Follow up question: Biological and moral implications of Intelligent Design

[albeto.]

This question has been on my mind since Bill posted it. I'd love to hear some thoughts.
 

It isn't a debate about different "theories" (ID is not a theory, in any case), it is trying to understand how ID might "work" if it was indeed a kind of divinely guided mechanism driven by guided mutations.

Most mutations prove to be harmful (we can agree on that as basic science, yes?) so how would that fit with the actions of a perfect divine-being being at the controls?

This is a legitimate question to ask in this context.

Bill

I have some additional questions as well.

What are the biological implications of such a designer? Are mutations always personally guided, or does "nature take its course" sometimes? For example, children born to parents exposed to Agent Orange suffer birth defects, but not equally. Does this mean the Designer purposefully mutated more genes in one individual and less in another, or does this Designer let the chemical reactions take place automatically?

What are the moral implications of such a designer? Does it get offended if one changes their biological physiology? For example, if one is born with the breast cancer mutation by design, is it offensive to then treat breast cancer?

[NicAnn]

The answers to this will vary among different denominations and beliefs.

I believe Jehovah God created all life. The Bible tells us He made the animals, humans, everything. I don't believe it tells us how he did it, which is why I don't think evolution and creationism collide.

Now, to answer your question-when God created man, he was perfect. All that came after him were perfect, and would have been perfect. But after the fall (garden of Eden), man declined. Both in physical and mental capacities. That is one of the consequences of the fallI. We are in a time now that is Satans time. Jesus reign has not begun and we are dealing with the consequences. Once the new system is restored, man will be made perfect again.

It's a fascinating topic to discuss.

[swellmomma]

God did not design mutations such as those created by agent orange, nor did he design illness and disease, cancers and other such things.  His design was perfect as NicAnn posted.  A couple things come into play, a) disease and such was let loose on this world at the time of the fall, that was not a design of God's but a consequence of the fall. b) things such as agent orange are creations of man not God.  God gave man free will and intelligence, what we do with that is up to us, sadly much of that is put into things like creation of weaponry.  The side effects of such things include mutations etc, the same is true of things such as drinking alcohol during pregnancy etc.  God did not think "hmm, maybe I'll f*ck this one up a little bit, and that one a lot".  He is not like that.  When Jesus returns all disease, mutations and other such things will be gone, man will be returned to the perfection it was before the fall.  Until then satan has his playground, setting disease, unrest, temptation and all other such things loose on the world. 

[PeachyDoodle]

I think there is a difference between what God causes and what God allows. IOW, God allows (for whatever reason) suffering as a direct result of sin and evil in the world, which is not the same as saying he directly imposes it.

[goldberry]

I never thought of intelligent design as being applied specifically to genetic mutations.  Is that when ended up being the definition on the other thread?

 

My understanding is that intelligent design applied to the creation process, in whatever manner that process is determined to have taken place.  That does not require that intelligent design continued to guide the process after that time, at least to me.

 

Personally I am of the opinion along with NicAnn, that the creation process was designed in perfection, and that afterward the created beings began to deteriorate due to other factors (the fall, Satan, man's continuing poor choices, etc.) 

[AlmiraGulch]

Interesting.

 

So I understand the explanation of a perfect creation, then the sin of the fall leading to imperfections of man.   But are you saying that genetic malformations are a result of sin, then?  If so, why is it that the recipient of the "punishment" of bad genes is often the most innocent of all (children)?  

 

Also, how does that concept apply to, say, plants?  Or animals?  Or insects? For example, there once was a simple honey bee, that was then transformed over many generations into something much more aggressive, and we now know it as an Africanized honey bee.  It became more aggressive, scientists believe, due to a need to defend its declining habitat. The habitat has declined due to destruction caused by man.  So, does it stand to reason that genetic changes, or the evolution of all species, has somehow come about because of the sin of the fall? 

 

I hope all of this comes across as intended, which is true curiosity.  These subjects can become very touchy, very quickly, and so I want to be clear that my questions are honest and legitimate.

[Jean in Newcastle]

All of creation has fallen, according to the Bible.  Animals before the fall were not carnivores.  

[swellmomma]

It goes back to the original sin.  So Eve eating the apple.  It is not about what the past generations or current generation etc have done to sin.  It is NOT punishment of the ancestors.  When Eve ate the apple she gained knowledge of all good and evil. At that point evil was released into the world, and causes the chaos and destruction around us.  With that original sin there was a separation between man and God, now that divide was given a bridge of sorts when Christ was crucified and forgave us for our sins.  BUT it does not eliminate the original sin which allowed evil into the world to begin with. 

Thinking about it in another way, eating of the apple was an opening of pandora's box.  So children born with mutations/defects are not paying for the sins of their fathers so to speak.  Honey bees are not being punished for some sin honey bees commit.  The original sin committed set all of that in motion by tainting God's perfection.  In God's eyes even those children born with defects are perfect because He created them to be so.  He will not step in and stop the evils in the world because in the end he has given us free will.  The only thing that will stop the changes, failures, mutations, evils etc will be when Christ comes again and we rejoin God in perfection in the kingdom of heaven.

