First of all thanks for answering. Second a clarification, my name is
Eduardo, Sally is short for "saludos" which means "greetings" in Spanish but
it is normally used at the end and not the beginning of letters.
> Re: >re: ID and other discussions about creation
> Jan de Koning (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:48:30 -0400
> Salu2 asks about my stating that ID sounds like blasphemy to me:
> >Can you explain what you mean? We are not saying God is intelligent per se.
> >We are proposing
> >a theory that says that there was a designer behind nature and IT happens to
> >be very intelligent since nature works so well. I don't see how calling God
> >"intelligent" is blasphemy or how talking about Intelligent Design is
> My objection is, that it is we, I, man, a creature, who decides that nature
> works "well" so that there must be a designer who is intelligent. Read the
> last chapters of Job to see how dangerous it is to come with man made
> theories to decide what God does and has done in the past.
Making hypothesis and creating theories is always dangerous. There are more
theories extinct than living. I don't think God is upset at our theorizing.
The only problem I have with ID is that it only (so far) chooses a few
examples of irreducible complexity to point to a designer while I can pick an
example anywhere in nature, whether explicable or not, whether irreducible or not.
> Objections further specified:
> 1. WE decide what works well. But WE could make the decision too that it
> does not work well, since a lot of deaths are needed to maintain nature.
> WE could decide that is an imperfection in the design.
No, we already know it was a curse.
> 2. We have to be very carefully not to give God human characteristics,
> which we have in our own mind formulated.
The Bible uses antropomorphisms in many places.
> 3. There was a fall in sin, which according to the book of Romans has
> affected all nature, see Romans 8:19. Does that mean that "perfect" nature
> has to be more perfected?
Nature is not perfect. It is good but cursed.
> 4. Talking about "intelligent design" means that we have a (human) idea of
> what " intelligent" means and then decide by looking at nature etc., "Yes,
> it is intelligently designed." But we should not attach human measurements
> to God, when Scripture does not do it. It reminds me of Job 38, if we do it.
We are attaching human measurements only to what ca be measured, nature.
Nature IS evidence for design. The materialistic evolutionists believe that
purely impersonal, nonpurposal, random, etc. forces and events "created" the
designs we see. ID says, IMPOSSIBLE, you need an outside agent to account for
> 5. In Genesis God tells us that the creation was good, in Romans we read
> that the creation was subjected to futility. Is this futility part of the
God subjected what He created to futility. Were you created in His image?
Do you sin? See my point?
> 6. Unfortunately most scientists are philosophically not well founded, so
> that they often do not realize what the background of their thinking is.
> (I know, that there are very well versed philosophers who are in favour of
> the Intelligent Design argument.)
That's one of the functions on forums like this one, to educate ourselves.
> 7. Do we need a theory to explain that God did it? When we follow an
> allmighty God, Who loves us, Who wants to save us, Who promises us a (more
> perfect) new earth, why do we want to philosophize about the "intelligence"
> of the design?
I think it is more than a philosophy, it is a scientific observation and could
scientific theory. We need a theory of how God did it in order to finally
discover how He
indeed did it. What do you mean by "need"? You mean for salvation? It is
basic a human desire
to wonder how things work and came to be, and in fact it is a command of God
"Submit the Earth". I now know why I always wanted to mate, God said
"Multiply" and that command we see it taken place in all living nature, BUT,
since we fell and nature has been subjected to futility, there are perversions
in nature and in our hearts.
> 8. Reading the Bible as a whole, and considering the different styles, the
> different times when written, the reasons for writing special chapters like
> Gen. 1 to 11, for example makes a theory of Intelligent Design superfluous.
Only for a believer not interested in scientific pursuit.
> I received while writing this a (dutch) philosophic magazine, in which the
> theme is : reading the bible. The advice that struck me: When reading
> God's Word listen to God, do not philosophize, just listen. Fitting it in
> in our time and knowledge is secondary.
I would agree, it might be secondary but it is important for many, that does
not make it wrong.
> 9. How do we listen to God's Word in nature? I believe, that God is much
> greater than we can grasp with our (very small) intelligence. I know that
> we are proud enough to say that we are intelligent, but are we? In God's
You should get your concordance and look up the words: intelligence,
knowledge, learning, etc.
Read that famous episode on the "wisdom" of the ants in proverbs (another good
example of ID) and then reconsider your position. I have said enough. Bless............
> Written as in a coffee table talk, not as a scientific paper,
> Jan de Koning
> Willowdale, Ont.