Three Views of Creation I Accept As Possibile

[Michael_Callen (Herculean Skeptic)]

Ashwin:

@Ashwin_s

The more I listen to the conversations here, the more it seems to me that we can’t state theological positions on creation in terms of ID or evolution. The focus of both terms is nature and not God whereas the focus of theology is God.

This is my understanding based upon many conversations here. It is not intuitive to me that we would have limits placed upon our discussions such that the pursuit of truth could be restricted to certain domains, but, time and again, I see this insistence that this NOMA exists. See for instance:

@swamidass

The question I’m asking is this: In the context of evolutionary biology (or EC for that matter) is there room to discuss “significance” in terms of its obvious design benefits?

Absolutely. Yes there is. There is a scientific account. IN that scientific account, our discourse is limited. Outside science, however, as whole people we can see a bigger picture. We affirm that God created everything. He designed us all. Evolution cannot account for everything. Even if it is true, it remains thoroughly surprising that the world turned out the way it did.

Michael_Callen:

In this case, I am referring to “design” as the shape that ended up to accommodate the more modern brain and potentially make birth less dangerous to the person being born? Not “design” as a trick wherein I’m going to say, "Ah Ha! You said “design” so there must be a Designer…

Design is not an illusion. Science is blind to it, but we know that God created us. This is, at least for me, how I understand it.

Emphasis mine. So, in my discussions, I’m trying to abide by the rules (as I understand them.) In doing so, I am seeing some benefits, as discussed above. It is not easy or intuitive at all. But it does explain some of the antagonism that occurs for no apparent reason.

Anyone, please correct me if I’m wrong about how these conversations take place (or are supposed to take place) in this realm.