Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas

At some point, it becomes apparent to all but the really, really stupid and/or self-deluding that evolutionary theory has nothing at all to do with some liberal/conservative political dichotomy. I'm sure that Johnson and I, for example, might disagree on any number of political issues (I tend to lean leftward), but what he led off saying about evolutionary principles sounds very much like something I would have written or, I would imagine, anyone who works in the field at all could have come up with.

Hurray for the "silent religious majority". Most of the believing people I know couldn't care one way or the other about the Creation "battles" (Thank God).

dpr

Loved reading some of the comments. Reminds me of the perils of riding a tiger! 8^)

dpr

As a religion professor and a Christian, let me just say 'here here'. The intelligent design movement makes an argument that is fundamentally 'unbiblical' (not that that term has a clear meaning) as well as being scientifically problematic. The Bible speaks of God as creator of the mountains, not mountains with faces on them, and so Behe's argument in which he contrasts Mt. Everest and Mt. Rushmore is seriously out of sync with the Bible. And if you have trouble with things being explained naturally, then you will have to reject science of all sorts, since not only biology but meteorology and countless other fields explain things that were traditionally viewed as areas in which God's activity could be seen.

I posted a 'denunciation' of Intelligent Design from a Christian perspective on my blog a while back at http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/11/immoral-godless-pseudoscience.html

The Left believes, correctly, that Intelligent Design is a political loser, and so they gleefully attempt to hang it around the neck of every right-of-center movement from libertarian neo-conservatism to isolationist populism -- shouting all the while “See, the American Taliban has come for your children! Elect a Democrat before it’s too late!”

And as a matter of religion, ID is offensive to me in the lack of faith it demonstrates on the part of its proponents.

That is why religion really boils down to faith. You believe or you don’t.

My favorite comment was the one that said "I bet Ann Coulter would crush you in a debate."

I laughed heartily, until I remembered that people like that can vote.

The Left believes, correctly, that Intelligent Design is a political loser, and so they gleefully attempt to hang it around the neck of every right-of-center movement from libertarian neo-conservatism to isolationist populism – shouting all the while “See, the American Taliban has come for your children! Elect a Democrat before it’s too late!”

First of all, even Repukes like Romney know that there is a base of fundie idiots out there worth tapping. That is why he tried to pander to them in his recent speech about "religious freedom" where he somehow forgot to mention those bad old atheists.

But best part about the "strategy" of repeately pointing out how stupid fundies are and how ultimately stupid it is to grant them political power via their Repuke Party is that, slowly but surely, it's working.

Even conservative commenters were quick to point out that Romney's speech was offensive to the millions of citizens who deeply dislike religious garbage and choose not to subscribe (as is our right under the Constitution).

We hope that folks like Mac Johnson will someday be able to put 2+2 together and see the light. In the meantime, a conservative who can tell a magnificently dumb religion from all the other dumb ones is an improvement that we'll take.

Heddle

It is my understanding that "blind faith" means belief in something in the absence of evidence. A definition which I have thought was accepted by Christians and was if not a "virtue" certainly considered OK. If you mean by "blind faith", faith without the use of (or despite) reason then I think you have a point.

Can you clarify?

shiftlessbum,

There are many biblical examples, I'll just name just a couple. Gideon (who is responsible for perhaps the most humorous exchange in the bible, when he says to God: "wait here, I have a gift for you back in my house" and God replies "OK, I'll wait") demanded physical proof from God, and God complied, and Gideon was not condemned, but rather praised for his faith. Jesus, when presented with a lame man, essentially announced he was God by telling him "your sins are forgiven." Immediately after that, instead of telling the crowd that "they just had to believe on blind faith" he healed the man, explicitly explaining that he was providing physical evidence so that people would believe.

The only time something resembling blind faith is praised in the NT, is when it is used to praise the OT saints who were credited with faith even though they weren't able to see the finished work of Jesus.

Even "doubting" Thomas, when he demanded proof, was not condemned.

