withallyourmind.net

A. J. M. Wedderburn wrote an influential book in 1999 called Beyond Resurrection, in which he examines the Christian doctrine of the physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Wedderburn is correct when he identifies the resurrection of Christ as “the bedrock and the sine qua non of Christian faith.” He quotes Moltmann, agreeing that the Christian faith:

…stands or falls with reality of the raising of Jesus from the dead by God… A Christian faith that is not resurrection faith can therefore be called neither Christian nor faith.

He is also correct when he asserts that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, or at least some parts of it, is open to historical investigation. There are many who would deny any historical access to the resurrection, but this is surely wrong. Wedderburn argues that such issues as what happened to Jesus’ body and what events gave rise to the early Christian belief that Jesus was raised from the dead are issues which can be approached historically. He disagrees that because God (the subject of this action), by definition, lies beyond the scope of historical investigation, we cannot have historical access to these events. Wedderburn agrees with Ludemann, who states that it is:

…appropriate and indeed necessary to treat the question of Jesus’ resurrection as a historical one.

Christianity is a historical faith which makes historical claims and to attempt to remove Christian faith from historical judgments is highly problematic. Having asserted the access of the resurrection to historical inquiry, he then goes about looking at this event historically. He discusses, first of all, apparent discrepancies in the resurrection stories. He rightly concludes that these discrepancies could serve to weaken the argument that Jesus was raised from the dead, but also that this disunity may actually strengthen the argument. This lack of “coherence” indicates that the stories were independent witnesses whose accounts do not all stem from a single original and are not carefully concocted “official versions.” Wedderburn also convincingly presents several arguments which compel us to take the resurrection-event seriously: the coming to faith and transformation of the disciples, the emergence of the Christian faith, the celebration of the resurrection by the church on the first day of the week, the role of the women in the story, the failure of anyone to produce Jesus’ body, the absence of a cult around his grave.

So far, so good. In my next post, I take issue with Wedderburn.

He was a born loser,
accident-prone too;
never won the lottery,
married a girl who
couldn’t cook, broke
his leg the day before
the wedding
and forgot the ring.
He was the kind
who ended up behind a post
in almost any
auditorium. Planes
he was booked to fly on
were delayed
by engine trouble
with sickening regularity.
His holidays at the beach
were almost always
ruined by rain. All
his apples turned out
wormy. His letters
came back marked
‘Moved, left no
address.’ And it was
his car that was cited
for speeding
from among a flock of others
going 60 in a
55 mile zone.

So it was a real shocker
when he found himself
elected, chosen by Grace
for Salvation, felt
the exhilaration of
an undeserved and wholly
unexpected Joy
and tasted, for the
first time, the Glory
of being on
the winning side.

The morning-after pill, otherwise known as Plan B, is now or will soon be available without a prescription. The Food and Drug Administration recently ruled that this medication, formerly available only by prescription, may be sold over-the-counter to adult women. Of course, this has been hailed by such organizations as Planned Parenthood as a great advance in the healthcare of women. The Christian Medical and Dental Association has explained why they are opposed to this decision. It is important to have a well-reasoned argument if one is to help others in thinking about this issue. The following five points are offered as an explanation of their opposition:

1. Bypasses medical exams and counsel: The leading reason young women present for medical evaluation is to obtain contraception. Providing a contraceptive over the counter allows women to bypass the system that will give them the best care, provide sexual counseling, and diagnose and help prevent their sexually related diseases. Sexually transmitted diseases are more likely to go undetected, resulting in morbidity including infertility.

2. Violates informed consent: The FDA allows patient education material to claim that the product does not affect pregnancy or cause abortion. The drug’s labeling falsely assures women that they are not taking the life of a human being when they take the pill. While some within the scientific community have obfuscated for political reasons the terms associated with early human development, a significant percentage of women still consider pregnancy to begin with fertilization.

Adequate informed consent requires that information be appropriate for the patient–not the provider. No credible expert disputes that EC must have post-fertilization effects to be effective (especially since in real life it is often taken post-ovulatory). Many women will feel betrayed when they learn the scientific realities of the mechanisms of action.