 

To further the issue of the honey bees. Like many animals/insects/plants, man's impact on their habitats certain causes them to change and evolve.  Man was given dominion over the animals which was meant as a form of stewardship and yet the selfishness of man is what rules and that dominion is thought to mean we can take and take and take with no repercussions.

I do believe in evolution in as far as one adapts to survive.  Viruses mutate constantly, I doubt one could deny that.  The same is true  on a lesser scale with all creatures.  Since the fall it certainly is survival of the fittest where as before the fall all creatures could live in harmony together.  There was no need to adapt to survive.  So that level of evolution was created by the fall.  The form of evolution where one creature turns into another is not something I believe in at all.  Every creature was designed to be a certain way, nothing turned into something else.  But small multigenerational changes within a species, yes those occur becuase the species must preserve itself the best it can.

 

Absolutely mutations etc occur but they are not caused by the Creator.  You may have the most fabulous cinnamon bun recipe ever, they are the most perfect buns you have ever made, and yet sometimes sh*t happens and they don't come out the way you intended.  They don't rise enough, or are dry and crusty on the edges, or they stick to the pan and tear as you lift them out, maybe they are a little burnt on the bottom.  It is not the fault of the recipe, the recipe is for the most perfect cinnamon buns, it is due to outside influences that they don't come out of the oven perfect each and every time.

[PeachyDoodle]

I was an English major, so my understanding of the secular/scientific side of this is probably not up to par. However, from a religious standpoint, I'd answer your questions like this:

 

So I understand the explanation of a perfect creation, then the sin of the fall leading to imperfections of man.   But are you saying that genetic malformations are a result of sin, then?  If so, why is it that the recipient of the "punishment" of bad genes is often the most innocent of all (children)? 

 

It depends on what you mean by "innocent." Proponents of the doctrine of original sin would hold that there is no such thing as an innocent child. Because of the fall, all people are born spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. Humankind *deserves* nothing but the judgment and wrath of God, and it is only by God's grace and mercy that any are saved. Even then, salvation eternally does not mitigate the effects of sin temporally.

 

When talking about original sin, I think it's important to bear in mind the difference between suffering/imperfection/etc. as a result of the Fall, and the same as punishment for specific sin. IOW, while genetic malformations may be attributed to original sin (i.e., the Fall), which resulted in the curse of all creation, they are not dealt as specific punishment for specific sins.

 

(This is certainly a extra-biblical argument, but the very idea that all people post-Fall are necessarily born with a sinful nature would, to me, imply that there was some kind of genetic element to the curse.)

 

 

Also, how does that concept apply to, say, plants?  Or animals?  Or insects? For example, there once was a simple honey bee, that was then transformed over many generations into something much more aggressive, and we now know it as an Africanized honey bee.  It became more aggressive, scientists believe, due to a need to defend its declining habitat. The habitat has declined due to destruction caused by man.  So, does it stand to reason that genetic changes, or the evolution of all species, has somehow come about because of the sin of the fall? 

 

In the sense that there is no longer harmony between species, perhaps.The entirety of creation was cursed by the Fall. I don't think the evolution of new characteristics or traits in any given species is mutually exclusive to intelligent design or any of the religious ideas we're discussing. If the bees are any indication, then it seems to me that this type of evolution is usually in response to some sort of conflict or difficulty or pressure on the plant/animal/person. If you have a fully functioning, harmonious, perfect planet, do you get that same kind of differentiation? I don't know. If not, then I suppose you could say that genetic changes are the result of the Fall -- with the Fall resulting in conflict, which in turn results in evolution.

 

 

I hope all of this comes across as intended, which is true curiosity.  These subjects can become very touchy, very quickly, and so I want to be clear that my questions are honest and legitimate.

 

:iagree: It's interesting to think through these things and engage with differing points of view. Thanks for posting.

[albeto.]

Thanks for the replies!

 

I am very familiar with the concept of Original Sin, and have always understood it to be similar to what's being explained here. So, no question there. 

 

A couple follow up thoughts, if you don't mind.

 

One is that these comment so far reflect a belief that the historical events of the origins of the world are more or less accurately depicted in the story written in Genesis. Bill's comment was directed towards ID, and I interpret these comments so far to suggest there's a bit of an impasse between the two.  My follow up questions are then for advocates of Creationism.

 

Creationism suggests sin is culpable for evolution in the sense we would consider it negative. Does this then imply that mutations we consider positive (like speed, intellect, cleverness, etc) would be the divine work of God, or are they just happy coincidences to the consequences of sin?

 

The other is that this topic, as it stands now, will delve into the character of God, by virtue of the moral and ethical implications of such behavior. Is that likely to be an unwelcome subject? Should I leave that part alone?

 

Lastly, this seems to me to be quite dependent upon faith. Is it fair to say the faith in this particular creation story is more likely to be accurate than other creation stories? That is, are the events more plausible, or are they just more familiar?

[albeto.]

(This is certainly a extra-biblical argument, but the very idea that all people post-Fall are necessarily born with a sinful nature would, to me, imply that there was some kind of genetic element to the curse.)