In general, faith in the NT should not be interpreted as belief, but as trust. Still, many Christians think it is a "purer" faith when we ignore creation (science) despite the fact that the bible teaches just the opposite.

Even “doubting” Thomas, when he demanded proof, was not condemned.

No, he was just told that he wouldn't be "blessed" like the unquestioning rubes would be "blessed."

In other words, he was used as a bad example by the dude who would eventually get to decide whether Thomas's pitiful soul would be allowed in Fantasy Land or suffer eternal torment in hell.

n general, faith in the NT should not be interpreted as belief, but as trust.

Thus spake Heddle, whose deep confusion about all such matters is well-documented.

Registered User,

There is no commentary on John that I am aware of that exegetes, as you do, that Thomas lost blessings because he demanded proof. As for Jesus’ comments, that (and in Hebrews) are the two cases where one can argue about blind faith. In Hebrews, similar language is used (praising those who believe what they didn't see) and then the writer goes on to praise them by name, in the faith hall-of-fame (Heb. 11)--which includes--to a person-- OT saints who saw the miraculous. Having witness miracles, most would place them in the category of those who absolutely do not have to rely on blind faith. Therefore the writer of Hebrews cannot be praising blind faith in general. Instead he is praising that they believed in the promise of a savior even though he hadn't arrived. As for Jesus' comment after Thomas, I would again suggest that he is referring to those who had believed in the promise before it was fulfilled. That, I'd agree, is slightly more speculative. Regardless, your interpretation that No, he was just told that he wouldn’t be “blessed” like the unquestioning rubes would be “blessed.” is championed by nobody of note.

That's all I'll say on the matter, not wishing to hijack PvM's thread.

Whether the bible endorses or eschews blind faith is irrelevant in light of the fact that blind faith is a modern Christian's only option. Any evidence which could back up the assertion that Christ was a miracle worker or son of god died with him 2000 years ago, and nary a peep has be heard from him since. (Unless you believe the Mormons.) Mac Johnson is correct that searching for proof for his faith is a futile effort, although probably not for reasons to which he would admit.

Increasing numbers of political conservatives now recognize that ID is a useless and hopeless cause. If any readers here describe themselves as 'conservative' or 'libertarian' or you know persons who are, please consider spreading the word and signing on to CONSERVATIVES AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN at

http://www.caidweb.org/blog/

Some notable conservatives have already signed on.

vhutchison,

I'm curious as to why 'libertarians' are on the list. I didn't know there were significant numbers of libertarian ID supporters.

The discussion on the CAID web site mentions libertarians. Indeed, I know some of that political persuasion who are sympathetic to ID, including a local geologist. Of course, ALL of them do not follow the ID line!

DI Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture Senior Fellow (and YEC), Nancy Pearcey, is married to Richard, former managing editor of Human Events.

An unintentionally hilarious article by another (fired) Human Events managing editor, pulling back the Crazy Curtain:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/050922_lamb_events.htm

It really is remarkable that theists and conservatives are beginning to give voice to their unease with this wholly flustercluck of NeoCreationism. I find it encouraging, satisfying and just a little amusing. But mostly satisfying. I think the writing on the wall is becoming more legible to those whose lives do not usually involve thinking hard about things.

I left the following post to Mac at Human Events, comment number two hundred umpty-ump:

I was thoroughly enjoying your column, Mac, and then you wrote, "I don’t need God to make sense. I just need God. And besides, I have Darwin and Newton and their like when I need mundane things to make sense." Seldom have I heard such an honest and penetrating statement. My enjoyment peaked at a significantly higher level.

You give a ringing voice to the wonder of discovery and its attendant understanding. Naturally, new understanding reveals new questions and this is the great delight of thinking scientifically. Endless avenues, ever-broadening vistas; so much to look forward to!

As an atheist I proudly state that in the realm of ideas I consider you a friend. May you be widely quoted from this column. And may you always feel blessed.

Merry Christmas, Mac.

And a Merry Christmas to all you heathens out there, too!

