Daniel,

Thank you for beginning the post by separating relativity from relativism. If natural selction and evolutionary biology were carefully separated from evolutionary philosophy, the debate about evolution would have a more rational basis. But one of the authors of the book you are quoting is on the staff of the Dsicovery Institute--an organization that conflates evolutionary philosophy with evolutionary biology for its own ends.

But since you did not condemn relativity along with relativism, I have to ask why not? I listened to a presentation by Ted Davis of Messiah College last week in which he said that ID and Creationists cannot work together because "the big bang is abhorent to Creationists." I believe Henry Morris had "Big Bangism" among his list of pejoratives. Davis said Creationism is based on Theodicy--no sin or death before the Fall. Would you agree with Davis. Do you connect sin and death? Would my cat not eat rabbits from our yard but for sin?

I hope someone else posts a comment. If it's just you and me (like the last one) people are going to talk.

Neil

I most emphatically connect sin and death. This is a huge subject in and of itself, that I'll have to post about in blog form sometime--I can't do justice to it in comments. For now I'll simply say that while the General Theory of Evolution dictates that physical human death was not a result of the Fall, the Bible teaches the opposite.

In response to Davis, although I didn't hear his talk myself, I don't see how the problem of physical human death directly corresponds to the big bang.

As to his point that ID theorists and creationists "can't work together," that is simply his opinion. William Dembski, one of ID's foremost proponents, told me in a personal interview that he welcomes input from creationists. Furthermore, Dembski himself has written a theodicy here (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf)

Daniel,
Just to be clear on Davis' comment, he said that Creationism is hostile to ID because of theodicy. He said ID, or any other system that posits death before Eden is anathema to Creationism. He described ID as wanting to be a "Big Tent" that tries to include all who oppose evolutionary science. The problem for them is the "Big Tent" approach keeps them from being distinctive in the mind of the public. Dembski's article is interesting. Clearly he does not accept theodicy. He also brings up the RATE program which is to me the "The Lord lies to Physicists so Creationists can be right" doctrine. Which brings me back to the question I had about first line of this post--did you write that line just to clarify that you are not dismissing relativity in this post? But you do dismiss relativity physiscs, correct?

The first line was more of a pun than anything else. I guess it wasn't very funny. . .

No I don't dismiss relativity, but as I said at this comment (http://www.globelens.com/blog/2006/10/3/winning-the-nobel-with-a-bang.html#comment506612) I'm open to the theory being revised. Not having investigated all the implications of relativity, my view of its relationship with creationism is still in development. I'm open to comments and criticism, although I draw a sharp distinction between cosmological evolution and biological.

Daniel,

What is your distinction between cosmological and biological evolution?

Neil

That's an important question. When I distinguish between cosmological and biological evolution I'm talking about two distinct theories of types of change. Cosmological refers to the evolution of all inanimate matter over a time frame of some 14 billion years, beginning with the big bang and continuing until now. Biological refers specifically to the evolution of living, reproducing matter.

While I disagree with both theories, I think the evidence is currently stronger against the latter than the former. (This doesn't mean there is no evidence opposed to cosmological evolution--but simply that the evidence hasn't been fully explored.) Since the evidences needed to support these two theories of evolution are of different natures--inanimate vs. animate and reproducing--I think it is important to keep them somewhat separated in the debate. No one, for example, should accept biological evolution simply because he believes cosmological, saying to himself, "Well, the first happened--the second must have, no matter the evidence. Because here we are!"

Daniel,
If you must pick one, cosmic evolution seems safer--the Discovery Institute thinks so. But two weeks ago, the Science Times had an editorial by Dennis Overbye talking about the current state of cosmic evolutionary theory and its reliance on dark matter. On the other hand, today's Science Times had a full-page ad from Genentech reporducing a letter from a cancer survivor that credited his Genentech drugs with saving his life and keeping him healthy seven years hence. Evolutionary biology makes sick people well every day because all doctors are trained in biology and all biology for the last century has been based on an evolutionary model. You probably saw the Doonesbury cartoon in which the doctor gave a Creationist the choice between evoled antibodies and dying. Many of Creationists critics know that if Creationists were denied modern medicine--if they had to live or die by their beliefs--Creationism would lose adherents faster than the Titanic lost passengers. But if you have a loved one who has survived cancer or heart disease using modern medicine, you have already made your choice.

