ID deniers vs Romans 1 regarding those "without excuse"

[BobRyan]

In Romans 1 we have a statement in the Word of God about what can be clearly seen in nature even by pagans. IT (Romans 1) is a claim that goes far beyond the modest claims of "Intelligent Design".

Romans 1
14 I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. 15 So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.

...

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
--even His eternal power
-- and Godhead,
so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
...32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.


In Romans 1 Paul argues that even in the case of pagans whose only access to knowledge of God is the elements of nature having no access to scripture at all "are without excuse" because the invisible attributes of God are "clearly seen" . Clearly seen in WHAT??

"In the things that have been MADE".

Paul goes far beyond "it shows that God has some tiny level of IQ" rather it shows that God is infinite in power that He is infinite God all knowing all powerful all wise and that He is in the position to judge all who rebel against him and send them to the second death.

That is wayyyyy beyond the simplistic claims of ID which are --

Because of the irreducible complexity that limits function such that it cannot exist apart from some sort of saltation and "just so stories" -- (the human eye for example)
1. Things in nature appear as if they have been designed/made
2. The design reveals a degree of intelligence in the one who designed the animal life-form under study.

That ID statement falls far short of the minimalist claims in Romans 1 that God says is apparent even to pagans with no access to scripture at all.

And of course many agnostics and evolutionists will simply respond with "so what? We don't believe in either Romans 1 or ID".

The point is that ID is not refuted by Romans 1 rather it is a very basic level of obvious recognition that is a precursor or at least rudimentary to the more advanced claims in Romans 1

 

[BobRyan]

ID Deniers appear to say this

1. I don't think you can look at nature and logically conclude "it all appears to be made by someone, or that something about it shows it must have been made/designed".
2. If we did assume it was made - it does not show any IQ/Intelligence in the maker whereas a computer or a chainsaw does show a certain intelligence in the maker.

Their view can be compared to this: " 2 + 2 = 4 does not appear to be something God needs to intervene in (and make "true" otherwise it would be false) and that this is true whether you are on a living planet like Earth - or on a barren asteroid falling through space. "

This is a level of denial that is below that of what Romans 1 says is clearly seen by people who have no access to scripture at all, when they look at nature and recognize it as having been made by infinite God.

As noted in my prior post - agnostics/atheists probably have no opposition to the ID denier position as stated above. Nor would they care how it compares to Romans 1.

On another thread someone said "Theistic evolutionists are not creationists - they are evolutionists" - and that is a true statement in most cases. But it is also true that some of them would also choose to be ID deniers.

 

[Speedwell]

Who are these ID deniers you re talking about? Who appear to understand neither Romans 1 nor ID?

 

[BobRyan]

Who are these ID deniers you re talking about? Who appear to understand neither Romans 1 nor ID?

hang on a few minutes... this shouldn't take long

 

[RDKirk]

In Romans 1 we have a statement in the Word of God about what can be clearly seen in nature even by pagans. IT is a claim that goes far beyond the modest claims of "Intelligent Design".

Romans 1
14 I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. 15 So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.

...

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
--even His eternal power
-- and Godhead,
so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
...32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.


In Romans 1 Paul argues that even in the case of pagans whose only access to knowledge of God is the elements of nature having no access to scripture at all "are without excuse" because the invisible attributes of God are "clearly seen" . Clearly seen in WHAT??

"In the things that have been MADE".

Paul goes far beyond "it shows that God has some tiny level of IQ" rather it shows that God is infinite in power that He is infinite God all knowing all powerful all wise and that He is in the position to judge all who rebel against him and send them to the second death.

That is wayyyyy beyond the simplistic claims of ID which are --

Because of the irreducible complexity that limits function such that it cannot exist apart from some sort of saltation and "just so stories" -- (the human eye for example)
1. Things in nature appear as if they have been designed/made
2. The design reveals a degree of intelligence in the one who designed the animal life-form under study.

That ID statement falls far short of the minimalist claims in Romans 1 that God says is apparent even to pagans with no access to scripture at all.

And of course many agnostics and evolutionists will simply respond with "so what? We don't believe in either Romans 1 or ID".

The point is that ID is not refuted by Romans 1 rather it is a very basic level of obvious recognition that is a precursor or at least rudimentary to the more advanced claims in Romans 1

I thought all that was clearly apparent in Romans 1.

It also comes out in Paul's speech to the Athenians.

