Skip to main content
Report this ad

"The Idea of Intelligent Design is Blasphemous"


  • R Hampton 6 years ago

    It's also blasphemy in another way: the denial of Natural Revelation (a.k.a. General Revelation), which has become unquestioned doctrine among many (most?) Conservative Evangelicals.

    Certainly the impulse to reject nature as the authentic word of God could be found among some American Protestants in the 17th and 18th centuries, but the Barmen Declaration of 1934 - especially Karl Barth's defense of this position against Emil Brunner in the mid 1940s - disestablished Natural Revelation.

  • Paul Burnett 6 years ago

    The creators of the pseudoscience currently known as "intelligent design" creationism have commited not only blasphemy but heresy. They have re-invented a variation of the Manichaean Heresy, by positing a designer god separate from the creator God of Genesis. Intelligent design creationism is almost Zoroastrian in its duality - the creator god they acknowledge on one hand, and on the other hand the "intelligent designer" with god-like powers, whom they refuse to name, to avoid getting in trouble with the secular authorities whose courts have ruled they can't mention Genesis in the classroom. So they invented another god.

  • Human Ape 6 years ago

    Blasphemy is an idiot religious word. Also, all religious beliefs are idiotic. Intelligent design is an idiotic religious belief. And there's nothing compatible about science and faith, because faith is a mental illness.

    darwin-killed-god dot blogspot dot com

  • Russ 6 years ago

    I'm not discounting science, but even you accept evolution, there is still the mind and body problem. Also I'm skeptical over billions of year if a monkey will ever turn into a human. If you look at humans we almost don't even seem like we are natural to this planet. Nothing else has our cognitive thought ability and not to mention we are the only animals that kills for fun and enjoy manipulating our planet.

  • D J Wray 6 years ago

    God isn't an abortionist. Nature is an abortionist. People confuse the influence of God with the influence of nature. Just to clarify, various studies rate miscarriages between about 20% and 80%. The wide statistical variation is an indication of the lack of quality research.

    D J Wray
    Packaged Evolution: The Intelligent Universe

  • O Elphick 6 years ago

    Ayala seems to have no understanding of the biblical account: namely that a perfect world was cursed because of sin. Since he ignores what God actually says about the matter, it is no wonder that he comes up with antibiblical, false conclusions.

    Natural Revelation (R Hampton) is only good for revealing God's everlasting power and divinity (Romans 1). It cannot tell you anything about the character of God. Neither can it give you information about the past, if you ignore what divine revelation says about the past. Natural revelation tells you more about men's assumptions and systems of interpretation than about nature. Since modern "science" is built on atheist assumptions, it naturally gets atheist answers, which deny the actual history that God has given us.

    If conservative evangelicals have despised the scripture by ignoring it in favour of atheistic science, that tells you more about them than about the world and its real history.

  • Wayne Hollyoak 6 years ago

    It's the battle of the 2 creation stories. One that fits the pop-science paradigm and one that doesn't. Personally, i think the scientific establishment is out of its league when it starts theorizing about creation.

    As for naturally aborted births, the human genome has faired pretty well after who knows how many generation. But, it's on the decline. That the genome is still capable of producing viable births at all is a testament to skill of its engineer.


  • RickK 6 years ago

    Actually, Wayne, it's about honesty. The DNA that proves you and your cousin share a common ancestor also proves you and a chimpanzee share a common ancestor. The same DNA evidence that puts criminals in jail also gives irrefutable evidence of common descent.

    So it's up to you. You can
    (1) declare DNA evidence as valid, and accept common descent;
    (2) declare DNA evidence as invalid, and release any criminals convicted on DNA evidence; or
    (3) lie, and maintain some false differentiation by claiming DNA is only valid up to the point that it conflicts with somebody's religion.

    Which do you choose?

  • RickK 6 years ago

    Russ said: "Nothing else has our cognitive thought ability and not to mention we are the only animals that kills for fun and enjoy manipulating our planet."

    Really? You've never seen a housecat worry a small rodent, bug or lizard to death just for the entertainment of it? You've never seen a beaver dam completely change the landscape of a river valley?

    Have you ever actually looked in detail at the comparison of human and chimp DNA? Have you ever really watched the interactions between a group of young gorillas, and compared it to the interactions between a group of young humans? Friendship, trust, jealousy, deceit, spite - they're all there in both groups.

    I have no problem with the thought that I'm just one more part in a great interconnected, interrelated web of life on Earth. But I do fear those people who think they are above nature, that they have a God-given right to rule nature, and that God will protect them from the ultimate consequences of their actions.

  • R Hampton 6 years ago

    O Elphick,
    You are a perfect example of a Conservative Evangelical who has come to reject half of God's Revelation. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    159 Faith and science:

    "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."

    "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

  • Nick 6 years ago

    >>>"Since modern "science" is built on atheist assumptions, it naturally gets atheist answers, which deny the actual history that God has given us."

    Sorry Elphic, God gave you no such thing. MEN gave you a book which you gullibly believed as being the Word of God. Yet I'd guess you reject "God's word" which claims the Earth is flat and unmoving and resting on pillars. There's no such thing as "atheistic science", only science. And if a God exists, it used evolution.

    But if you prefer to live in the Dark Ages because you think your religious opinions are more important than everyone else's and more important than reality, then by all means...

  • RickK 6 years ago

    Isn't it interesting that Christian apologetics are indistinguishable from fabrication or rationalization. By introducing "original sin" and "free will" and "Satan", the existence of evil and horrible natural disasters ("acts of God") can be rationalized alongside the idea of a "loving and just God". With the twists and turns of Christian theology, we now have a situation where the existence of God is indistinguishable from the non-existence of God.

  • tonyf 6 years ago

    Nick said "There's no such thing as "atheistic science", only science"

    I think what O Elphick meant was that modern science assumes that God does not intervene and then builds hypothesies based upon that assumption. I understand the importance of that assumption for routine investigations. However, I declare that modern origins science built upon a no-God assumption has a priori ruled out the most important theory of all - that God is real.

  • Profile picture of Paul Vjecsner
    Paul Vjecsner 5 years ago

    Dr. Ayala, despite his high standing, commits an enormous illogicality. If God created a world that functions in accordance with Darwinian theory, by which misfortunes are explainable as consequences of natural laws, how can God be absolved from responsibility? As omniscient and omnipotent, he should be able to foresee the consequences of those laws, and adjust them to his satisfaction. If misfortunes are to be explained by reference to the intentions of a supreme being, they cannot be relegated to evolution.

Report this ad