Proverbs 19:11

Good sense makes one slow to anger,
and it is his glory to overlook an offense.

Romans 12:18

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

Does an Uncaused Universe Prove Atheism?

Suppose Quentin Smith succeeds in demonstrating that the actual universe began to exist without being caused to exist. Does this entail atheism?

An easy counter-example: there exists a theistic God, who did not cause the unviverse, and yet the universe began to exist.

The inability of a Quentonian argument to constitute positive proof of atheism does not prove theism, it just undercuts the potency of such an atheistic argument. If his argument is successful however, it will undercut all cosmological arguments, decreasing the reasons that some theists have for believing that God exists.

The difficulty in positively proving atheism is cited by some atheists as a point of persuasion, as if to say, "sure, my argument does not logically entail atheism proper, but no argument can, so give me a break". I have not been persuaded that it is necessarily the case that no argument can prove atheism, or theism for that matter. This is a point whose converse I am willing to grant for the sake of argument however.

My main point? Arguments that undercut theistic arguments do not entail atheism and vice versa.

My question to you: what types of enterprises seem likely candidates to succesfully provide positive evidence for atheism?

Patience and Freedom

Patience is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22).
Love is patient (1 Cor. 13:4).

Can we conclude then, that God, whose nature and charatcer contain the maximal degree of every good attribute, is patient?

What does it mean to be patient? The Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "able to wait without becoming annoyed or anxious". This will suffice.

What does it mean for God to be patient? If God's nature, character, and decisions are causally sufficient to determine the existence and behavior of each and every object, and there exists no object outside of God or that which He sufficiently determines to exist and behave, then the only possible way for God to be patient is for Him to be patient with Himself.

However, doesn't the essence of patience require that the patient respectfully endure the existence or action of an object outside himself? For calling God "patient" implies the temptation of annoyance ar anxiety. But how can God be tempted to be annoyed or anxious with Himself? Is God schizophrenic?

I answer "no". I think God is patient with objects who act independently of Him and contrary to His will. I am forced to conclude that their power to do so was given them by God for a good reason, and they are only permitted to act by God's decree. But just as Jesus emptied Himself (Phil. 5-11), and sovereignly chose to not apply His power and right to be equal with God, so I believe God soveriengly choses to not apply His power and right to sufficiently determine every event. No, He allows persons the dangerous and yet beautiful and enabling power of free will.

Your thoughts? Does the Divine attribute of patience imply the free will of persons?

concerning my progress as a catechumen.

This is a letter I wrote to Father Michael, my priest at St. Luke's Orthodox Church, and in it I explain some of the things I am struggling with on my journey to Orthodoxy.
____________



