ID (Intelligent Design) = common ground for both TEs and Bible Creationists

[Resha Caner]

I'm not sure what part of Romans 1 you claim supports ID. I don't see it.

The Bible clearly supports God as creator, but ID is a specific hypothesis, and I don't see anything in the Bible supporting those specifics.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says this --
Rom 1
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 that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

That is ID pure and simple - so obvious that as Paul says even the pagans of his day were "without excuse".

The Bible clearly supports God as creator, .

True - but Romans 1 does not say 'pagans that read scripture see ' -- there is nothing at all in Romans 1 about those pagans reading the Bible. The text is saying that without any scripture at all - the observations in nature "alone" reveal the invisible attributes of the 'maker' regarding what is seen to have been "made"

I'm not sure what part of Romans 1 you claim supports ID. I don't see it.
.

ID argues that some things appear to have been "made" and have characteristics that indicate it.

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process"
Frequently Asked Questions | Center for Science and Culture

Romans 1 argues that observations "in nature" even by pagans show that some things "have been made" and that information about the "maker" can be deduced from observing "the things that have been made".

So the "I don't see it" comment is unclear. Is the concept confusing? Is the link between "have been made" in Romans 1 and "intelligent cause" confusing?

==========================

If I say "this tree appears to have been made" -- is Paul saying that I am claiming that it is made out of steel, nuts and bolts or is he saying that it shows the intelligence of a "maker" that can make living systems with complex features in chemistry/behavior/adaptability/use?

 

[GodLovesCats]

If I say "this tree appears to have been made" -- is Paul saying that I am claiming that it is made out of steel, nuts and bolts or is he saying that it shows the intelligence of a "maker" that can make living systems with complex features in chemistry/behavior/adaptability/use?

"Has been made" means just that: somebody made it. So yes, the tree could be made of steel by a smart group of men if we are limited to just talking about the meaning of intelligent design. If we are just talking about living trees, the words "have been made" are not about ID. They are about the maker.

How in the world did you get the idea that "have been made" is the criterion for an object to be the result of ID?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Romans 1 is not about nature. It is about Paul himself and God's wrath of sinners.

 

[Resha Caner]

ID argues that some things appear to have been "made" and have characteristics that indicate it.

First, let me be clear that I believe God created everything. I'm not an evolutionist.

But saying something has been made is a very vague claim that could mean a thousand different things, and ID is a very specific hypothesis about how it was done. ID (as formulated by Dembski) is much more extensive than the definition you gave. Claiming Romans 1:18 verifies that specific hypothesis is a misuse of the verse and a misuse of science.

 

[BobRyan]

First, let me be clear that I believe God created everything. I'm not an evolutionist.

Ok thanks for that. But my question is about the "observations" in nature mentioned in Romans 1 regarding the "things that have been made" -- observation made by pagans not Bible readers in that case. I am pointing out that this claim that even those with no access at all to scripture "are without excuse" since the specifics regarding the 'things that have been made' are seen in nature and are so obvious even the pagans get the point.

But saying something has been made is a very vague claim that could mean a thousand different things

How so?

To my knowledge nothing but nature "has been made" by God so that it shows the invisible attributes of the 'maker' -- where that maker is always God himself even in the case of a pagan with no access at all to scripture doing the "observing"

 

[Resha Caner]

Ok thanks for that. But my question is about the "observations" in nature mentioned in Romans 1 regarding the "things that have been made" -- observation made by pagans not Bible readers in that case. I am pointing out that this claim that even those with no access at all to scripture "are without excuse" since the specifics regarding the 'things that have been made' are seen in nature and are so obvious even the pagans get the point.

Plato is an excellent example of that. Of course no one but God knows his eternal fate, but the things he deduced from observing the world and their proximity to Christianity blows my mind. So, sure, I believe Romans 1:18 - just as I believe all scripture - but the goal is to lead them to Christ, not to ID.

If, in the end, they draw a conclusion that some really smart alien made the earth (and some atheists do conclude that), they've gained nothing.

