The "design argument" simply isn't biblical

[shernren]

No, he absolutely has not dropped the irreducible complexity argument. The new book details even more cool specifics about the ol' flagellum that add to that argument. He also had a link to this cool video -- specifically check out the one about the flagellum replicating. http://www.npn.jst.go.jp/movie5.html

I think we can all agree -- its totally amazing. All the pieces working together so wonderfully. wow.

I haven't seen that movie firsthand, but given its source and title I really doubt that it showed anything of how the flagellum evolved. Which is surprising, isn't it? I don't need to accept that the flagellum evolved or believe that it didn't (watch my word choices. ) to state that it's totally amazing.

And that indicates to me that the "design argument" is not equivalent to any argument that the Bible ever used to demonstrate God's presence in creation. There are plenty of passages that point to beauty in creation to showcase God's power. They never have to reference the origin of those created things to do so.

Where in the Bible is anything called "designed"? Where in the Bible is life called "designed", and such design put forth as evidence for God's immanence in creation? Oh, I've certainly seen arguments from design that date back to Biblical times. They aren't very biblical though...

Cicero (c. 106–c. 43 B.C.) also made one of the earliest known teleological arguments. In de Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) Cicero stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason that pervades the whole of nature". He was writing from the cultural background of the Roman religion. In Roman mythology the creator goddess, Gaia was borrowed from Greek mythology. The Romans called her Tellus or Terra.

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?" (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)
​

Whoops - that's not an argument for the God of the Bible, is it?

 

[KerrMetric]

Well we all know the reason for the ID movement. The Biblical creationist approach doesn't sell too well in educated circles. In fact it's usually laughed at. So ID is some window dressing to attempt to get converts without the usual laughter and ridicule.

You argument I have heard presente before - and it is a good one for highlighting how far some creationists will go to get new blood.

 

[laptoppop]

Check out the video. No, it is not about how it evolved. It is how each flagellum is constructed in a wonderful dance of components. This is actually neutral in terms of TE/creationism. I would think we all could agree that it is cool how it works.

In terms of "design" not being biblical, I would just kind of say "huh?". To me, when I see Scriptures that talk about God's creation declaring the Glory of God, etc., it ties right back into the thought that they are *created* -- i.e. designed. Indeed, we can differ on the mechanism used (direct design versus evolutionary progression), but I would think we could both agree that God's creation -- His design -- is very cool, and declares His glory.

I've always been fascinated by how antagonistic many TEs seem to be toward ID. Many IDers (such as Dr. Behe) just put the T in TE big time.

 

[Assyrian]

Paley's watchmaker argument evolved from pagan sundials and waterclocks???

 

[laptoppop]

I don't know if he came to it independently, but yah, it sounds like the same. In general, the design arguments put forth a designer, but are unable to specify the attributes of the designer.

However, combined with Scripture, etc., we know the Designer (Creator) more fully. His creation declares His glory because it shows purpose and design. If it were random or ugly, etc., it would not reflect well on the Creator/Designer.

Again, while we may differ in *how* God caused His creation to come about, I would think that we could agree that His design declares His glory -- and that while the specific word "design" is not referenced in the Bible, "Creator" and "creation" are definitely there and imply the same thing. In other words, "design" is totally in line with Scripture.

 

[notto]

I've always been fascinated by how antagonistic many TEs seem to be toward ID. Many IDers (such as Dr. Behe) just put the T in TE big time.

I am antagonistic toward the ID argument from a scientific stand point. It is not scientific and when people try to put it into schools it detracts for actual scientific study and work.

If the ID crowd would just accept and admit that it is a theology and not science, I think that antagonism would certainly be reduced.

Trying to pass off pseudoscience as science should be met with antagonism.

 

[shernren]

Check out the video.

Not at 7c per MB, sorry.

No, it is not about how it evolved. It is how each flagellum is constructed in a wonderful dance of components. This is actually neutral in terms of TE/creationism. I would think we all could agree that it is cool how it works.

In terms of "design" not being biblical, I would just kind of say "huh?". To me, when I see Scriptures that talk about God's creation declaring the Glory of God, etc., it ties right back into the thought that they are *created* -- i.e. designed. Indeed, we can differ on the mechanism used (direct design versus evolutionary progression), but I would think we could both agree that God's creation -- His design -- is very cool, and declares His glory.

Does the rain have a father?
Who fathers the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
when the waters become hard as stone,
when the surface of the deep is frozen?
(Job 38:28-30 NIV)

Are rain and dew and ice and frost "designed"?

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
(Psalms 19:1 NIV)

Are constellations, galaxies and stars "designed"?

Why do Christians consider the design of life to be a reasonable argument for God when it is never mentioned in the Bible as one? You yourself say later: If it were random or ugly, etc., it would not reflect well on the Creator/Designer. But that strikes me as illogical. "Random"? Rain and dew and ice and frost are certainly "random" in the same way that evolution is, and yet God has no qualms about using it to glorify Himself. "Ugly"? But surely ugly things can be designed, as well as pretty things, can they not?