 

At some point, everyone imposes an extra-biblical idea onto their faith. It can't be helped. Not everyone recognizes that, but in any case you raise a most interesting challenge. If there is a predisposition to sin by virtue of being born human, would this not be revealed in the natural world in some way? A genetic element makes the most sense to me, too. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

At some point, everyone imposes an extra-biblical idea onto their faith. It can't be helped. Not everyone recognizes that, but in any case you raise a most interesting challenge. If there is a predisposition to sin by virtue of being born human, would this not be revealed in the natural world in some way? A genetic element makes the most sense to me, too. 

This is a logical argument and not a directly Biblical one (since the Bible does not use the word) but I would say that the law of entropy itself is a result of the fall.  I would see harmful mutations as part of that.  

[PeachyDoodle]

At some point, everyone imposes an extra-biblical idea onto their faith. It can't be helped. Not everyone recognizes that, but in any case you raise a most interesting challenge. If there is a predisposition to sin by virtue of being born human, would this not be revealed in the natural world in some way? A genetic element makes the most sense to me, too. 

 

Not to shift the subject, but I find this especially interesting in light of the Virgin Birth. If there is, in fact, a genetic element to the sin nature, then it makes sense that a divine Savior would need to bypass that element.

[PeachyDoodle]

This is a logical argument and not a directly Biblical one (since the Bible does not use the word) but I would say that the law of entropy itself is a result of the fall.  I would see harmful mutations as part of that.  

 

Yes, I would agree with that as well.

[melmichigan]

This question has been on my mind since Bill posted it. I'd love to hear some thoughts.

 

 

I have some additional questions as well.

 

What are the biological implications of such a designer? Are mutations always personally guided, or does "nature take its course" sometimes? For example, children born to parents exposed to Agent Orange suffer birth defects, but not equally. Does this mean the Designer purposefully mutated more genes in one individual and less in another, or does this Designer let the chemical reactions take place automatically?

 

What are the moral implications of such a designer? Does it get offended if one changes their biological physiology? For example, if one is born with the breast cancer mutation by design, is it offensive to then treat breast cancer?

 

ID doesn't address any of these questions.  Mutations do come into the discussion, but not in the sense you are talking about.  

[BYE]

It depends on what you mean by "innocent." Proponents of the doctrine of original sin would hold that there is no such thing as an innocent child. Because of the fall, all people are born spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. Humankind *deserves* nothing but the judgment and wrath of God, and it is only by God's grace and mercy that any are saved. Even then, salvation eternally does not mitigate the effects of sin temporally.......Quoted

 

 

I don't know how to partially quote from my phone. Sorry about that.

 

This explanation made me sick to my stomach. We deserve to be punished just for being born. That's heavy.

[albeto.]

ID doesn't address any of these questions.  Mutations do come into the discussion, but not in the sense you are talking about.  

 

Well no wonder no one is talking about the ID side of things!  :laugh:

 

So, how do they come into the discussion?  How do they fit with the actions of a perfect divine-being being at the controls?

[swellmomma]

Thanks for the replies!

 

I am very familiar with the concept of Original Sin, and have always understood it to be similar to what's being explained here. So, no question there. 

 

A couple follow up thoughts, if you don't mind.

 

One is that these comment so far reflect a belief that the historical events of the origins of the world are more or less accurately depicted in the story written in Genesis. Bill's comment was directed towards ID, and I interpret these comments so far to suggest there's a bit of an impasse between the two.  My follow up questions are then for advocates of Creationism.

 

Creationism suggests sin is culpable for evolution in the sense we would consider it negative. Does this then imply that mutations we consider positive (like speed, intellect, cleverness, etc) would be the divine work of God, or are they just happy coincidences to the consequences of sin?

 

The other is that this topic, as it stands now, will delve into the character of God, by virtue of the moral and ethical implications of such behavior. Is that likely to be an unwelcome subject? Should I leave that part alone?

 

Lastly, this seems to me to be quite dependent upon faith. Is it fair to say the faith in this particular creation story is more likely to be accurate than other creation stories? That is, are the events more plausible, or are they just more familiar?

 

I actually believe those mutations even when for the positive are a result of the original sin.  One would not have to develop more speed, intellect, cleverness etc if one did not have to survive and rise above the rest kwim.

 

I believe the creation stories of many faiths are very similar.  I believe there is evidence proving the validity of the stories we know.  Such as evidence of a great flood, thus proving that what we know of Noah is true.  So yes while it is dependant on faith, when it comes to creation stories although they do not all point to God as a Christian knows Him, they do still point to specific creator and the stories are remarkably similiar.  I do not think it is coincidence that so many share such similar tales of the beginning.  The one main thing is whether they call their Creator God or not, there is still a creator that made everyone and everything, and due to the actions of man that creation has been altered in some way.  I find when it comes to various faiths the bulk of the difference is not in their creation stories but what the end will be like and if there is an end at all.  The beginnings are all very much alike.

[swellmomma]

Well no wonder no one is talking about the ID side of things!   :laugh:

 

So, how do they come into the discussion?  How do they fit with the actions of a perfect divine-being being at the controls?

 

But that's just what we are saying.  God is not at the controls when it comes to mutations, that is due to the fall.  God (aka divine-being) is at the control for creation itself, not the changes the fall brought with it.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Not to shift the subject, but I find this especially interesting in light of the Virgin Birth. If there is, in fact, a genetic element to the sin nature, then it makes sense that a divine Savior would need to bypass that element.