 

[Speedwell]

hang on a few minutes... this shouldn't take long

No, it won't. What you are doing is called apologetics, not argument. "People who don't agree with me must believe thus-and-so (insert something really stupid and easily refutable here.)" That sounds good when you're preaching to the choir, but it doesn't work so well when actual people who disagree with you show up, for instance people who reject ID for reasons which evidently are beyond your comprehension and who understand Romans 1 better than you do.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it won't. What you are doing is called apologetics, not argument. "People who don't agree with me must believe thus-and-so (insert something really stupid and easily refutable here.)" That sounds good when you're preaching to the choir, but it doesn't work so well when actual people who disagree with you show up, for instance people who reject ID for reasons which evidently are beyond your comprehension and who understand Romans 1 better than you do.

Seriously? Just because I hold to a different POV than you then I "must not comprehend" your view??

Does that work often?

 

[Speedwell]

Seriously? Just because I hold to a different POV than you then I "must not comprehend" your view??

Does that work often?

sk yourself, if Romans 1 is such compelling argument for ID, why isn't the Discovery Institute using it? Why do "ID deniers" find it such a compelling argument for divine providence?

 

[BobRyan]

sk yourself, if Romans 1 is such compelling argument for ID, why isn't the Discovery Institute using it?

the "details" in my post show that Romans 1 is far beyond the claims of ID.. why would DI go there since their whole point is that apart from the Bible - ID is obvious.

I am looking for the logic in the suggestion you make.

 

[Speedwell]

the "details" in my post show that Romans 1 is far beyond the claims of ID.. why would DI go there since their whole point is that apart from the Bible - ID is obvious.

I am looking for the logic in the suggestion you make.

So why bring ID into it at all?

 

[Paulos23]

The more I look at the OP the more I go, "huh?"

The problem I have with ID is that it stops inquiry by saying God did it. And that is not the scientific method.

I don't care what the Bible says in support of ID, ot bbn is not a scientific text.

 

[Strathos]

I don't see how this is an objection to TE.

 

[Rachel20]

You should check out Wilhelm Schmidts "The Origin and Growth of Religion". He argues the very first primitive religions were in fact, monotheistic, stemming from the inference of God from nature, just as Paul argues in Romans. Man's first question, as he built himself shelters, etc... was "if I made this, who made that?" (that being the creation). This Primitive High God, as he called him, was seen in the earliest anthropological evidences, though his name and the practices surrounding him, differed. But it's the same situation as in Romans, which doesn't require knowledge of the Gods name, only that he is. Other theories apply evolutionary thought and assume a movement from polytheism to monotheism, seeing the latter as more sophisticated and therefore a later development, but what could be more simple than "if I built this, who built that?"

 

[RDKirk]

The more I look at the OP the more I go, "huh?"

The problem I have with ID is that it stops inquiry by saying God did it. And that is not the scientific method.

I don't care what the Bible says in support of ID, ot bbn is not a scientific text.

No, it does not stop inquiry.

Saying that ultimately "God did it" does not prevent inquiry into how God did it. You seem to forget that some of the greatest scientists of history have been Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and the Church has supported many of them.

A person who is convinced that a rational God created the universe according to a plan has all the reason in the world to uncover that plan. There is no point to studying an irrational, utterly random universe. That many scientists today believe in a non-randomness that is not based on God does not mean there can't be scientists who believe that non-randomness is based on God.

1
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

 

[BobRyan]

The more I look at the OP the more I go, "huh?"

The problem I have with ID is that it stops inquiry by saying God did it. And that is not the scientific method.

I don't care what the Bible says in support of ID, ot bbn is not a scientific text.

A lot of people don't care what the Bible says... the point in the OP is that in Romans 1 the Bible makes a case for all mankind seeing something.

And that "something" is WAYYY past the minimalist level of Intelligent Design.

 

[BobRyan]

So why bring ID into it at all?

ID is in it because while we would expect atheists and agnostics to take a position against ID - it is much more difficult for someone to do that - that reads Romans 1.

 

[Speedwell]

ID is in it because while we would expect atheists and agnostics to take a position against ID - it is much more difficult for someone to do that - that reads Romans 1.

Yes, but many--perhaps most--Christians take a position against ID, too. Which is why I don't see the point of bringing it up.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
ID is in it because while we would expect atheists and agnostics to take a position against ID - it is much more difficult for someone to do that - that reads Romans 1.

Yes, but many--perhaps most--Christians take a position against ID, too.

Which is why I see the point in quoting the text.

 

[Speedwell]

BobRyan said: ↑
ID is in it because while we would expect atheists and agnostics to take a position against ID - it is much more difficult for someone to do that - that reads Romans 1.



Which is why I see the point in quoting the text.

Yes, Christians agree with that text--whether they accept evolution or not--and atheists don't.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Christians agree with that text

I believe that is correct.