3. Unsubstantiated by data: EC has been promoted as the regimen that would lower unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates, but hard data to back this claim is lacking. In the two largest “advance placement” studies of which we are aware (Contraception1 and JAMA2), neither happened.

4. Risks harm from long-term use: Because of a lack of studies, we do not know the long-term risks of repetitive use, which is likely with many users.

5. Facilitates predators and pressure: Though the use is supposed to be limited to those 18 and above, it will not prevent older sexual predators from purchasing them for use in covering up their actions. They will also be purchased by older boyfriends to coerce underage girls into sexual activity.

‘This is the last of a few blogs discussing an article by Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis, a young-earth creationist organization. I have responded to 5 perceived weakensses thus far, now the sixth:

The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:

Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions. In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.

There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.

My response: Apparently, Wieland believes that the Christians among the Intelligent Design movement should separate themselves from those non-Christians in the movement, at the same time incoporating in their approach an attempt to identify the designer as the God of the Christian Bible. However, this once again misunderstands what the Intelligent Design movement is all about. It is about science, not about the Bible. To do what Wieland seems to suggest would only validate the accusations of ID’s opponents that ID is creaionism in disguise. Again, I believe all Christians should rejoice if the premises of Intelligent Design are ever accepted en masse. As stated previously, I believe the arguments are strong that the Chrisitian God is the designer.

Wieland also thinks that if ID succeeds in bringing about the acceptance of the evidence of design in nature, the Biblical God will be more open to ridicule and contempt. I fail to see the relationship between the two at all. Already, one of the loudest arguments the Darwinians offer against ID is the so-called defective design argument. There are already convincing answers to this argument. For example, one must know the purposes of the designer to evaluate whether a thing is “good” or “bad”. The so-called problem of evil has always been a criticism offered by skeptics against the Christian God. Several theodicies have been offered, for example, the free will theodicy. It just doesn’t follow that by convincing others of the existence of a designer, the Christian’s task becomes more difficult. Discussions of the fall may be off limits within the intelligent design movement (rightfully so), but the fall is still part of Christian theology and worldview. We do not surrender that because the ID movement concentrates on the scientific evidence.

Wieland exhibits more misguided concerns:

The ‘natural theology’ approach (using design, but keeping the Bible out of it) by the deists of former centuries led to an increase in deistic belief.

Evidence of design in nature is enough to condemn men, but it is not enough to save them.

Biblical creationists have long argued that the millions-of-years concepts (which the majority of leading IDMers either support or say they have ‘no problem with’) in fields like astronomy/cosmology and historical geology were squarely based on, derived from, and fueled by, naturalism—i.e., the deliberate rejection of God’s Word and its authority in relation to the history of the world.

My Response: The fact that deists used the design argument and produced more deists is irrelevant. Certainly, one might reasonably assume that theists using the design argument may produce more theists. Secondly, I do not doubt (nor do any other Christian ID’ers that I know) that the design argument alone cannot establish all that one needs to attain salvation. One need not give up on the value of revelation by embracing intelligent design. ID is a scientific endeavour, revelation is a theological one. Both can give us true knowledge. God has revealed himself to us in more than one way. Lastly, Wieland confuses the issue by introducing the controversy among Christians as to how old the earth is. This might be Wieland’s chief issue with the ID movement as he is a young earth creationist and many of the ID leaders believe in an older earth. To imply that Christians always believed in a young earth until naturalism came along is misleading. I do not wish to get into the arguments for or against a young-earth because the bottom line is this is not what intelligent design concerns itself with. It is concerned with the detection of design in the universe. That’s it! Nothing more. It claims that the specified complexity and irreducible complexity found in nature points to a designer. One must reach his own conclusions based on his understanding of the Scripture over what period of time this design has been instituted.