The denial of tenure of an Iowa State University assistant professor who has studied the concept of intelligent design and has expressed his belief in it has stirred controversy about academic freedom and freedom of speech. His tenure denial violates neither of those principles. I participated in the initial vote and voted no, based on this fundamental question: What is science? The assistant professor, Guillermo Gonzalez, works in the ISU Physics and Astronomy Department in the area of astrobiology. He is very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable, highly productive scientifically and an excellent teacher. Students in my Newspaper Physics class like to interview him.

Mac Johnson: The Left believes, correctly, that Intelligent Design is a political loser, and so they gleefully attempt to hang it around the neck of every right-of-center movement from libertarian neo-conservatism to isolationist populism – shouting all the while “See, the American Taliban has come for your children!

As it goes down the path of equating faith as it is used in the bible with “blind faith.” In other words, this is an argument that ID is bad theology because good Christians shouldn’t seek physical evidence. That is theologically incorrect. Now, if some variant of ID is wrong, then it is bad theology, because (obviously) nothing that is wrong can be good theology. However, it is not the case that it would be bad theology for that particular reason. Blind faith is not a Christian virtue, so something that is contrary to blind faith is not necessarily bad theology. After all, God tells us to look at creation (do science), not to ignore creation and accept everything on faith.

— Heddle

Proof denies faith. If one has proof of the existence of god, one does not need faith. Without faith, what is god?

Nigel D,

That's a definition of faith, but not the one that is used in the NT. As I said, the NT use is closer to trust. When we live by faith, we are to have a different behavior--namely we are to trust not only that God exists but that we should live as he describes, and to acknowledge that his ways are good. I'm not making this up, theologians have long acknowledged more complex aspects of faith than mere intellectual assent. (Short course: notitia--knowledge of the content + assensus--intellectual assent + fiducia--the passion that what what you believe is actually good.) The most common example is that the demons, as James tells us, believe--but they are not ever described as possessing faith. The have notitia and assensus, but lack fiducia.)

As for ID--well if Dembskian or Behe-ian ID is wrong,then obviously it would be bad theology too--just like insisting in a young earth or geocentrism is bad theology. However, any theist is also, at some level, a creationist, so there is some form of design, perhaps much much weaker that IDists hope, that is good theology. The point is that an ID theory in principle is not bad theology simply because it somehow detracts from faith. If it were, then the bible would warn us that creation tells us nothing about God. But the bible is anti-Gnostic--it teaches just the opposite, that creation is good, the physical realm is good, and it points to God. Exactly how, it doesn't say.

For the interested: http://oolon.awardspace.com/design.htm

Oops, someone pointed out to me that this publication preceded the DI’s press tour.

(obviously) nothing that is wrong can be good theology.

In general, faith in the NT should not be interpreted as belief, but as trust.

heddle: As for ID--well if Dembskian or Behe-ian ID is wrong,then obviously it would be bad theology too--just like insisting in a young earth or geocentrism is bad theology. [...]

Torbjörn Larsson, OM

You are quite wrong, at least as far as the NT goes. Again, the most explicit NT text is probably the book of James, which tells us with no subtlety that "belief" is not the issue, because even demons believe. If faith saves, as states the standard Christian doctrine, and faith=belief, James would not have warned us that mere belief is woefully insufficient.

You can have the last word, if you wish, 'cause I have to run to catch a plane.

Eric you are wrong. In what other system does a center of mass revolve? Any such system would be wildly unstable. Second there is the Coriollis issue. And of course your model demands that of all the solar systems we have studied so far it would the only one out of over a hundred where a star is not more or less at the center.

JGB: Eric you are wrong. In what other system does a center of mass revolve? Any such system would be wildly unstable. Second there is the Coriollis issue. And of course your model demands that of all the solar systems we have studied so far it would the only one out of over a hundred where a star is not more or less at the center.

Eric:
I thought the problem was not so much whether a geocentric reference frame is acceptable in a purely theoretical way, but rather that in order for the observable universe to be orbiting the earth once per day would require an impossibly large centripetal force to create all that angular acceleration.

