Joel Kontinen
Mark 10:6 is a verse that causes a headache for those who believe the earth is millions of years old. The Greek text of Mark 10:6 says (transliterated as)"apo de arkhes ktiseos", literally "from the beginning (of) creation". It would be interesting to compare this with another beginning, that in John 1:1: "En arkhe en ho logos" , "In the beginning was the Word". If "beginning" is not "beginning" in the New Testament, what is it? A few million years after the beginning, perhaps?
Only an utter ignorance of Greek - or English or logic - could make Mark 10:6 say "billions of years after the beginning of creation". Jesus was using plain language; He was not speaking figuratively as He taught people the truth about marriage in this context. Of course, Jesus originally probably used Aramaic but Greek was the language God chose to convey His revelation to us.
The text clearly says that Jesus believed in a relatively recent creation, not in a gradual process lasting millions of years.
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
Intelligent design and creationism
Joel Kontinen
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[1] Over 600 Ph. D scientists have signed the document beginning with these words. It was drawn up by Discovery Institute, a think tank of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, indicating their dissatisfaction with the ruling paradigm (naturalistic evolution) in the biological sciences.
The Seattle, WA -based Discovery Institute is also known for its Wedge Strategy that professor Phillip E. Johnson, a prominent ID leader, introduced in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds in 1997. According to Johnson, the purpose of ID is to split the log of scientific materialism and to replace it with a view that acknowledges the existence of the Creator. The ID movement recognises that Darwinian evolution is an ideology and not a fact-based science.[2]
Intelligent Design is thus welcome news, coming at a time when many people still regard Darwinian evolution as the dominant scientific approach in origins issues. For nearly 150 years, a naturalistic view of origins has so impregnated scientific thinking that all other views have been marginalized. The modern Creationist movement gained momentum after John C.Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris published their groundbreaking work The Genesis Flood in 1961. However, creationism has often been dismissed as a religiously motivated alternative that has not managed to make inroads into mainstream scientific thinking. Thus the Intelligent Design movement with its emphasis on scientific evidences instead of religious ones has been welcomed by many evangelical Christians as a more acceptable strategy, especially as ID regards itself as a formidable alternative to Darwinism.
The view that living things are designed did not originate with the modern ID movement. It is an old idea that for instance Aristotle and Cicero were familiar with. It came to the fore with the natural theology advocated by William Paley and other Deists in the 18th and 19th centuries. Natural theology was basically an attempt to prove the existence of God through the use of extra-biblical evidences. Paley was famous for his use of the watchmaker analogy. According to Paley, if you happened to kick a stone with your foot, you would not think much about it but if you found a watch on the ground you would suspect that there had to be an intelligent watchmaker who was responsible for producing it.[3]
New biochemical discoveries contributed to the birth of the modern ID movement. As biochemists realised that the cell was not the simple black box Darwin had supposed it to be, some of them began questioning the validity of Darwinian mechanisms.
The printed word has played a major role in the birth of the modern ID movement. Molecular biologist Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) inspired law professor Phillip E. Johnson to view evolution critically, leading to his book Darwin on Trial (1991). Biochemist Michael E. Behe followed with Darwin’s Black Box in 1996. Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, by which he meant that certain biological systems cannot be produced piecemeal but all parts must be fully functional at the outset. He pointed out that undirected, purposeless Darwinian processes cannot form complex systems such as the blood clotting mechanism in mammals.
Thus, the Discovery Institute proposes that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[4] For instance, Dr. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute says that “bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000 rpm,” [5] which is powerful evidence for design by an intelligent cause.
We should notice, however, that ID advocates do not claim that all biological systems are designed. They use an “Explanatory Filter” to decide whether something is designed or merely looks as though it is designed. William Demski states that design can be detected if the thing or system investigated passes all three stages of the filter, viz. 1) Does a law explain it? 2) Does chance explain it? and 3) Does design explain it?[6]
ID does not necessarily hold to a high view of Scripture and will accept some form of evolution. Its only battle is against naturalistic, unpredictable and purposeless evolutionary processes in which natural selection acts on random mutations.[7] The ID movement attempts to combat the naturalistic monopoly in science. As such, their task is a laudable one.
However, as Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis points out, naturalism in science did not begin with Darwin but preceded it by several centuries. Most people are unaware of the influence that worldview had on the advent of old-earth geology. It was naturalism in geology that made it possible for Darwin to postulate long periods of evolution for life on earth. As Dr. Mortenson states, “the unrecognized assumptions of naturalism, which were buried in the foundations of the old-earth, ‘the-age-of-the-earth-doesn’t-matter’ design arguments, actually paved the way for Darwin’s theory, which would demolish the force of those design arguments in most people’s minds.” [8] Advocates of the ID movement have failed to understand that the sway of naturalism in science has not been restricted to biology but is pronounced in fields like geology and astronomy.