In fairness, Wieland does not only offer criticism, he also does speak to what he feels are strengths of the movement. Perhaps his critique should be better understood as directed to Christians within the ID movement, but he does not overtly address the critique to them alone. The ID movement is, once more, a scientific movement which encompasses individuals within varying religious viewpoints and is not a religious movement. Apparently, Wieland’s own religious beliefs (YEC) prevent him from participating in the ID movement (although I do not see a contradiction in being a YEC and participating in ID). I will conclude by presenting Wieland’s conclusion to his article:

Our friends in the IDM will hopefully understand that when we discuss these problems and issues, we do so not to discourage or obstruct, but simply to make it clear where we are coming from, why we do so, and why we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it.

In my last post, I responded to some of Carl Weiland’s (Answers in Genesis) perceived weaknesses in the Intelligent Design Movement. Today, I look at a couple of more:

Weakness # 4 Their failure to identify themselves with a story of the past (e.g. Genesis) is partly tactically-driven, but is also a necessity, because they do not agree within themselves on a story of the past. However, this failure only reinforces the perception by the establishment that they are really ‘creationists in disguise’. The attacks on the IDM have thus been virtually as ferocious as any on Genesis creationists. Thus, the belief that agreeing to ‘keep the Bible out of it’ would serve to keep anti-religious hostility out of the arena has not been confirmed in practice.

Weiland asserts several things in this paragraph. First, he asserts that the reason ID does not identify with a particular story of who the designer is and how that design was accomplished is two-fold: There is no agreement among ID’ers, and it is a tactical strategy. As stated in my previous post, this lack of “story-telling” is not a weakness, but a strength of the ID movement. It is certainly true that there is no agreement among the main players of ID (again, see previous posts) regarding a design “story”. I do not doubt that the Christians among the ID movement have agreed that it would be a bad tactic to try to infuse the Christian God into the science. I also agree that the ID movement has been attacked as ferociously as the YEC folks, in fact, the attack is almost universally that ID is nothing more than YEC in disguise. Weiland apparently believes that the solution is for ID to admit something that is not true…that it is YEC in disguise. Intelligent Design theory accomodates almost any story of design, including YEC, but it is not cloaked creationism. Contrary to Wieland’s claim, I do not believe anyone in the ID movement expected to be protected from anti-religous rhetoric. In truth, Intelligent Design is not a religious movement, but a scientific one. The naturalists will always cry, “Religion!”, but I am optimistic that their claims will gain more and more acceptance.

Weakness # 5 Some who are prominent in the IDM appear to be sympathetic to the Bible’s account of Creation. However, if the movement should ever make the strategic inroads it hopes for, then our concern would be that any of its leaders who might later identify themselves with Genesis belief would lay themselves open to charges of having been publicly deceptive.

Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time. Were the IDM to partially succeed in its initial aims, some of the strongest opponents of literal Genesis may well arise from its recently-victorious ranks. For instance, Dr Michael Denton, though an amiable fellow, was nevertheless part of a broadcast forum in Australia which recently told a largely Christian audience that belief in literal Genesis was foolish and unscientific.

Once again, the diversity among the Intelligent Design movement protects the movement from unfounded claims. The charges of ID being a stealth operation of uneducated fundamentalist Christians do not stick because they are untrue. There is no reason why anyone should “arise from the ranks” and make any claims about the identity of the designer as that is not the goal of ID. Weiland, and many critics of ID, refuse to see ID for what it is - a scientific program which believes that evidence of design is present in the universe and can be detected by science. Participants are free at any time to offer their views on who the designer might be. That is to be differentiated from the scientific claims of ID. As to claim that Bible-believing Christians would lay themselves open to charges of deception if ID is successful, I don’t see how that follows. I am a Bible-believing Christian and I embrace ID. These two stances are not mutually exclusive nor does one necessarily follow from the other. Darwinian naturalists will always charge deception, but it simply is not true. I don’t know of any of the leaders of ID who conceal their background religious beliefs. Those beliefs have no bearing on the truth or falsity of ID claims. Michael Denton’s claim that “belief in literal Genesis” is foolish and unscientific are claims which must be defended by him in the appropriate arena, not in the arena of the scientific claims of ID. I am comfortable that the arguments for the Christian God as the designer of the universe are sound and more than capable of holding their own against other claims.

Next, more weaknesses and responses.