However, perhaps when you said "but the earth is still spinning" you are indicating that you have a different notion geocentricism than I do (i.e. stationary earth, with the heavens revolving around us).

Mike Z: Eric: I thought the problem was not so much whether a geocentric reference frame is acceptable in a purely theoretical way, but rather that in order for the observable universe to be orbiting the earth once per day would require an impossibly large centripetal force to create all that angular acceleration. However, perhaps when you said "but the earth is still spinning" you are indicating that you have a different notion geocentricism than I do (i.e. stationary earth, with the heavens revolving around us).

My understanding is that Geocentrism proposes a stationary earth at the center of the universe. It would be an interesting modification to propose a spinning earth at the center of the universe. This would eliminate the problems with the Coriolis Effect but not with other aspects of movement in the Universe.

As I understand it, it is quite possible to fairly accurately predict the position of the planets and stars as seen from Earth with a geocentric frame of reference, as long as you use enough fudge factors (i.e. epicycles, etc.) Similarly, it is possible to predict the same, using circular orbits (a la Copernicus) again as long as you use the requisite epicycles.

The problem is that there is a difference between using mechanisms or equations to make predictions, and understanding the nature of reality. We use a Heliocentric model of the Solar System with elliptical orbits not only because it makes calculations easier, but primarily because we think that this is a more accurate model of the true nature of reality. This is the way that the scientific method works, by putting together better and better models of reality. Part of the idea of Methodological Naturalism (IIUC) is that there is only one true nature of reality, and by collecting observations, making testable hypotheses based on these observations, testing them, and modifying them based on the outcomes of the tests until they more closely match our observations, we can approach an understanding of that reality. Geocentrism and circular orbits accord poorly with physical reality as we understand it, even if on occasion we can use them.

JuliaL in Human Events blog referred to by the OP said: For many non-religious people, it seems of no importance even to notice that Christian Creationist views, arguments, and texts were hijacked to support a view of God that supports not traditional Christianity, but Moon's Unification church. I can understand that for many non-religious people, religious - Christian - Moon all seem pretty much the same, as they argue that ID is religion-based, and not science. But it is that very error, the conflation of Christian with Moon, that allows so many Christians to go on supporting a movement they would surely abandon if they really grasped the derogatory view of God presented by the ID movement.

heddle argues: If it were, then the bible would warn us that creation tells us nothing about God.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: “My understanding is that Geocentrism proposes a stationary earth at the center of the universe. It would be an interesting modification to propose a spinning earth at the center of the universe. This would eliminate the problems with the Coriolis Effect but not with other aspects of movement in the Universe.”

The geocentric theory and the heliocentric theory are not simply related to each other through a coordinate transformation that shifts the origin and takes one from a stationary reference frame to a rotating reference frame. The geometric relationships among the planets were different in the two models. In particular the two models made different predictions for the phases of Venus. With the invention of the telescope Galileo was able to observe these phases and falsify the geocentric model. The fact that that, according to Einstein, one is free to choose one’s coordinate system does not mitigate that fact that the geocentric model had gotten the arrangement of the planets wrong.

heddle: Torbjörn Larsson, OM You are quite wrong, at least as far as the NT goes. Again, the most explicit NT text is probably the book of James, which tells us with no subtlety that "belief" is not the issue, because even demons believe. If faith saves, as states the standard Christian doctrine, and faith=belief, James would not have warned us that mere belief is woefully insufficient. You can have the last word, if you wish, 'cause I have to run to catch a plane.

heddle: Torbjörn Larsson, OM You are quite wrong, at least as far as the NT goes. Again, the most explicit NT text is probably the book of James, which tells us with no subtlety that "belief" is not the issue, because even demons believe. If faith saves, as states the standard Christian doctrine, and faith=belief, James would not have warned us that mere belief is woefully insufficient. You can have the last word, if you wish, 'cause I have to run to catch a plane.

I wonder what happened there? (137490) Weird. Oh well. Don't care too much.

Bill Gascoyne: I didn't know there were significant numbers of libertarian ID supporters.

Nigel D, That’s a definition of faith, but not the one that is used in the NT.

