Vance said:
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.