NPR is running a column called “Taking Issue” that “…features original essays on newsworthy and controversial topics.” I read the article by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Ph.D., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in which he advocates the concept of intelligent design.
Based on the content of his article and the additional readings of his weblog and the subsequent New York Times article, I must conclude that Mr. Mohler is a steadfast creationist who believes in the literal reading of the book of Genesis as fact.
I personally find no objection to the concept of reading the inspired teachings of the ascended masters literally. I do take exception with his interpretation though. Many of his statements with regard to Genesis are based on a set of axioms that I do not agree with.
I first must state that I have no idea what axioms Mr. Mohler holds as the basis of his opinions. I can only speculate as to what these are and this is what I have inferred from his responses to the questions posed on evolution.
- The true nature of Humanity is defined by the physical characteristics that can be measured by modern science.
I come to this conclusion based on the idea that Mr. Mohler presents that the time frame of the Bible is limited to approximately 6000 years. He has not stated this in his writings on this subject as published in the links in this essay, but this is the usually accepted calculation. Time must therefore be measured based on an arbitrary value for the length of time between human generations. This would therefore limit the length of time that a human might live.
He must also assume that the nature of humanity is limited to what he himself can perceive. God’s creation of us would therefore be limited to what he and his colleagues can conceive based on their own limited experience.
- There is a well-known and ultimately true definition of intelligence.
How could one define intelligent design without having an accepted idea for what intelligence is? That concept of intelligence would again be determined by the accepted dogma of he and his piers.
- The design of God’s creation is well known.
It is again difficult to postulate intelligent design without also making a statement about the design itself. I can look at the design of an automobile or a building and make a statement about that design because the manifestation of that design is within the scope of my perceptions and intellect.
Given these three axioms, it is logical that a pious man will come to the conclusions that Mr. Mohler has. My opinion is that these axioms are invalid based on the text of the Bible itself, as well as basic common sense with regard to our limited concept of the unknowable character of God.
The first axiom, which refers to the nature of humanity is refuted by Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them.”
First of all, in order to conceive of the nature of humanity you must be able to comprehend the nature of God’s Image. Aside from the basic ambiguity of the translation (was it the image of God as in a visual representation or the image of God figuratively?) one must be able to comprehend either the nature or the mind of God.
As for the mind of God, I quote the New Testament, Romans 11:33-34 “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor?” As for the nature of God itself, I think that it should be obvious to all that the limited context from which we speak must be incapable of divining that nature. I must therefore conclude that the first “axiom” is invalid. We just don’t have enough information to know what was actually created to understand the nature and character of that creation, let alone how that creation took place and when.
What is intelligence? Is there a clear definition of it. Can we state it’s character without equivocation? I would state that any concept, when sufficiently understood, can be simulated by a computing device. Since we cannot simulate intelligence, it therefore follows that we do not sufficiently understand it.
The last axiom is subject to the same argument as the first. In order to understand the design of God, you must have an understanding of what God had in mind. Again, this is not possible and “The Bible Tells Me So!”
Stipulating the above facts, one must conclude that intelligent design is impossible to prove, since the vary basis of the argument is either ambiguous at best or just outright impossible based on the fact that we could not possibly understand God because that would ultimately lead to a limitation of that which cannot be limited. It is logically incongruent to place a limit on the infinite. Therefore any argument for “Intelligent Design” is invalid on its face without even presenting any scientific theories to the contrary.
I know the Mr. Mohler and his colleagues can do better. They just need to THINK before they open their mouths.