Jesus Creed

Coincidentally, Stephen M. Barr, professor of physics at the University of Delaware, posted an article on First Things published today entitled "The End of Intelligent Design." The first paragraph is below, read the article and we can start a conversation here ... agree or disagree (and why)?

It is time to take stock: What has the intelligent design movement achieved? As science, nothing. The goal of science is to increase our understanding of the natural world, and there is not a single phenomenon that we understand better today or are likely to understand better in the future through the efforts of ID theorists. If we are to look for ID achievements, then, it must be in the realm of natural theology. And there, I think, the movement must be judged not only a failure, but a debacle. 

By the way - if you have some understanding of physical sciences Barr's book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith is an interesting read. I expect it is a bit too technical for a lay audience though (he is a theorist working in particle theory, supersymmetry,  and cosmology).

Now is the time for Paul to reveal even more, so he is brought before the Sanhedrin, before him Paul asserts his integrity and innocence, only to realize he then said something contrary to the Torah:

22:30 The next day, because the commanding officer wanted to know the true reason Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and the whole council to assemble. He then brought Paul down and had him stand before them.

23:1 Paul looked directly at the council and said, "Brothers, I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God to this day." 23:2 At that the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 23:3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit there judging me according to the law, and in violation of the law you order me to be struck?" 23:4 Those standing near him said, "Do you dare insult God's high priest?" 23:5 Paul replied, "I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, 'You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.'"

I've given my point of view on this blog on many occasions. Today I would like to put a slightly different point of view up for consideration. I had an e-mail conversation with a friend last week about intelligent design and the place for the Christian worldview in the academy in general and science in particular.  He supports intelligent design research and inquiry - but his faith does not hinge on evidence for design. He respects Francis Collins and his stand, and appears comfortable with the general evolutionary tree of life including common descent. But there is a significant issue that goes beyond "proof" of God or of design. The issue is one of consistent worldview and approach to intellectual life.

I will put some of our correspondence (with permission) up for consideration, so you get his words directly, not just my interpretation.

A major problem in the whole area, I feel, is the different assumptions about who has the burden of proof.  Origin of Life advocates seem to put the burden on skeptics.  As long as some hypothesized mechanism might conceivably get around whatever issue is raised, then the skeptic has been defeated, even if no evidence is available to back up the proposed mechanism.  I think they [the naturalists] feel this is fair, since they believe that naturalistic scenarios have proven so successful in science that anyone who doubts a naturalistic scenario must prove rigorously that no natural explanation can possibly work, or else it is reasonable to fall back on a naturalistic explanation, even if it is highly speculative. 

I am uncomfortable with this, since it would be easily extended to the origin of the universe, and  to the life of Christ as well, which, interpreted naturalistically, would require that we believe his reported resurrection was due to fraud or error, since this is theoretically possible and is a naturalistic scenario.   In this way, the Christian worldview is excluded not just from science, but from history, and then from all intellectual discourse. 

More after the jump. As you read - consider this question:

What place does Christian thinking have in the academy? How does this thinking distinguish itself? In the sciences, in the social sciences, in biblical studies?

Chris Hall, in Worshiping With the Church Fathers , examines St Augustine's letter to Proba about prayer, and in that letter, Augustine said this:

What do you think? Texting while driving is dangerous; some States have "illegalized" texting while driving. But do you support the new applications for cell phones that shut down the phone's capacity to "text" while driving (shutting the phone down when moving over 5 mph)? Or do you think we should entrust this to the citizens and ask the citizens to cease texting while driving?

Paul's in trouble in the heart of the heart of God's place: in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem believers (in Jesus) question, or at least wonder about, Paul's Torah observance and his commitment to the sanctity of the Temple....

How do you define "narrative preaching"? And, alongside that question, another one: How much story do you think appropriate in a sermon? What did you learn in seminary about the appropriateness or frequency of stories in sermons?Tom Long, whom I...

I read this piece by James-Michael Smith the other day, and I thought it was so good I lifted a couple paragraphs and would love to have a discussion here: What do you think of "manly" and "fighting" images for...

No passage in the New Testament ever describes the groups it assumes everyone knows. Yet, we beg for those descriptions and so scholars over the years have sketched and re-sketched, and then discarded and reconstructed what can be known about...

What will happen to Social Security? Jack Cafferty, the most lovable curmudgeon I follow, got it going on this topic the other day at CNN.com. Here's a bit and I wonder what you think:First it was the banks and car...