johncall

In the July/August 1999 issue of TOUCHSTONE, Nancy Pearcey writes, "Finally, [intelligent] design is a winner with the public because it is a scientific research program that actually makes sense to ordinary people."

Is it true? Do "ordinary people" need scientific mythology, just as children need Santa Claus? Or, does God hope that "ordinary people" will mature enough to accept known scientific facts, such as the Big Bang, Earth's age, and Darwinian biological evolution?

The existence of God and historical reality of Jesus and His deity are not dependent on Biblical inerrancy and scientific mythology (modern creationism): YEC, OEC, ID. Wouldn't it be better, in the long run, to show the compatibility of Christianity with correct science?

See Faith & Reason Ministries: Reconciling Christianity with Accepted Science, http://www.faithreason.org/

Godbert

You can certainly somewhat reconcile a God concept with correct science. But for that compatibility God has to be reduced to the theistic God, and even then it does not make much sense, it's just not completely ludicrous. Compatibiltiy of the christian god and Jesus with science is simply impossible. Sure you can make up a version of God that is compatible with science and a version of Jesus a well, but that wouldn't have anything to do with christianity anymore.

beyelzu

The real failure of ID is lack of science. It is just a last ditch effort to slow our march into the future without a god. It is an approach that appears to be science that doesnt contradict religion and thus makes ordinary people, meaning christians, happy.


Also, deism doesnt contradict science at all.

lpetrich

I think that the "Intelligent Design" enthusiasts ought to be challenged about the question of the multiplicity and the fallibility of those alleged designers.

Both kinds of inferences about designers are common, and I think that if much of evolution was driven by intelligent design, that the designers were both multiple and fallible -- and curiously willing to settle for kludgy solutions.

Consider how aphids live off of plant sap. Aphids have nutritional needs similar to the rest of the animal kingdom -- similar needs for "essential" amino acids, vitamins, etc. Yet plant sap has mainly sugars dissolved in it, making it a very unbalanced diet for an aphid.

So how do aphids live off of that junk food? They have Buchnera bacteria living inside their bodies that keep them well-supplied with those missing nutrients. These bacteria are closely related to enteric bacteria like Escherichia coli, but their genones are both shrunken and partially nonfunctional.

A designer who wanted aphids to live off of plant sap would have found it very easy to give aphids the necessary biosynthesis genes, but instead, aphids have the kludgy "solution" of endosymbiotic bacteria with nonfunctional genes.