 

Great thought! Probably why there is power in the blood of Jesus, unlike the blood of any other.

[PeachyDoodle]

This explanation made me sick to my stomach. We deserve to be punished just for being born. That's heavy.

 

I didn't mean to upset anyone. I'm merely stating the traditional, orthodox Christian understanding of original sin.

[albeto.]

But that's just what we are saying.  God is not at the controls when it comes to mutations, that is due to the fall.  God (aka divine-being) is at the control for creation itself, not the changes the fall brought with it.

 

So you are of the opinion that God is not sovereign, in that everything that happens is because he wills it that way?

[NicAnn]

Albeto- I think discussing the morality and virtues of God is a different subject. A worthy one for sure, but perhaps one that is too difficult to discuss online...at least for me who has to hunt and peck on the iPad! Dh and I have had lengthy discussions on the subject.

[PeachyDoodle]

Great thought! Probably why there is power in the blood of Jesus, unlike the blood of any other.

 

Well, it certainly would explain how Jesus was able to live a sinless life when no other person can. I'm not sure how that theory impacts the whole fully human, fully divine thing, though. Then again, I'm not sure anybody understands how that works. :confused1:

 

[T'smom]

It depends on what you mean by "innocent." Proponents of the doctrine of original sin would hold that there is no such thing as an innocent child. Because of the fall, all people are born spiritually dead in trespasses and sin. Humankind *deserves* nothing but the judgment and wrath of God, and it is only by God's grace and mercy that any are saved. Even then, salvation eternally does not mitigate the effects of sin temporally.......Quoted

 

 

I don't know how to partially quote from my phone. Sorry about that.

 

This explanation made me sick to my stomach. We deserve to be punished just for being born. That's heavy.

It is heavy. I'm sorry that it upset you. But those of us that believe this also believe in God's grace and mercy and love.

[albeto.]

I didn't mean to upset anyone. I'm merely stating the traditional, orthodox Christian understanding of original sin.

 

Like every other aspect of the faith, this is interpreted differently as well. A Catholic would be more likely to advocate the concept of concupiscence, as well as the idea that one needs to be aware of, and willing to commit a grave sin before judged worthy of an eternity of torture and suffering. I think yours is more of a Reformed theology, which is not universal throughout Christendom. Arguably, the logical implications of that are impossible to reconcile with modern ethical standards. It speaks to the importance of faith, and the importance of passing the faith on to the next generation.

 

In any case, it does offer an interesting insight into interpreting the natural world around us. If the world is in the throes of Satan's grip, and we are merely biding our time before Jesus returns, what does that mean for how we solve problems, personal and public? For example, why not override the impulse to preserve life and instead let "nature" let a sick person go to Heaven sooner? Why resort to antibiotics when traditional home remedies don't work against infections? Why not discourage temporary peace-treaties in the Middle East so that Jesus can return and ultimately bring divine and lasting peace?

[albeto.]

Albeto- I think discussing the morality and virtues of God is a different subject. A worthy one for sure, but perhaps one that is too difficult to discuss online...at least for me who has to hunt and peck on the iPad! Dh and I have had lengthy discussions on the subject.

 

Thanks.  :)

 

I think it's quite an intensive conversation to have as well, and frankly I'm a bit surprised at how eagerly it seems to be brought up. I'm trying to understand the biological implications as well, fwiw. 

[T'smom]

So you are of the opinion that God is not sovereign, in that everything that happens is because he wills it that way?

I'm not swell momma, but I agree with everything she's written so far. I believe that God allows the natural consequences and somewhat random things. I believe in free will. If He willed every tiny thing that happened, we wouldn't have free will. But He is soveriegn......he could change anything in any way, at any time.

[melmichigan]

Well no wonder no one is talking about the ID side of things!   :laugh:

 

So, how do they come into the discussion?  How do they fit with the actions of a perfect divine-being being at the controls?

 

Well without getting into how mutations come into the ID discussion, I would start by disagreeing with the following:

 

 

 

Most mutations prove to be harmful (we can agree on that as basic science, yes?) so how would that fit with the actions of a perfect divine-being being at the controls?

 

Most mutations that are commonly discussed are those that are harmful, but the majority of mutations are neutral or even beneficial.  Even some of the mutations that many consider "bad" can actually be considered beneficial, one example that my genetics professor used was sickle cell anemia.  It's "bad" if you have two genes, but protects against malaria when you have one gene.  In areas where malaria is rampant the chances of being immune with the chances of avoiding infection or surviving infection outweighs the 25% chance of getting full-blown sickle cell anemia.

 

[SKL]

Is a good or bad thing that people can agree to disagree?

[Jean in Newcastle]

The OP asked "what are the biological implications of a designer".  I.D. takes things from the opposite direction.  They see the biological realities of symbiosis, biodiversity, adaptations, symmetry, to name a few things and see connections in them that imply intelligence behind them.  The reason you are getting Theological answers instead of I.D. ones are because of that.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

Is a good or bad thing that people can agree to disagree?

It's only a bad thing if you like drama.