Carl Wieland, currently the CEO of Creation Ministries International (Australia), has pointed out the following positive aspects of IDM: 1) It has produced materials and arguments that are useful in combating Darwinism. 2) It has drawn some of the anti-creationists’ fire away from biblical creationists and 3) it has emphasised that Darwinism is not philosophically or religiously neutral but is based on naturalistic presuppositions.
However, Dr. Wieland has also seen some negative aspects in IDM: 1) Supporters of ID seem to be unaware that there is no such thing as neutral science and do not thus have a valid alternative to naturalism. 2) Their position is not built on a coherent philosophical framework, since their main agenda is in opposing naturalism. 3) They are not concerned with the age of the earth or biblical history. 4) This failure to agree on past history may be interpreted as dishonesty by some Darwinists who already accuse ID people of being “creationists in disguise” and thus not honest about their real agenda.[9]
Intelligent Design attempts to distance itself from creationism by emphasising scientific evidences for design instead of relying on the Bible. While several ID scientists are evangelical Christians, the movement has not taken a stance on the identity of the Creator, who in the worst scenario could even be an alien or a New Age god. Thus, Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis says that the main problem with the ID movement is “a divorce of the Creator from creation”.[10]
Natural theology attempted to separate the Creator from creation, focusing exclusively on the latter. It failed to point people to the Creator revealed in the Bible. The acceptance of millions of years of earth history by many ID people means that God is responsible for the bad things we see happening around us. It distorts the true history of Genesis by implying that the world has always been “red in tooth and nail”although the Bible clearly teaches that death is a result of the Fall (Rom. 5:12). Like natural theology, the modern ID movement ignores the Fall that has caused the whole creation to groan (Rom. 8:22).
While it is true that nature speaks persuasively about the existence of God (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 8; Ps. 19), general revelation alone cannot bring people to salvation. In his apologetic speech in Athens, St. Paul clearly indicated the need to move on from the facts of nature to the reality of the Creator and the risen Redeemer in order to persuade people to turn to God (Acts 17:22-31). Unfortunately, in spite of much good it has brought about, the ID movement only goes half way. Darwinism-bashing, although a valuable endeavour as such, does not point to the cross, the only hope for fallen man. It was on the cross that Jesus Christ, our Creator (see Col. 1: 15-16), bore the sins of entire mankind. In order to persuade sinners to accept the good news of the Gospel, they have to realise that the bad news of Genesis (the Fall) is true history.
The ID movement has brought about much good. Its discoveries can – and should - be used by Christians to resist Darwinism. Its resources can open our minds to see the ungodly philosophical trappings of naturalistic evolution. However, Dr Mortenson suspects that ID’s wedge strategy will not be able to split the log of naturalism: “Fighting naturalism only in biology, while tolerating or even promoting naturalism in geology and astronomy, [will not ]break the stranglehold of naturalism on science.” [11]
The lost world needs more than merely biochemical proof of the existence of an anonymous Designer. Christians need to return to God’s revealed word in Genesis and believe in it as true history in order to effectively fight against atheistic philosophies such as evolution and reach out to the world.
Sources:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, NJ: The Free Press.
Dembski, William A. n.d. What is Intelligent Design? http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm
__________.1996. The Explanatory Filter: A Three-Part Filter for Understanding How to Separate and Identify Cause from Intelligent Design. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm
Discovery Institute. Center for Science and Culture. N.d. Top Questions. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Johnson, Phillip E. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, Il:InterVarsity Press.
Meyer, Stephen C. 2006. Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Daily Telegraph. February 9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml
Mortenson, Terry. 2004. Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are they related? The Masters’s Seminary Journal 15:1, 71-92. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp.
Purdom, Georgia. 2006. The Intelligent Design Movement: Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter? Answers 1:1,18-21.
Wieland, Carl. 2002. AiG’s Views on the Intelligent Design Movement. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp
Notes:
[1] A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
[2] Johnson, Phillip E. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, Il:InterVarsity Press, p. 92.
[3] William Paley, Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 12th ed. (London: J. Faulder, 1809), p. 1, quoted in Dembski: What is Intelligent Design? http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm
[4] Discovery Institute. Center for Science and Culture. N.d Top Questions. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
[5] Meyer, Stephen C. 2006. Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Daily Telegraph. February 9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml
[6] Dembski, William 1996. The Explanatory Filter: A Three-Part Filter for Understanding How to Separate and Identify Cause from Intelligent Design. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm
[7] Discovery Institute. Center for Science and Culture. N.d. Top Questions. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
[8] Mortenson, Terry. 2004. Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are they related? The Masters’s Seminary Journal 15:1, 71-92. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp
[9] Wieland, Carl. 2002. AiG’s Views on the Intelligent Design Movement. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp
[10] Purdom, Georgia. 2006. The Intelligent Design Movement: Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter? Answers 1:1,18-21.