Father Michael,

I hope you got my email about why I wasn’t there for my Chrismation on Lazarus Saturday. I mentioned that I wasn’t able to make it because I planned a vacation with Noelle and my family last week because it was Noelle’s spring break and I didn’t think I would miss Pascha since it’s usually a week after the Latin Church’s Easter. I found out that I was wrong after I had already bought my plane tickets and paid for the hotels and so on. But despite all this I realized, somewhat to my own disappointment, that this wasn’t the whole story. For if it was, I would never miss my chrismation for the sake of a vacation, or nearly anything else for that matter. If I really was looking forward to my chrismation in the Orthodox Church like I ought to be I simply wouldn’t miss it for the world. So back when I realized I wasn’t going to make it I thought it somewhat odd that I was willing to miss it, and the truth is that I was, and this is not because it doesn’t mean to me what it should, but quite the contrary. I was willing to miss it because my heart isn’t completely settled on it, and that’s because I’m not completely ready, and I think you would agree that I ought to be nothing short of completely ready for the Rite of chrismation to be all that God has designed it to be. So because it means to me what it ought to, I mustn’t go through with it until I have my heart in the right place. I hope you don’t take offense to any of this, and please forgive me if my words betray my intent. I suppose I could make things clearer by explaining why I think I might not be ready.
The most immediate and less theological reason why my heart is not where it should is that going through with my chrismation will bind me either explicitly or implicitly to rejecting some of my past. For instance, in the chrismation confession, I am to pronounce that I renounce “all heretical associations, traditions, rules, and all teachers and their doctrines contrary to the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church, and cast them off.” (63) And further, that I “renounce all ancient modern apostasies, heresies, and founders of heresies, and cast them off because they are contrary to God.” (64) And again, that I “believe and confess that power has been given by Christ the Savoir to the Orthodox-Catholic Church, to bind and to loose. And that whatever, through that power, is bound or loosed on earth will be bound and loosed in Heaven.” (66) The difficulty here is that I became a Christian, and I am confident that I am in communion with invisible Church in part by the preaching of the Baptists (who are the theological decedents of the Anabaptists), and the teachings of the Anabaptists are officially condemned by the Eastern Churches. Now this isn’t to say that I am an Anabaptist, for as I have told you I have independently (and by the grace of God) come to the same theological positions that the Eastern Church espouses, so clearly I am no Baptist or Anabaptist. The problem is that my conversion into the Invisible Church was brought about by the presentation of the Gospel by the preaching of Baptists, and the things they preached, the doctrines that gave the doctrinal basis and context of my legitimate conversion and baptism, I am now called to renounce to a substantial degree, and I find myself vexed and disconcerted by this. Since the Eastern Church in fact recognizes the legitimacy of my conversion and baptism by the work of Baptists (this must be the case because I am to be chrismed only, and not re-baptized) I cannot with good conscience renounce their traditional as heretical, or even mostly heretical, for clearly they have been an instrument of Grace in my life, and in the lives of many others.
But maybe I have misinterpreted what I have read. I’m thinking that even though I am to affirm and confess “…that power has been given by Christ the Savoir to the Orthodox-Catholic Church, to bind and to loose. And that whatever, through that power, is bound or loosed on earth will be bound and loosed in Heaven,” it maybe doesn’t mean that no other visible Church, such as the Evangelical Baptists, have not received a portion of such power? For surely if my conversion and baptism, which was performed by Evangelical Baptists, is legitimate (again, as the Eastern Church seems to implicitly recognize this by not requiring me to be baptized again), then it must be the case that such Evangelical Baptists had the power, at the time of my conversion and baptism, to “bind and to loose.” Until God grants me peace with this issue, affirming these statements I am slated to confess without being sure that my statements, namely the Baptists too may have the power to “bind and to loose,” I cannot help thinking and feeling that I would in effect be denying the authenticity of my conversion and baptism, as well as the good work of many co-laborers of the Kingdom, and maybe even that my Christian brothers and sisters who are dear to me might not in fact be my brothers and sisters because they are not “in communion with the Eastern Church.” I am seeking communion with the Eastern Church in part because I know that I have become part of Christ’s Eternal Kingdom, and I did so outside of the visible communion with the Eastern Church, and unless I can combine this process into a cohesive story, my major reason for wanting to Commune with Eastern Church is strongly undercut.
The second, more theological worry is the issue of doctrinal authority and the Canon of Scripture. I am well aware that the Canon of the New Testament didn’t pop into existence ex nihilo but was pieced together by the combined efforts of God directing the hearts of both the Eastern and Latin Church Fathers. The Bible, as the collection of divinely inspired texts, was put together and sealed with Divine Authority. The fact that the Eastern (and Western) Church were the vessels to which God ordained the Cannon, it’s a natural move for someone like myself who trusts the Bible as the most reliable source for sound teaching to seek to commune with the tradition who bequeathed it. It’s no wonder then that by studying the Bible I’ve come to have the hold the same theological positions as the Church Fathers.
My criteria for what I believe about God has always been the Bible, and I come to understand the things I have by using the reason God has given me and by reading the Bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think a good case could be made that Early Church thought the Bible to be sufficiently authoritative on its own behalf. For instance when speaking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Apostle’s Creed states that Jesus Christ “for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven…” Notice that it doesn’t say anything like “because this is the teachings of the Church,”or that “the Fourth Ecumenical Council has decided” that Jesus did these things, but that it simply takes the Scriptures as the authority on the matter, as if it were sufficient. I think this is correct, but this isn’t the end of the story. The same Church that has been the vessel for the Holy Scriptures is also a tradition that has passed down doctrines that the Bible doesn’t directly address. For instance, the Church states that Mary never had sexual intercourse throughout her life, that she was the Ever Virgin Mary. Now I don’t have Biblical objections to such a doctrine, because the Bible nowhere contradicts it. The Bible emphasizes the fact that she was a Virgin when Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit in her womb, and has no comment about whether she remained a Virgin throughout the rest of her life. But being Eastern Orthodox means that you affirm that she did in fact remain a Virgin for the rest of her life. And I’m perplexed about how I am supposed to affirm it when I don’t know if it’s true or not. I don’t have any reason to think it’s false, but not having a reason to think that something is false doesn’t imply that it’s true either. The Church, I think, says that I should believe it because the Church is directed by the hand of God, and therefore ought to be trusted in its proclamations of faith. But that is a difficult thing for me to swallow whole heartedly, for the historical Church wasn’t without it’s own schisms and divisions through the first thousand years of Ecumenical activity. For instance, St. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. Basil the Great both thought that St. Gregory of Nyssa was wrong about the latter’s teaching on universal salvation (that all mankind will eventually be saved). I suppose this instance of Church Father disagreement is beyond the scope of the Ecumenical Councils, and so it doesn’t represent division among the essentials of Orthodox Doctrine. Fair enough, but who’s to say that something like the doctrine of the Ever Virginity of Mary is something that is debatable in the same way St. Gregory of Nyssa’s universalism is, in which case it might be viewed as an open question? I think the response to this suggestion of the Eastern Church is that the Church teaches that the Virgin Mary was ever so, and so it’s not an open question. And then my next question becomes, well, how do I know that? How do I know that the Eastern Church and what it teaches is always correct? And I think the only response that could be given to me is something like, “The voice of God will be heard through the Church,” or “If you seek the voice of God, and you are one of His children, then you will naturally trust His Church.” What else could the response be? I actually think this a decent response, the problem for myself is that I haven’t heard such a confirmation from God yet, and maybe I need to be more patient and maybe need to open my heart, and keep seeking. And that’s exactly what I plan to do, but for now I’m not there yet.
I’m sorry Father Michael if I might be guilty of pride for demanding to know all these things. The thirst for knowledge often ends in pride and arrogance, and I’m open to the possibility that I’m seeking with my mind more than my heart, I really am. I know that I’m supposed to love God with all my heart, all my mind, and all my soul; it’s just difficult to guide my heart when I don’t see where I’m going, and I’ll be more than willing when my heart tells me to trust more than I can figure out on my own. I’m just not there yet.

An Old Journal of My Introduction to General and Special Relativity Wherein My Skepticism and Dogmatic Newtonianism Was Dissolved

Forward:
Dear Derek, in the presence of many witnesses, in light of our brief conversation earlier, I here submit to you some of my thoughts from a Physical Science class I took in Fall of 2005. One of the assignments involved thorough interaction with a chapter of choice in Hewitt’s, Suchocki’s, and Hewitt’s, Conceptual Physical Science. I selected a chapter we hadn’t gone over in class: Chapter 35: Special and General Relativity. Please keep in mind that I have learned a lot since this writing, that this writing is a direct summary and response to a chapter of a textbook, and that this was a general ed, non-science major class.

I also highly recommend these two resources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea

•••

Original Writing:
35.1 Summary: To record the state of something we use three dimensions, which have no robust meaning unless we also state the time that the dimensional descriptions applied to the object in question. This seems to indicate that space and time may be bound. Einstein’s theories support this; that things exist in a space-time continuum.
35.1 Comments: I have seen the PBS special “The Elegant Universe”, so I am going into this chapter with a little bit of background information about the theories of relativity, but not much. I have some speculations of my own, which begin with critiques of contemporary explanations of “space-time” observations. I would therefore like to note my initial hesitance to calling space and time, or matter and energy, the same thing; no matter how intimately they may be connected.