[PeachyDoodle]

Like every other aspect of the faith, this is interpreted differently as well. A Catholic would be more likely to advocate the concept of concupiscence, as well as the idea that one needs to be aware of, and willing to commit a grave sin before judged worthy of an eternity of torture and suffering. I think yours is more of a Reformed theology, which is not universal throughout Christendom. Arguably, the logical implications of that are impossible to reconcile with modern ethical standards. It speaks to the importance of faith, and the importance of passing the faith on to the next generation.

 

In any case, it does offer an interesting insight into interpreting the natural world around us. If the world is in the throes of Satan's grip, and we are merely biding our time before Jesus returns, what does that mean for how we solve problems, personal and public? For example, why not override the impulse to preserve life and instead let "nature" let a sick person go to Heaven sooner? Why resort to antibiotics when traditional home remedies don't work against infections? Why not discourage temporary peace-treaties in the Middle East so that Jesus can return and ultimately bring divine and lasting peace?

 

I didn't say it was the universal Christian view. I said it was the traditional, orthodox view. Original sin is an aspect of Reformed theology, but it was also widely held by the early Church fathers. Concupiscence (which is the innate tendency to sin) was part of the argument developed by Augustine of Hippo in support of original sin, in response to the Pelagian heresy, which taught that men have the ability to choose to follow the perfect moral example set by Jesus Christ.

 

At any rate, your points about the implications of that worldview are well taken. There certainly are people who think that way. I believe Christians are called to alleviate temporal suffering (which is an effect of sin and the Fall) in whatever ways possible, whether that's through medicine or peace treaties or whatever. Compassion ministry was a large part of Jesus' time on Earth. Knowing that all will not be fully restored until he returns does not preclude doing what we can in our limited means now. I know of very few Christians who believe we can usher in the second coming by allowing the Middle East to go up in flames; that is on God's timing, not ours. So it makes sense to encourage and work for peace now, while knowing that peace will not fully be achieved until he comes.

 

[melmichigan]

Is a good or bad thing that people can agree to disagree?

 

I going to take it as a good thing and run with it.

[PeachyDoodle]

It is heavy. I'm sorry that it upset you. But those of us that believe this also believe in God's grace and mercy and love.

 

Thank you. You answered that better than I did.

 

[swellmomma]

So you are of the opinion that God is not sovereign, in that everything that happens is because he wills it that way?

 

His Sovereignty is a completely different topic than the one being discussed here.  The question here was in relation to mutations not whether or not he is sovereign. 

[PeachyDoodle]

http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/original-sin/

 

“Original Sin is understood differently by the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church denies that a sin committed by someone else (in this case, Adam) can be somehow “transmitted†to the rest of humanity.

Adam’s personal sin of rebellion against God was his alone to atone for.

What we “inherit†or what is “transmitted†to us is Adam’s human nature which was weakened and damaged by the passions.

Thus, we inherit the experiences of suffering and death from our first parents. It is that state of our human nature that we inherit, that is “transmitted†to us, not the actual sin committed by Adam.

 

See my point above. I said orthodox, not Orthodox. Regardless, what I meant was that I was merely stating a doctrine that has been held by large swaths of the Christian Church throughout its existence and not attempting to cause anyone distress.

[albeto.]

The OP asked "what are the biological implications of a designer".  I.D. takes things from the opposite direction.  They see the biological realities of symbiosis, biodiversity, adaptations, symmetry, to name a few things and see connections in them that imply intelligence behind them.  The reason you are getting Theological answers instead of I.D. ones are because of that.  

 

I recognize ID is an attempt to offer an explanation for the observations we see in the natural world. I'm wondering, if ID were in fact true, what would be the implications of that? Surely one of the first things we'd want to do is identify the Intelligent Designer. After all, if this Designer, like Peach suggests, sees the human being as an offense worthy of eternal torture and suffering, then wouldn't we want to ramp up our resources to save the human race from this fate? If instead the Designer set things in motion umpteen years ago and could step in, wouldn't we want to know under what conditions so we can maximize helping people? If this Designer set things in motion umpteen years ago and allows "nature to take it's toll," then in what way would reality be indistinguishable from no designer? 

 

The theological comments basically explain the process of justification (under what conditions one is made/declared "righteous" or "not guilty"). I'm familiar with these theologies, I'm curious about what the implications would be if Intelligent Design actually accurately explained the natural world. It would make a difference with how we would proceed, or at least, it would make a difference to a great number of people, myself included.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I recognize ID is an attempt to offer an explanation for the observations we see in the natural world. I'm wondering, if ID were in fact true, what would be the implications of that? Surely one of the first things we'd want to do is identify the Intelligent Designer. After all, if this Designer, like Peach suggests, sees the human being as an offense worthy of eternal torture and suffering, then wouldn't we want to ramp up our resources to save the human race from this fate? If instead the Designer set things in motion umpteen years ago and could step in, wouldn't we want to know under what conditions so we can maximize helping people? If this Designer set things in motion umpteen years ago and allows "nature to take it's toll," then in what way would reality be indistinguishable from no designer? 

 

The theological comments basically explain the process of justification (under what conditions one is made/declared "righteous" or "not guilty"). I'm familiar with these theologies, I'm curious about what the implications would be if Intelligent Design actually accurately explained the natural world. It would make a difference with how we would proceed, or at least, it would make a difference to a great number of people, myself included.

