Volley Back

"My faith is weak but my knowledge is strong"

What a fascinating comment. I share that sentiment. I think a lot hinges on what we feel constitutes faith. Any thoughts in return?

Do you think ID is a good thing?

I think the debate over Intelligent Design is utterly off track and utterly silly. It too often devolves into a debate about whether Genesis is literal, or whether ID is "science," whatever in the world that means. I get frustrated beyond words reading the back and forth.

Note: not the back and forth with you, but the general back and forth I read elsewhere. Seemingly smart people falling prey to silly logic.

I think the way in which evolution is taught is scandalous. It is taught as "fact" when I don't think it can be said to be anything of the sort. You wrote, "Evolution can be seen in the lab. Evolution happens." That depends a great deal on what you mean by that, doesn't it? We've seen genetic modifications over time, but have we seen unassisted trans-species mutations? If so, please cite the reference. And if so, please define precisely what is meant by "species."

Note: I would be much more persuaded if someone could come up with an experiment in which something like a virus was able, over some period of time, to become a cell with DNA. One of the major arguments used by Intelligent Design advocates is the concept of developments that can not be incrementally developed. The whole system must be present or no part of the system could work. The development of the self-replicating DNA is one such thing, I would think. But I'm no biologist.

As I've stated many times before, my primary beef with those who favor evolution is they imply a sentient force behind evolution, though they won't admit it. Listen to their language. They use phrases like, "nature desired that such-and-such develop the way it did." Nature desired? Is nature a being?

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of evolution being the shaping force for mankind, provided it was God who created everything in the beginning, and it was God who guided things to where they are now. The idea of things happening purely "by chance" is silly. The complexity and elegance of it all is far, far, far too great for it all to be the product of pure random chance. I realize that's something that can't be conclusively proven. But neither can the idea of things "just happening" over time ... randomly, by chance. It takes far more an act of faith to believe that than it does to believe that God exists and created things.

All that said, I think the proponents of Intelligent Design would be best served to focus their attention on refuting specific support posts of the evolutionary theory, and to avoid making things overly-religious. In truth, that's exactly what they've done. But the press and the secularists know that they lose the debate quickly if the ID folks are allowed to remain in that light, so they paint them broadly with veiled threats of theocratic domination of schools and the like.

The auteurs of this saga said not to confuse entertainment with theology (or words to that effect).

Ah ... they do that now to insulate themselves. They certainly did not do that earlier when the book itself was taking hold. Then, Dan Brown was all too happy to encourage the notion that the book was based on historic fact.

I don't know if you had the shows over there, but here in the United States we had several prime time, national network "news" shows about "findings" revealed in "The Da Vinci Code." Not a word out of Dan Brown then about how it was "only fiction."

That said, I generally agree with your sentiment that God is above the movie, and that it would serve "Christians" well to simply ignore it. And it would be nice if religious people did "turn the other cheek." Unfortunately, in this day and age it's more likely that one particular religious group would slit my throat rather than allow their precious "prophet" to be portrayed in a way even a fraction of what's suggested in movies like "The Last Temptation of Christ," or the work of "artists" in the United States whose "art" is a crucifix with Jesus in a jar of human urine (and whose efforts are funded by taxpayer dollars, yet we can't have any reference to the Ten Commandments anywhere near public ground), or Madonna who mocks the crucifixion to promote her albums, or "The Da Vinci Code" which attacks the very heart of the Christian faith.

Ultimately, what is, is. By that I mean that Jesus Christ reigns over this madness with complete sovereignty, and one day there will be judgment. And on that day there will be "much wailing and gnashing of teeth."