You have stepped out of the design argument when you argue that creation isn't ugly (and out of reality as well, I must say). This is not an argument from design, it is an argument from aesthetics, and the two are vastly different. A sunset is beautiful, and it isn't "designed" in the ID sense of the word. Some modern art is ugly, and yet it is "designed" in the ID sense of the word. Certainly there is no correlation between (ID) "design" and beauty; so from which is the Bible arguing?

I've always been fascinated by how antagonistic many TEs seem to be toward ID. Many IDers (such as Dr. Behe) just put the T in TE big time.

Think of it this way.

Suppose someone comes along and asks you: "Are you a theistic Normandyist?"

"What do you mean?"

"Are you someone who believes both that God is sovereign over all historical events, including the battle at Normandy, and that the Allies won the battle at Normandy via naturalistic means?"

"Certainly."

"Well, I've got good news for you! I've come to put the T in your TN!"

"How so?"

"Well, it must be awfully difficult for you to believe that God was sovereign over the battle of Normandy, because the Allied victory can be completely explained via scientifically provable principles."

"But - "

"I'm here to tell you that you can comfortably put the 'theistic' back into 'theistic Normandyism'! You see, I have proven that the Allies carried so little munitions, supplies, and troops across the water that the probability of them defeating the Axis based on naturalistic science is less than 1 in 10^150! Therefore, God was in perfect control of the Normandy battle, and now your theistic Normandyism is a lot stronger!"

"That's not theistic Normandyism. That's nonsense."

Firstly, intelligent design does not put the "theistic" back into anything. You yourself acknowledge that design arguments are unable to specify the attributes of the designer. How then would we tell God from aliens, or the Holy Spirit from His Noodly Appendages, by ID? No, they are nothing near theistic. If they do ever demonstrate what they claim they have, they will have done just that: shown that there are some things evolution does not explain.

Secondly, theistic evolution does not need gaps to be theistic. God has created and is sustaining all creation if there are a billion biochemical devices that evolution cannot explain; God has created and is sustaining all creation if every single life-form on Earth and every single biochemical formation within it has a uniquely traceable evolutionary history right back to the first life. My God is so big that even if Creation were full of unexplainable holes He could not fit into them, and that even if Creation were seamlessly explainable by natural processes He would have had the grace to create such a creation in the first place. Michael Behe hasn't put the "theistic" into "theistic evolution"; it was there long before his time, in the works of Theodosius Dobzhansky and other Christian biologists and scientists.

So please do not confuse us with those who need to poke holes in nature to let God in, like a cricket caught in a plastic bag who will suffocate if its captor does not poke holes to let fresh oxygen in. Our God is not that small. ID doesn't put the "T" into "TE", although it certainly attaches some other adjectives to Christianity as a whole and American Christianity in particular in the popular mindset, most of which would not be edifying to discuss.

 

[laptoppop]

Ouch - I understand about the data rate. Fair enough - I just thought it was cool to share.

Yes, rain, snow, water, stars, on and on, are all designed. So are cells, proteins, DNA, dogs, cats, and frogs.

The Bible doesn't use a design argument because the Bible never argues for a Creator -- it is stated, not argued. It doesn't even "argue" for God's existence, or the resurrection.

The Creator created His creation, and it declares His glory.

 

[Deamiter]

Ouch - I understand about the data rate. Fair enough - I just thought it was cool to share.

Yes, rain, snow, water, stars, on and on, are all designed. So are cells, proteins, DNA, dogs, cats, and frogs.

The Bible doesn't use a design argument because the Bible never argues for a Creator -- it is stated, not argued. It doesn't even "argue" for God's existence, or the resurrection.

The Creator created His creation, and it declares His glory.

Isn't the Bible just as clear that those questioning God's existence will not be given proof (or even strong evidence)? The Bible makes it pretty clear (I think) that God purposefully doesn't give us evidence with which to convert people to belief but expects us to preach with love and let their hearts and the Holy Spirit take care of the actual conversion.

In other words, if the heavens do not simply declare the glory of God but do it in such a way that the only possible conclusion upon observation is that God exists, faith would be unnecessary.

I have some revisions to make to my MS thesis so I won't spend the time searching for old notes on the topic, but the basic idea is that because of the nature of our relationship with God as spelled out in the Bible, creation can testify to God's glory, but cannot provide direct evidence of God himself.

 

[archaeologist]

creation can testify to God's glory, but cannot provide direct evidence of God himself.

read romans 1:19-20

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

read romans 1:19-20

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Koko saying joke!

 

[laptoppop]

I can't believe I'm writing this -- but it depends on what "is" is.

What, exactly, do we mean by saying the design argument is not Biblical?

If one means that the argument is not found in the Bible, I would actually agree. The Bible states truth, it doesn't argue for it. The Bible states and delivers evidence. In many ways, that is consistent with a more Hebrew logic form, as opposed to Aristotelean. A->B->C is more Aristotelean. A->C, B->C, D->C is more Hebrew form.