35.2 Summary: Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, based on Newtonian principles, states first that “Observers can never detect their uniform motion except relative to other objects”. A restatement of this postulate is that “All laws of nature are the same in all uniformly moving reference frames”. An example is given of being able to pour coffee while flying through the air on a jet plane. This is supported by any experiment that has been carried out. If it has been carried out on earth, the fact that the earth is in motion, and the experiment was carried out as if there was not any acceleration of the location it was carried out in (indeed, there was not any relative motion of the lab relative to the earth and its atmosphere), then it becomes more and more clear that if the entire frame of reference is moving relative to an outside object, then relative motion inside the reference frame is only relative to other objects inside the reference frame – the motion of objects outside the reference frame are not factors in the motion of the objects inside.
The second postulate is that “The speed of light in free space will have the same value to all observers, regardless of the motion of the source or the motion of the observer. The speed of light is a constant.” This postulate is confirmed by our measurements of the speed of light. If both postulates accurately describe reality, then when two observers in relative motion to each other and a light source disagree about the time of a certain event, they may both be correct – the only thing to budge in the equation is time. A note is made that points in space and time are both quantized, i.e. there are fundamental units for them.
35.3 Comments: I like that the wording of the first postulate does not deny objective uniform motion or location. It does not affirm them either. If you start with relative motion, you will get relative motion. In other words, if we measure motion relatively, or call motion “change in position relative to a frame of reference” then of course we will conclude that motion is relative. Rather, the postulate simply states that it is impossible to detect uniform motion (if it is a phenomenon that actually occurs in our universe). I am however, skeptical of even this. What, logically, was Einstein’s reason for believing that humans will never discover a universally objective frame of reference, nor be able to develop the technology to measure motion in relationship to it?
I have also wondered about the famous experiment involving two clocks on two airplanes flying in opposite directions around the world. Their clocks showed a difference in displayed time at the end. But couldn’t that have been due merely to the physical strain exerted upon the inner workings of the clocks during the experiment? I would wonder then, what were the clocks measuring? Is it possible that what we call “time” is actually two different things: ‘age’ and ‘time’. ‘Age’ being the physical change or decay of an object, and ‘time’ being the objective, steady progression of events in this world. Time might be the cursor of history marking where everything is. How else would it be that the pilots of the planes could see each other after the flight? Wouldn’t they be living in two different planes of reality – different “times”? One would be a few split seconds ahead of the other! Or perhaps at the end of the day they both wound up in the same time plane, but traveled through less “time” to get there. I wonder then, what the nature of the “time” is that they traveled through; could they have seen each other during their journeys? How much of the Special Theory has to do with mere perception, and how much of it with the actual bending of time? Could it be that our methods for measurement are flawed?

35.3 Summary: The notion that time can be stretched is called “time dilation”. A very compelling illustration is given. Suppose that we could observe a light flash bounce between two mirrors inside a transparent spaceship. An observer onboard the spaceship, and an observer on the ground would both measure the speed of light as the same rate, denoted c. Yet to the observer onboard the spaceship, the flash of light is only moving up and down (which it is – relative to the environment of the spaceship). However to the observer on the ground, the flash of light will actually be moving up and down, and horizontally as well (in a zig-zag pattern). This is because the entire spaceship, including the mirrors and the light flash, are moving parallel to the ground. To the observer on the ground, the flash of light will then be covering more distance than to the observer on the spaceship. If speed is equal to distance divided by time, and the speed of light is constant, and the distance stretches, then the time must logically be stretching, or dilating, as well. This occurrence can be expressed mathematically.
The text then contends that time is actually dilating, there is nothing unusual about the functioning of a clock itself, as indeed there is nothing unusual about clocks here on earth now, though they are all whizzing through space (because the earth on which they are is whizzing through space). Next the text explains that as a result of time dilation, according to the measurements we have made, as speeds approach the speed of light, time slows down and seems to approach zero. A mass at the velocity of light, c, takes an infinite amount of time to elapse one second, and zero amount of time to travel an infinite distance. Thankfully, the Law of the universe has set c to be a type of cosmic speed limit such that it is impossible to reach or exceed c. It is important to note that time dilation, to be perfectly accurate, most be taken into account even for small masses and slow accelerations. It is also important to note that as speeds approach c, mass approaches infinity, length approach zero. However light, which moves at c, will always be measured to be moving at c, regardless of your frame of reference.
Space travel is also discussed in this chapter. At high speeds it would be theoretically possible to spend 5 years traveling at 99.999 % of c, and return to earth only to find that 1100 years have passed for it and its inhabitants.
35.3 Comments: This chapter hasn’t mentioned it yet, but c is only the speed at which light moves in a “vacuum”. Light moves significantly slower in gas, even slower in liquid, and slower still through solids (if at all). This chapter coaxes another question. If Einstein is right, then why can light go the speed of light? Isn’t light made up of photons? Why are they exempt from the c speed limit? Well, if photons have zero mass, then perhaps it is not so absurd. I would also like to note that this section does not assert that time can be turned backwards. It can be sped and slowed (relatively), but there is nothing in this section that argues for bending and twisting time like a pretzel, or going back in time. In fact on page 845 it says that time accelerated astronauts will not be able to go backward in time.

35.4 Summary: Length contraction is related to time dilation. As was mentioned, as a mass approaches the speed of light, its length approaches zero, when measured by an observer who is not traveling relative to a common frame of reference. This contraction only takes place in the direction of motion. This phenomenon is related to time dilation, as distances will flatten to zero when a mass approaches them at c. In this way, one could travel an infinite distance in zero amount of time. Furthermore, if a mass approaches the speed of light, its length does not change relative to itself. Rather, the time it has to travel through in order to reach its destination is collapsing. However from the perspective of an outside observer, lengths are contracting.

35.5 Summary: In this chapter relativistic momentum is explained. The speed of any mass has a limit: c. However, momentum may increase without limit. This is illustrated by Einstein’s new equation for calculating momentum, which accounts for the Lorentz factor. Therefore as speed approaches c, momentum approaches ∞. With any progress toward c, objects appear to increase in mass, because they display an increase in inertia. Einstein however, seemed to think later in his life that mass is the same in all frames of reference, but space-time changes with speed.
35.5 Comments: It seems to me that if you accept Einstein’s initial premises, then all of this follows logically. To be honest, I think I might just have a lot of emotional struggles with accepting all of this.

