Rock formations can be spectacularly beautiful. So it’s not surprising to find them featured in books or other items in Christian bookstores. A coffee table book or calendar might have Grand Canyon pictures accompanied by, say, “The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the Ends of the Earth.” (Isaiah 40:28) ((However))

Today’s canyons, including the Grand Canyon, are the consequences, not so much of God’s creative design, but of the forces He unleashed in divine judgment on sin. So when we contemplate the Canyon’s awesome beauty, as simplistic “God made this” is really inadequate. In fact, everything around us is not the world which God made, or at least not the way He first made it. Whether geological or biological, all aspects of it have been marred by a real, historical curse on all creation. (Genesis 3, Romans 8:19-22). This universal change came about because of a real, historical rebellion by a real, historical man, Adam. (Grand Canyon, a different view section by Carl Wieland. P 90)

When Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance humming birds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that is going to make him blind. And [I ask them], “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an inn0cent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of Mercy. “

From M. Buchanan, Wild, wild life, Sydney Morning Herald, The Guide, pg 6 March 24 (As quoted in the New Answers Book, edited by Ken Ham p 260

Or What is ateloic

Teleology is a philosophical system which explains natural things in terms of formal and final ends.[1] Within this system, it is observed that phenomena in nature fulfill functions, attain goals, and achieve purposes. Organelles, cells, organisms, and the harmonious coinciding of the natural constants, all indicate purpose and design in nature.

The roots of teleology stretch back to the foundations of philosophy itself. Pre-Socratic philosophers, and all great thinkers, have addressed the teleological school of thought, whether to espouse it or to dismiss it. (Wickipedia http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Telelogy

Routinely misscharacterized by journalists and cynics, intelligent design is a cooperation of teleological reasoning and the widely accepted foundations of modern science. In addition to making a positive case based on logical and empirical means, ID simultaneously mounts criticisms for atelic ontologies like philosophical materialism and Darwinism.

If Naturalism is true, every finite thing or event must be (in principle) explicable in terms of the Total system. I say “explicable in principle” because we are not going to demand that naturalists, at any given moment, should have found the detailed explanation of every phenomenon. Obviously many things will only be explained when the sciences have made further progress. But if Naturalism is to be accepted we have a right to demand that every single thing should be such that we see, in general, how it could be explained in terms of the Total system. If any one thing exist which is of such a kind that we see in advance the impossibility of ever giving it that kind of explanation, the Naturalism would be in ruins. If necessities of thought force us to allow to any one thing any degree of independence from the Total System—if any one thing makes a good a claim to be on its own, to be something more than and expression of the character of Nature as a whole—then we have abandoned naturalism. For by Naturalism we mean the doctrine that only Nature—the whole interlocking system—exists. (CS Lewis, Miracles (The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism p 12)

I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand. Oliver Wendell Holmes.

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that thou dost care for him? Yet thou hast made him a little lower than God, and dost crown him with glory and majesty! Thou dost make him to rule over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.

Y.M. You have arrived at man, now?

O.M. Yes. Man the machine--man the impersonal engine. Whatsoever a man is, is due to his MAKE, and to the INFLUENCES brought to bear upon it by his heredities, his habitat, his associations. He is moved, directed, COMMANDED, by EXTERIOR influences--SOLELY. He ORIGINATES nothing, not even a thought.

Y.M. Oh, come! Where did I get my opinion that this which you are talking is all foolishness?

O.M. It is a quite natural opinion--indeed an inevitable opinion--but YOU did not create the materials out of which it is formed. They are odds and ends of thoughts, impressions, feelings, gathered unconsciously from a thousand books, a thousand conversations, and from streams of thought and feeling which have flowed down into your heart and brain out of the hearts and brains of centuries of ancestors. PERSONALLY you did not create even the smallest microscopic fragment of the materials out of which your opinion is made; and personally you cannot claim even the slender merit of PUTTING THE BORROWED MATERIALS TOGETHER. That was done AUTOMATICALLY--by your mental machinery, in strict accordance with the law of that machinery's construction. And you not only did not make that machinery yourself, but you have NOT EVEN ANY COMMAND OVER IT.

Y.M. This is too much. You think I could have formed no opinion but that one?

O.M. Spontaneously? No. And YOU DID NOT FORM THAT ONE; your machinery did it for you--automatically and instantly, without reflection or the need of it.

