Is ID incompatible with the Evangelical Christian God?

[k-nug]

It's a question that has been on my mind a bit lately. I have been listening to several different authors in various audio books (I drive a cab) discussing ID vs evolution, etc, and I am wondering, is Intelligent Design incompatible with the Christian God? Specifically, the God of the inerrant Bible (Biker's God.) Some of these questions are out of ignorance, some out of curiosity. The main debate question is, Is ID incompatible with the Evangelical Christian God?

I don't know all the specifics of ID, however I am going to assume that the I in ID created the universe within the laws of said universe, and therefore would he not be bound by those laws? This means all the miracles in the bible would not be possible would it? Feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread would involve breaking the laws of matter wouldn't it?

How does ID reconcile the speed of light traveling from distant stars and galaxies with the 6,000 year old universe?

If ID buys into the evolutionary theory, how does it reconcile the Genesis creation story and dinosaurs, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnons, etc?

The Biblical God has seen fit to continually meddle in man's affairs, at least until the bible was written. Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc,. How is ID compatible with this version of history?

[graphicsguy]

The only thing Christians have to say to answer your question is that, "God can do anything he wants to do."

You can give all the evidence and arguments and timelines and whatever else you can think of and they will still say, "God can do anything he wants to do."

Jesus feeding 5000...God can do anything he wants to do.

Jesus raising the dead...God can do anything he wants to do.

God stopping the earth (sun stood still) for Joshua...God can do anything he wants to do.

God darkening a third of the sun, moon, and stars in Revelation...God can do anything he wants to do.

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there before it happens...

[Talisman]

You are right, most evangelists would probably say that ! But to me these are not scientific arguments and do not hold water (or wine!). Another common argument though is of course that God has nothing to do with science - if he is the creator though, then he must have invented the laws of physics himself to begin with ....

June

[MikeH]

The only thing Christians have to say to answer your question is that, "God can do anything he wants to do."

You can give all the evidence and arguments and timelines and whatever else you can think of and they will still say, "God can do anything he wants to do."

Jesus feeding 5000...God can do anything he wants to do.

Jesus raising the dead...God can do anything he wants to do.

God stopping the earth (sun stood still) for Joshua...God can do anything he wants to do.

God darkening a third of the sun, moon, and stars in Revelation...God can do anything he wants to do.

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there before it happens...

Not all Christians would say that, only uneducated ones.

God can't do anything He wants to do. For example, He can't draw a triangle with four sides. Neither then, can He create a universe where chance exists, then force the outcome of the chance. That would be like making a die with 2's on every side, then rolling it and saying there's a chance you'll get a 3.

[k-nug]

For instance, If we use the Intelligent Design model, then Whoever is the Intelligence started the ball rolling, let nature take it's course and man evolved. However, if then God all of a sudden begins to intervene, like in Genesis, then wouldn't that make it a Not-So-Intelligent-Design since he had to come down and 'fix' his design?

[Undertow]

To answer your question I'm first going to have to understand what Intelligent Design actually means.

Are they saying a designer explains life better, full stop?
Are they saying that evolution is inadequate or impossible in some way?
Or rather are they saying evolution happened, just via intelligence?
Or are they saying that there was a special creation of all species?

I'm really not that sure. Does anyone here actually know what the ID theory actually states? I'll have to do some reading and come back to this one.

[seventil]

It's a question that has been on my mind a bit lately. I have been listening to several different authors in various audio books (I drive a cab) discussing ID vs evolution, etc, and I am wondering, is Intelligent Design incompatible with the Christian God? Specifically, the God of the inerrant Bible (Biker's God.) Some of these questions are out of ignorance, some out of curiosity. The main debate question is, Is ID incompatible with the Evangelical Christian God?

Hi k-nug, interesting topic. I'd refrain from calling the inerrant Bible Biker's God, however, as he really doesn't even do Biblical inerrantists justice.

I don't know all the specifics of ID, however I am going to assume that the I in ID created the universe within the laws of said universe, and therefore would he not be bound by those laws? This means all the miracles in the bible would not be possible would it? Feeding 5000 people with a few loaves of bread would involve breaking the laws of matter wouldn't it?

As for God being bound by those laws, I see your point, and my answer is both yes and no. Allow me to explain.

God, if existing only in his Creation (or the universe in this case), would, indeed, be bound solely by the laws of this universe. However, it is a popular idea that God exists outside of the universe, in what could be called "Eternity", or in some other sort of multiverse that doesn't follow the rules of ours. I must say this is all really speculation, though it makes good sense to me and a lot of other scientific-minded believers.

This argument is not one for merely "cop-out" reasons. It's really about exploring the nature of the divine and imagining *how* God is possible in a naturalistic way. Continuing:

Regarding the miracles of the Bible, I don't like the idea of God being a parlor-trick magician and poofing bread and fish into the air. Would it be possible? Yes, if God is truly omnipotent, than *Yes* we can play the "God Card!" any time we want. That being said, I think that every miracle in the Bible can be explained through naturalistic terms. I concede that our current knowledge of science may be inadequate for this task, but I believe that everything *should* make sense from a logical point of view.

And, in reference to your 5000 loaves of bread, it's really all speculation of *how* exactly Jesus got them there. Most people believe in the poofing (which would of course, be magic, breaking laws of physics like you said) -- while I think that a more logical conclusion would be that Jesus had the premonition of needing to feed everyone, and perhaps paid or arranged for the bread and fish to be delivered to that spot at a specific time. This is merely speculation, but I contend that whatever did happen was indeed special, or miraculous, because Jesus had the divine foresight to see what was needed.

How does ID reconcile the speed of light traveling from distant stars and galaxies with the 6,000 year old universe?

You are confusing ID with Biblical literalism or Young-Earthism, which are completely two (or three) different things. ID =! 6,000 year old Earth.

