what good is Intelligent Design?

Except that all scripture is given by inspiration of God (greek word would indicate God-breathed). That makes the author God which makes it a first-hand account. Moses was only the pen in God's hand to write it.

 

First, this discuss doesn't need this comment if we are to be civil to each other and respect each others arguments then this comment is contrary to the discuss of ID/Evolution/Creation. I'll discuss with you but snide disrespectful remarks just encite hostility and disrespect to both of us.

Second, I feel the common grounds of reality and the Bible prove some of the basics of evolution theory but once an evolutionist counts God out of the equation then the theory is wrong. "Survival of the Fittest" is an "evolutional" reality that has nothing to do with a creation or creator it s a fact of life and death the weak is destroyed so the strong survive...from the lowest germ to the samrtest human. But to say that this is the basis of creation that a germ in a pool of germs survived and adapted and blossomed into the world as we know it today is idiotic at best and sad at worst. But we must understand that while cars don't reproduce my nerdiness and failure to fit into High School did in no way evolve into my kids at their births so that they have "learned" to survive in school better than I did through some heriditary process...no they will learn it form me through the "evolution process" that I want their life in school to be better than my dreadful experience.


Now using the old-tried-and-true response from a creationist, where is the fact that something should be evolving somewhere in the world...we should be seeing the next generation of man, ape, something by now...right??

 

Yes, by mine. God apparently gave people the ability to understand right and wrong, and God has said that he is good, and has said that he does not lie. If he then turns about and manufactures false evidence to trick us into believing something that isn't true. . . Well, then he is dishonest and seems more like a diabolical puppet master to me. If God's morality is so much different from ours that we are incapable of saying that it would be wrong for God to tell us a lie, than it makes no sense to attribute goodness to God. It would be undefinable. So I guess we can just drop the idea that God is good, and then if we do that, how about we consider the idea that God is love? Perhaps God's standard of love is so different from ours that it is not understandable and we wouldn't interpret it to be love if we saw it expressed in another human. Then it makes no sense to say that God is love. Plus, if God's morality is so different, what then is the basis for the standards of morality he demands of us? Everyone always says that our morality flows from God's character, but if God's character allows him to lie to us and demands we call it good, yet punishes lying by us, maybe what we call right and wrong are not really absolute right and wrong but just items off a list that God arbitrarily decided to enforce.

You're scaring me here.

Secondly, we are not talking about God allowing someone to believe something that is false, we're talking about God intentionally tricking someone. We're not talking about Satan stepping in and messing up the evidence somehow, we're talking about God planting misleading evidence.

 

Modern creationists rarely take that literally. They're quite happy to accept that many kinds of dogs have a common ancestor, and even that kinds of dogs and kinds of wolves have a common ancestor. On this board, we've even seen young-earth creationists claim all kinds of cats, big and small, have a common ancestor! If young-earth creationists aren't willing to take the concept of "kind" seriously, why should anyone else?

I don't think the death of cells, plants or animals is morally equivalent to human death. Do you?

Do you really mean that without knowing that your distant ancestor ate a piece of forbidden fruit, you'd think you were perfect and without sin? Is sin that impersonal to you?

 

That wasn't a snide response, it was my honest evaluation.

It doesn't work that way. Populations evolve, not individuals. Indeed, there was an article I read recently saying that we have evidence that natural selection has driven genetic changes in humans (i.e. evolution) in the last 7,000-10,000 years. Every creature you look at might be one of a group of transitional forms. Of course you'd have to check back in a few tens of thousands of years minimum in order to see, more likely hundreds of thousands, and if you're demanding a large change, millions.

 

That is the Muslim view of inspiration. So, based on this view, I assume you take Job 38-39 completely literally, and affirm that God laid the foundations of the earth by using a literal measuring line, that there are literal doors for the sea, and literal storehouses for the snow and hail? Do you believe that figurative statements are the same thing as false statements?

 

The point of Genesis 1 is that God is the creator of all that exists, that nothing in creation can challenge God's power, and that humanity has been appointed by God to rule creation. These are things we should all pay attention to. I think there is some figurative language in here to fit what God actually did into man's language and understanding, but essentially the passage is a claim that God created the universe and (as passages like Psalm 104 reveal) continues to sustain its existence.

 

My understanding of "kind" is that all dogs are one "kind". Not sure if that would include wolves, but we know that dogs have been bred with wolves and produced mixed-breed. Does that have anything to do with the basic arguement?

Also, I don't know what the majority of YEC's believe or don't believe in this regard. I am simply arguing for the truth of scripture. YEC's, Theistic Evolutionists and IDers should all be basing their interpretation of the observed evidence on the scripture with the scripture as paramount, not our interpretation of the evidence.