How so?

I just mentioned aliens above. Many theistic evolutionists twist into calling themselves creationists. You and I may think that contortion strains credibility to the breaking point, but they think what they think. There are also those who consider the structure of physical law a "mind" of sorts, and in that sense creation fits their model. Then, what about all the religions that believe other gods created the earth? They'd be more than happy to agree with you about ID ... but again, they don't have Christ.

My main objection with ID is that by framing the idea as a scientific hypothesis, it inadvertently takes on a divine claim, thereby infringing on Exodus 20:3.

 

[GodLovesCats]

To my knowledge nothing but nature "has been made" by God so that it shows the invisible attributes of the 'maker' -- where that maker is always God himself even in the case of a pagan with no access at all to scripture doing the "observing"

Everything that exists has been made, or it would not exist. To think any other way, you must be making up your own definition because of sinful desires. If the Bible does not specify God uses ID to make things, it is all in your head alone.

Again, how did you get the idea that "has been made" is the criterion for ID?

 

[BobRyan]

Plato is an excellent example of that. Of course no one but God knows his eternal fate, but the things he deduced from observing the world and their proximity to Christianity blows my mind. So, sure, I believe Romans 1:18 - just as I believe all scripture - but the goal is to lead them to Christ, not to ID.

The Gospel, eternal life, the Trinity, scripture are all concepts beyond ID.. ID is a basic element that Romans 1 points to - common to all mankind... visible and apparent to all mankind.
1. Determine that something is made. ID
2. Deduce the invisible attributes of the maker based on observations alone.
3. Choose to submit to the drawing of God "I will draw all mankind unto Me" John 12:32
4. Respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit "He will convict the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16

The incredibly basic rudamentary steps of 1 and 2 available to all mankind even pagans according to Romans 1.. even atheists.

Your objection/observation above is that the most basic steps are not the ending steps. But that is not the point on this thread. For this thread we are just looking at the basics.

I just mentioned aliens above. Many theistic evolutionists twist into calling themselves creationists. You and I may think that contortion strains credibility to the breaking point, but they think what they think. There are also those who consider the structure of physical law a "mind" of sorts, and in that sense creation fits their model. Then, what about all the religions that believe other gods created the earth? They'd be more than happy to agree with you about ID ... but again, they don't have Christ.

Indeed getting to "Christ" would be going to steps 3 and 4 and beyond. For this thread we are just talking about the bare-bones basics of 1 and 2 available to all ...pagans, atheists, Christians, Buddhists etc.

My main objection with ID is that by framing the idea as a scientific hypothesis, it inadvertently takes on a divine claim, thereby infringing on Exodus 20:3.

ID sticks to level 1 and 2 -- where "observations in nature alone" make the conclusion obvious. Not a "conclusion for Christ" but a conclusion that "the backhoe has a maker" and that the maker is not a 3 year old playing in mud... but rather an engineer of some kind.

 

[Resha Caner]

ID sticks to level 1 and 2 -- where "observations in nature alone" make the conclusion obvious. Not a "conclusion for Christ" but a conclusion that "the backhoe has a maker" and that the maker is not a 3 year old playing in mud... but rather an engineer of some kind.

Maybe you should read The Design Inference.

 

[GodLovesCats]

The point of this thread is to twist the meaning of a Bible verse to suit your own sinful desires. There isn't a single verse in Scripture about ID.

 

[BobRyan]

Maybe you should read The Design Inference.

from your link

" The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)"

"How can we identify events due to intelligent causes and distinguish them from events due to undirected natural causes? If we lack a causal theory how can we determine whether an intelligent cause acted? This book presents a reliable method for detecting intelligent causes: the design inference. The design inference uncovers intelligent causes by isolating the key trademark of intelligent causes: specified events of small probability."