— Heddle

As I said, the NT use is closer to trust.

When we live by faith, we are to have a different behavior–namely we are to trust not only that God exists but that we should live as he describes, and to acknowledge that his ways are good.

I’m not making this up, theologians have long acknowledged more complex aspects of faith than mere intellectual assent.

As for ID–well if Dembskian or Behe-ian ID is wrong,then obviously it would be bad theology too–just like insisting in a young earth or geocentrism is bad theology.

However, any theist is also, at some level, a creationist, so there is some form of design, perhaps much much weaker that IDists hope, that is good theology.

The point is that an ID theory in principle is not bad theology simply because it somehow detracts from faith.

If it were, then the bible would warn us that creation tells us nothing about God. But the bible is anti-Gnostic–it teaches just the opposite, that creation is good, the physical realm is good, and it points to God. Exactly how, it doesn’t say.

But, as you will see from Moses’ comment, it is one that is in the Bible.

The bible does not say that there is physical evidence for god’s existence. Quite the opposite, actually.

if you require confirmation that your faith is correct, you consider your faith to be inadequate by itself.

heddle:

if you require confirmation that your faith is correct, you consider your faith to be inadequate by itself.

Huh? Nobody said anything about requiring confirmation. I wrote that accepting physical evidence as evidence for God is not necessarily bad theology, as long as it is good science--good science cannot ever be in conflict with good theology, that's all. Puh-leez, don't move the goal post.

Or, when you say that “good science cannot ever be in conflict with good theology,” are you saying that we should not be allowed to make scientific judgments that would contradict the Bible and Church opinions, lest we be taken before a tribunal of Church authorities and be prosecuted and punished for heresy in a similar manner Galileo Galilei was prosecuted by the Papal Inquisition for observing that the earth was not the center of the Universe?

Then please answer my question.

Why are you so flabbergasted when I brought up examples of where science contradicts theology?

After all, you were the one who said science and scientists should not be allowed to contradict theology, right?

After all, you were the one who said science and scientists should not be allowed to contradict theology, right?

heddle: Huh? Nobody said anything about requiring confirmation. I wrote that accepting physical evidence as evidence for God is not necessarily bad theology, as long as it is good science--good science cannot ever be in conflict with good theology, that's all. Puh-leez, don't move the goal post.

On the other hand, I'm not going to hold my breath about whether or not you're going to answer my questions, Heddle, as, all of the Creationists I've argued refuse to answer any of my questions, in detail or not, for the most pathetically trivial reasons, if they bother to give any reasons at all.

Take that loquacious buffoon, FL, for example.

One of the many problems with attempting to use “physical evidence” for proof of the existence of a deity is that there are thousands of sects arguing among themselves about what the specific attributes of a deity might be. Even if any deity characteristics could be “detected”, whose deity is it anyway? After centuries of wrangling, how are all these sects going to agree on what constitutes “good science” in these cases. There is much stronger evidence that the fundamentalist sectarianism we see in the antievolution movements precludes good science of any sort.

And just the existence of hundreds of suspicious, warring sects within Protestantism alone should be sufficient reason to question if there is any such thing as “good theology”. How can one judge what is “good theology” without any independent means to check who is right?

The historical activities of the fundamentalists strongly suggest that most of their reason for wanting the imprimatur of science for their sectarian views is to rationalize their sectarian political objectives. The rest is to keep the flock in line. It doesn’t even qualify as “good religion”.

After all, you were the one who said science and scientists should not be allowed to contradict theology, right?

good science cannot ever be in conflict with good theology,

heddle: ...the realization that the intent of the statement was not to be scientifically precise.

heddle: By the way Stanton, all such questions (such as rabbit's cud, bats are birds, grasshoppers, pi=3) have been answered for centuries. I'll repeat the answers, if you like, but let's save both of us the trouble, because your response will be to insist on a literal interpretation of an English translation, and you will scream and holler about any explanation that relies on pointing out possible translation errors, alternative meanings of Hebrew words, the use of figures of speech, or the realization that the intent of the statement was not to be scientifically precise. Been there, done that.

