The Intelligent Design of Man

[MessianicMichael]

https://biblicaltheologyofscience.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/hello-world/
The most striking differences between the creation and evolution perspectives of mankind are the fundamental differences in anthropology – who and what is man?

Evolution views mankind as merely another species in the animal kingdom whose unique intelligence arose from natural selection and random mutations. Man is merely a physical bag of chemicals who is only different from lower animals in terms of the degree and descriptions of his qualities. Man is not fundamentally different in kind. Any power or authority possessed by man was achieved by crawling up out of the slime and seizing it through superior acquired traits.

Creation views man as being created on the sixth day in the image of God himself. Man has a physical body, but is further revealed as an eternal soul and as a spirit being that exists apart from his body. Scripture compares mankind positively to both God himself as well as to the angels. Man occupies an appointed and commissioned position far above the animals by virtue of the act of creation. His unique qualities are not merely a difference of degree but a significant difference in kind. God did not say, “Hey, now that we’ve made all of these animals, let’s make a super-smart animal.” God said, “Let us make man in our image.”

So whereas, the naturalistic evolutionary view places man at the top of some evolutionary scale in the animal kingdom, Scripture says of man, “You made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor to rule over creation.” The lion was not created to be king of the jungle, mankind was!

The fall has led to a spiritual blindness regarding the reality of God and the need for salvation. Even though they may intellectually deny it, I believe most humans know they are more than a bag of chemicals and a mere member of one species in the animal kingdom. Our own hearts tell us we are intelligently designed spirit beings. Many people who claim intellectual naturalism actually participate in forbidden occult activities and are well aware of their existence as spirit beings by using their spiritual power in forbidden ways.

The invention of the mirror and the human capacity for self-reflection provide much more direct evidence for the intelligent design of mankind than arguments from biochemistry (though I do find them elegant and persuasive.) The Scriptural distinctions between humans and the animals are much more obvious and compelling than biochemical arguments that emphasize sameness. When reduced to the materialist view that humans are mere bags of chemicals, the evolutionary worldview is easily refuted in the heart of the hearer, because the individual’s soul and spirit testify to his heart that he is much, much more.

It is the intelligent design of man in the image of God with an eternal soul and eternal spirit that raises man above the animals and allows mankind to pursue science in accord with “the good commission” to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. The intelligent design of man empowers man’s rulership over the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the seas. The existence of science itself and it’s incredible empowering of mankind to fulfill the good commission are self-evident proofs of that man is intelligently designed and still bears the image of God.

 

[elopez]

Evolution views mankind as merely another species in the animal kingdom whose unique intelligence arose from natural selection and random mutations.

Yes, humans are the only members of the homin clade left. Does creationism propose any differently? If so, there are major issues. And while naturalistic evolution may say such, Theistic Evolution does not. Although the theory of evolution is obviously there, TE maintains a point at which a population of hominids who had evolved via natural evolution acquired souls and as such had become fully human in spiritual terms.

Man is not fundamentally different in kind.

Again, is this premise any different or true otherwise under creationism? The only member of the genus Homo around today are humans, hiwever, this wasn't always the case. Many different Homo species roamed the Earth (Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis) in the way past. So I don't understand this comment fully, as it's unclear if you're objecting to this, or what...

Man has a physical body, but is further revealed as an eternal soul and as a spirit being that exists apart from his body.

TE does not deny this.

His unique qualities are not merely a difference of degree but a significant difference in kind.

What do you mean "kind"? In biology the word "kind" does not have a concrete definition. A more biologically detailed expression is Clade. There is only us humans. It's not like Neanderthals are running around. Though, something of the sorts seems to be what you're suggesting here..it is hard to tell...

So whereas, the naturalistic evolutionary view places man at the top of some evolutionary scale in the animal kingdom

Actually, this is not true. Evolution does not place man at the top of the animal kingdom or the food chain. Ecologists have a very presice, statistical way of calculating a species' trophic level, which is a species level in a food chain. On a scale of 1 to 5, as 1 being the score of a primary producer (like a plant) and 5 being a pure apex predator (a animal that only eats meat and has few or no predators of its own, like a tiger), humans score a 2.21, found on our deit. That is about equal to an anchovy or pig.

Scripture says of man, “You made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honor to rule over creation.”

Now, the above doesn't mean to conflict with the Scriptural basis for our dominion over animals. Though, what does that even mean to you? What is our dominion over animals? I know what it means to me, and part of that is to understand animals.

The lion was not created to be king of the jungle, mankind was!

What do you mean we were created to be king of the jungle? We do not behave like wild beats in the jungle. Though we may hunt lions, or whatever you're trying to say here by "we are king", that doesn't mean we are at the top of the food chain or animal kingdom. To be at the "top of the food chain," scientifically speaking, you have to strictly consume the meat of animals that are predators themselves. We don't. We're omnivores.

Again, this doesn't mean to conflict with the Scriptural basis for our dominion over animals, and nor do I think being king or the top of the foodchain is what is meant by having dominion over animals.

The fall has led to a spiritual blindness regarding the reality of God and the need for salvation. Even though they may intellectually deny it, I believe most humans know they are more than a bag of chemicals

Of course TE does not deny the fact that humanity is lost, or the need for salvation. Nor the Fall.

and a mere member of one species in the animal kingdom.

Ah, so do you accept that humans is just one species? What then, is with all that talk before about, "a significant difference in kind"??

