Quote of the day (12-6-2008)

December 6th, 2008 | 8 Comments

At the risk of inbreeding, I am compelled to submit this quote from a blogger who has twice linked to my post on why the debate over creationism matters. It states what I believe so much better than I’ve seen it done elsewhere.

This is not to say faith has nothing to do with it – I believe in a ‘First Cause,’ that God created the universe or began or it even guided it – but I also understand geology and biology and have no reason to mix the two up. Even if God is involved in every cell, He seems to be doing it in a way we can generally understand and organize into a science. [emphasis mine] — Gideon Addington, Ground of Being

This gets at the heart of why I have such a problem with the various types of special creationism (young earth creationism, old earth creationism, Ross’s progressive creationism, and Intelligent Design). All of them believe that no matter how systematic and orderly our observation, we will inevitably run into things that, at best, we have no hope of unravelling (’cause God did it) or, at worst, we’ll have all the evidence for and yet be compelled to believe is all a farce (e.g., geological and astronomical appearance of age, the DNA evidence for common descent).

FacebookRedditGoogle ReaderDiggStumbleUponPrintFriendlyShare

Related posts:

  1. Creationism, education, and the state All right, here’s a rant for you. There’s a news story circulating about the well-known fact that homeschooling texts are ignoring or even (the audacity!)...
  2. Evolution and evangel(ical)ism The poll in my sidebar asking Christians how important they considered the faith/science debate to be ran for four months as of yesterday. In that time,...
  3. Would he be having a happy birthday? Two days shy of four months ago I posted a poll that asked Christians how important the faith/science debate is. I was going to wait...
  4. Human interpretations of Scripture and nature This is long for a “quote of the day,” but it’s so well stated that I couldn’t resist. It’s from an article by Kenton Sparks,...
  5. The Truth Project and critical thinking The most dangerous shyster is the one who has convinced himself to believe his own pitch. Over at The Creation of an Evolutionist, Mike is...

December 6th, 2008

Tags: , , , ,

  • http://thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com/ Mike Beidler

    Profound observation by Gideon. I’m gonna have to steal it for occasional use. =)

    Mike Beidler´s last blog post..Why the Debate Over Creationism Matters

  • http://thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com Mike Beidler

    Profound observation by Gideon. I’m gonna have to steal it for occasional use. =)

    Mike Beidler´s last blog post..Why the Debate Over Creationism Matters

  • Michael

    There is no need to group intelligent design with other forms of creationism. There are different tenets for each of the positions you listed regardless of whether people from these different groups hold to the same religious convictions—especially those positions that fall outside of the realm of Intelligent Design. The standard examples you listed as creationist hallmarks (young geological and astronomical ages, no evidence for common descent) are not positions to which Intelligent Design is wedded.

    As to your statement “All of them believe that no matter how systematic and orderly our observation, we will inevitably run into things that, at best, we have no hope of unraveling (’cause God did it)” is faulty on two counts. (1) “’Cause God did it” isn’t an argument you find in Intelligent Design. (2) No matter how systematic and orderly anyone’s observation, there will always be scientific information we have no hope of unraveling.

  • Michael

    There is no need to group intelligent design with other forms of creationism. There are different tenets for each of the positions you listed regardless of whether people from these different groups hold to the same religious convictions—especially those positions that fall outside of the realm of Intelligent Design. The standard examples you listed as creationist hallmarks (young geological and astronomical ages, no evidence for common descent) are not positions to which Intelligent Design is wedded.

    As to your statement “All of them believe that no matter how systematic and orderly our observation, we will inevitably run into things that, at best, we have no hope of unraveling (’cause God did it)” is faulty on two counts. (1) “’Cause God did it” isn’t an argument you find in Intelligent Design. (2) No matter how systematic and orderly anyone’s observation, there will always be scientific information we have no hope of unraveling.

  • http://undeception.com/ Steve

    Michael,

    Let’s try my statement worded differently:

    “All of them believe that no matter how systematic and orderly our observation, we will inevitably run into things that, at best, we have no hope of unraveling (’cause an Intelligent Designer did it).”

    How is that an inaccurate description of your position? All other differences aside (of which there are undoubtedly quite a few), I lump all the brands of special creationism and ID together on that basis, in contradistinction to science, which doesn’t settle for such defeatism based on a presupposition of inevitable failure.

    Are you right when you say that “…there will always be scientific information we have no hope of unraveling”? Certainly! But scientists try and try to unravel it anyway until they receive credible scientific data that tells them they why they won’t be able to go any further; ID has not been successful at producing that data, and the question I’m wondering is, why do they start out with the presupposition that such data exists?

    The worst danger is that ID tries to encourage scientists to give up on a subject whose pace of unraveling is, if anything, accelerating. And, like creationism, it does this because of a ghost in the machine (no use being coy about who or what that ghost is, at least until you provide a plausible alternative identification for who that designer is).

  • http://undeception.com Steve

    Michael,

    Let’s try my statement worded differently:

    “All of them believe that no matter how systematic and orderly our observation, we will inevitably run into things that, at best, we have no hope of unraveling (’cause an Intelligent Designer did it).”

    How is that an inaccurate description of your position? All other differences aside (of which there are undoubtedly quite a few), I lump all the brands of special creationism and ID together on that basis, in contradistinction to science, which doesn’t settle for such defeatism based on a presupposition of inevitable failure.

    Are you right when you say that “…there will always be scientific information we have no hope of unraveling”? Certainly! But scientists try and try to unravel it anyway until they receive credible scientific data that tells them they why they won’t be able to go any further; ID has not been successful at producing that data, and the question I’m wondering is, why do they start out with the presupposition that such data exists?

    The worst danger is that ID tries to encourage scientists to give up on a subject whose pace of unraveling is, if anything, accelerating. And, like creationism, it does this because of a ghost in the machine (no use being coy about who or what that ghost is, at least until you provide a plausible alternative identification for who that designer is).

  • Michael

    Steve,

    Your rewording of the statement might be an accurate description of my position if I knew what sort of “things” we run into that we have no hope of unraveling. I assume you mean things that should fall within the realm of science. If so, when exactly has ID slammed on the brakes while respectable scientific endeavors trod on?

    Certainly the possibility remains of running into things we won’t unravel as a result of an intelligent designer, but such impossibilities aren’t necessarily reasoned to scientifically. It seems that ID is faulted as religious ploy from the start and then is doubly faulted for being coy about identifying the designer – a task that will probably remain outside of scientific study). ID can’t be faulted if some other discipline picks up where it leaves off, no more than posturing about the origin of life should be faulted for picking up where study of the origin of species terminates.

  • Michael

    Steve,

    Your rewording of the statement might be an accurate description of my position if I knew what sort of “things” we run into that we have no hope of unraveling. I assume you mean things that should fall within the realm of science. If so, when exactly has ID slammed on the brakes while respectable scientific endeavors trod on?

    Certainly the possibility remains of running into things we won’t unravel as a result of an intelligent designer, but such impossibilities aren’t necessarily reasoned to scientifically. It seems that ID is faulted as religious ploy from the start and then is doubly faulted for being coy about identifying the designer – a task that will probably remain outside of scientific study). ID can’t be faulted if some other discipline picks up where it leaves off, no more than posturing about the origin of life should be faulted for picking up where study of the origin of species terminates.