[11] Mortenson, footnote 8.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[1] Over 600 Ph. D scientists have signed the document beginning with these words. It was drawn up by Discovery Institute, a think tank of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, indicating their dissatisfaction with the ruling paradigm (naturalistic evolution) in the biological sciences.
The Seattle, WA -based Discovery Institute is also known for its Wedge Strategy that professor Phillip E. Johnson, a prominent ID leader, introduced in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds in 1997. According to Johnson, the purpose of ID is to split the log of scientific materialism and to replace it with a view that acknowledges the existence of the Creator. The ID movement recognises that Darwinian evolution is an ideology and not a fact-based science.[2]
Intelligent Design is thus welcome news, coming at a time when many people still regard Darwinian evolution as the dominant scientific approach in origins issues. For nearly 150 years, a naturalistic view of origins has so impregnated scientific thinking that all other views have been marginalized. The modern Creationist movement gained momentum after John C.Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris published their groundbreaking work The Genesis Flood in 1961. However, creationism has often been dismissed as a religiously motivated alternative that has not managed to make inroads into mainstream scientific thinking. Thus the Intelligent Design movement with its emphasis on scientific evidences instead of religious ones has been welcomed by many evangelical Christians as a more acceptable strategy, especially as ID regards itself as a formidable alternative to Darwinism.
The view that living things are designed did not originate with the modern ID movement. It is an old idea that for instance Aristotle and Cicero were familiar with. It came to the fore with the natural theology advocated by William Paley and other Deists in the 18th and 19th centuries. Natural theology was basically an attempt to prove the existence of God through the use of extra-biblical evidences. Paley was famous for his use of the watchmaker analogy. According to Paley, if you happened to kick a stone with your foot, you would not think much about it but if you found a watch on the ground you would suspect that there had to be an intelligent watchmaker who was responsible for producing it.[3]
New biochemical discoveries contributed to the birth of the modern ID movement. As biochemists realised that the cell was not the simple black box Darwin had supposed it to be, some of them began questioning the validity of Darwinian mechanisms.
The printed word has played a major role in the birth of the modern ID movement. Molecular biologist Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) inspired law professor Phillip E. Johnson to view evolution critically, leading to his book Darwin on Trial (1991). Biochemist Michael E. Behe followed with Darwin’s Black Box in 1996. Behe coined the term irreducible complexity, by which he meant that certain biological systems cannot be produced piecemeal but all parts must be fully functional at the outset. He pointed out that undirected, purposeless Darwinian processes cannot form complex systems such as the blood clotting mechanism in mammals.
Thus, the Discovery Institute proposes that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[4] For instance, Dr. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute says that “bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000 rpm,” [5] which is powerful evidence for design by an intelligent cause.
We should notice, however, that ID advocates do not claim that all biological systems are designed. They use an “Explanatory Filter” to decide whether something is designed or merely looks as though it is designed. William Demski states that design can be detected if the thing or system investigated passes all three stages of the filter, viz. 1) Does a law explain it? 2) Does chance explain it? and 3) Does design explain it?[6]
ID does not necessarily hold to a high view of Scripture and will accept some form of evolution. Its only battle is against naturalistic, unpredictable and purposeless evolutionary processes in which natural selection acts on random mutations.[7] The ID movement attempts to combat the naturalistic monopoly in science. As such, their task is a laudable one.
However, as Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis points out, naturalism in science did not begin with Darwin but preceded it by several centuries. Most people are unaware of the influence that worldview had on the advent of old-earth geology. It was naturalism in geology that made it possible for Darwin to postulate long periods of evolution for life on earth. As Dr. Mortenson states, “the unrecognized assumptions of naturalism, which were buried in the foundations of the old-earth, ‘the-age-of-the-earth-doesn’t-matter’ design arguments, actually paved the way for Darwin’s theory, which would demolish the force of those design arguments in most people’s minds.” [8] Advocates of the ID movement have failed to understand that the sway of naturalism in science has not been restricted to biology but is pronounced in fields like geology and astronomy.
Carl Wieland, currently the CEO of Creation Ministries International (Australia), has pointed out the following positive aspects of IDM: 1) It has produced materials and arguments that are useful in combating Darwinism. 2) It has drawn some of the anti-creationists’ fire away from biblical creationists and 3) it has emphasised that Darwinism is not philosophically or religiously neutral but is based on naturalistic presuppositions.
