Re: [asa] evidence for design

Heya Don,

I'm not saying that the bible gives the only indications of God, or that
there's nothing in nature that points at God. Far from it - everyone is
familiar with Paul talking about the work of God being evident in nature,
I'm sure, and I certainly agree that the arrival of humans on the scene
alone is enough to point at something more (vastly more) than nature being
at work in our lives. I think the potential for good, amazing good, through
our efforts is possible - and again, it was made clear that christians will
do great (greater?) works.

I'd simply say this: I think the bible indicates the capacity for amazing
things to be done by humans, both good and evil. We'll do great/greater
works than these, and we'll also have evil people performing miracles that
amaze and draw the attention of people. I certainly don't see science and
technology as evil itself, and I absolutely do see the ability to do great
things with those accomplishments. At the same time, I think the potential
for hubris, arrogance, and evil is always present. Yes, good and God will
ultimately triumph. But frankly, I expect some problems (to say the least)
along the way, along with abuses of science.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com>wrote:

> Note that when the NT talks about the capability of humans to accomplish
> things that are impressive by the world's standards, it's invariably (to the
> best of my recollection) talking about EVIL things. The tower of Babel was
> also in that category. Yes, the NT emphasizes that evil people and Satan
> himself impress the world with seemingly miraculous accomplishments.
>
> Back in my youth as a "religious fanatic" I made a lot out of those NT
> references to human evil, to the point that I accused science itself in
> combination with technology as being either the antichrist or the next
> closest thing. That's what taking those references seriously will do to
> you, if you're already in a fanatical state of mind and take every biblical
> word literally. The NT indeed gives the impression that humans as humans
> can accomplish impressive things, but those things invariably serve EVIL
> rather than God.
>
> This NT emphasis is understandable when you think of what the world was
> like at that time: The great human achievements visible to everyone were
> largely created by idol worshippers and their governments who from time to
> time posed serious threats to the lives and well-being of the tiny bands of
> Christians.
>
> The thing I'm talking about, in sharp contrast, is in context of billions
> of years of evolution. For me the current and presumably future levels of
> human achievement point not to evil but to God. Humans of course have used
> science and technology for evil purposes, but if we smooth through all uses,
> abilities and levels of knowledge, bad and good, we come up with what is to
> me an astoundingly impressive witness to God's hand in designing humanity.
> As I said before, there is no evidence for devine design in the emergence of
> life forms down through the ages until you get to modern humanity, in whose
> collective capabilities and achievements resides overwhelming evidence of
> devine design. In us God has brought something God-like into being.
>
> I claim the NT does not predict or foreshadow this kind of witness, that
> is, where the sum of human achievements becomes clear evidence of God's hand
> in designing the world.
>
> (What about the spiritual nature of human beings? Isn't that more
> important than any material achievement? It's more important, but it's
> hidden from view, so it doesn't make good evidence.)
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2009 2:47 AM
> *Subject:* 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 Wed Feb 4 08:32:36 2009