35.6 Summary: Einstein asserts that matter and energy may be exchanged according to the expression E=mc2; E being energy, m being mass, and c being the familiar uninhibited speed of light. When fuel is used to produce energy, the system will afterward be found to be less some mass, in accordance with Einstein’s equation!

35.7 Summary: A desire to describe nature using standard forms and perspectives motivated Einstein to pursue a description of the phenomena he was examining, which came to be know as his theory of General Relativity. By thinking about a spaceship accelerating at g, the principle of equivalence became manifest, that “local observations made in an accelerated frame of reference cannot be distinguished from observations made in a Newtonian gravitational field”. A few thought experiments quickly establish this theory as reasonable, but Einstein elaborates on it by saying that, (in a free environment) because the trajectory of a beam of light relative to an accelerated mass is identical to the trajectory of an additional object relative to the same accelerated mass, space-time itself curves. He contends that matter and energy are two aspects of the same thing.
Euclidean geometry produces accurate results when dealing with objects on a flat surface. However, Einstein’s observations and calculations argued for a four dimensional warping of space-time. This is seen when the shortest distances between three planets form a triangle whose angles add up to greater than 180 degrees. The lines making up the legs of triangles such as this are called geodesics. The lines are technically not straight, but they are short. If this curving of space-time is positive throughout the universe, then the universe is warped like a sphere. If it is negative, then it is shaped more like a Pringles potato chip. This curvature of space-time causes what we perceive as gravity, and is proportional to mass. This principle is seen when we calculate the effect of large masses as they change position. It would seem that, rather than a sudden ceasing of gravitational force on other masses, a large mass that changes position creates gravity waves, similar to the waves made on the surface of a waterbed when a bowling ball is rolled across it.
Einstein’s calculations, when applied to planets in Our Solar System predicted precessing orbits. When Newtonian physics were used to predict the orbits of the planets it pretty much worked out – except for the missing 43 seconds of arc that Mercury displayed. Einstein’s equations had produced the right predictions.
Another confirmation of Einstein’s theory occurred in 1919 when a solar eclipse revealed that his predictions about the exact arc beams from distant stars display when passing near the Sun where dead on.
A third test confirms General Relativity, and it becomes clear that in General Relativity, the gravitational “red shift” is relative to location rather than speed (because c is a constant). It is also important to note that time is never sped or slowed for an object relative to itself (obviously). This is to say that though an object may pass through time more slowly than another relative to it, its lifespan is never extended from its own perspective.
35.7 Comments: I heard once that Einstein responded with a complete lack of surprise when his predictions about starlight arc were shown to be accurate. He said something about being certain from his equations alone; observation is secondary.

Concluding Thoughts:
This chapter has brought many questions and ideas to mind. For example, if God has no mass, then (if Einstein is right), He is not subject to time. Perhaps He can interact with this universe in the ontological now, all the while being atemporal and eternal. Maybe that photons have no mass somehow plays into a facet of God’s foreknowledge or omniscience.
This in turn raises thoughts concerning humans and the resurrection. If human souls have no mass, maybe it is so that, upon death (separation of body and soul), a soul zooms to resurrection day, upon which it meets its body and enters into temporality again. I understand this to be a much bigger scriptural and scientific topic to be researched than is feasible here, but it is interesting to be introduced to such musings.
I cannot keep from thinking about the implications of God stretching out the heavens. Could this skew our observations of the age of the universe? What if our solar system was accelerated altogether such that the age of our solar system is different than the age of another? I have heard some compelling arguments for a very young earth, and some for a very young solar system. But I have also heard about evidence that seems to support an older universe. Could it be that when God stretched out the heavens, galactic clocks spun at different rates relative to each other?

Consider:
Job 9:8 “[God] stretches out the heavens”
Ps. 104:2 “stretching out heaven like a tent curtain”1
Isa. 40:22 “He ... stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent”1
Isa. 42:5 “... God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out”
Isa. 44:24 “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself”
Isa. 45:12 “It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands”
Isa. 48:13 “Surely My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.”
Isa. 51:13 “the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth”
Jer. 10:12 “He has stretched out the heavens”
Jer. 51:15 “He stretched out the heavens”
Zech. 12:1 “the Lord who stretches out the heavens”

Please also see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ111.html#wp1885480
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/

Lastly, I would like to leave the reader with the following thought. When God destroys nature, and recreates it (Rev. 21:2), will he do so with a new set of universal constants, quantities, and forces? Did the fall of Adam knock a lot of forces and constants off track? Humans have the opportunity to seek the answers, but let us give glory to God, above all.

is God possibly subtle?

The atheistic argument from Divine Hiddeness:

Assume the following:

1. God exists
2. God made man in his image
3. Necessarily, if God made man in his image, then it’s God’s duty to make Himself known to the creatures whom bear his image in any circumstance whatever.
4. God didn’t make himself known to me.
5. God doesn’t exist (since 3 entails the necessity of God making myself known to me if he exists, and I don’t know he exists, then necessarily God cannot exist).

The rebuttal to the argument from Divine Hiddeness: the argument from Divine Subtlety, which finds premise three suspect:

Surely premise 3. is too strong to be prima facie true. Imagine a possible world where God is subtle, where he only makes Himself known to those who have the eyes to see, ears to hear, and a pure heart. Imagine that God is such that only those who are willing to discern His existence are able to see that he exists. If such a world is even possible then premise 3 is necessarily false.

So is it possible that God is subtle? There’s no contradiction in the above description, so it’s at least logically possible. But is it metaphysically possible? Maybe despite the logical possibility of it being true, maybe it must be ruled out for metaphysical reasons. But what would such a reason look like?

Maybe the following:

6. God so loves his creatures that He would never not let them know that He exists.

Is 6 blatantly obvious? No, for maybe God has reasons for being subtle, like

7. God so loves His creatures He wouldn’t force them to believe He exists unless they wanted to believe.

Is 7 possible true? Surely, for

8. Love never moves the beloved if the beloved must be moved against the beloved’s will.

8 seems obviously true, and I’d invite anyone to find an exception. Since 8 is true, then 6 and 3 are false, and so the argument from Divine Hiddeness collapses.