Then there's the problem, Heddle, that you haven't demonstrated why it's necessary for good science not to contradict "good theology," or even demonstrate what "good theology" is. There are people who, for theological reasons, believe that science is wrong because "it's not the Creation's place to understand the Creator," or even that scientific inquiry is unnecessary and useless because "the next life is far more important that this life."

Can you demonstrate how to combine "good science" with "good theology" without utterly corrupting science like the way Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents do?

Heddle said: By the way Stanton, all such questions (such as rabbit’s cud, bats are birds, grasshoppers, pi=3) have been answered for centuries. I’ll repeat the answers, if you like, but let’s save both of us the trouble, because your response will be to insist on a literal interpretation of an English translation, and you will scream and holler about any explanation that relies on pointing out possible translation errors, alternative meanings of Hebrew words, the use of figures of speech, or the realization that the intent of the statement was not to be scientifically precise.

I'm not at all clear how Mr. Heddle can claim that YEC and geocentrism are "bad theology".

The writer of the Gospel According to Luke lays out a 38-generation lineage from Adam to Jesus. Now, unless the first six days of the Genesis story took 14 billion years, we're looking a pretty young Earth. And reading the Old Testament, the reader sees an explicitly continuous narrative from the Creation to a few centuries before the birth of Christ.

And in the Genesis story, it's pretty clear that Yahweh formed the Earth, then made the heavenly bodies as an afterthought, to mark seasons and years. For the first 3/4 of the time between the founding of Christianity until the present, the geocentric cosmos constituted perfectly good theology for everyone who called themselves Christians. And if Yahweh loves humanity as much as He claims to, it's not very likely that He would stick us in an orbit around an obscure sun in one of billions of galaxies.

Overall, conventional Christian theology over the past 2,000 years has emphasized the centrality of the relationship between Yahweh and Man. He put a lot of time and energy messing in the affairs of the people in the lineage from Adam through Jesus. It would make no sense for Yahweh to create the Light, wait 10 billion years, create the Earth, then create trillions of starts out in an enormous universe, wait another billion years, create plants and animals, then create humans. Claiming that Yahweh was perfectly happy without us for all that time, makes no sense theologically.

Of course, Mr. Heddle can redefine any words in order to force his propositions to be true. He can define bad theology to include any theology that contradicts "good" science.

But to someone who takes the common meanings of words seriously, it's apparent that good (i.e. Biblically-based) theology can lead to incorrect statements about the natural world.

(And it's pretty apparent that all that theology has been based on a bunch of myths and tall tales. No wonder the wild claims fall apart under objective scrutiny.)

I replied thusly to the IDC posters. It will be interesting to see if they think I'm supportive of their ideas
_____________________________________________________________________________
I thought some quotes by theologian and philosopher (Saint) Thomas Aquinas might be of interest to some: Make of it what you will.

o. “Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches”

o. "Beware of the person of one book."

o. "A man should remind himself that an object of faith is not scientifically demonstrable, lest presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, he should produce inconclusive reasons and offer occasion for unbelievers to scoff at a faith based on such ground."

o. "The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

A final one issued 300 years later by Galilei Galileo to those in the church who did not pay attention to Aquinas' lessons: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual"

Grr - tag error somewhere. :-/ I'll remove any odd formatting... Anyway - this is what I posted there. It will be interesting to see if any IDC posters think I'm being supportive of their position.

I thought some quotes by theologian and philosopher (Saint) Thomas Aquinas might be of interest to some. Make of it what you will.

“Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches”

"Beware of the person of one book."

"A man should remind himself that an object of faith is not scientifically demonstrable, lest presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, he should produce inconclusive reasons and offer occasion for unbelievers to scoff at a faith based on such ground."

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

A final one issued 300 years later by Galilei Galileo to those in the church who did not pay attention to Aquinas' lessons: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual"

Puh-leez, don’t move the goal post.

