Is Intelligent Design Scientific Theory?

[dan-cat]

If there's conflict between our understanding of the bible and what we can scientifically measure then my suspicion is it's our interpretation of the bible that is flawed, or that the people who wrote down the words did not understand or could not properly articulate what God revealed to them.

As an example, the bible says God created the Universe in 6 days. My own belief is that the '6 days' of creation exist in a temporal space that is outside of our own time-space continuum.

*scratches head*

If the '6 days' exist outside of our own scope of perception, how can they ever be conveyed to us correctly?

 

[CraigDolphin]

I agree that teaching ID in a science class as science in inappropriate: it is a philosophical matter. On the other hand, teaching of science is already inextricably intertwined with teaching a philosophy of science. What I personally feel is lacking in the classroom is a more honest and open debate about different philosophies of science.

And note, I'm /not/ suggesting teaching 'ID'. I'm referring more to a fuller discussion of principles already taught to students in science classes, such as the Principle of Parsimony/Ockham's Razor, which is taught as a scientific rule-to-live-by if applied in a certain way, but without any real examination of the philosophy underlying the principle.

At least, that has been the case in my educational history.

 

[CraigDolphin]

"If the '6 days' exist outside of our own scope of perception, how can they ever be conveyed to us correctly?"

I can't be sure it has been conveyed correctly.

The scenario I descibed above is only what I personally came up with when wrestling with the problem of reconciling my faith with the concept of biological evolution. I likely am wrong about it still, but at present it's a theory that satisfies both my mind and my faith.

Genesis is Moses' interpretation of what God told him. If I were God trying to explain stuff like that to someone who still didn't have the concept of the number zero, thought the earth was flat, and that stars were just floating specks of light, I'd probably dumb it down a bit too. But once again, I'm only speculating.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If I were God trying to explain stuff like that to someone who still didn't have the concept of the number zero, thought the earth was flat, and that stars were just floating specks of light, I'd probably dumb it down a bit too. But once again, I'm only speculating.

Again, Craig, we actually disagree less than you might think.

God, in His revelations (note NOT big-R revelations), could well have told us the absolute truth, but the Biblical writers, not being technically astute, might have done the "dumbing down" by writing it as they understood it. In other words, God didn't really have to dumb it down because the writers acted as His "dumb-down" filter.

The difference between God dumbing down the explanation and the writer dumbing down the explanation is impossible to distinguish. Either God lowered His sights or the writers just ducked whenever it got too hot and heavy.

Given that the writers are long dead and gone some two millennia, I would suggest that we have lost the ability to make any critical analysis that means anything regarding what was said or what was meant.

 

[ShaneMan]

Again, Craig, we actually disagree less than you might think.

God, in His revelations (note NOT big-R revelations), could well have told us the absolute truth, but the Biblical writers, not being technically astute, might have done the "dumbing down" by writing it as they understood it. In other words, God didn't really have to dumb it down because the writers acted as His "dumb-down" filter.

The difference between God dumbing down the explanation and the writer dumbing down the explanation is impossible to distinguish. Either God lowered His sights or the writers just ducked whenever it got too hot and heavy.

Given that the writers are long dead and gone some two millennia, I would suggest that we have lost the ability to make any critical analysis that means anything regarding what was said or what was meant.

Doc & Dolphin,

Take a look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17. According to what these verses say I don't think either one of the explainations fit.

 

[CraigDolphin]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I don't see it saying that scripture is an infallible reference for teaching history or science...only that its purpose and usefullness is for teaching (etc) righteousness.

 

[ShaneMan]

I don't see it saying that scripture is an infallible reference for teaching history or science...only that its purpose and usefullness is for teaching (etc) righteousness.

I was referencing more to the comments of "dumbing down" and "the writers interpretation." Scriptures being God breathed means He not only knew what He wanted written but also made sure the writers got it right.

 

[Rich]

Scriptures being God breathed means He not only knew what He wanted written but also made sure the writers got it right.

How do you know they got it right?

 

[Kraj]

I was referencing more to the comments of "dumbing down" and "the writers interpretation." Scriptures being God breathed means He not only knew what He wanted written but also made sure the writers got it right.

If I may say so, that's quite a bold interpretation. Personally, I don't really have a clue what "God-breathed" means. Sure, I could interpret it in many different ways, but I think this example simply illustrates Doc_Man's point.

 

[CraigDolphin]

ShaneMan,

I understand where you're coming from...I'm a Christian myself. But I stand by my original comments and agree with Kraj's view.

I think people have to be extremely careful when interpreting the bible, and mindful of the limitations of the words themselves, changing perceptions of people over time, and our own imagination and worldviews.

I suspect that God is a being far beyond anything that we can remotely imagine. It would be crazy to think we can understand his motivations or intentions, or that such a being would be limited by our ideas of logic.

That said, I don't want to get started on a theology debate or start getting preachy. The main reason I weighed-in was that Doc Man made some pretty harsh comments about ID proponents in general.

I just wanted to establish that there is a wide diversity of views and attitudes within that grouping, just as there is within the secular-evolutionary camp.

 

[ShaneMan]

ShaneMan,

I suspect that God is a being far beyond anything that we can remotely imagine. It would be crazy to think we can understand his motivations or intentions, or that such a being would be limited by our ideas of logic.

Yes that would be crazy, but how does this fit with what I said? I didn't say we would know His motivations or intentions. All I was saying is that what God had man write down He also over looked it. (BTW I am not taking about our translations. I'm talking about the original manuscripts.)

 

[ShaneMan]

If I may say so, that's quite a bold interpretation. Personally, I don't really have a clue what "God-breathed" means. Sure, I could interpret it in many different ways, but I think this example simply illustrates Doc_Man's point.