The Economy of Mercy

There's just two ways to lose yourself in this life
And neither way is safe
In my dreams I see visions of the future
But today we have today
And where will I find You?

In the economy of mercy
I am a poor and begging man
In the currency of Grace
Is where my song begins
In the colors of Your goodness
In the scars that mark your skin
Is where my song begins

These carbon shells
These fragile dusty frames
House canvases of souls
We are bruised and broken masterpieces
But we did not paint ourselves
And where will I find You?

Where was I when the world was made?
Where was I?

I'm lost without You here
Yes, I'm lost without You near me
I'm lost without You here
You knew my name when the world was made

History of Creationism

the MarioKart argument.

Imagine (although this has actually happened to me once) that you’re playing Mariokart for Nintendo Gamecube with a few friends. The light turns green and you start racing, and the buggy you think you are controlling does all the things you have to do via your controller input; your character speeds up, rounds corners, shoots the occasional shell, as well as takes the secret short cut you intend on taking. Imagine further that the character you thought was yours (the buggy with the Princess and Mario) is actually someone else’s (Judah Dorn’s) (yours is actually the one with Wario and Boo) and it just so happened Judah Dorn did everything you thought you were doing, but of course it was Judah who did what you thought you were doing, and not you (your buggy with Wario and Boo are a few turns behind everyone else in the race slamming into a wall because, as we have already seen and established, your controller was controlling Wario and Boo’s buggy and not the Princess and Mario’s, and there was actually a few things that Judah did with his buggy that you didn’t do with yours (unbeknownst to yourself at the time), and so on. Now what can be said about such a scenario? The following facts are worthy of reflection:

(1) You didn’t do what you thought you were doing, which is to say you didn’t cause anything to happen in the way you thought you did.

(2) Despite the fact of (1), since it was the case you thought you were doing something, you were able to

(3) Identify with what you thought you were doing in such a way that you would have taken responsibility for what Judah’s buggy was doing even though you had nothing to do with it.

These are the facts of the story, and we need to take one more step to make it extremely pertinent to a certain discussion. Could you, if facts (1)-(3) obtain, take responsibility for the actions of Judah’s buggy even if you knew after the fact that it wasn’t you who did it? In the very least you would have to concede that you intended the events that actually took place, and so were responsible in at least that sense (is this enough for responsibility? Perhaps it is). But never mind what you would accept or not, I know that when this situation actually happened to me I asked myself if I were willing to take responsibility for my actions even thought I didn’t actually do anything I thought I did at the time, and I told myself I would be willing to take responsibility. But how could I take responsibility for something I didn’t actually do? Well, quite simply, I willingly intended everything I thought I was doing, and so am responsible in a significant sense; and this is true despite the facts of the matter!

So, let’s abstract these phenomenon a bit. Say the world and its causal order is such that the future is closed and nothing that is, was, or is going to happen could happen otherwise than how it is, was, and is going to happen (determinism is true!). Well, does this mitigate against responsibility, that is, could the possible truth of determinism remove the possibility of responsibility of agents? Given my video game experience and what I learned from it, it seems I must say that responsibility and determinism are compossible in so far as the agents identify with what they think they’re doing even if they aren’t doing what they think they are.

A slight caveat: I think this example is indifferent to whatever is the source any determinism in any possible world, which is to say it matters not which things are the source or cause of determinism whether it be the laws of the universe or God or mad scientists. The question of the compossibility of responsibility is narrow enough to ignore such a discussion. Nevertheless if we were to change topics and ask if other things besides humans are responsible in the worlds where both determinism and responsibility cohabitate, the following seems to be true.

In the worlds where there is just physical laws, matter, minds capable of deliberation, determinism and responsibility, then minds are the only things could be responsible (in the moral sense), for they are the things that have good and bad intentions, and so on.

In the worlds where everything is as just described with the addition of a (theistic) God, then it seems there are now two types of things which can be called responsible, man and God- for God is also such that he can deliberate and have good intentions (although he can’t have evil ones, according to Classical Theism). Notice that in the worlds where a deistic God exists he wouldn’t be morally responsible, but just causally responsible, since, in order for him to be morally responsible he would have to have intentions of sorts, and deistic Gods don’t have intentions, they would be more like physical laws (if the existed) since they do things unconsciously. But in the worlds where the theistic God exists, then it is the case that what he causes to exist in any possible world are not just things he thinks he’s causing, or else He wouldn’t be God, but something else would. So in the worlds where a theistic God exists he would be in fact causing everything you think you are doing but nevertheless identify with, and in such worlds where there is evil done through agents who think they do it, it would be God who is doing it, which means that in such worlds God would be responsible for evil, which is impossible. Therefore if theism is true and there is evil in the world then compatibilism is false.

But back to what we were saying. How might a libertarian (someone who thinks determinism and responsibility are not compossible) respond to all of this? Well, L S* has an argument, and I’d like to paraphrase him here: So what if I identified with something that something else caused; that’s not even the question, and so these sorts of Frankfurt-style counterexamples to alternate possibility requirements for responsibility simply beg questions. Even if it is the case that everything I intended to do took place in ways I identified with, I could have intended to do other than which I thought I did. Since it is me who has the power and control of intending to do otherwise, and not Judah Dorn, this is what grounds the possibility of me identifying with anything whatever. To have the power to intend otherwise is having the power to engage an alternate possibility other than that which has happened, and so alternate possibilities are still required for responsibility ascriptions. So much for poo-poo compatibilism!

The meta-compatibilist response: Look, imagine that Judah Dorn’s controller can not only be hooked up to a Gamecube but your mind as well. Assuming that is conceivable (if not, why not, and remember that all things are possible through Christ who…etc.), then Judah could cause you to intend whatever you intend when every you do, and so long you as you in fact identify with what you think you’re intending but are in fact not, you could just as easily and in the same way be responsible. So much for the poo-poo need for alternate possibilities!

So, any thoughts?





* Unpublished voice mail left on my phone, 02/24/07.

