[HT Uncommon Decent]
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin examines a new peer-reviewed paper that demolishes a very common and very fallacious objection to intelligent design. That objection? “Aren’t there vast eons of time for evolution?”
For more information on this and other peer-reviewed papers relating to intelligent design, visit Evolution News & Views at www.evolutionnews.org.
Listen to the full podcast here.
This is a great day to be a proponent of Intellegent Design.
While debating with a fellow Brother in Christ1 whether Darwinian evolution could be reconciled with the creation account of Genesis I was recently asked whether it’s plausible the earth could have been created with the appearance of age. Here’s my response:
The short answer is: no.
Simply put; it is impossible for God to lie according to Hebrews 6:18 and deliberate deception surely falls into that category.
That said, I do agree with you that the earth is, in all likelihood, far older than 10,000 years and animals did probably live and die long before the Genesis account of creation.
I hold to a modified version of the gap theory and have no problems with long time frames or the notion of micro-evolution or change within a species.
However, when it comes to humans, we are told that mankind began with a literal Adam and a literal Eve. Jesus himself also confirms that life began with a literal Adam and Eve in the New Testament, and if he was mistaken then we have much bigger problems (of the theological nature) to deal with.
I wholly agree that there is much we don’t know. But there are things we do know (especially things that have been revealed to us by an omniscient being) and we should strive to keep our beliefs between the lines (so to speak) of what has been clearly revealed. Speculation on the rest (like why God created the mosquito) is all well and good.
However, since science has been proven faulty far more than God has (not that the two are inherently at odds) so I suggest that a wise approach would be to not allow our scientific findings to color our theology. Mostly because it generally leads to the unfortunate consequence of revising our theology every time scientists change their minds/interpretations.
Enjoy these videos by Dr Craig as he refutes the wildly popular meme of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Here’s a quote by Robert Jastro that I’ve heard in several debates around the compatibility of science and religion.
[HT Brian]
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
- Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)
One of the biggest issues regarding the way many progressives view humans in relation to the environment is the fact that while many are wholly committed to Darwinian evolution, they somehow see man as a virus that is somehow outside the system.
This type of mentality is very clear when you consider the biggest cry from environmentalists regarding places like ANWR or National Parks is “just leave them alone” as if any development by men were destructive and harmful.
If we approach the issue of environmentalism with the notion that man is a virus then we loose from the outset due to a bad phrasing of the question.
What we need to do is approach the question of environmentalism from the standpoint of being good stewards of the environment along with the notion that some Christians will have honest disagreements on the subject and that those disagreements do not make the other side sinful or less holy.
For more information on this topic, I highly recommend a conference recently held at Southeastern Theological Seminary titled “Creation Care”.
Counterfactuals are statements about “what might have been” regarding an event in time had circumstances been different.1
Counterfactual statements are characterized by the conditional keywords “if-then”, as in “if Obama had not raised the national debt to record levels, unemployment would have been much higher.”
The “counter” part of a “counterfactual” statement is that such a statement may be true even through the event described never happened (or “obtained”). The value of such statements is only apparent if one assumes a non-causally deterministic view of the universe where different circumstances (or decisions by causal agents) could have caused events to turn out differently.
Counterfactuals are intergal to the Molinistic view of the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the limited causal agency of man (in other words, limited free will). Specifically, counterfactuals are what give us reason to believe in the existence of logically possible worlds and the notion that while God certainly does predestine all that happens2 there exist truly free, albeit limited, causal agents such as humans and angels.
Verses that point to the existence of counterfactual (statements that can only be valid if there were a logically possible world where the events described would have obtained if circumstances were different) are 1 Samuel 23:6-10, Matthew 11:23, 1 Corinthians 2:8, John 15:22-24, John 18:36, Luke 4:24-46 and Matthew 26:24
Note that each of the above statements would be rendered incoherent if they were not true in their counter (not obtained) factual (proposition of truth).
A recent article on the excellent Intelligent design website, Uncommon Decent, made the case that intelligent design is not simply warmed over creationism and that some ID proponents even hold to common decent.
Many, many people seem to misunderstand the relationship between Intelligent Design and Common Descent. Some view ID as being equivalent to Progressive Creationism (sometimes called Old-Earth Creationism), others seeing it as being equivalent to Young-Earth Creationism. Ihave argued before that the core of ID is not about a specific theory of origins. In fact, many ID’ers hold a variety of views including Progressive Creationism and Young-Earth Creationism.
But another category that is often overlooked are those who hold to both ID and Common Descent, where the descent was purely naturalistic. This view is often considered inconsistent. My goal is to show how this is a consistent proposition.
The author goes on to argue that, while he personally is not an adherent of the theory of common decent, a person who holds to ID is well within their epistemic grounds and how intelligent design does not require one to hold specific beliefs in regard to the nature of the designer.
This will hopefully help dispel the myth that intelligent design is merely warmed over creationism as an attempt to sneak Biblical Christianity into the public classroom.
Read the rest of the article here.
The term “prime mover” comes from book 12 of Aristotle’s Metaphysics where he argues for the existence of an unmoved mover which sets all causes and effects in motion.
In recent times it has been popular to think of the prime mover in terms of a cue ball which starts a chain reaction of balls hitting other balls on a pool table so that, while the prime mover was involved and required for the initial impact, it’s effect and influence on the resulting chain reaction of causes and effects is essentially nill.
However, in Aristotle’s view, the prime mover was required not only for the initial cause (ie. big bang) but for subsequent reactions as well since they all derive their energy from the prime mover1 which must remain in the picture for there to be any subsequent causes or effects.
For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ -Acts 17:28
Around the internet 