"When we reject an absolute moral code, we open the door to any kind of behavior--acceptable as long as society or those in power agree to it."

Isn't this the status quo in America? Reasonably intelligent people can see the consequences of their actions without the aid of "an absolute moral code." The dangers of cloning and genetic engineering are discussed frequently without referring to the Bible or other religious texts, although sometimes Biblical and religious principles are taken into consideration. There are relativists who suggest we restrict human behavior that may do damage to the environment.

Suggesting that in the absence of an absolute moral code we would all begin to lose our inhibitions and behave with reckless disregard for life is an insult to every moral human's intelligence.

Yes, society benefits when we behave ourselves and consider the consequences before we act. But ultimately we as individuals and as a society must use our own minds and our own judgement to decide what should be allowed and what should not.

Dedwarmo: You definitely ought to consider reading the book we're discussing. It demonstrates that relativists are hypocritical in their beliefs or aren't really relativists. For example, in the statement you wrote above,

"Suggesting that in the absence of an absolute moral code we would all begin to lose our inhibitions and behave with reckless disregard for life is an insult to every moral human's intelligence"

it appears you posit that humans can still be "moral" in the "absence of an absolute moral code." I'm utterly confused as to how you can hold to such a self-contradiction. I can be moral without believing morals exist?

My hunch is that you're really trying to argue that we should have no laws imposed on us by a higher lawgiver, in which case, here's why I disagree with you:

1) Arguing that a supernatural higher law should not be imposed on us isn't the same as proving that such a law doesn't exist. If it exists, it will be applied and imposed on you whether you like it or not.
2) Law (and by extension morality) is imposed on us every day by earthly lawgivers.

Contrary to what you suggest, "we as individuals and as a society" do not decide what should be allowed or not--legislators and Supreme Court Justices do. (Though one could argue that they are influenced by society and individuals) The one in power, he decides law. Do you think your views would have worked well in Nazi Germany? Do you impose your absolute morality on Hitler by suggesting what he did was wrong?

Could it be, Dedwarmo, that you aren't really a relativist after all?

I have no way of knowing whether a supernatural higher law exists or not. If there is a supernatural higher law then it certainly will be imposed on me. But so far as I can ascertain the laws that I have encountered were strictly human in origin. Of course there are the laws of physics, etc but that is another story.

So when I say "moral people" I mean people whose actions I approve. I am using my own standard of things that I like and things that I don't like based on my own human desires and cultural experiences.

When we feel guilt, remorse or shame, I believe it is probably due to our desire to fit in and get along with others. This desire to get along and fit in helps us survive. We need the help of other people to thrive in this world. Greed, lust, hunger, fear and other desires sometimes overpower our desire to get along. We all use stereotypes to make quick judgments about others and we identify with people who are like us and fear those who are different from us. The Nazi's were not unique except in their particular genocidal methods. I don't think the Nazi's were wrong because they failed to meet an absolute moral standard. I think they were wrong because I would not have wanted to suffer at their hands.

If I can find someone that agrees with me on how I feel about certain behavior then the two of us can try to influence others to behave the same way. After a while we may have a large group of people that follow our "Moral Code." We can set up a system of reward and punishment to enforce these "morals." Our Code may be quite useful and sensible and in total agreement with Biblical teaching, but there would be nothing supernatural about it.

Dedwarmo,
You propose an interesting argument; thanks for being thoughtful on the issue. Now let me explain how Christianity differs with you.