Spiritual Gifting, Not Spiritual Gifts

For years, I have wrestled (internally) with my views on “spiritual gifts.” My ecclesiastical tradition has had much to say on the matter (especially in recent days).

So the long and short of my answer is this…Believers do not have spiritual gifts.

Allow me to continue. Our individualistic mindset has vastly distorted our concept of spiritual gifts. We, and by we I mean most evangelicals, see them as something believers have. Believing as such, we see it was an irrevocable gift from God. It is also commonplace to believe that having a spiritual gift is an indicator of how God has uniquely blessed us as individuals for his church. Perhaps we are far from the Biblical understanding of this subject.

A spiritual gift is a gifting of the Spirit in the lives of the elect for the benefit of the church.

Common Questions Answered:
1. When does some one receive their Spiritual Gift(s)?
One is given abilities in varying stages of life but these abilities are only “spiritual” when empowered by the Holy Spirit for the common edification of the local church.

2. Does everyone “have” a Spiritual Gift?
Everyone has gifts that are all given by God but the gifts, talents, and abilities are not always and at all times used by God.

3. Can I lose my gift?
God is the giver of every good gift and is certainly able to take these gifts or abilities away. Spiritual gifts are not possessions that believers own. When the gifts and abilites that God has given are used by the Spirit they become our spiritual gifting.

4. Are those gifts listed in Scripture (and those often mentioned in the OT) exhaustive lists?*
Definitely not! They are ways in which the Spirit of God was manifesting Himself through the people of God for a particular time.

5. What about the “cessation” of gifts? Are there gifts that are no longer present?
Yes and No. The Holy Spirit no longer manifests himself to believers in such a way to create “new prophecy.” However, we cannot deny that other “miraculous giftings” exist as the Spirit determines necessary.

6. Is this a consistent theology for the Old Testament?
The Holy Spirit was present in the lives of OT saints for a special anointing in which He worked for the good of His people. Often times the working of the Spirit was to bring His people to repentance. The Holy Spirit was also present using abilities of men and women for leadership and for even manual tasks such as constructing tabernacles, temples, and walls.

7. Are there “non-spiritual” gifts?
There are abilities that are God-given and other talents that are not from God. Certainly, God is able to use all human experiences to bless His people, but it is unreasonable to consider certain abilities, especially those pertaining to skillful sinning, to be in anyway spiritual in nature.

8. Is there one spiritual gift(ing) that all believers have? Do they have a responsibility to use that gift?
Yes! As I read 1 Corinthians, the one gift that we all have is love. Jesus, Himself, said, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples….” The love of Christ is one thing the Holy Spirit gives ALL believers. This spiritual gift is and should always be present in the manifestations of the Spirit’s gifting of believers for service.

9. How can Christians discover their “spiritual gifts”?
As defined above, spiritual gifts are the ways in which the Spirit of God uses both supernatural and natural abilities to bring about His purposes. Therefore, the best way to discover how God uses someone is to ask others in the body how they have been recipients of God’s work through them.

10. So why make the distinction between spiritual gifts and spiritual gifting?
We must not loose site of the most important thing. It is not the gifts and abilities that we have that are spiritual; but, the use of those gifts by the Holy Spirit that make them spiritual. Our gifts are not ours to keep. God has gifted his children for giving themselves to the community of faith for the building up of others. When we give our gifts and the Spirit uses them—we are exercising our spiritual gifting.


**(1 Cor. 12:28, 1 Cor. 12:8-10, Eph. 4:11, Rom. 12:6-8, 1 Cor 7:7, 1 Peter 4:11)

A Brief Hiatus

Hey guys, I am going to stay off of Raw Atheology for the semester, as I am taking 23 units so that I can get denied my commencement by the elusive powers that be, so that I can move to Idaho and have my $150,000 piece of paper mailed to me.

When I first get to Idaho I will launch a 3-year reading campaign, in which I intend to read first about how to read. Then I will progress to reading about logic, the classics of interest to me that I haven't yet read, epistemology, philosophy of mind, pyschology, divine and human agency, cosmology (I hope to make this a major focus), arguments for and against the existence of God, arguments for and against Christianity, systematic theology, theology of the Kingdom, theology of mission, early church history, early church theology, the development of the canon,
predestination, and perhaps I will detour through existentialism at some point. I will be blogging about my findings and my musings.

I encourage the extant contributors to Raw Theology to post, and rest assured that I will read it. You can take this opportunity to critique all my crap, stack up posts in contrary to my views, and slander my name. I will be back to take you all down later. Peace.

Is Philosophy Progressive?

A guy named Mark Makin posted this link on Biola's intranet: http://www.philosophynow.org/issue59/59carey.htm. I found it interesting.

John 8:3-11

3. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4. they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" 6. This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." 8. And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11. She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

Whether it's true, the conclusion is fallacious - whoops!

Whilst recognizing the complexity of some of the arguments a little closer to the axis of the conversation, it dawned on me tonight why I have never really cared for the qualm that Intelligent Design is merely dressed up Creationism: religious in nature.

It's called a genetic fallacy, guys. On my side of things, I don't care if Nietzsche, Sartre, Dawkins, Darwin, Satan, and Stalin travel in time to conspire to formulate an argument against the existence of God, or contra the fine tuning of the universe or the apparent design in biology. I care about the content of the argument.

What is Religion? And Dawkins isn't too bad a fellow - he does have some good stuff to say.

[Although it is often difficult for me to escape what may seem to be condescending or at least certain rhetoric, much of this blog has been a journey for me, and I hope at least some of my honest inquisitiveness is visible through the veil. For all actual condescension and wrongfully dogmatic or inflammatory language I apologize, whether I did it intentionally.]

Is religion the designation for a group of topics, one's opinions about which constitute his religion? This can't be it, because choosing to believe that there is a God makes a person religious. But according to this definition of religion, taking the opposite position, that there is no God, is also a religious belief. I doubt most atheists want to call themselves religious.

Is religion a set of traditions? If this is so, then going to Starbucks every day would be a religious activity. Celebrating birthdays doesn't seem to qualify as religious either. Let's try again.

