Re: [asa] evidence for design

Heya Don,

It seems to be more than that. Just at a quick glance, 2 Thes 2:9, Mark
13:22, Revelation in general, etc seems to imply that 'miracles' aren't just
restricted to believers, much less good people in general. Nor does it seem
to suggest that, in those instances, they will remain extremely rare and
select - even if the scope remains vague. Though you don't think it's
relevant, the tower of Babel seems to imply similar as well. The idea that
humanity is not just special as a group, but is capable of some tremendous
things by virtue of those natural endowments seems present, at least to me.

Mind you, this is an idle thought of mine. But I'm simply not too quick to
say that the sort of 'mastery' we're seeing nowadays is something the bible
or religious tradition in general gives no clue of us being able of
attaining. And I'd agree that what humanity has accomplished does tend to
bolster design views (I recall Bertrand Russell specifically citing the
then-lack of human achievement as a reason to doubt 'mind' is capable of
very much in or behind this universe. I wonder what he'd say nowadays.) For
me, the principal lesson of the Tower of Babel is that there is no amount of
human achievement that can displace God. We may be sons and daughters of
God, but in the end we are forever subservient - no amount of accomplishment
challenges God, and what we achieve is subject to God ultimately.

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:

> There are several places in the NT that state or suggest Christ's
> followers will be able to do great works. Most notable is John 14:12, where
> Jesus tells his disciples, "The one believing in me, he also will do the
> works that I do, and greater than these will he do..." (literal, stilted
> translation). This passage has had many interpretations, which often
> conclude--among old-line Protestants, and without any compelling biblical
> suppport--that the kind of spectacular miracles we associate with Jesus
> and some apostles were intended only for the early Church and are not to be
> expected in later ages.
>
> Any such "works," however, as a rule are quite distinct in character from
> the amazing works of modern humans. To oversimplify, the former works were
> done by invoking God and were intended to reinforce the good news of Christ;
> the latter works have been done explicitly through human ingenuity and have
> the immediate effect of showcasing human competence without reference
> to God.
>
> A reason I don't think Gen. 1:26ff is all that relevant to modern human
> achievements is that in Gen. 11, relative to the tower of Babel, we hear God
> saying, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do
> this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them..." (NIV).
> Whereupon God stops them in their tracks by messing up their ability to
> communicate with one another. The amazing works of science & technology
> have largely come through a high level of human collaboration, the thing God
> explicitly put a stop to in Gen. 11. So, interpreting Gen. 1:26ff by Gen.
> 11, I conclude that God did not have modern scientific achievements in mind
> when he instructed humans to dominate the world. These days we're building
> the equivalent of the tower of Babel hundreds of times over.
>
> Nevertheless I firmly believe that God actually did intend at the outset
> that we dominate in the way we now do. I also believe that human
> accomplishments showcase the power of God whether or not he's acknowledged.
> It's just that one can't take much of anything in those first eleven
> chapters of Genesis to apply straightforwardly to modern humans.
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 31, 2009 12:10 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] evidence for design
>
> I'd have more to say about this, however, one thing has struck me. In the
> NT, aren't there multiple places where it's mentioned that humans will work
> 'miracles'?
>
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:
>
>> Yesterday I wrote: "The witness of the fossils as humans interpret them
>> ... is that all results are haphazard in the sense that they convey no
>> evidence of having been desired by an intelligent being."
>>
>> The long and convoluted history of organic evolution gives no evidence
>> that an intelligent being was in control. (There is an exception.) If this
>> big picture of Earth's organisms contains no evidence of intelligent design,
>> why should we expect to find evidence for intelligent design in organisms at
>> the microscopic level? ID students have focused on microscopic things like
>> bacterial flagella and blood clotting mechanisms. If some being has
>> been designing organisms in our world and leaving evidence of it, why
>> wouldn't the evidence more readily show up at the macro scale than at the
>> micro scale? If there's none at the macro scale, why expect any at the
>> micro scale?
>>
>> Fine tuning of the universe can be taken as evidence of design at a
>> different kind of macro scale and has become fairly convincing to many.
>>
>> But the most convincing evidence that an intelligent being has been in
>> control is: us, humanity. Not any old humanity, but modern humanity.
>> Modern humans collectively have accomplished such feats of knowledge,
>> understanding and control of themselves and the world that no one should be
>> able to believe this monumental achievement was not deliberately intended at
>> the outset. Arguments from fine tuning of the universe are good, but if we
>> can step back from ourselves a bit for perspective, our own collective
>> accomplishments should be far more persuasive that we were designed, we were
>> intended. There's no reason to think anything arising spontaneously from
>> inert matter should be able to gain awareness, understanding and control of
>> itself and of the world. Yet it is the degree to which we've done such
>> things that is most impressive and convincing. Collectively we have
>> become some version of God.
>>
>> A reasonable conclusion is that God intended us at the outset to
>> collectively gain mastery. Despite Gen. 1:26, biblical teaching does not
>> seem to anticipate this kind of mastery. The emphasis of NT teaching is
>> such that we can legitimately say our mastery has come despite such teaching
>> rather than because of it. If God intended that humanity achieve such
>> mastery, the NT with its emphasis on sin and repentance, on spiritual
>> knowledge of God and humans and on preparation for the afterlife has not
>> told the whole story.
>>
>> An alternative is that what humanity has accomplished has been done out of
>> hubris in defiance of God and will receive his condemnation. I suspect none
>> of us can believe this.
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 2 05:48:28 2009