Many people who claim intellectual naturalism actually participate in forbidden occult activities and are well aware of their existence as spirit beings by using their spiritual power in forbidden ways.

Really? Like what? This sounds off the wall..

The invention of the mirror and the human capacity for self-reflection provide much more direct evidence for the intelligent design of mankind than arguments from biochemistry (though I do find them elegant and persuasive.)

What does that even mean in the bold? Are you talking about the literal invention of the mirror? Um, how is that evidence for ID? That does not seem to follow what so ever.

"Biochemistry is the branch of science that explores the chemical processes within and related to living organisms. It is a laboratory based science that brings together biology and chemistry."

One of the most basic processes in biochemistry, is how a single molecule of DNA replicates to generate two identical copies of itself, and how the sequence of bases in a DNA molecule determines the sequence of amino acids in an encoded protein. Are you really denying the reality of this? I sincerely hope not.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can't say as I agree with you, Michael. I have no difficulty reconciling God with evolution. In fact, I don't think evolution would be possible without God. What I see in evolution is continually the birth of genuine novelty. As such, there must be some source for these new creative potentials, some transcendent imagination, hence God. I have argued that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. A claim, by the way, found in the Christian mystical tradition way back when.
While I filmy believe God loves all creatures, I think it most arrogant to assume God bases his whole day around us. I think it arrogant to assume we are the epitome of God's creation. It's a terribly big universe. God's creativity is on a scale vastly beyond what we can imagine or what has been imagined. There is no stopping God's creativity, which is continual. Hence, it would be arrogant to stop God's creativity at ourselves. Who can say where God will take us, given a million more years of evolution? Who can say that we definitely are better than anything other beings in the whole of creation?

I don not think God creates out of nothing. I find no statement of that in the Bible, either. I think God always creates out of something preexistent. God does not create the adult out of nothing, but out of the child. God did not create man out of nothing, but out of dust. And that makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as we are all made out of star dust. Hence, I have no trouble with the notion that God created or evolved us out of previous life forms. Indeed, that makes for a warmer universe, one in which we are not strange alien beings, but brothers and sisters to all the rest of reality, however gret or small it may be.

I have trouble with your idea of an immaterial soul. The Bible never speaks about anything immaterial. God, for example, is attributed just about every body part, which suggest that the ancient Hebrews viewed God as having a body. If the Incarnation is to have any meaning at all, it must reveal God's general MO with creation and therefore strongly suggests God is incarnate throughout the whole of creation. Also, I find the notion of an immaterial being, meaning one which has no extension, no height, width, length, to be a nonsensical concept, to start with. Hence, I view mind and matter as one, not two separate realities. I hold even atoms have tiny minds. Hence, the notion of an immaterial soul is out the window for me. Furthermore, I have never been happy thinking myself as some sort of alien or stranger stuck into a universe of largely passive, inert, dead matter.

 

[-57]

Can't say as I agree with you, Michael. I have no difficulty reconciling God with evolution. In fact, I don't think evolution would be possible without God. What I see in evolution is continually the birth of genuine novelty. As such, there must be some source for these new creative potentials, some transcendent imagination, hence God. I have argued that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization. A claim, by the way, found in the Christian mystical tradition way back when.
While I filmy believe God loves all creatures, I think it most arrogant to assume God bases his whole day around us. I think it arrogant to assume we are the epitome of God's creation. It's a terribly big universe. God's creativity is on a scale vastly beyond what we can imagine or what has been imagined. There is no stopping God's creativity, which is continual. Hence, it would be arrogant to stop God's creativity at ourselves. Who can say where God will take us, given a million more years of evolution? Who can say that we definitely are better than anything other beings in the whole of creation?

I don not think God creates out of nothing. I find no statement of that in the Bible, either. I think God always creates out of something preexistent. God does not create the adult out of nothing, but out of the child. God did not create man out of nothing, but out of dust. And that makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as we are all made out of star dust. Hence, I have no trouble with the notion that God created or evolved us out of previous life forms. Indeed, that makes for a warmer universe, one in which we are not strange alien beings, but brothers and sisters to all the rest of reality, however gret or small it may be.

I have trouble with your idea of an immaterial soul. The Bible never speaks about anything immaterial. God, for example, is attributed just about every body part, which suggest that the ancient Hebrews viewed God as having a body. If the Incarnation is to have any meaning at all, it must reveal God's general MO with creation and therefore strongly suggests God is incarnate throughout the whole of creation. Also, I find the notion of an immaterial being, meaning one which has no extension, no height, width, length, to be a nonsensical concept, to start with. Hence, I view mind and matter as one, not two separate realities. I hold even atoms have tiny minds. Hence, the notion of an immaterial soul is out the window for me. Furthermore, I have never been happy thinking myself as some sort of alien or stranger stuck into a universe of largely passive, inert, dead matter.

You posted " I don not think God creates out of nothing. "

What do you make of Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good question, -57. Problem is to determine what is meant here by the "invisible." Clearly, the world is seen here as created out of something, the invisible, whatever that is, and not out of nothing.

 

[-57]

Good question, -57. Problem is to determine what is meant here by the "invisible." Clearly, the world is seen here as created out of something, the invisible, whatever that is, and not out of nothing.

There is also Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
and Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, I am aware of that, -57. But these passages say nothing about whether God is creating out of noting or out of something.