Christianity claims that, yes, we can know whether there is a higher lawgiver. The primary means of knowing that is through the written record of the Bible. If the Bible is true in its assertions, then not only has God imposed a moral standard on us, he has promised to repay us according to whether we've kept or broken (even once) that moral standard. If that's true, I'm sure you'd agree that it's very important for us to be aware of that supernatural moral standard, and to make a choice to obey or disregard it.

However, Christians believe that supernatural law can be detected a second way. The Bible teaches that God's moral law is naturally "written" on human hearts. In other words, all people groups in the world, even non-Christian ones, have a sense of right and wrong that almost always includes prohibitions of such things as murder, adultery, rape, and certain forms of deception--and which honors things like altruism.

However, as you correctly pointed out, human desires such as "greed, lust, hunger, fear" influence our beliefs about what is moral or not. If you remember, Nazi soldiers were trained to kill animals before they began to kill people--it took some time for them to get used to doing what might naturally have seemed wrong. Because our desires so subtly influence our beliefs, it is necessary for us to be informed of God's moral standard by God himself. If our personal moral standard is different from God's, we will end up being judged for it.

It's very concerning to me that you don't believe Nazis broke any absolute moral code. If the Nazis were to come back, your only judgment of their actions would be "How do I feel about this"? Isn't that a wishy-washy conclusion to some rather serious evil in the world?

If you pledge allegiance an ideology such as Christianity then you are sometimes forced to defend it even when you are uncomfortable doing so.

I agree that there is a sort of law that is "naturally written on human hearts", but that law is not so specific as that which is given in the Bible.

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I would happily agree with the Bible, but if I understand Luke 13:3 correctly, unless I repent, I will be condemned to hell.

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Saying there is an absolute moral code gives your condemnation greater force only for those who also believe there is an absolute moral code and that there will be severe punishment for those who break it. Is it not enough that I condemn the Nazis? Must I also say that God condemns the Nazis, too? Or must I say that anyone at anytime must not attempt to eliminate an entire people? Isn't killing great numbers of people sometimes justified?

If God is sovereign and the creator of all, then where do I get the will to disobey him? Where do I get the desire to disobey him?

Dedwarmo,
I'm not sure what the main point is you're trying to make here. It would be helpful if you could break it apart for me.

If your last two questions are earnest, surely you know enough of the Bible to understand what it says on that topic: Paul taught that man's sin nature (which he is born with as a result of his descent from Adam) makes him a slave to sin--unless he by faith believes in Jesus Christ and is born again. Because Jesus conquered sin by rising up from the dead, those who trust in him have "died" to sin, and are no longer bound by it.

Whether you like it or not, you'll never have the desire or ability to please God unless you come to him by faith. Every one of us, including myself, would remain a slave to sin apart from the work of Jesus.

Dedwarmo,
I'm not sure what the main point is you're trying to make here. It would be helpful if you could break it apart for me.

If your last two questions are earnest, surely you know enough of the Bible to understand what it says on that topic: Paul taught that man's sin nature (which he is born with as a result of his descent from Adam) makes him a slave to sin--unless he by faith believes in Jesus Christ and is born again. Because Jesus conquered sin by rising up from the dead, those who trust in him have "died" to sin, and are no longer bound by it.

Whether you like it or not, you'll never have the desire or ability to please God unless you come to him by faith. Every one of us, including myself, would remain a slave to sin apart from the work of Jesus.

Dedwarmo,
I'm not sure what the main point is you're trying to make here. It would be helpful if you could break it apart for me.

If your last two questions are earnest, surely you know enough of the Bible to understand what it says on that topic: Paul taught that man's sin nature (which he is born with as a result of his descent from Adam) makes him a slave to sin--unless he by faith believes in Jesus Christ and is born again. Because Jesus conquered sin by rising up from the dead, those who trust in him have "died" to sin, and are no longer bound by it.

Whether you like it or not, you'll never have the desire or ability to please God unless you come to him by faith. Every one of us, including myself, would remain a slave to sin apart from the work of Jesus.