Polish priest-cosmologist wins prestigious Templeton Prize

Not only that, but ID commits the heresy of dispensationalism, by denying God's continual working in the universe. It denies everything the Bible teaches about the nature of the miraculous being as a sign. It and Literal Creationism treats the scriptural texts with low regard to the author's intent. One may or may not agree with Christianity, but ID is poor Christian theology.

Jedidiah: Not only that, but ID commits the heresy of dispensationalism, by denying God's continual working in the universe..... etc .

Interview on NPR with Michael Heller for those who would like it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88188845

My point of view is that it is a grave, serious theological error – I underline that grave, serious theological error.

That's the convenient thing about theology as opposed to science. You can claim that someone is in "error" just because they disagree with you, as opposed to actually having to supply evidence that their view does not correspond to reality, and your own view does. Heller can now join the pantheon of Templeton prize winners, including Creationist Charles W. Colson.

Not only that, but ID commits the heresy of dispensationalism, by denying God’s continual working in the universe.

Kudos to Father Heller and to the Templeton Foundation! Heller reminds me of Father George Coyne, Catholic priest and astronomer, who also saw Intelligent Design for the noxious sham that it is. Evolution is supported only by atheists? I think not.

quote from a Wesly R. Elsberry entry at antievolution.org: Pamela Thompson, Templeton Foundation spokesperson, says in her letter to the LA Times: We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and the foundation is a nonpolitical entity and does not engage in or support political movements

As an example, Father Heller said, “birth is a chance event, but people ascribe that to God. People have much better theology than adherents of intelligent design. The chance event is just a part of God’s plan.”

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. (139:13) 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (139:15,16)

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26

So how can God direct an undirected process? How can there be a divine purpose behind a purposeless and random world? That didn't make sense to me as I began to investigate this stuff.

Perhaps you should have read the portion of his statement about the god of chance events. He is clearly taking a much more encompassing and empowering view of god FL and you ensist on believing you can quote mine him.

Perhaps you should have read the portion of his statement about the god of chance events.

And FL keeps making the mistake of quoting the Bible to prove his points, while the Bible itself remains unproven. No, the "grave theological error" seems to be taking the statements of the Bible as fact rather than the evidence in the universe God supposedly created. It stands to reason that the universe and everything in it from the largest galaxy to the smallest atom reveals God's glory far more than some series of writings from thousands of years ago of highly questionable origin.

FL, just grow up!

(2) Specifically, how does (whichever ID you specify from question #1), “deny God’s continual working in the universe”?

— FL

In fact, Dembski admitted that it accommodates all the “results” of “Darwinism,” whatever that means (don’t bother to figure it out - Dembski is a master of semantic bait-and-switch).

Heller dismisses ID, substitutes mystical superstition. The Templeton Prize is a joke. A lucrative joke, but a joke nonetheless.

FL: [....]

As an example, Father Heller said, “birth is a chance event, but people ascribe that to God. People have much better theology than adherents of intelligent design. The chance event is just a part of God’s plan.”

First, for Heller to say that "birth is a chance event" is itself a straight theological error, according to the Bible. In the Bible, NO birth (not even one's own birth) is a matter of chance. Psalm 139 explains it:

[Biblical quote snipped]

So, just on that one point, Heller commits a theological error. The Bible never ascribes anybody's birth to chance, but always, always, to God's teleology, purposefulness, and foreknowledge.

This really requires clarification as to what Heller means by a “chance event,” but it is likely that he is using it within the context of Methodological Naturalism, which uses “chance” and “random” to refer to processes for which science cannot provide precise predictions, but merely statements of statistical likelihood. However, while humans (stuck in the “natural”) can only observe the “chance event,” an omniscient, supernatural God is not so constrained. Intelligent Design, which is arguing against chance, is therefore arguing against an omniscient God. Therein lies the “grave, serious theological error” that Heller alludes to.

"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought." --Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed. "Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically." --Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought, SciAm July '00 (Footnote: Futuyma also says that the ToE is "purely materialistic" in his textbook as well.)

The Bible only commits this grave, serious theological error if you take it as a literal history text. (A literal history text which, mind you, can't produce a consistent genealogy of Jesus, or come to a consensus about how Judas died, or even keep a straight story about whether man was created before or after the plants!)

St. Augustine gave us an out, about the 5th century in his "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis". Is the Bible's purpose to be a literal history of the world and nothing more? Rabbi Hillel gave us an out much earlier. "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is Torah. The rest is commentary." The same Torah that contains both divergent creation stories! The Bible is not a literal history but a spiritual guidepost.

Crintelligent designtionism makes Job's error. Y'know, Job, the chronologically first book of the Bible? It tries to find purpose _understandable to man_ in the works of God. Anything that seems complicated must - must! - have been designed for the purpose we see it as having. Such arrogance. Evolution, and the methodological naturalism it entails, doesn't ascribe a purpose to anything, only a history.

This doesn't mean it denies there is a supernaturally driven purpose. Evolution doesn't have a place to stand to even talk about such a thing as a purpose. Crintelligent designtionism is trying to carve itself one, and that's wrong. Gravely, pridefully wrong.