And what I mean about original sin is that the Bible is very clear that God created everything perfect and then sin entered the creation. Romans 5:12 says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This is a clear statement that yes, original sin is necessary to understand the curse by which sin entered into the whole race and we needed a saviour. If no original sin, then there is the possibility that some man could live a perfect life? Why did Christ have to be born of a virgin? Because the curse is through the man. That requires Adam.

 

It has to do with the fact that your definition of "kind" has nothing to do with what the Bible says. Breed two dogs of one kind and you won't get a dog of another kind. Two dogs of the same kind will have descendents "after their kind", just as all organisms do. This doesn't contradict the common descent of all kinds of dogs any more than it contradicts the common descent of wider groups.

The Bible is clear that God created everything "very good". And what did death pass to? Not plants. Not animals. Not cells. "Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". This passage doesn't explain where natural death of plants, animals and cells came from.

 

I am not likely to change your mind on this, but I would like to encourage all to let the bible interpret the physical world and not the other way around. We know truth through God's revelation. That is the Bible and the Spirit of Truth. Study to show thyself approved unto God. Test all theories against the whole of the Bible, not individual parts. I still would challenge anyone who subscribes to figurative understading to explain the way the 4th commandment is worded in Exodus 20. I think that is a big problem with a figurative understanding.

We all need to remember that God is infinitely smarter than we are. He could well have created by processes we don't know enough about to correctly interpret what we see.

Also, remember that the worldwide flood in Noah's day can certainly account for some supposed proofs, like the geologic column. There are explanations if you take the Bible as the basis. Which is what we are supposed to do as Christians.

 

It has to do with the fact that your definition of "kind" has nothing to do with what the Bible says. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, and what do you think the Bible says about "kind". Two dogs of the same breed are limited gene pool. I tend to think the Bible is talking about dogs as a kind, not the individual breeds. We have many types of flowers that have been made by unatural genetic splicing as well, but that doesn't disprove God's statement about His creating the animals after their kind.

Look at Romans 8:18-22 “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (KJV). This is as a result of man's sin if you look at the context. The first recorded death in the bible of ANYTHING is after original sin.

 

Let me use one of my bigger favorite words....DITTO!!

 

Yes, and God's creation is part of that revelation, as Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:20 and Romans 10:17-18 declare.

I don't know your background, but from the arguments you have posted, I suspect that I have studied what the Bible says about creation more than you. I'm not saying this to brag or to say that this proves me right, but rather to caution you from assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must not have read the Bible.

Sure thing. First, keep in mind that the 4th commandment is worded differently in Deuteronomy 5, and since that passage claims to contain all the words God spoke and wrote onto the tablets (Deuteronomy 5:22), the two reasons for the 4th commandment are probably commentary by the inspired author and not God's direct speech. I don't say this to minimize both explanations (Deuteronomy 5:15 and Exodus 20:11), but rather to guard against the inclination of some to elevate one of these verses above the rest of Scripture.

I interpret Exodus 20:11 much the same way as I interpret Luke 22:19. Here's the two verses:

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:11)

"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.' " (Luke 22:19)

In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.

In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine (the symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).

In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they (and we) can remember God's act of creation and God's rest through our week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest (again, the symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious).

And why do I think the seventh day may be symbolic? It is first detailed in Genesis 2:1-3 and made even more explicit in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17: "on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed". Yet, we know that God cannot suffer a lack of refreshment. Further, Hebrews 4 says that this rest is something we can still enter today -- it's not limited to a single day thousands of years ago! As justification for working miracles on the Sabbath, Jesus declared that God the Father also works during his Sabbath (John 5:17). So, both the duration and the activity of the seventh day of creation appear to be figurative: God's rest is not about natural refreshment or ceasing to work, but it is still something real; it did not last 24 hours, but instead continues to this day. The reality of the seventh day is much, much more (not less) than a literal interpretation points to.

 

That's fine. Just don't claim that what you tend to think has a basis in Scripture.

I agree. God placed creation under our feet to rule, and since we have sinned against God, we are unjust rulers. Our sinful actions cause creation to figuratively groan.

And the first recorded eating in the Bible of ANYTHING is the disobedient eating that brought sin into the world. This doesn't show that eating itself is sinful any more than what you mentioned shows that animal, plant or cellular death is morally problematic.

 

If that is the impression I gave, then I apologize. That was not my intent. I was simply encouraging everyone to give the Bible the priority. It is quite possible you have looked at this more than I. I would make no claim otherwise, I over that injunction to you and everyone else as I also remind myself of it. No implication that any specific person is not doing that was intended.