Is religion a set of propositions that render a man religious upon affirmation? This might be closer. If anyone affirms that there is a God, gods, or anything supernatural, then he is called religious. If this is so, then religious beliefs shouldn't be disqualified merely on the basis of their category. Rather, they should be investigated to determine whether they are reasonable. In this case, the proposition "God exists" is something that a free thinker, scientist, or philosopher may inquire as to the truth of. Such an inquirer may come to agree with the proposition in question, rendering him religious. Or, he may come to disagree with the proposition, rendering him, in this case, irreligious. Either stance, if arrived at rationally, may turn out to be a scientific or philosophically defensible position.

Is religion an epistemology that derives belief from authority, tradition, intuition, and/or feeling? This also comes close to the popular use of the term. Most classified "religions" such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and yes, even Christianity, hold epistemological frameworks that elevate tradition (pick your holy book), authority (pick your religious leader), intuition (pick your bosom-burning), and/or feeling (can you feel the Spirit?). If this is what religion is, then I want no part in it.

My personal goal is to seek to believe in what is true, meaning what is accurate to reality. In my humble and limited experience I have come to esteem science and logic as avenues to arrive at truth. I am a sort of free thinker, an arm-chair scientist, a lay anthropologist, and a budding young philosopher.

On an only semi-related, but very important note...

I have recently sworn off all conspiracy theories. These include common Christian presumptions about the hatred and deceitfulness of atheists and other non-Christians. I have actually been finding Dawkins to be quite a reasonable man. His scientific discourses are interesting, clear, and informative. I think that his qualms with religion are valid, and in fact I share them. He is right to rebut screwy epistemology, promote science and free inquiry, as well as common sense.

I think that people of all religions, including Christianity, have more to learn from him than teach him. I have always been uncomfortable with the notion of "blind faith". I grow increasingly frustrated with with what I call "folk Christianity", and with the Religious Right.

I have even been reforming much of my own world view and behavior as of late. I feel like I have a large humility pill I need to swallow. I feel that I have been guilty of a lot of ad-hoc thinking, red herrings, and ad hominems. I have been guilty of sweeping aside arguments merely because of their source (genetic fallacy). But I am young, and this transition in my development marks only an important period of growth, and the beginning of a new stage of thinking.

Perhaps instead of fighting Dawkins, Christianity should embrace what he has to say and teach. Perhaps we need a wake up call. This is not to say that we can't engage Dawkins logically, however.

After all, we were the ones who use to build the universities, kick off the science experiments, and promote literacy. We use to drink, smoke cigars and pipes, experiment with music, talk philosophy, engage the culture, make friends with prostitutes, and love the homeless. Yes, there are many who do this today, and yes, we've certainly had our dark and hateful times in the past as well. We have a lot to learn, and a long way to go in many areas.

Why don't modern Evangelicals clearly see the destructiveness in accusation and judgment as much as they see the destructiveness in individual sins and disbeliefs themselves? Why are we so scared to encourage doubt? Why are we glad to see our children and friends believe in the right things for the wrong reasons, or using the right beliefs to motivate wrong behaviors?

The average "Christian" today couldn't give a rational defense for his beliefs. This grieves me.

At the end of the day, I remain a Christian. By this I mean that I believe that the Bible is true, I believe there is a God who exists as three persons, and I believe that Jesus is fully and completely God, as well as fully and completely human. I believe that He died for my sins, and that my trusting in Him is an important part of accepting the gift of eternal life. I believe that He can offer this to me, because despite the wages of sin being death, Jesus died as a penal substitution for me. Communing with Him is exactly that, and will persist after bodily death. I will one day reunite with my body in some capacity, and all of creation will be redeemed, from the stars to the rocks to the plants to the animals. Those who reject Christ (whatever form that takes, and whoever they are - I am not placing judgment) will be dealt with justly and permanently.

But why I continue to believe in these things follows an ironically more traditional line of thought than many modern Evangelicals. I do not choose to believe in these things, and allow these beliefs to motivate certain behaviors, merely because my parents taught them to me. Nor do I believe in them because millions of people do. I don't accept the Bible on blind faith, then follow everything it says without question. I don't believe that doubts and questions should be suppressed.

Now I have to admit, I grew up in a Christian family, who went to church weekly. I am white. I am an American citizen. I "accepted the Lord", so to speak, when I was two years old. What this means for my position as an objective observer, I fear. Forgive my vulnerability.

Nevertheless, as of today, I maintain that there exists a sufficient body of empirical and logical evidence to render my beliefs at the very least reasonable. Furthermore, I have experiential warrant for the continuity of my faith. Any attempt at persuading others on certain matters should be done so based on evidence of varying kinds; I don't pretend I have all the answers, but I don't ask anyone to accept my world view without good reason.

I may have grown up thinking like a Christian, but any beliefs that have persisted have done so because of what I judge to be good reason. I ask nobody to take my word for it, but encourage everybody to investigate these matters on their own.

The God Delusion

When Augustine Sounds Suspiciously Non-Calvinistic

St. Aureluis Augustine

(354-430), Bishop of Hippo (now Annaba, Algeria)

Augustine -- God is not the author of the evil a man does though he is the author of the evil a man suffers.*

Evodius -- Is there some other author of the kind of evil which we do not attribute to the action of God?

Augustine -- There certainly is, for we cannot say that it happened without author. But if you ask who that is I cannot tell you. For there is no one single author. Every evil man is the author of his evil deeds. If you wonder how that is, consider what we have just said: evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be justly punished unless they were done voluntarily.

From, "On Free Will".

---------------------
*Augustine's conception of evil might vary from that of the modern man. The evil that he says God does to evil men is only an execution of justice. Augustine rightly refuses to affirm that God ever commits or causes moral evil, even though He is often responsible for causing destruction, or has good reasons for allowing moral evil to be committed by other agents.

Although my Calvinist brothers claim Augustine for their own, he comes through for me in the clutch. Here we find him denying that God is the author of the evil a man does, a position contra modern compatibalist Calvinism. Moreover, he affirms that punishment is only just when the action being punished was committed voluntarily.