However, Dr. Wieland has also seen some negative aspects in IDM: 1) Supporters of ID seem to be unaware that there is no such thing as neutral science and do not thus have a valid alternative to naturalism. 2) Their position is not built on a coherent philosophical framework, since their main agenda is in opposing naturalism. 3) They are not concerned with the age of the earth or biblical history. 4) This failure to agree on past history may be interpreted as dishonesty by some Darwinists who already accuse ID people of being “creationists in disguise” and thus not honest about their real agenda.[9]
Intelligent Design attempts to distance itself from creationism by emphasising scientific evidences for design instead of relying on the Bible. While several ID scientists are evangelical Christians, the movement has not taken a stance on the identity of the Creator, who in the worst scenario could even be an alien or a New Age god. Thus, Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis says that the main problem with the ID movement is “a divorce of the Creator from creation”.[10]
Natural theology attempted to separate the Creator from creation, focusing exclusively on the latter. It failed to point people to the Creator revealed in the Bible. The acceptance of millions of years of earth history by many ID people means that God is responsible for the bad things we see happening around us. It distorts the true history of Genesis by implying that the world has always been “red in tooth and nail”although the Bible clearly teaches that death is a result of the Fall (Rom. 5:12). Like natural theology, the modern ID movement ignores the Fall that has caused the whole creation to groan (Rom. 8:22).
While it is true that nature speaks persuasively about the existence of God (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 8; Ps. 19), general revelation alone cannot bring people to salvation. In his apologetic speech in Athens, St. Paul clearly indicated the need to move on from the facts of nature to the reality of the Creator and the risen Redeemer in order to persuade people to turn to God (Acts 17:22-31). Unfortunately, in spite of much good it has brought about, the ID movement only goes half way. Darwinism-bashing, although a valuable endeavour as such, does not point to the cross, the only hope for fallen man. It was on the cross that Jesus Christ, our Creator (see Col. 1: 15-16), bore the sins of entire mankind. In order to persuade sinners to accept the good news of the Gospel, they have to realise that the bad news of Genesis (the Fall) is true history.
The ID movement has brought about much good. Its discoveries can – and should - be used by Christians to resist Darwinism. Its resources can open our minds to see the ungodly philosophical trappings of naturalistic evolution. However, Dr Mortenson suspects that ID’s wedge strategy will not be able to split the log of naturalism: “Fighting naturalism only in biology, while tolerating or even promoting naturalism in geology and astronomy, [will not ]break the stranglehold of naturalism on science.” [11]
The lost world needs more than merely biochemical proof of the existence of an anonymous Designer. Christians need to return to God’s revealed word in Genesis and believe in it as true history in order to effectively fight against atheistic philosophies such as evolution and reach out to the world.
Sources:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box. The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, NJ: The Free Press.
Dembski, William A. n.d. What is Intelligent Design? http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm
__________.1996. The Explanatory Filter: A Three-Part Filter for Understanding How to Separate and Identify Cause from Intelligent Design. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm
Discovery Institute. Center for Science and Culture. N.d. Top Questions. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Johnson, Phillip E. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, Il:InterVarsity Press.
Meyer, Stephen C. 2006. Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Daily Telegraph. February 9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml
Mortenson, Terry. 2004. Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are they related? The Masters’s Seminary Journal 15:1, 71-92. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp.
Purdom, Georgia. 2006. The Intelligent Design Movement: Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter? Answers 1:1,18-21.
Wieland, Carl. 2002. AiG’s Views on the Intelligent Design Movement. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp
Notes:
[1] A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
[2] Johnson, Phillip E. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, Il:InterVarsity Press, p. 92.
[3] William Paley, Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 12th ed. (London: J. Faulder, 1809), p. 1, quoted in Dembski: What is Intelligent Design? http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm
[4] Discovery Institute. Center for Science and Culture. N.d Top Questions. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
[5] Meyer, Stephen C. 2006. Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Daily Telegraph. February 9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/28/do2803.xml
[6] Dembski, William 1996. The Explanatory Filter: A Three-Part Filter for Understanding How to Separate and Identify Cause from Intelligent Design. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm
[7] Discovery Institute. Center for Science and Culture. N.d. Top Questions. http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
[8] Mortenson, Terry. 2004. Philosophical Naturalism and the Age of the Earth: Are they related? The Masters’s Seminary Journal 15:1, 71-92. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp
[9] Wieland, Carl. 2002. AiG’s Views on the Intelligent Design Movement. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_idm.asp
[10] Purdom, Georgia. 2006. The Intelligent Design Movement: Does the Identity of the Creator Really Matter? Answers 1:1,18-21.
[11] Mortenson, footnote 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
