In this post, I will try to address my friend Mike’s comments and questions that he posed in comments here. First, it seems to me that you’re trying to make me say things that I’m not saying. I’m actually less dogmatic about some things than you think I am.
(Some of) What I believe about God is this:
- God is Spirit, therefore non-material (except for the incarnation of Jesus, where God became man.
- God is outside of the material universe, which includes time.
- God can and is involved with the material world (i.e. incarnational).
- God can operate within His created system (that is, naturally) as well as outside of the system (supernaturally).
- As God does not have to conform to the laws of the universe that we are subject to (specifically “cause and effect”), He cannot be “tested” according to the Scientific Method.
- God is personal and can be known, but on His terms; that is, through revelation.
- The existence of God probably cannot be proved in a deductive sense, or according to the scientific method.
- The existence of God can be assumed inductively based upon what we see in the physical world (Romans 1:20).
ID is a counter to a science which is controlled by a philosophical materialism, which claims that God cannot exist because only the material world exists. If science (especially that as taught in our school system) was not controlled by materialism, I don’t think ID would be an issue. I don’t know how many of those claiming to be proponents of ID believe that God can be proved. Most that I know of believe that design is supported. Even Dawkins agrees that design is apparent; he, however, tries to show why that is illogical, but he failed miserably. As far as I can tell, ID is not about proving there is a God; it’s simply trying to pull science back from it’s current philosophical prison.
I don’t know that I would disagree much with Thomas Robey; again, I have never “demanded that it be proven.”
Concerning evolution, I don’t believe that the evidence supports common descent. It certainly doesn’t support neo-Darwinism. It does appear that there was some “front-loading.” From what I understand of Behe’s latest book (I’ve read both sides), there does appear to be an “edge” to evolution, and there does, in fact, seem to be a point where it becomes de-evolution. As I’ve said before, I am not dogmatic about my thoughts on evolution; there’s nothing in my theology that says God couldn’t have used evolution, and to some extent, it appears that He has utilized it. Certainly there are adaptive functions at work- in fact, the whole system appears marvelously designed. You have accused me of “creating a roadblock because of the way you want your faith to be demonstrated materially.” I don’t believe this reflects what I believe or what I’ve said.
Bottom line, I’m not trying to use science to prove God; I don’t believe that God needs to be proved, and I certainly don’t need to try to do it. As C.S. Lewis was pointing out in The Great Divorce, you could put some people in the middle of Heaven and they’d deny it existed; belief (or unbelief) is often not a matter of “proof.” I’ll re-quote from Jesus: “I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” However, where science (or a materialism or naturalism masquerading as science) attempts to “prove” that there is no God, I merely point out the rather obvious errors in their thinking. And, so far, the errors have been obvious.