================================= end quote
(to determine - "what are the things that were MADE" vs things due to "undirected natural causes")

The ID of Romans 1 is far less "scientific" than that. It Romans 1 ID takes more "Faith" than what is being proposed in your link to reach the high standard of ID in Romans 1 -- and yet that Romans 1 ID is "the minimum" according to God's Word -- the lowest level so obvious in its observations in nature that all mankind even the pagans can apprehend.

In other words - take away the science in your link - and add faith ... to get the Romans 1 basic ID level that all mankind can see. "The only objection" possible when going from the very minimum ID level of Romans 1 -- over to the level of ID in your link is in "adding science" to the scope of it where we calculate probabilities and breaking down macro observations in Romans 1 into micro events with each having their own probability calculated. The "objection" would then be to adding the rigor of the science that we find in your link.

God comes to earth and "makes something" which the scientist says "did not occur naturally on its own".

You then say that to know that it did not occur naturally on its own (rabbits popping out of the dirt for example) is to infringe on the Bible.

My main objection with ID is that by framing the idea as a scientific hypothesis, it inadvertently takes on a divine claim, thereby infringing on Exodus 20:3.

how so??

 

[Resha Caner]

If you've not read the book, I doubt you read it in the time from posting the link to this post.

"The only objection" possible when going from the very minimum ID level of Romans 1 -- over to the level of ID in your link is in "adding science" to the scope of it where we calculate probabilities and breaking down macro observations in Romans 1 into micro events with each having their own probability calculated. The "objection" would then be to adding the rigor of the science that we find in your link.

You can't tell me what my objection is. I gave you my objection.

 

[BobRyan]

I just mentioned aliens above. Many theistic evolutionists twist into calling themselves creationists. You and I may think that contortion strains credibility to the breaking point, but they think what they think.
.

To my knowledge nothing but nature "has been made" by God so that it shows the invisible attributes of the 'maker' -- where that maker is always God himself even in the case of a pagan with no access at all to scripture doing the "observing"

When you see evolutionist objecting to Romans 1 ID they are objecting to a level of ID that at the level of pagans according to Romans 1 .... and claiming that they themselves "cannot see" what Romans 1 says all mankind can see.

Do you see any evolutionists on this thread saying "yeah - that's right we have been saying all along that it is obvious all of nature was MADE and did not just evolve out of natural causes.. so obvious even those with no Bible at all can see it clearly"??

 

[BobRyan]

You can't tell me what my objection is. I gave you my objection.

You object that it does not rise to the level of a gospel presentation.

But Romans 1 says those without scripture at all -- clearly see the ID that is "in nature" .. it does not argue that all mankind knows about the virgin birth or the trinity.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Bob, anybody who knows what ID is would keep science in and take faith out. ID is manufactured science and not Biblical.

Again, how did you get the idea "has been made" is the criterion for ID?

 

[Resha Caner]

You object that it does not rise to the level of a gospel presentation.

That wasn't my objection.

I will add a second objection. I gave you my view of Romans 1:18, and an example of an unbeliever who exhibited the effect. The second objection I've been alluding to, then, is an inappropriate use of the term "ID". If an evolutionist were to show me a picture of bacteria and claim it demonstrates evolution, I would object in the same way. A picture shows nothing of changes in allele frequency, and so to make any statement about evolution from a picture alone is erroneous. If they were to show me 2 strands of DNA from that population of bacteria at 2 different points in time, and how they are different, that would constitute a proper argument for certain facets within the evolutionary field of study.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Resha, what if the picture is of those DNA strands? The only way you can see them without a microscope is a picture.

 

[Resha Caner]

Resha, what if the picture is of those DNA strands? The only way you can see them without a microscope is a picture.

If it's possible to discern from a picture that they are different in the manner claimed, sure, that would work. It would be much easier to list the CGAT codes.

 

[Resha Caner]

Bob, anybody who knows what ID is would keep science in and take faith out. ID is manufactured science and not Biblical.

Just to nitpick ... just because ... I would not say ID is manufactured science, but rather it is a hypothesis for which no sufficient test has been proposed.