Sure you may say so. Obviously, God-breathed goes way deeper than what I wrote and would take a ton to write, so maybe I just wrote it down wrong. I guess I need a little help in understanding how what I said makes Doc_Mans point.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I believe in God, and I believe God created evolution. Evolution is much cleverer thing to create than sitting around designing things individually in my opinion.

The trouble with intelligent design is that it is being used as a political tool!

It is also obvious to me that some of these "intelligent designs" are not very intelligent. I would not like to put my name to some of them, so I can't see how God would.

 

[Kraj]

Sure you may say so. Obviously, God-breathed goes way deeper than what I wrote and would take a ton to write, so maybe I just wrote it down wrong. I guess I need a little help in understanding how what I said makes Doc_Mans point.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me Doc_Man's points generally revolve around the idea that at some point in the line of communication from God to us today there inevitably is a loss of accuracy. It's unavoidable; you simply can't represent the knowledge of God in limited, human terms and get it exactly right.

You chose a quote from the Bible that is tremendously open to interpretation, which seems to prove the point that the message God was trying to communicate with that particular passage could quite easily muddled by human language and individual perception.

 

[CraigDolphin]

Well, I had a long answer written but I'm not interested in escalating into a big debate. So, I'll leave it with this quote:

'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there' - St Augustine, 354 - 438 AD

 

[ShaneMan]

Well, I had a long answer written but I'm not interested in escalating into a big debate. So, I'll leave it with this quote:

Craig, I'm not interested in a debate either and if that's how I'm coming across then I apologize. I am trying to understand the point that is being made and more than likely I'm not understanding it and I'm coming from a different perspective than what your intending. I was really only trying to suggest, several post ago, that maybe the thoughts wouldn't fit due to the verses I quoted but I may not be understanding right and I appear to be coming across wrong too. If you choose to not go any further then I will understand, but I'm certainly not interested in a debate so that would not be my reasons for responding.

 

[Kraj]

I wonder whose interpretation St. Agustine would have us accept rather than our own?

 

[dan-cat]

You chose a quote from the Bible that is tremendously open to interpretation, which seems to prove the point that the message God was trying to communicate with that particular passage could quite easily muddled by human language and individual perception.

Can God communicate clearly without confusing us?

And if so, why does He not do so?

 

[Kraj]

Can God communicate clearly without confusing us?

I should like to think so. He wouldn't be very omnipotent if he couldn't even do that, would he?

And if so, why does He not do so?

Three possibilities spring to mind. (note I said possibilities. I'm not necessarily suggesting any of these are true)

1.) I imagine there are things we simply aren't capable of grasping, and the only way to explain them without changing what it means to be human is to communicate in inaccurate terms. God may try to explain things we can't truly grasp by giving us bits and pieces we can understand, but such a method doesn't quite capture the whole picture correctly.

2.) Not understanding might literally be the point of existence for humans. After all, if humans could know and understand everything that God knows and understands, that pretty much means we'd be God as we define it. Assuming God is both rational and omnipotent, if he wanted to created other Gods that's precisely what He would have done. He didn't, therefore it's logical to conclude there is a specific reason why we have the limitations we do.

3.) He does do so, but people screw it up along the way. It's quite possible that God has communicated (and is communicating? ) every answer to every question we have, but they're different than what we want to hear so we don't listen.

 

[CraigDolphin]

I'm not interested in a debate either and if that's how I'm coming across then I apologize

No need to apologize. I'm not saying you are being argumentative. Just that I didn't want to bore everyone with my waffle after I had already made my main point. But, for the sake of trying to explain more fully...

The verse you quoted says one thing to me: your interpretation seems to give that passage a broader meaning of that same passage. The same problem plagues almost any religious text. Which is where Kraj is on-point.

For example, you seem to think that God would have checked over the texts during/after their authorship by imperfect humans (presumably to make sure that the scientific validity of the words is ok?).

That's not in the passage you quoted that I can see. I would agree that it would be logical for God to do such a QC review with regard to the scientific validity of the texts. But that assumes:

1. God follows my sense of logic.
2. God cares about the scientific validity of the creation account.
3. That is even possible for the written language of the day to convey such concepts accurately.

The first two assumptions require me to make some kind of guess as to God's intentions/motivations (2) and behavior (1).

That is how your verse tied to my earlier comment.

As for (3): try accurately describing a car and it's engine without using words like pistons, compression, steel, plastic, brakes, factory, motor, gasoline, oil, combustion, sparkplugs, electricity etc. When cars first came out, people called them 'horseless carriages' as the best descriptor that they could think of. It made sense to them but as our vocabulary evolved, the term was dropped. It was 'true' in the sense they intended, but it fails to accurately describe the essence of the car.

Now, harken back to the ancient Hebrew world where concepts like a spherical earth, space-time continuums, gravity, alternate planes of existence, a universe filled with other worlds and stars, etc were unheard of. Now, try to explain the entire creation of the universe in the words that people of the day could understand in just a few paragraphs.

I think it is impossible to do while preserving scientific accuracy. Not because of God's limitations, but because of human limitations.

Now look, you've gone and made me get long-winded again!

I wonder whose interpretation St. Agustine would have us accept rather than our own?

Undoubtedly, St Augustine's own interpretation would have been an acceptable substitute in his eyes In fact, he wrote a literal interpretation of the creation etc for just such a purpose and it largely formed the Christian creation tradition being pushed by the church to this day. Which is why I like the quote I gave. Confronted with modern science, I suspect/hope that St Augustine would do a re-write.