I.D. or anything based on observations of nature, can only get you so far.  You could figure out that the designer had to be pretty big and powerful to design a universe as huge and as complex as it is.  You could figure out that the designer had to be creative to design something as biologically diverse and beautiful as it is.  You could figure out that the designer had to be compassionate in some measure to provide all the elements of medicine that is provided.  (And yes, I realize this would not answer the questions of why medicine is needed to begin with - I.D. would not answer that.)  You could figure out that the designer had to be awfully smart (perhaps omniscient?) to keep all the data in mind in order to make everything fit together like a glove in both simple and complex organisms, not to mention how they work together in symbiotic relationships.  You could figure out that the designer had to be beyond space in order to create space.  You possibly would come to the same conclusion about being beyond time (haven't thought that one through).  But the "whys"?  I don't think you can come to any of those conclusions from I.D.  (Theologically this is all explained in the difference between "general revelation" and "special revelation".)

[albeto.]

I didn't say it was the universal Christian view. I said it was the traditional, orthodox view. Original sin is an aspect of Reformed theology, but it was also widely held by the early Church fathers. Concupiscence (which is the innate tendency to sin) was part of the argument developed by Augustine of Hippo in support of original sin, in response to the Pelagian heresy, which taught that men have the ability to choose to follow the perfect moral example set by Jesus Christ.

Each Christian sect believes their beliefs are traditional and supported by the bible and the original believers. My point was not to correct you, but to prevent this distraction. To that end, I apologize if I came across as correcting you. It was not my intent.  :)

 

At any rate, your points about the implications of that worldview are well taken. There certainly are people who think that way. I believe Christians are called to alleviate temporal suffering (which is an effect of sin and the Fall) in whatever ways possible, whether that's through medicine or peace treaties or whatever. Compassion ministry was a large part of Jesus' time on Earth. Knowing that all will not be fully restored until he returns does not preclude doing what we can in our limited means now. I know of very few Christians who believe we can usher in the second coming by allowing the Middle East to go up in flames; that is on God's timing, not ours. So it makes sense to encourage and work for peace now, while knowing that peace will not fully be achieved until he comes.

 

Wouldn't the most effective alleviation of temporal suffering be eternal bliss? I don't mean to put you on the spot, I'm just trying to follow the logical argument in the direction I see it go. I'm glad you don't hear the Christian call to help usher in the second coming of Christ. Nearly half of all Americans believe Jesus will be coming back in the next 40 years. For many people, that's within their expected lifetimes. Deciding on public policy, like what to do in the Middle East, is affected by this, quite naturally.

[albeto.]

I.D. or anything based on observations of nature, can only get you so far.  You could figure out that the designer had to be pretty big and powerful to design a universe as huge and as complex as it is.  You could figure out that the designer had to be creative to design something as biologically diverse and beautiful as it is.  You could figure out that the designer had to be compassionate in some measure to provide all the elements of medicine that is provided.  (And yes, I realize this would not answer the questions of why medicine is needed to begin with - I.D. would not answer that.)  You could figure out that the designer had to be awfully smart (perhaps omniscient?) to keep all the data in mind in order to make everything fit together like a glove in both simple and complex organisms, not to mention how they work together in symbiotic relationships.  You could figure out that the designer had to be beyond space in order to create space.  You possibly would come to the same conclusion about being beyond time (haven't thought that one through).  But the "whys"?  I don't think you can come to any of those conclusions from I.D.  (Theologically this is all explained in the different between "general revelation" and "special revelation".)

 

So here's my thinking...

 

If nature reveals the existence of an Intelligent Designer, some aspect of that existence would be revealed (otherwise, how would it be revealed if not through "divine revelation" which is not observations of nature). 

 

If some aspect of that existence were revealed, human ingenuity would create ways to reveal a little more and a little more and a little more. After all, technological advancements allows improvements in everything from entertainment experiences to scientific exploration. 

 

In the mean time, these questions would be of utmost importance because people's eternal well-being might be at stake. That is, unless there is no such thing as an eternal soul, there is no correlation between an individual's well-being and the Intelligent Designer, or the natural world with an Intelligent Designer is indistinguishable from a natural world with no intelligent designer of any kind. These ideas are unlikely since the identity of this Intelligent Designer is, according to most proponents of ID, understood to be best revealed through the Christian bible.

[swellmomma]

So here's my thinking...

 

If nature reveals the existence of an Intelligent Designer, some aspect of that existence would be revealed (otherwise, how would it be revealed if not through "divine revelation" which is not observations of nature). 

 

If some aspect of that existence were revealed, human ingenuity would create ways to reveal a little more and a little more and a little more. After all, technological advancements allows improvements in everything from entertainment experiences to scientific exploration. 

 

In the mean time, these questions would be of utmost importance because people's eternal well-being might be at stake. That is, unless there is no such thing as an eternal soul, there is no correlation between an individual's well-being and the Intelligent Designer, or the natural world with an Intelligent Designer is indistinguishable from a natural world with no intelligent designer of any kind. These ideas are unlikely since the identity of this Intelligent Designer is, according to most proponents of ID, understood to be best revealed through the Christian bible.