…..A man's brain is so constructed that IT CAN ORIGINATE NOTHING WHATSOEVER. It can only use material obtained OUTSIDE. It is merely a machine; and it works automatically, not by will-power. IT HAS NO COMMAND OVER ITSELF, ITS OWNER HAS NO COMMAND OVER IT.

Y.M. Well, never mind Adam: but certainly Shakespeare's creations--

O.M. No, you mean Shakespeare's IMITATIONS. Shakespeare created nothing. He correctly observed, and he marvelously painted. He exactly portrayed people whom GOD had created; but he created none himself. Let us spare him the slander of charging him with trying. Shakespeare could not create. HE WAS A MACHINE, AND MACHINES DO NOT CREATE.

What is Intelligent Design?

Or, who are Micheale Beehe and William Dembski.

The fundamental claim of intelligent design is straight forward and easily intelligible: namely, there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstances we would attribute to intelligence.

(William Dembski. The Design Revolution (IVP 2004), pg 27

The third view takes the creation account a literal narrative history. The RATE group filmy holds to this third position, regarding Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a literal description of how the world and the universe began. The Book of Genesis describes the supernatural, literal, creation week with 24-hour days. Certainly God could have created the physical universe in just six microseconds, or in contrast, over pan of trillions of years. It is clear, however, that the six day period is pattern established for the benefit of humanity. In fact, these six days, plus the day of rest, give rise to our calendar system with its seven-day week.

(The non-literal view) is somewhat inviting because the alternative, the young-earth creation view, conflicts directly with the well established conventions of modern science. However, the important question remains, whether it is legitimate to read the Genesis account as non-literal poetic literature.

Dr. Don DeYoung (Physics Professor, young-earth creationist) Thousands, not Billions P 158-59

Thousands… Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution (Questioning the Age of the Earth) c2005 Master Books.

“It appears to me,” Vincenzio stated in his Dialogue of Ancient and Modern Music, “that they who in proof of any assertion rely simply on the weight of authority, without adducing any argument in support of it, act very absurdly. I on the contrary, wish to be allowed freely to question ad freely to answer you without any sort of adulation, as well becomes those who are in search of truth.”

(Vincenzio Galilei, father of Galileo Galilei as quoted in Galileo’s Daughter p 16, Dava Sobel.)

Pre-foundation

Matter is eternal, or nothing

Antiquity of the Cosmos (not part of the theory itself, but required to accommodate the changes suggested by the theory

Evolution of the universe in such a way as to supply necessary components and conditions for the assembly of biological systems.

Symbiosis of self replicating life by solely natural means.

Modification or mutation by way of random events (i.e. not teleological)

Natural selection

Reproductive transfer of newly acquired traits

Common descent.

Primary Component of theistic evolution

God is eternal

Or

Matter is eternal and has given rise to a god through naturalistic means

Or

God and matter are eternal (or even the same)

Antiquity of the Cosmos

Evolution of the Cosmos (with teleological implication)

Genesis of Life (with potential)

Modification or mutation with potential extra-natural input.

Natural selection

Common Descent

Progressive Creation

Antiquity of the Cosmos

Subsequent evolution of the universe as guided by extra-natural agency

Bio genesis of life

(or mulit

Scientific theory is a powerful way to know nature, but there are limitations to the kinds of questions it can answer. These limits are set by science’s requirements that hypotheses be testable and falsifiable and that observations and experimental results be repeatable.

Observations that can’t be verified may be interesting or even entertaining, but they can not count as evidence in scientific inquiry. The headlines of supermarket tabloids would have you believe the humans are occasionally born with the head of a dog and that some of your classmates are extraterrestrials. The unconfirmed eyewitness accounts and computer-rigged photos are amusing but unconvincing. In science, evidence from observations and experiments is only convincing if it stands up the criterion of repeatability. The scientist who investigated snake mimicry in the Carolinas obtained similar dates when they repeated their experiments with different species of coral snakes and kind snakes in Arizona. And you should be able to obtain similar results if you were to repeat the snake experiments.

