What are the Differences Between Creationism and Intelligent Design?

William Dembski, one of the leading lights of the Intelligent Design movement, clarifies:

10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design

Joe Carter, over at Evangelical Outpost, has provided a helpful 3 part series titled “10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design” (part1, part 2, and part 3). His explanations and examples are clear and get his point across. In a nutshell, here are the 10 points:

10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design

1) By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory.

2) By claiming that ID is stealth creationism.

3) By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments.

4) By claiming that ID isn’t science since it’s not published peer-reviewed literature…and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals.

5) By making claims that natural selection/sexual selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features.

6) By invoking design in non-design explanations.

7) By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice against theism — and then having the most vocal critics of ID be anti-religious atheists.

8 ) By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations.

9) By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that advocates of ID are ignorant, liars, creationists, etc.).

10) By not being able to believe their own theory.

Interview with Ben Stein on the movie Expelled

Here’s an interesting interview with Ben Stein, conducted by theologian R. C. Sproul. I plan on seeing the film tonight. If time permits, I’ll make some commends in the upcoming days.

Reformed theologian John M. Frame has within the last couple of years released a series based on his Doctrine of the Christian Life. It’s produced by Third Millennium Ministries. The name of the series is Making Biblical Decisions. Here are a couple of clips for the first lesson to whet your appetite. They’re readily available from 3rd Mil. This series is an excellent introduction to Frame’s thinking on Christian ethics and I highly recommend it.

Greg Bahnsen on Defending the Faith

It’s been nearly 13 years since Greg Bahnsen went to be with the Lord, but his ministry still continues to edify and inform. Enjoy!

Tim Keller on Google Authors

A very helpful apologetic.

Sartrean Existenialism (3 of 3)

Responsibility. Here is somewhere that I think Sartre can be a great help, his notion of personal responsibility. But even here, I think that his overall existentialist approach undermines his intended goal, which is to spring people into action. Sartre taught that we are all radically responsible for our actions. We cannot blame chance, desires, human nature, or God for our choices. Like I said last time, we can’t “pass the buck.” We, on Sartre’s account, must acknowledge that we create who we are by way of our personal choices, and must stand up and own them. Now, before I support this notion, a word of critique.

Responsibility implies two factors, 1) persons and 2) a relationship. I can only be responsible to a person. I have no ultimate responsibility to a rock, a tree, or a knat (I, as a Christian, believe that I have some level of responsibility to them, but more on that shortly). No non-personal thing or force can bind my conscience or demand my allegiance. Likewise, responsibility implies a relationship. The level of the intensity in a relationship and it’s “closeness” determine the level of responsibility I owe. I am responsible to my boss up to a certain degree, I am responsible to my brother even more so, and my mother and father even more. But to what, or more appropriately, to whom is ultimate responsibility and loyalty owed? Well, if responsibility implies relationship and persons, then ultimate responsibility implies a relationship with an ultimate person. This of course is exactly what the Bible teaches.

And this is exactly what Sartre rejects. But, in rejecting this notion, he has effectively cut off the branch he’s been sitting on. With no ultimate Person to whom we are responsible, we have not derivative responsibility to each other. This is especially true of Sartre’s golden rules (live in good faith and be authentic). Why should we think that Sartre has tapped into some metaphysical law that (ethically) governs human behavior? We shouldn’t, these are Sartre’s rules, or better yet, his preferences. Ultimately, on his wordview, they reduce to no greater than a hunch.

Nevertheless, I agree that we ought to treat people as ends and not as means, and as subjects rather than objects. I agree that we cannot “pass the buck” regarding our actions, and that we need to “own up” to our decisions. I affirm all these things, but I do them not because of Sartrean existenialism, but rather because I reject Sartre’s project and affirm Christian theism.

I believe that because there is a Creator, rather than because He doesn’t exist, that there are objective moral laws. Sartre wants binding standards without God; I say this is impossibility. He may reduce the number of obligations, but that misses the point.

I affirm the notion of a human nature; the Bible affirms this notion as well. Now, of course, the Bible doesn’t teach human nature in the same way we may be accustomed to think of the subject in our western, scientifically advanced world. So, to hold the Bible up to this standard is to force an alien standard upon the Biblical writers, one that they were never seeking to hold themselves up against. Many who deny Christian theism would quickly point out that human and primates share over 80% of bodily mechanics and biological makeup. Is this true? Well, insofar as we’ve been able to discover via genetic research, Yes, it is. As a Christian, I have no problem affirming this. The Bible doesn’t make any claims on this matter to the contrary that modern science has “disproven.” What marks out humanity as special in the creation account is the status of mankind, not it’s genetic fingerprint. Humankind is the only creature that is created in the imago Dei, the image of God. Chiefly, this points to humanity’s position as vice-regent of creation (under God, the supreme King). In the Ancient Near East, the vice-regent was the embodiment of the primary King’s authority. So, much more could be said here, but some of this has been covered elsewhere in my brother’s entries. (Here, here, and here).

As a last point of critique here, it should also be noted that something else is basic, and essential to human nature (at least since what Christian theologians have called The Fall in Genesis 3), and that’s our moral proclivity to do things we know aren’t good, i.e. sin. With this in mind, we need to acknowledge two senses in which something can be considered “natural” for humans. I’ve dealt with this briefly here.

Now for my support of this notion of responsibility. I think Sartre was unto to something here. Once placed on a Christian footing, human responsibility makes perfect sense. And here I’m not speaking primarily of the notion that if we don’t obey the “Big Man upstairs” is going to throw a lighting bolt down on us. Far from it. The concept of responsibility is rooted in our humanity, in the very imago Dei itself. God has placed me in this world to reflect his love, glory, and justice. Since this world has fallen into sin, we need this ever more so. We are stewards of God’s realm. We are to beautify and develop this world in order to present it to God as an offering of devotion and love. Other human beings are likewise God’s vice-regents, and I should treat them as ends in themselves and not simply means because they aren’t sludge or some other morally insignificant thing, but royalty. Likewise, I have a responsibility to be a good steward over the earth, and how I use it.

People aren’t “things,” objects to be moved around and manipulated like so much furniture. As Sartre said, we are subjects! We have hopes, dreams, aspirations, and in classical Christian language, we have vocations, callings to which God has given us both desires and abilities. I am responsible to others because the development of human flourishing is essential to what it means to be human. When I act in irresponsible ways, when I pass blame for my actions, and fail to acknowledge how my choices shape both who I am, and as a result, who others will become, I’m not living up to my full humanity. In fact, it’s flat out dehumanizing.

This is one of the main reasons why when someone becomes a Christian, that is to say, they are born again because the Spirit of God graces them with new spiritual life, the Bible speaks of them being “renewed in the image of Christ.” Christ is the image of God, par excellance. He walked as God’s man, healing the sick, loving the outcasts, feeding the needy, atoning for our sin and brokenness, etc. While on earth, Christ lived a fully robust human life, and to this we are called.

Books on the New Atheists

Here are some recent titles that have been released in response to the work of the New Atheists. Obviously, I can’t say I agree with everything in this books, first because they come from multiple points of view, and second, because I haven’t read them all!

1) The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion   

2)  God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens

3) The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith 

4)  The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists 

5) The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine

6) The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity 

7)  Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God    

8)  The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

9) The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens