On the Best Article I've Ever Read on the Evolution/Intelligent Design Debate

[lhynard]

without further ado...

awesome, well-written, and thorough article by science fiction writer Orson Scott Card

I must say that I think I may agree 100% with that article. It's what I have been trying to say for forever....

Comments

[dogs_n_rodents]

It's a nice article. I thought his discussion of the arguments Darwinists give was very well constructed. Although, I would say that the ID he portrays in this article though is more of a theistic evolution perspective rather than ID. Most of the discussions of ID I've heard to date never really advocated ID folks as agreeing with all of the premises of evolution, but then saying they are merely a tool for a designer.

Of course, I don't agree with his dismissal of ex nihilo Creation -- for me, I think God could have created everything in six literal days (and I don't see any solid evidence to the contrary), but that we won't ever truly know the truth until we meet God face to face. But for me, I can take it as a matter of faith that God did such a thing. Some people can't, which is why we have the non-literalistic perspective on the six days of creation

[lhynard]

Modern ID (as started by Behe) has always been more theistic evolution. It has always bothered me that this distinction is not pointed out.Of course, I don't agree with his dismissal of ex nihilo Creation
I'm not he dismisses it. He points out the faults of both sides of the issue. When he finally decides to state his own view, he says:Meanwhile ... what do I believe about the origin of life? I believe that God created it, employing and obeying natural laws, but at levels beyond our understanding. I believe we're here on this earth for God's beneficent purposes.

He believes in creation "beyond our understanding." That sounds fair to me.

"For who has known the mind of God...?"I think God could have created everything in six literal days
I agree that God could have created in six literal days (though whatever that means is not clear, since what we define days by was not even set up yet) -- God can do whatever He wants. The point is that science -- neither Creation science nor evolutionary science -- can say at all. It has nothing to do

[dogs_n_rodents]

He believes in creation "beyond our understanding." That sounds fair to me.

I'm not critiquing his personal point of view, I just think he hits a bit hard on the extremes of fundamental Creation Science. Sometimes one must start off as extreme before they become more moderate. That's all I'm stating.

I do not think that is a fair assumption; I hear it a lot. Isn't it possible that many do not believe the literal six days for reasons other than a lack of faith that God could do it? Again, I believe He can do anything. Currently, I don't believe that He did do it that way. My personal reasons are because of the way the text itself is written. It has more to do with Hebrew and translation/interpretation than with science.Perhaps it might not be a lack of faith, but usually it's not a matter of translation (knowing that the number of people who study the languages of Scripture are far fewer than those practicing the sciences). Especially being a Catholic, people are far more prone to believing in a non-literal six day creation because

[lhynard]

I'd be interested in the book's sources, yes.