Ultimately, the limitations s of science are imposed by its naturalism—its seeking natural causes for natural phenomena. Science can neither support nor falsify hypotheses that angels, ghosts, or sprits, both benevolent and evil, cause storms, rainbows, illnesses, and cures. Such supernatural explanations are simply outside the bounds of science. (AP edition, Biology seventh edition, Campbell, Reece p 24)

(Get background)

If there is “truth” in science, it is conditional, based on the preponderance of available evidence. (Ibid. P 24)

Central Theme:

Evolution, biology’s core theme, explains both the unity and diversity of life. The Darwinian theory of natural selection accounts for adaptation of populations to their environments through the differential reproductive success of varying individuals. P27

Science may set limits to knowledge, but should not set limits to imagination.

Bertrand Russell
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)

As soon as questions of will or decision or reason or choice of action arise, human science is at a loss.

Noam Chomsky , in a television interview
US activist & linguist (1928 - )

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle

Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I a doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this… The point is that there is no scientific answer. Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse as quoted by Lee Strobel in the Case for the Creator p247. (can a Darwinian be a Christian (Cambridge University Press p 73)

It is also irrelevant whether various religions differentiate between natural and supernatural. Once again, this is the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, people. Wake up. The teleological argument demands a diametrical opposition between "designed" and "evolved". The terms are mutually exclusive. Something evolved doesn't have a designer, and is therefore not designed. Something designed has a designer, and is therefore not evolved. Evolution, by definition, does not progress through the arbitrary whims of a designer. Design, by definition, does not occur through the blind forces of evolution.

--69.209.242.45 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, although I agree with the sentiment, there is no diametric opposition between design and evolution. Evolution does not exclude the possibility of design, it merely makes it redundant as an explanatory factor. Design does not exclude evolution, it just says that design at some point in time was involved with the origin of certain features of life/the universe. -Superiority 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted all this. It may be that some of it could be reinstated (in modified form), but most of it was simply a matter of misunderstanding. A lot of that was terminology (e.g., to call it the argument from design is question begging, as was explained at the time of the change; premises can't be logically sound — they're either true or false, accepted or not accepted), but also of matters such as the relationship between the design argument and evolution (many people believe that design does indeed occur through evolution; in fact, that's the main position among non-fundamentalist Christians). The article needs work, but as a process, not as one person coming in, swearing and shouting at us, and making wholesale mistaken edits. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt from a Wikipedia discussion page (Telelogical design). Comment posted August 2005

Notre Dame ReSource: Evolution and Christianity

By: Dennis Brown

Date: July 18, 2005

A renowned philosopher from the University of Notre Dame supports recent comments by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn that belief in evolution as accepted by some in science today may be incompatible with Christian beliefs.

“Cardinal Schönborn has it right,” said Alvin Plantinga, the John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy and one of the world’s leading scholars in the philosophy of religion. “Evolution means different things to different people. Some of these things are perfectly consistent with Christian belief, but others are not.

“Some think of evolution as the theory of common ancestry: Any two living things share ancestors, so that we and the poison ivy in our back yard, as well as other living creatures, are cousins. This is surprising, but compatible with Christian belief.”

Problems arise, according to Plantinga, when “scientists and others take evolution to be a process that is wholly unguided and driven by chance, so that it is simply a matter of chance that rational creatures like us exist. This is not compatible with Christian belief, according to which God has intentionally created us human beings in His own image. He may have done so by using a process of evolution, but it isn’t by chance that we exist.”

Plantinga adds that the idea that “human beings and other living creatures have come about by chance, rather than by God’s design, is also not a proper part of empirical science. How could science show that God has not intentionally designed and created human beings and other creatures? How could it show that they have arisen merely by chance? That’s not empirical science. That’s metaphysics, or maybe theology. It’s a theological add-on, not part of science itself. And, since it is a theological add-on, it shouldn’t, of course, be taught in public schools.”

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=12242

Evolution and Christianity

By: Dennis Brown

Date: July 18, 2005

Begin with apple poem.

The appearance of life constitutes a revolution in the history of matter. A vast gulf separates the organic from the inorganic world, and that gulf is properly characterized in terms of information. The matter in the directly under your feet and the matter that makes up you body is the same. Nevertheless, the arrangement lf that matter- the information-vastly differs in these two cases. Biology’s information problem is therefore to determine whether (and if so, how) purely natural forces are able to bridge the gulf between the organic and the inorganic worlds as well as the gulf between different levels of complexity within the organic world.

William Dembski, pg 139 Chapter Biology’s Information Problem, the Design Revolution