For the rest of the message, I don't have the time right now to go through it and respond, but thanks for putting it out there for me to look over.

 

Interestingly though, God did not give the animals for food until after the fall.

 

Thanks Dave. No hard feelings.

 

Nor did he give anything at all for fish to eat prior to the Fall. The vegetation created on day three is explicitly defined as being on the earth (Genesis 1:11-12), and earth is explicitly defined as dry land a verse earlier (1:10). When God gives plants for food, it's again the plants "on the face of all the earth" (1:30).

There's an easy explanation for this, and it's based on an assumption behind common views of Genesis 1:29-30 that may or may not be true. It's easy to reveal that assumption by looking at a passage one chapter later:

Genesis 2:16-17: "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' "

The question is, does "You may surely eat" mean "You may only eat"? Chances are, in this case we'd both agree it doesn't mean that. The reason is twofold: (1) there are other passages that indicate humans could eat more than just fruit from trees, and (2) it is obvious why only trees are mentioned in this second passage: because this statement is in the context of prohibiting eating from a certain tree. Other non-tree food sources are not the point.

Going back to Genesis 1:29-30, does "I have given every green plant for food" mean "I have only given every green plant for food"? I would suggest that it doesn't. First, there are other passages that indicate humans and animals could eat other things besides vegetation. Some passages show that animals were also created as food (Psalm 104:21-28, 1 Timothy 4:1-6). It is quite a stretch to claim those passages are merely accommodation to a sinful, post-Fall environment. (And to do so implies that what God now calls "good" he would have considered evil before sin entered the world.)

Second, there is a good reason why only vegetation is mentioned in these verses. Everything mentioned in the Genesis 1 creation account is given a function. Light and the luminaries are to divide and rule over day and night, among other things; the firmament divides the waters and provides an environment for birds and, indirectly, fish; dry ground divides the seas and provides a habitat for land animals and humans; all the animals are created to fill their respective environments and be governed by humans; humans reflect God by sharing his image and ruling over the rest of creation. Everything is created for a reason that is clearly mentioned except for the vegetation... until we get to verses 29-30. These verses mention that the purpose of the vegetation is to provide food to every human, beast, bird and creeping thing. The text is as silent on whether or not animals were also created to be eaten as it is on whether vegetation was also created under the sea. It does not intend to tell us such things.

Later, after the flood, God says to Noah, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything" (Genesis 9:3). This verse fits well with either interpretation. We know from earlier parts of the flood account that Noah already knew which animals were clean, and the point of clean/unclean restrictions were to know which animals could be eaten or sacrificed. Assuming a literal interpretation, God must have revealed this to people at a time that isn't recorded in Scripture. But, after the flood, God tells Noah that he's no longer limited to just eating some animals. Just as Noah could eat the green plants without restriction, he could now eat anything without restriction (except for the blood). The clean/unclean distinctions wouldn't reappear until the time of Moses.

 

Yes, and God's creation is part of that revelation, as Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:20 and Romans 10:17-18 declare. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree these verses talk about creation in some part or the whole. Don't see that they offer any weight to a figurative interpretation, but perhaps that wasn't your purpose here.

Sure thing. First, keep in mind that the 4th commandment is worded differently in Deuteronomy 5, and since that passage claims to contain all the words God spoke and wrote onto the tablets (Deuteronomy 5:22), the two reasons for the 4th commandment are probably commentary by the inspired author and not God's direct speech. I don't say this to minimize both explanations (Deuteronomy 5:15 and Exodus 20:11), but rather to guard against the inclination of some to elevate one of these verses above the rest of Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]I would agree that neither verse should be elevated above the rest of scripture. If the author was inspired, though, then were does editorial comment come in. If all scripture is inspired by God, then can we assume editorial comment?

The bread and wine being His body and blood in the Luke passage are obviously not to be taken literally by the context. Bread and wine are symbols the same as the passover lamb was symbolic and looked forward to the Lamb of God. The Genesis passage is not so obviously symbolic, as you say. This means to me that only external factors would lead one to take it symbolically. Am I correct in that assessment?

This is a fair argument for taking the "resting" and "refreshed" symbolically, perhaps. Not convinced, but willing to accept that could well be the case, but it still means that there was something unique to the seventh day of creation that is perhaps outside our understanding and termed "rested" and "refreshed". I do not see that if this is symbolic it means the whole passage is symbolic.

I appreciate the explanation of the view, though. It is good to compare scriptures and think it through.