The ID debate - moving forward (I) - Barefoot in the wilderness

The ID debate - moving forward (I)

So, as I said previously, I find Intelligent Design theory unconvincing and theologically flawed. If that’s so, how do I move on? That is, how do I reconcile the activities of God in Creation with the discoveries of science? The first thing to say is that this is the wrong question. What is needed is a reconciliation between our understanding of God’s activities and our discoveries about the nature of Creation. If we frame the discussion as “God vs science”, we will never reach the correct conclusions because the question assumes something that is untrue – that these two quests for truth are somehow in contradiction.

It’s important, though, to realise that I am here thinking through theological issues, not scientific ones. The arguments I’m proposing (and they are off the top of my own head, so sensible counter-arguments are welcome!) are not dealing at all with the questions of whether we actually see design in the Universe (for example). Rather, I’m thinking about where we end up if we take certain postulates as true.

So, then, before we start, let’s establish those ground rules. A series of propositions that I am using as the basis for what follows. There are quite a few of them, but I don’t think that they are especially controversial for Christians. They are open to debate, but I am taking them as read in what follows.

God is the Creator of the Universe and sustains it in its being.
God has plans for Creation that will ultimately come to pass.
God Incarnate is the only true revelation of God.
God becoming Incarnate means that matter (flesh, physical reality) is worthy and capable of representing God, even if incompletely.
Creation is Other than God – not totally independent (see point 1) but distinct from God in origin, being and operation.
Creation is fundamentally good, but flawed and fallen.
The physical world of Creation can be accurately understood using the methods of science (biology, chemistry, physics etc.).
The practitioners of science are, in the vast majority, honest and sincere in their attempts to understand that physical world.
The established body of knowledge that makes up “science” is thus an accurate representation of the real world, although it is incomplete and can always be improved.

In this short series, I’m going to reserve the term “design” for its obvious sense – a mechanism whereby the structure of some object is intentionally controlled by an outside agent. Thus, a wristwatch is designed but a cloud is not. If anyone wants to posit a Universe in which the shape of every cloud is individually controlled at every moment by a Creator then we’ll have problems – our understandings of God and Creation are totally different.

That all being said, I’m going to move on in part II to describe some models for how God deals with Creation and then, in part III, to explore what all this might mean for our understanding of the creation and development of life.

pax et bonum

Article posted at 09:57am on 28 April 2006
Category: Faith, Musing, Science

Now this is fascinating – and another blogging English Franciscan at that! Whoa!

I can’t wait for Parts II & III – this looks like an intelligent foray into ID vs Creationism vs materialism at long last. Thank God (truly) someone’s having a real crack at this – I find it so hard to pull together my own wooly gropings after ideas, and you’re beginning to blow some of the fluff out from between my few remaining brain cells.

For this, unmitigated thanks!

Pax et Bonum

Mike

MikeF () (URL)
1:36pm on 28 April 2006

I concur with all of your assumptions, John. Our differences are exclusively contained in the depth of God’s control or ‘freedom’ allowed. I apologize that our earlier discussion was terminated – but that was due to a two-plus week internet absence on my part, not intentionality. I intend to note your series on my blog, as well, and if I have some long response, I’ll post it there instead of clogging your comments.

Hammertime () (URL)
2:00pm on 28 April 2006