Is the Bible in "grave theological error" when it contradicts itself? As it so often does?

"Is the Bible in “grave theological error” when it contradicts itself? As it so often does?"

Can I answer this one?

How far the Bible uses metaphor and parable, the degree of certainty of the exact meaning of the text, the possible errors of authorship, origin, transcription and translation, and the uncertainty of the canon, are all taken into account by nearly all Christian theologians. Even those of the Calvinist tradition are aware that Scripture requires careful exegesis and interpretation, that it does give conflicting testimony, and that literal readings are inherently dangerous. It is true that literalism was generally accepted in early modern times, but this was simply a product of limited knowledge. Over time the general Christian church accepted the truths about the Universe that science uncovered, and sees no conflict between the belief in a creator God and the knowledge of His methods. Only a small minority of fundamentalist literalists have problems with this.

Those who insist on the literal inerrancy of (some version) of Scripture are typically poorly educated about the original texts and their provenance. More precisely, they are bibliolaters; that is, they ascribe to a book - which is manifestly an earthly and human production, whatever the sources of its inspiration might be - the authority of Almighty God Himself. Hence, they deify it.

(Some of them take this error to such extremes that they ascribe divine authority to a particular translation of the Bible, typically the King James version of 1614, and insist that this translation is literally inerrant, even when scholars point out translation errors between it and the original Greek or Hebrew texts, and the variability of the latter. Of course the KJV's original translators themselves never made any such claim. They were far more humble men.)

It has many times been pointed out to literalists that a work of human hands that is perfect and without flaw would be a miracle. Even then, it would be a further miracle if it were understood perfectly. To demand of God that He create such miracles to order is indicative of feeble faith, not to mention that it is hubristic, indeed blasphemous. To insist that the Scriptures are by definition divinely inspired, and that this is the same as inerrancy, is clearly to deny human fallibility, and hence to confuse the Creator with the creation.

That's why biblical inerrancy is poor theology, and it's why the Bible is not to be read literally. So when it contradicts itself, it is not to be read literally, either. Simple as that.

The Catholics in particular are very firm on not taking the Bible literally. While I am not Catholic, it has been pointed out to me that the Catholic clergy actively DISCOURAGE their followers from reading the Bible themselves. The priest will interpret it for you and tell you what it means. It is NOT to be taken literally.

Take a close look at the books available in the pews in any Catholic church--I'd be very surprised if there was a Bible among them, based on reported observations from several Catholics/former Catholics.

Catholic clergy actively DISCOURAGE their followers from reading the Bible themselves.

To demand of God that He create such miracles to order is indicative of feeble faith, not to mention that it is hubristic, indeed blasphemous.

— Dave Luckett

Indeed, it seems a perfectly reasonable analogy. The writers of Genesis - which is a synthesis of at least two different traditions, as linguistic analysis of the original Hebrew shows - were aware that they were compiling creation stories, not handing down God's truth from on high, as is shown by the fact that they simply transmitted the two creation stories they give, without attempting to resolve the differences between them. That is, they knew that they were not privy to the mind of God, and they were aware that these were stories, narratives; that they had meaning and truth to them without necessarily being the literal truth. Narrative does have that odd property, as anyone who hears it knows. Why else do we read fiction?

I suspect that like the KJV translators, the Genesis compilers were humbler and yet more sophisticated than modern young-earth creationists or IDers. They were content to deal with the material to hand with the wit God gave them, without making further demands on Him. We understand God's universe with the mind He gave us, which is alone sufficient. To say otherwise is to reject His gifts as insufficient. This is the sin of pride at its most grandiose and florid, and it is wickedly false.

Then there's the price of papyrus.

Moses wanted to write down the 4 1/2 billion year history of the Earth that had been downloaded into his brain.

But Aaron kept saying they couldn't afford the amount of papyrus that would take.

"Well, how much can we afford?" says Moses.

"One week".

Ah, Asimov.

Anyhoo, the "Catholic Study Bible" on my bookshelf would seem to be setting up some kinda contradiction thing, woodsong.

In Judaism there is the Talmud, which is to put it in modern terms a sort of "FAQ" or "sticky thread" on the topic of the Torah. The Torah goes in the center of the page, encircled by centuries of commentary.

Think about progressing in science. You start with your intro courses, and your books full of generalities, interesting incidents, and maybe a few overgeneralizations. As you progress you get into more advanced texts and start reading research papers, and then begin doing your own work "raw" as it were. Nobody gives a new student a bunch of tools and a gentle push and expects them to recreate the entire 2000-year history of science, even in an abridged form.

My "Catholic Study Bible" is a Talmud, in a way, full of commentary, analysis, and cross-references. It's the graduate textbook to the missal's intro text. Many parishes also have an adult Scripture study group that meets outside of normal Mass. But Mass instruction itself often winds up like a class where you have to keep teaching at the same level. (And before Vatican II threw open the windows of the Church you couldn't even understand half the lecture!)

Google "Jesuits" sometime. Apologia, scholarship, and analysis are part of the Catholic tradition, though just as much as the Latin Mass.

I’m willing to suspend my disbelief to enjoy a good show