I would not agree with that.  You simply have a small number of responders to this topic who happen to follow the Christian bible. I believe that many other religions also believe and follow a creator, so it is most certainly NOT limited to the Christian bible.  Given this response here I am actually stepping out of this conversation now.  It is evidence imo that you simply wanted another way to stonewall Christians and claim they are all wrong.  YOu asked a question, supposedly out of curiosity and then decided you didn't like the answers you got and jumped to here which is your general MO but I thought perhaps you were genuine in your interest this time.  As you clearly are not and are now swinging to generalities in order to "prove" your point (not really sure what your point is at this time, so I guess you failed at that), I am done.  Frankly it doesn't matter if you believe in ID or a creator of any type, that is up to you. But stop posting "innocent" questions when the reality is you are just looking to start another bickerfest.  The respondants here are not posting to defend their beliefs, they posted to answer you.  You have been answered, the end. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

So here's my thinking...

 

If nature reveals the existence of an Intelligent Designer, some aspect of that existence would be revealed (otherwise, how would it be revealed if not through "divine revelation" which is not observations of nature). 

 

If some aspect of that existence were revealed, human ingenuity would create ways to reveal a little more and a little more and a little more. After all, technological advancements allows improvements in everything from entertainment experiences to scientific exploration. 

 

In the mean time, these questions would be of utmost importance because people's eternal well-being might be at stake. That is, unless there is no such thing as an eternal soul, there is no correlation between an individual's well-being and the Intelligent Designer, or the natural world with an Intelligent Designer is indistinguishable from a natural world with no intelligent designer of any kind. These ideas are unlikely since the identity of this Intelligent Designer is, according to most proponents of ID, understood to be best revealed through the Christian bible.

Let me know if I am understanding you correctly.  Are you saying by "the existence of an Intelligent Designer" - that there should be sightings of the actual designer himself?  Because my take is that I.D. is noticing the "fingerprint" as you will, of the designer.  In otherwords, I.D. follows the forensic clues left behind (by design) to point out the existence of a designer and some general sense of what kind of a designer this would be.  Now I.D. itself doesn't make any predictions on how far those clues might take someone.  But the Bible would say that is where you need specific revelation where the designer himself reveals himself to mankind.  At one point (OT times) that specific revelation was through personal encounters that were witnessed and recorded.  Then in the gospels that specific revelation was through the historical person of Jesus Christ who did miracles to prove His identity.  Then in the church age, that specific revelation has moved to the written words of the Bible as explained to us through the invisible workings of God the Holy Spirit.

 

I don't know the Quran well enough to know if Allah is revealed in the same definitive way as the Bible, but I do know that there are Muslims who say the designer is Allah, thus coming to a different conclusion just based on the evidence of I.D. alone.  So I.D. only points to "a" designer - not which one.  

[PeachyDoodle]

Each Christian sect believes their beliefs are traditional and supported by the bible and the original believers. My point was not to correct you, but to prevent this distraction. To that end, I apologize if I came across as correcting you. It was not my intent.   :)

 

No harm, no foul.

 

 

Wouldn't the most effective alleviation of temporal suffering be eternal bliss? I don't mean to put you on the spot, I'm just trying to follow the logical argument in the direction I see it go. I'm glad you don't hear the Christian call to help usher in the second coming of Christ. Nearly half of all Americans believe Jesus will be coming back in the next 40 years. For many people, that's within their expected lifetimes. Deciding on public policy, like what to do in the Middle East, is affected by this, quite naturally.

 

Perhaps it would. A dear friend of mine struggled greatly with this last year as her mother lay dying and her father persisted in seeking out every possible treatment to keep her alive, even though she was a vegetable. Sometimes, in the midst of great suffering and when death is unavoidable, it might be most loving and compassionate to allow nature to take its course rather than prolong life at all costs. If you take it much farther than that, however, I think you're crossing over into the realm of God's sovereignty, which has been alluded to here already. It's complicated, to say the least. Christians are called to alleviate suffering not because of the suffering itself, but so that God is glorified. When we usurp his authority over life and death, God is not glorified. (And I would argue that prolonging a life that is clearly meant to end is as much a usurpation as ending a life that is clearly meant to continue.) I realize that probably doesn't fully answer your point, but it's the end of the day. And you ask hard questions. :)

 

Just because someone believes that Jesus could (or will) return within his/her lifetime does not mean s/he wants to stir up war in the Middle East to "usher in" that return. The imminent return of Christ has been a theme of Christianity since the beginning. Many of the writers of the New Testament refer to their belief that they lived in the last times. Their take was that they had best be about spreading the gospel, as time was short.

 

 

So here's my thinking...

 

If nature reveals the existence of an Intelligent Designer, some aspect of that existence would be revealed (otherwise, how would it be revealed if not through "divine revelation" which is not observations of nature). 

 

If some aspect of that existence were revealed, human ingenuity would create ways to reveal a little more and a little more and a little more. After all, technological advancements allows improvements in everything from entertainment experiences to scientific exploration. 