If ID buys into the evolutionary theory, how does it reconcile the Genesis creation story and dinosaurs, Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnons, etc?

The same way any Biblical liberalist would reconcile it, that is, using context, style and reason to determine the literary and historical validity of the Genesis Creation account.

The Biblical God has seen fit to continually meddle in man's affairs, at least until the bible was written. Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc,. How is ID compatible with this version of history?

I don't see how the argument *for* an Intelligent Designer has anything to do with said Designer. Perhaps elaborate?

[seventil]

To answer your question I'm first going to have to understand what Intelligent Design actually means.

Are they saying a designer explains life better, full stop?

From wiki:

"Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

Perhaps the world just makes more sense with this outlook.

Are they saying that evolution is inadequate or impossible in some way?

I think that any person who understands evolution can at least allow for alternate explanations that arrive at the same conclusion, being that many parts of "TOE" and life-origin theory are speculative themselves, no?

Or rather are they saying evolution happened, just via intelligence?

ID doesn't label itself to theistic evolution, young-earth creationists, etc. Its a more generalized argument that states a Designer makes more sense in certain aspects of how our world works.

Or are they saying that there was a special creation of all species?

Old earth or Young earth, I'd say that ID proposes that a Designer was indeed behind the "design" of said Creation.

I'm really not that sure. Does anyone here actually know what the ID theory actually states? I'll have to do some reading and come back to this one.

I recommend reading the wiki. It gives a pretty good idea of what it's about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[Undertow]

To answer your question I'm first going to have to understand what Intelligent Design actually means.

Are they saying a designer explains life better, full stop?

From wiki:

"Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

(1) Perhaps the world just makes more sense with this outlook.

Are they saying that evolution is inadequate or impossible in some way?

(2) I think that any person who understands evolution can at least allow for alternate explanations that arrive at the same conclusion, being that many parts of "TOE" and life-origin theory are speculative themselves, no?

Or rather are they saying evolution happened, just via intelligence?

(3) ID doesn't label itself to theistic evolution, young-earth creationists, etc. Its a more generalized argument that states a Designer makes more sense in certain aspects of how our world works.

Or are they saying that there was a special creation of all species?

Old earth or Young earth, I'd say that ID proposes that a Designer was indeed behind the "design" of said Creation.

I'm really not that sure. Does anyone here actually know what the ID theory actually states? I'll have to do some reading and come back to this one.

I recommend reading the wiki. It gives a pretty good idea of what it's about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

(1) Perhaps to some people it does. I don't mind. It's just that it's not a scientific position when proponents insist it is.

(2) The phenomenon of evolution and common ancestry are strong ideas. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. I'm open to any other naturally based ideas that can explain the origin of the first cell better than abiogenesis can. I'm also open to any naturally based ideas that can explain the origin of species better than evolution can. To do so, however, requires something vastly more substantial and verifiable than the ID idea. When determining which theory is the best explanation of all avaliable data, firstly there must be explanations for all avaliable data and secondly there must be tests on said data. It seems ID does neither.

(3) Ok, thanks for the clarity here. It seems ID is an idea or proposition rather than anything remotely theoretical.

From what wikipedia states and what you have given me, it seems the general view of ID (that life is better explained by a designer than a natural process) would not be in conflict with an evangelical, christian god.

[seventil]

(1) Perhaps to some people it does. I don't mind. It's just that it's not a scientific position when proponents insist it is.

I see your point in this statement, though I think there is a certain science behind ID. I think the main problem is that pseudoscience gets mixed in with it.

For example, from the Teleological argument wiki:

Although there are variations, the basic argument can be stated as follows:

1. X is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
3. God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
4. Therefore, God exists.

Now this isn't anything new, but just stating something like this without science to back it up is a bit sketchy.

For example, let's use the example of a human eyeball. Sure, it's complex. Honestly, though scientists have done a hell of a job explaining how they think it evolved over time (that is a praise for scientists) -- to disprove this theory and propel ID as a solution for this would take some serious science as well. An accelerated evolutionary model with a baseline less-complex eye (say, of a fish) could prove that there is no evolutionary way possible for something as complex as a human eye to evolve from a fish eye. However, this has never been done (in fact it might be an impossible task itself) at a reasonable level. A computer model is only capable of so much, and uses certain assumptions made by humans to draw its conclusion. That's why one model can say it's impossible, then the next can say it is possible - usually the people involved have a preconceived conclusion and their assumptions "prove" this.

I suppose what I'm saying is that science is too primitive (and underfunded for ID research as this) to really draw good conclusions on.

(reading back on what I wrote, it wasn't very well explained)

I think that ID is a good idea. I don't see it as hard evidence, but at least it's an interesting proposition.

(2) The phenomenon of evolution and common ancestry are strong ideas. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. I'm open to any other naturally based ideas that can explain the origin of the first cell better than abiogenesis can. I'm also open to any naturally based ideas that can explain the origin of species better than evolution can. To do so, however, requires something vastly more substantial and verifiable than the ID idea. When determining which theory is the best explanation of all avaliable data, firstly there must be explanations for all avaliable data and secondly there must be tests on said data. It seems ID does neither.

You say they are strong ideas, yet you limit yourself only to naturalistic ideas. I suppose ID is just an idea for people that have limited themselves to supernaturalistic ideas.

Can you call yourself a true open-minded thinker when you've outright rejected the principle of the supernatural? At least an admission that it *could* exist would be enough for me.

(3) Ok, thanks for the clarity here. It seems ID is an idea or proposition rather than anything remotely theoretical.

From what wikipedia states and what you have given me, it seems the general view of ID (that life is better explained by a designer than a natural process) would not be in conflict with an evangelical, christian god.

I agree that it is not.