Before you jump to conclusions read the rest of his work, wherein he likes to do things such as solve Epicurus' puzzle. And remember that he is only here making relatively broad strokes, not trying to elaborate all at once on why destruction and evil often befall men who practice good deeds, or follow Christ. He also delves into the pathology of evil decisions, and the psychology of atheism.

The Genuis of Max Alan Clark

By sheer intuition I Googled one of my best friends, Max Clark. Given his status, think of my shock when I uncovered a rather consistently kept-up but obviously somewhat secret blog of his from of old. I read a couple posts, and was not surprised by how insightful they were. But then I got hit by the most impressive fact. What packed the punch was that he hadn't touched it since he was like 15. I like that he gives credit where credit is due, not trying to steal the glory for good jokes and important insights. One thing he brought to a post was a quote from a younger boy he had met,

saying
"it works in theory, but not in reality"
is wrong.

you just have a bad theory.

I agree, Max.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rejects Creationism, and By The Way I am a Darwinist Too

In my previous post, the full article from which I quoted contained a disturbing comment:

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, made a useful and unequivocal intervention rejecting creationism...

Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins | Columnists | Guardian Unlimited

At first I thought about how sad it is that although there has been ecclesiastical continuity in Augustine's Chair, the men holding positions like the Archbishop of Canterbury have gone quite liberal in order to make Christianity palatable to the mainstream. Personally, I believe in contextualization of Christian truths and ethics. But I do not believe that true propositions ever change. If God created everything, then He did. If He didn't, then He didn't. Let's find out what's true, and believe it! Communicating that truth within different cultural and temporal contexts, and demonstrating its relevance to daily living is something that we have to be constantly reinventing. If we really believe that Christianity is true and valuable, why change it?

That said, I do want to make clear that I believe that there are in fact some details that are up for debate within Christianity. Putting aside the non-negotiables (meaning, propositions that may be debated, but if they are not believed in by person A, then A cannot be called a "Christian" in the traditional sense of the word), we find propositions that are hotly debated among Christians. These include things like whether there will be a rapture, whether Christ will return to set up a Kingdom for the duration of a literal 1,000 years, whether creation was accomplished within six literal 24-hours periods, whether Christ descended into hell while His body was in the grave, whether God's predestination is unconditional, etc.

Anyway, I decided that a half-sentence from a secondary source on a completely different topic wouldn't be enough. I resolved to seek other sources on the matter. So I Googled "archbishop of Canterbury rejects creationism", and found all kinds of articles citing this alleged concession that the man in Anselm's tradition made. Here's the mention of it in the top hit:

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has rightly called [creationism] “a category mistake” within Christian thinking.

Government department rejects creationist infiltration of science teaching

But there are more. Lots more. Knowing what I do now, I am tempted to be upset that everyone is taking what he said out of context and blowing it out of proportion. But to be honest, I now almost find it cute. When I was young and I caught my brilliant older sister absent-mindedly placing a carton of ice cream in the fridge, I berated her for years. I still bring it up. Why? Because it was the only mistake I had ever seen her make. Finally she called me on it and said that she understood that I want to make myself feel good by reliving the one moment of silly thinking she had ever had, but it was now getting a little annoying for her.

The Archbishop's comment wasn't even as bad as absent-mindedly misplacing an ice cream carton. He was selecting his language carefully to make a point. Was he advocating a stance contra Genesis? Let's take a look at the actual transcript of the interview he had with Guardian:

"AR" is Alan Rusbridger, and "ABC" is Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury.

AR: Are you comfortable with teaching creationism?

ABC: Ahh, not very. Not very. I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this.... I know ' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And for most of the history of Christianity, and I think this is fair enough, most of the history of... Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time. You find someone like St. Augustine, absolutely clear God created everything, he takes Genesis fairly literally. But he then says well, what is it that provides the potentiality of change in the world? Well, hence, we have to think, he says, of - as when developing structures in the world, the seeds of potential in the world that drive processes of change. And some Christians responding to Darwin in the 19th Century said well, that sounds a bit like what St. Augustine said of the seeds of processes. So if creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories, I think there's - there's just been a jar of categories, it's not what it's about. And it - it reinforces the sense that...

AR: So it shouldn't be taught?

ABC: I don't think it should, actually. No, no. And that's different from saying - different from discussing, teaching about what creation means. For that matter, it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is - is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it.

Archbishop of Canterbury | Sermons and Speeches

Wow, what a different story! We see the Archbishop saying things like creationism is not a mere "theory among other theories", that "a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time", and finally, "creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it".

I think it is firstly very clear that the Archbishop affirms the Genesis account of Divine creation, certainly placing him well within the Intelligent Design camp, and maybe even within the Creationist camp. It is not clear whether he personally believes in literal 24-hour periods, or whether God used a system roughly resembling Darwinian natural selection to produce species or kinds. He does seem to be concerned with upholding the "doctrine of creation", and he does grant the scientific validity of Darwinism. Although he literally says "creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake", he goes on to elaborate on what he means by this, which is that "[it's] not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this". Well, if the writer of Genesis didn't make the story up, Who did? Let's take a hint from 2,000 years of Christian teaching (not to mention thousands of years of Jewish teaching, for that matter) and presume that the very Archbishop of Canterbury himself might actually be crazy enough to believe in something like the Divine inspiration of the Bible! Now we are getting a much different picture of the concessions he made to the Darwinists!

Personally, I have observed that it is no longer really debated whether Darwinian natural selection is a real process that occurs in nature. In fact, it is a very important part of the Creationist's model for rapid speciation. There are also other forces that affect speciation. But most Creationists deny that it is sufficient to increase genetic information or produce different kinds. This is where they part ways with traditional Darwinists, because they then say that the separate kinds were originally created by God.

I happen to be a Christian, a Creationist, an Intelligent Design theorist - whatever. I think that the ID movement is a better way to frame scientific theistic arguments in a secular society, and I deny that the arguments require Christian premises. Nor is the movement synonymous with Creationism. But am I a Darwinist? Kind of. I don't think that humans evolved from primates, I don't think that speciation increases genetic information, and I reject current atheistic accounts for the origin of the universe. But none of that separates me in any critical way from Darwin himself! Call me what you will.