Re: ID at NRO

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:40:25 -0800, Don Winterstein
<dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
> Bill Dozier wrote:
>
> "...I constantly hear people talking about how God "tweaks" or "steps in",
> etc. The tacit assumption behind talk like that is that at times when He is
> not "tweaking" the Universe somehow manages on its own...."
>
> I've often thought that many of the theological disputes among Christians
> down through the centuries owe more to misunderstanding of how people use
> their words than anything else. None of the Christians I know who use
> expressions like "God tweaks" mean to imply that God is not active when he
> does not tweak. They'd tell you so if you'd ask. What they mean (in my
> experience) is that God in the given situation makes nature do something
> that it would not have done on its own. Example: Raise Jesus from the dead.
> To the best of my knowledge no Christian believes that the universe ever
> "manages on its own."

One more time. I am not saying that is what is intended. But, that is
the implication of the theory, nonetheless. Just because there is a
happy inconsistency doesn't make it not an inconsistency.

Well-developed systematic theologies all note that God works through
both first and second causes. The scientific paraphrase of Psalm 19
tells us that reflecting on second causes points to God. The fact that
God predominately acts through second causes allows for the proper use
of first causes as Locke put it to give credit to the proposer.
Inflating what is considered miracle decreases the value of that coin.

Teleology is a study of ends. On the other hand, ID is obsessed with
means and this leads to its fundamental defect. One of my jobs as an
engineer is to define methodologies for various aspect of a
semiconductor design. To my dismay, many times these methodologies are
often ignored and other means are chosen. Question: are the chips
designed in this fashion NOT designed? No, they are. ID tries to imply
that a specific methodology for creation (irreducible complexity
coupled with first causes) is employed. It is easier to prove design
if you can prove first causes, so I don't blame them for this attempt.
But, what happens when the atheistic materialist disproves irreducible
complexity? Does it disprove intelligent design? It would seem so as
all they are doing is consistently applying ID's first principles.
There is nothing in the Biblical record that requires first causes in
creation other than the original creatio ex nihilo and the creation of
the human soul. Thus, ID's journey is unnecessary.

In summary, both those who support and oppose ID agree the right
conclusion is that God completely superintends the entire Universe.
Here's a simple schematic of the positions:

1. Inconsistent but makes the correct conclusions: ID
2. Consistent but makes the wrong conclusion. Atheistic materialist.
3. Consistent and makes the right conclusions. Concursus.
Received on Wed Feb 16 12:11:50 2005