— Heddle

Stanton, Oh brother, Galileo and rabbit cud all in one comment–how about when the bible teaches pi=3 and that bats are birds? Why not bring them all out at once? Or, when you say that “good science cannot ever be in conflict with good theology,” are you saying that we should not be allowed to make scientific judgments that would contradict the Bible and Church opinions, lest we be taken before a tribunal of Church authorities and be prosecuted and punished for heresy in a similar manner Galileo Galilei was prosecuted by the Papal Inquisition for observing that the earth was not the center of the Universe?

Well, either Heddle was being ironic and doesn't really know how to make his/her opinions clear, or Heddle actually does think what you suggest, Rolf.

My own reading of Heddle's posts is along these lines:

If theology makes an attempt to explain scientific findings / ideas, then, if it is good science, it is also good theology. Conversely, if the theological explanation uses bad science it is also bad theology.

Is my take right, Heddle?

A key aspect of ID (and its predecessor, “creation science”) is the insistence that there exists physical evidence to prove the existence of god.

That is, if good scientific evidence contradicts our theology, then the theology must be re-examined.

Thus, in describing God’s creation to believers, one can, I believe, point to scientific wonders, including the anthropic coincidences and the complexity of life, in order to foster an appreciation of God’s creative power.

Well, using that definition of ID then it is in fact bad science and therefore bad theology. However, I have been arguing for years that ID is an apologetic, not science let alone a scientific proof of god’s existence. Thus, in describing God’s creation to believers, one can, I believe, point to scientific wonders, including the anthropic coincidences and the complexity of life, in order to foster an appreciation of God’s creative power. That’s my definition of ID, and obviously I think it is good theology, and counter to those who would say that science should never be used to complement faith.

— Heddle

Heddle, why on earth would God allow people to draw erroneous (geocentric) conclusions in the first place? Would it really have been difficult for Genesis to read "and God made a great sphere, the Sun, and smaller spheres, the planets, of which the Earth is one, circling the Sun, and a sphere called the Moon, circling the Earth?" See, a decent summary of the actual shape of the solar system takes about two sentences and would surely not be beyond the capacity of a god capable of creating the universe.

It's almost as if, I don't know, Genesis was written by someone who didn't have the faintest idea what shape the solar system is, and was just writing down a local myth.

Stephen Wells: It's almost as if, I don't know, Genesis was written by someone who didn't have the faintest idea what shape the solar system is, and was just writing down a local myth.

Thus, in ancient times it was reasonable to accept, say, geocentrism.

And the passages that allegedly supported such a view must be revisited. Are they making a scientific statement? Are they figures of speech? Are they imagined?–Did we just presume that God would naturally place us at the center?

it also is offensive to many because of the theological impact of its arguments

Thus, in describing God’s creation to believers, one can, I believe, point to scientific wonders, including the anthropic coincidences and the complexity of life, in order to foster an appreciation of God’s creative power. That’s my definition of ID, and obviously I think it is good theology, and counter to those who would say that science should never be used to complement faith.

Mike Elzinga: The need to look to science to justify one’s sectarian views is evidence that the sectarian picture is under strain and needs some shoring up from a more universally respected source of knowledge. It is dishonest, and it refuses to admit that thousands of years of wrangling over “theology” have produced nothing but a proliferation of sects. Attempting to make one’s sect look more respectable than all the others by tacking on some scientific window dressing is nothing more than a marketing ploy for a shoddy sectarian religion.

Conversely: “The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide.” Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

My thought was that this was "conversely," as in your "religion attempting to justify itself using science" vs. Emerson's "religion trying to denounce science," but I see your point that either reaction could result from fear.

Bill Gascoyne: My thought was that this was "conversely," as in your "religion attempting to justify itself using science" vs. Emerson's "religion trying to denounce science," but I see your point that either reaction could result from fear.

H. Humbert,

You said, "Except Johnson tries to blame the fact that religious conservatives are predominately creationists as nothing more than a false perception perpetrated by liberals:"

Sir, I have this advice for you; never mistake volume for volume. [pun deliberate]

You are quite wrong, at least as far as the NT goes.