General discussion on ID, God, and evolution

The question of whether or not God uses/used evolutionary processes seems simple. Our observation of the natural world shows us that evolutionary processes have been and are at work. I’m a Jesus follower and believe that God created and sustains the universe. That God uses evolutionary processes is the conclusion that follows the first two statements.

Regarding "blind and unguided: Is “blind and unguided” in textbooks?

I listened to the Axe/Swamidass discussion and an exchange about “blind and unguided” was included in the discussion and the “blind and unguided” tag was a major pillar of Doug’s argument.

I don’t have a textbook laying around but I’d welcome other input on whether “blind and unguided” is used by scientists.

Whether it’s in textbooks or not the phrase strikes me as unscientific and it seems to be a pillar of ID’s argument. I think the question of whether “blind and unguided” is indeed the claim of evolutinary science is important. It seems to me that if ID doesn’t have “blind and unguided” to fight against then they are just beating the air.

Look what you did there. Your statement needed “blind and unguided”. How would you make this statement if “blind and unguided” isn’t a scientific claim?

If we (Christians) believe that the God of the Bible created and sustains all things, and then observe the processes by which the universe operates, we then conclude that God uses those processes, and we enjoy exploring and describing those processes. If you truly believe this and its implications then it sets you free to observe the natural world without the need to tag one of those observable processes as some kind of enemy.

Reading ID proponents here at Peaceful Science and listening to Doug Axe (and others) makes me think that ID’s pursuits are primarily worldview motivated. In other words, it is about the Culture Wars. And I think observing and describing the natural world with a culture war as a motivator and driver is folly. It binds the observer in ways that forces conclusions that don’t follow directly from research/observation/experimentation.

4 Likes