Christians, to assert vehemently that the intelligent designer is the Christian God, and denounce all heresies if they like and not be inconsistent with the statements above." They can't do that because they were the ones who put the heresy out there as valid.

There is an old joke: A newspaper headline screams: Good News! Science shows there is a God. Bad news! It's Woden.

Creation Science/ID is saying that the ID really could be Woden! Christianity says it can't.

lucaspa · #73 4th September 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Plan 9

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but couldn't one not only introduce the Christian heresies, but also the teachings of Zarathustra and Krishna?

Under the idea put forward by ID/Creation Science, yes! Since you would be mandated to talk about an ID in science class but can't identify the ID, then you could put forward arguments that the ID is Zarathustra or Krishna. Or Allah, or Satan, or Raelians, or Woden, or Zeus, etc. You could even put forward the Nietzchian idea that God is dead! After all, all the ID has to do is make the original designs, and then it could die. All are equally valid candidates according to the idea.

Vance · #74 4th September 2003, 12:00 PM

Lucaspa said:
"But the Creation Scientists/IDers didn't do this. They loosed an idea that they personally don't agree with. But now we have to deal with the idea, not whether they agree with it. And the idea is heresy.

So, they cannot, as you assert "continue, as Christians, to assert vehemently that the intelligent designer is the Christian God, and denounce all heresies if they like and not be inconsistent with the statements above." They can't do that because they were the ones who put the heresy out there as valid."

This is the part where we disagree. I understand the danger of promoting a concept that would *allow* for differing interpretations, but this is not putting the heresy out there *as valid* itself.

All they are saying is that there is a common denominator which can be believed by differing groups - an Intelligent Designer. This is not the same as advocating any different beliefs or even promoting the idea that anyone should follow different beliefs. It is simply recognizing that a belief in an intelligent designer *can* be held by those who believe in a different designer. This is a true statement and we can not ignore that point.

Now, I still do think it is disengenuous and dishonest, but I really don't think it is heresy.

Plan 9 · #75 4th September 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Under the idea put forward by ID/Creation Science, yes! Since you would be mandated to talk about an ID in science class but can't identify the ID, then you could put forward arguments that the ID is Zarathustra or Krishna. Or Allah, or Satan, or Raelians, or Woden, or Zeus, etc. You could even put forward the Nietzchian idea that God is dead! After all, all the ID has to do is make the original designs, and then it could die. All are equally valid candidates according to the idea.

Including Q. There's a charming thought.

lucaspa · #76 4th September 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Plan 9

Including Q. There's a charming thought.

Or Q. Altho he's not much worse than Woden or Marduk.

There's a cartoon of a god-child holding the galaxy in his hands. The god-parents are behind him. You can tell they are gods because of the lightnings playing about their heads and the togas each is wearing. Anyway, the parent-gods say to the child-god: "Now that you've had your little joke ..."

Or the Borg. They designed humans as a better drone. An even more charming thought.

lucaspa · #77 4th September 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Vance

This is the part where we disagree. I understand the danger of promoting a concept that would *allow* for differing interpretations, but this is not putting the heresy out there *as valid* itself.

It isn't? IDers are saying that science is the way to decide truth. And this way of deciding truth tells you there is an ID. BUT, science won't tell you who the ID is, what attributes it has, or whether it still exists. So, any ID that produces design is a valid ID as far as ID Theory is concerned. That leaves the way wide open for Marcionist and Gnostic heresies.

All they are saying is that there is a common denominator which can be believed by differing groups - an Intelligent Designer. This is not the same as advocating any different beliefs or even promoting the idea that anyone should follow different beliefs. It is simply recognizing that a belief in an intelligent designer *can* be held by those who believe in a different designer. This is a true statement and we can not ignore that point.

1. The ID is not supposed to be "believed", but is supposed to be demonstrable by science. It's not a belief for IDers, but a fact.

2. Christians have decided that the belief in a creator who is not the same entity as Jesus and the god of salvation is a wrong belief. The creator is the same as the god of love and salvation.

3. IDers are saying, however, that they can't show that the ID is that god of love and salvation. Therefore, it is possible that the ID is not that god. It is possible that the creator is separate from Jesus and salvation.

And now we have the way wide open for the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies. ID says it is possible. Christianity says it is not possible. And thus, as Vawter says, "The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. "

ID is saying that it can't stop those heresies. That those heresies are compatible with ID. Christianity could easily tear itself apart because of IDer selfishness and failure to think of the consequences of what they say. They want ID in public classrooms. To do that they will sacrifice a necessary tenet of Christianity.

Come to think of it, one IDer, Behe, claims that all genetic information was put there in the beginning and there has been no influence of the IDer since. This advocates the idea that the creator did its job and then left.