David Coppedge claims he was fired from NASA for expressing a belief in intelligent design. NASA claims Coppedge was simply downsized.
The courts will figure out the Coppedge case, but we'll be left with an important question.
Can intelligent, educated people believe in a Creator and still be relevant?
Personally, as a Christian, I don't care if the universe was created in six days or in 16 billion years. I believe God did it, whatever method he chose. I've studied the issue enough to be convinced that our observable environment is more than six to ten thousand years old. A literal Creation belief of a six day event doesn't make sense to me. But I won't discount God's ability to have done it that way. God's great. He created the Heavens and the Earth. Enough said. I guess that puts me in the Intelligent Design camp.
To completely discount an intelligent architect seems reckless. That much randomness is implausible. Belief in pure Darwinism takes as much faith as a belief in a six day Creation. It's a religion in itself.
So can a reasonably intelligent, educated person believe in a Creator God?
Yes I do.
What do you mean a six day event doesn't make sense? Why would a God that could speak and breath something into existance take a significant amount of time to create anything. I believe there's a decent possibility the age of the earth could be in the millions, but that would seem that the ages, but wouldn't it seem the ages in the Bible would be innaccurate?
ReplyDeleteWorship Fox Truthiness™, Or Else
ReplyDeleteCoppedge didn't work for NASA, therefore not even he can claim that they fired him.
Coppedge in fact worked for JPL, part of Caltech, who downsized him (as part of a long-anticipated staff reduction).
@Mark:
ReplyDeleteWe have ice core samples that show the Earth's age to be in the hundreds of thousands of years. God chould certainly have created the Earth in six days, but I doubt He did. There is too much evidence to suggest otherwise. Weren't you the one who said God doesn't create deception? The creation story in Genesis could easily be allegorical rather than literal. The point of the story isn't God's method of creation anyway... It's that He DID create us!
Basically what I'm saying is that if God created the universe in six day, I'm pretty impressed. If He did it over 16 billion years, creating a cascade of events that culminated in us having this conversation, I'm still pretty impressed. I favor the second theory, but accept that I could be wrong. I don't really care.
This debate often creates a wedge between Christians. The issue isn't important enough to justify dissension in the church.
JMO
@Hrafn: Coppedge is an example used in the post. He is not the point of the post.
ReplyDeleteDarwin worship is given credence over God worship in the scientific community and in our education system. The theory is given more validity than it has earned. ID is at least as valid a theory and is about as supported at Darwinism.
Quite a few respected scientists believe the laws of the universe suggest an intelligent architect was involved in our creation. These scientists are not all Christians, or religious in general. They simply recognize the implausibility of a completely random series of events resulting in our observable universe.
1) An example of what? Coppedge is not a scientist -- he was just one of the guys that ran JPL's computer network. And he wasn't laid off (not fired) over ID -- it was over (i) having obsolete skills & (ii) very poor interpersonal skills.
Delete2) "Darwin worship", and the associated crazed obsession with Darwin in general, exists only in the deluded minds of science-denying The Fundamentals-idolatrating religious fanatics.
3) ID has all the "validity" of The Hitler Diaries andThe Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Its vague and equivocating claims have been repeatedly been debunked, and it has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. It is mostly promoted be a small bunch of lawyers, philosophers and theologians associated with the Discovery Institute.
4) It is hard to find even a single scientist who is (i) prominently "respected" & (ii) has relevant qualifications or experience, that supports ID.
5) The vast majority of ID supporters are conservative Christians (with the occasional conservative Jew or Muslim). Those (very) occasional agnostic or atheist 'supporters' generally support only ID's attacks on Evolution, rather than ID's (vestigial) positive thesis.
6) They simply FAIL to recognise that an Argument from Personal Incredulity, especially from an individual lacking any serious background in the scientific field of Evolutionary Biology, has very very little value.
The Coppedge case is an example of a claimed prejudice against advocates for ID theory. If you will re-read the original post, you'll note that I didn't take a position on that particular case.
DeleteI'm afraid you are misinformed on the validity of ID theory in the scientific community. There are recognized scientists in a variety of disciplines from universities across the nation who support the ID concept.
I'm sorry, but Neo-Darwinism is a religion, not a scientific fact. Darwinistic theory is compatible with ID and is plausable. Neo-Darwinism is not.
A brief study of science history should help you understand how dangerous it is to take such a strong stance on this issue. The scientific community is highly political. It's quite common to see the community attempt to suppress unpopular theories. It appears you may be falling into this trap. Check out Louis Pasteur, Hans Alfven, or Paul Ehrlich.
Consider the current debate on the human contribution to world environmental climate. Dissenters have been ostracized by the scientific community, even though scientific data continues to challenge some of the more popular conclusions.
I find it interesting (or disturbing) how few colleges in Michigan actually teach Creation rather than evolution. Even those that give the perception that they are Christian colleges, such as Calvin or Hope. I think that number is going to continue to decline.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/creationist-schools.html
The answer to that is blindingly obvious.
Delete1) Most Christians belong to denominations that don't reject evolution.
2) Rejection of evolution decreases as level of education increases, so it is likely that even more university faculty accept evolution.
3) Teaching pseudoscientific claims like creationism (as opposed to theological belief in God's creation) is likely to present problems with secular accreditation authorities.