If one means that it is against Biblical teaching (the way I would normally take someone saying something is not biblical) then I would strenuously disagree. This is the way I would normally take this phrase. Being "unbiblical" is a bad thing. But as I've rattled on earlier, while God is not called the Designer, He is called the Creator. He makes it out of nothing -- but He still designs and makes it.

 

[crawfish]

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Koko saying joke!

You should extend your reading to Romans 2:3.

 

[Deamiter]

I can't believe I'm writing this -- but it depends on what "is" is.

What, exactly, do we mean by saying the design argument is not Biblical?

If one means that the argument is not found in the Bible, I would actually agree. The Bible states truth, it doesn't argue for it. The Bible states and delivers evidence. In many ways, that is consistent with a more Hebrew logic form, as opposed to Aristotelean. A->B->C is more Aristotelean. A->C, B->C, D->C is more Hebrew form.

If one means that it is against Biblical teaching (the way I would normally take someone saying something is not biblical) then I would strenuously disagree. This is the way I would normally take this phrase. Being "unbiblical" is a bad thing. But as I've rattled on earlier, while God is not called the Designer, He is called the Creator. He makes it out of nothing -- but He still designs and makes it.

Of course the many references to processes such as "let the earth bring forth" suggest that God may very well have used mutations and natural selection to design different organisms that can easily change to fill different and changing niches just as scientists in a wide variety of fields today use evolutionary algorithms to design everything from optimum wing angles to more effective medications.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

You should extend your reading to Romans 2:3.

Koko reading!

When you judge people for doing these things but then do them yourself, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

Why asking Koko to reading?

 

[laptoppop]

Of course the many references to processes such as "let the earth bring forth" suggest that God may very well have used mutations and natural selection to design different organisms that can easily change to fill different and changing niches just as scientists in a wide variety of fields today use evolutionary algorithms to design everything from optimum wing angles to more effective medications.

I'm tired, but I think it was this thread where I said God designed/created -- and we may differ on the HOW but not that He did it.

 

[shernren]

I can't believe I'm writing this -- but it depends on what "is" is.

What, exactly, do we mean by saying the design argument is not Biblical?
...
If one means that it is against Biblical teaching (the way I would normally take someone saying something is not biblical) then I would strenuously disagree. This is the way I would normally take this phrase. Being "unbiblical" is a bad thing. But as I've rattled on earlier, while God is not called the Designer, He is called the Creator. He makes it out of nothing -- but He still designs and makes it.

Perhaps a weaker word than "unbiblical" would be more helpful: when I say the design argument "simply isn't biblical", I mean to say that it is abiblical. It does not derive from Scripture, does not add anything of significance to a Scriptural worldview, and says nothing useful about the God of Scripture whether about who He is or how He should be worshiped.

A more pertinent question is what the "design argument" is. The Bible certainly points to creation's being created as a testimony to its Creator. But what does it mean to be created and designed? Take a look at this demonstrative diagram:

Consider three elements of this image.

Firstly, the sky and the water which form the backdrop. These are certainly designed / created. However, what does that mean? Surely that does not mean that they were created through non-natural, scientifically unexplainable processes. Rather it means that they are the handiwork of a Creator God.

Secondly, the irregular blotches of pigment on Captain Jack Sparrow's face. These are certainly designed / created. However, what does that mean? Surely that does not mean that they were the handiwork of a Creator God (although through a long indirect causal chain they certainly are), at least not in the sense that Christian design advocates would apply the word "designed" to creation. Rather, it means that they were produced by intelligent (or not) and purposeful actions of Captain Jack Sparrow instead of (methodologically) random applications of pigment to his face by an (methodologically) unpurposed process.

Thirdly, Captain Jack Sparrow and the horde of chasing cannibals. In what sense are they "designed / created", and in what sense does their being "designed / created" bring glory to God?

According to the Bible, it is in the same sense as the sky and the water. Whenever the Bible points to "design" in "creation" as the handiwork of God, it never has to invoke gaps in science to make its point. The stars declare the glory of God whether or not they were "Intelligently Designed" (and even ID advocates would agree that they weren't, not in the ID sense).

According to Christian design proponents, it is in the same sense as the irregular blotches of paint on Captain Jack Sparrow's face. And that is an entirely abiblical view of what it means to be designed / created.

 

[archaeologist]

The "design argument" simply isn't biblical

i find this thread funny, as this is coming from those people who champion a non-biblical theory.

 

[Nooj]

Hey! Lets ignore germ theory! It's non-Biblical!

 

[ExpatChristian]

There is no evidence for God. This is a matter of faith. This cannot be arbitrated by science or philosophy. It is the ultimate ontological question beyond our grasp. What there is evidence for is evolution. The question then becomes one, if you are theist like me, of how you give intelligent expression to your faith in an intelligent god. Do you believe that the genesis story is an allegory to man's decent from naivite through the pursuit of knowledge as he becomes more and more alienated from his natural condition; do you see the Garden of Eden as a metaphor for the pristine planet prior to man's technical intervention, demograhic success, and pollution? Or do you see the story in infantile terms as a literal case of a talking snake somewhere in the Middle East a few thousand years ago snuggling up to Eve and convincing her as to the virtues of contraband fruit and veg? You choose.