 

In the mean time, these questions would be of utmost importance because people's eternal well-being might be at stake. That is, unless there is no such thing as an eternal soul, there is no correlation between an individual's well-being and the Intelligent Designer, or the natural world with an Intelligent Designer is indistinguishable from a natural world with no intelligent designer of any kind. These ideas are unlikely since the identity of this Intelligent Designer is, according to most proponents of ID, understood to be best revealed through the Christian bible.

 

Jean answered this better than I could, but I agree with her point that nature, while pointing to the existence of an Intelligent Designer, can not reveal to us who said Designer is. It's only "divine revelation" in the sense that the Designer created it. Human ingenuity and technology can uncover move evidence for the Designer but can never reveal the personality of the Designer; only the Designer can do that. I'm afraid I'm not following your last paragraph, so maybe we're not answering your real question.

[NicAnn]

So here's my thinking...

 

If nature reveals the existence of an Intelligent Designer, some aspect of that existence would be revealed (otherwise, how would it be revealed if not through "divine revelation" which is not observations of nature).

 

If some aspect of that existence were revealed, human ingenuity would create ways to reveal a little more and a little more and a little more. After all, technological advancements allows improvements in everything from entertainment experiences to scientific exploration.

 

In the mean time, these questions would be of utmost importance because people's eternal well-being might be at stake. That is, unless there is no such thing as an eternal soul, there is no correlation between an individual's well-being and the Intelligent Designer, or the natural world with an Intelligent Designer is indistinguishable from a natural world with no intelligent designer of any kind. These ideas are unlikely since the identity of this Intelligent Designer is, according to most proponents of ID, understood to be best revealed through the Christian bible.

Well, not every religion believes there is an immortal soul. Or that you need to be saved, or in Heaven. I don't. We'll no, there is a Heaven, but not In the mainstream sense of the word.

Anyway, I'm tired and I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here.

[Trish]

CS Lewis had an interesting take on this in his Perelandra trilogy. He called ours the Bent Planet, referring to original sin.

[Mrs Mungo]

Really, trying to fit every religion or every religious person into one box of belief is not going to work. 

 

This series of posts coming from someone who actively says they wish to rid the world of religion comes very much across as baiting. Or...at the very least, trying to figure out what arguments people might use so that you can find ways to refute them. It seems very ugly and divisive.

[albeto.]

Let me know if I am understanding you correctly.  Are you saying by "the existence of an Intelligent Designer" - that there should be sightings of the actual designer himself?

Sightings, not necessarily. Evidence, yes, because the other option is no evidence whatsoever and instead knowledge is gained via "divine revelation." That doesn't seem to be what ID suggests, because it supposedly uses the scientific method, not religious method, to explore and know the natural world. This evidence would naturally offer more information about this Designer than we have now, as well as inspire the direction in which technological innovation is focused. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Sightings, not necessarily. Evidence, yes, because the other option is no evidence whatsoever and instead knowledge is gained via "divine revelation." That doesn't seem to be what ID suggests, because it supposedly uses the scientific method, not religious method, to explore and know the natural world. This evidence would naturally offer more information about this Designer than we have now, as well as inspire the direction in which technological innovation is focused. 

ID just says that there is design evident in the natural world.  Period.  There are criteria for determining if a phenomena is random or has a causal agent.  They are using that criteria to come to a conclusion that the phenomena in natural processes has a causal agent.  I can't say any more besides that because I don't think there is any more besides that.  If you want me or someone else to convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt, then we can't do it.  

 

As far as the Bible goes, it is supported by I.D. but not proved by I.D.  And as far as the truth of the Bible goes, we really can't convince you of the truth of that.  That is something you would have to be convinced of by divine means and I'm just not that good!  

[albeto.]

No harm, no foul.

:) 

 

I realize that probably doesn't fully answer your point, but it's the end of the day. And you ask hard questions. :)

It wasn't until I questioned my faith that I concluded these questions have only one answer - accept it on faith (whatever "it" is at the time). That's not possible for me to do any more, but for some reason, I'm still curious about answers others come up with. I keep hoping there will be something more than faith, and ID offers itself as a credible, scientific hypothesis for explaining the natural world. Ruth's thread asked for examples, Bill's question asked about the implications. I find Bill's question fascinating, and not altogether trivial.

 

Just because someone believes that Jesus could (or will) return within his/her lifetime does not mean s/he wants to stir up war in the Middle East to "usher in" that return.

Yes, I do understand people's opinions are based on a great many variables, and this is only one. I also understand religious faith is as subjective and varied as taste in art or music, thus I have no universal expectations. Nevertheless, there is a community of believers who are quite convinced we live in the End Times, and events in the Middle East are setting up a future of biblical proportions. How they interpret the natural world affects their views and behaviors. Surely they're not the only ones who are inspired by religious beliefs, even if their beliefs are easier to "set apart" from non-religious beliefs.

 

Jean answered this better than I could, but I agree with her point that nature, while pointing to the existence of an Intelligent Designer, can not reveal to us who said Designer is. It's only "divine revelation" in the sense that the Designer created it. Human ingenuity and technology can uncover move evidence for the Designer but can never reveal the personality of the Designer; only the Designer can do that. I'm afraid I'm not following your last paragraph, so maybe we're not answering your real question.

Hopefully my reply to her helps clear up some confusion.