Hi Tom,

I agree that ID is not good science and not good theology. But I don’t agree with your statement that “God never coerces.” The idea that God only acts with “persuasive love” is flimsy and I can’t see why it contradicts the idea that God is love. When God created the world out of nothing, he did it with love and “force.” It was not persuasion merely. In the final judgment, God will judge, not with persuasive love, but with decisive action. I just can’t see, either in the Old no New Testament, where God lacks “coercive power.” Ed Madden once told me that he felt the real weakness of process philosophy is that its God could not even jam the system if God wanted to; and hence Madden didn’t think the God of process philosophy was worth refuting, which he says is why he and Peter Hare excluded process philosophy in their first edition of Evil and the Concept of God. A God so weak as process philosophy is hardly worth taking note of, he complained in personal conversation with me. He said that he included process philosophy only because the process folks insisted that they do so.
Larry Wood

Hi Tom,

Here’s an interesting comment by Peter Hodgson about God’s power in Zygon in an article, “GOD’S ACTION IN THE WORLD: THE RELEVANCE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS”—“It is an impoverished conception of God to suppose that he is bound by his own laws. God is the supreme lord of nature, who can make and unmake its laws and bring it into being,modify it, or extinguish it at will. It is unnecessary to think of God trying
to change the course of events by keeping within the limits of quantum indeterminacy.” [Zygon, vol. 35, no. 3 (September 2000).]

Larry,

Thanks for your good posts!  I’ll start my response with the second.

I agree that we shouldn’t say God is bound by those laws God voluntarily decides to decree or instantiate.  This, in my opinion, is one of the deficits of what I call “voluntary kenosis” theology.  This God is self-limited by voluntarily setting laws or giving freedom to creation. 

However, I think God IS bound by the eternal aspects of God’s own nature. E.g., God cannot decide to be 359 instead of Triune. But I’m guessing you’d agree with me on that.  Am I right?

With regard to your first post, I think we need to be careful to distinguish the metaphysical meanings of persuasion and coercion.  These meanings are not primarily about the use of force. A persuasive action is forceful, and a coercive action is forceful.

The metaphysical difference pertains to whether God can unilaterally determine—completely control—others. Persuasive force cannot entirely control others. I say God can’t control others entirely, because God’s nature is love and love never entirely controls.

You’re right to bring up the issue of creation out of nothing as an instance in which God would have to entirely control.  I deny that doctrine, however, because of its biblical, historical, logical, ethical, scientific and theological implications. (After writing that sentence, it occurs to me that I should write a blog on my objections to creatio ex nihilo!) I really wish theologians would be more biblical on this issue and deny that God creates from absolutely nothing.

Whatever process theologians say about God’s power or lack thereof (and process thinkers vary among themselves on this issue), I am committed to speaking of God as the almighty God of love who is not culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil. 

In my opinion, we should use language about God’s power that denies God has the capacity to coerce (in the metaphysical sense). But it also means using language indicating God is the mightiest being, Creator, and exerts might upon all others. I like to use the biblical word “almighty” to describe God’s power, although I realize the word itself could be interpreted in various ways.

I hope this helps explain my positions!

Thanks again for your comments…

Tom

I have thoroughly enjoyed these 3 posts and feel like my mind has been wonderfully stretched! Please help me understand better your statement “God’s creating irreducibly complex organisms is not an act of love.” You call it “coercive”.
It seems to me that creating the irreducibly complex components necessary for life as we know it, is supremely an act of love.Here we see the Creator bringing into relationship to Himself matter that would otherwise be inert, “less than” it could be, or even stymied in its development. Since I view the authority God wields in the universe as being like the authority of a parent, can it not also be thought that avery loving thing to do is to help a child who is stuck get unstuck? If life cannot develop apart from certain foundational components, it certainly seems to me that it is a supreme act of love for God to enable life to come into existence or progress in its development by providing those key elements, that is, the irreducibly complex organisms. So I don’t see how this act of creation is opposed to love.

Thanks for the great response, Bob, and for the compliment!

I agree that creating irreducibly complex components necessary for life could be a supreme act of love. I think when God seeks to create such complex organisms, it is an act of love.

My objection, however, is to thinking that creating irreducibly complex components necessary for life is creation by coercion. I think Christians should argue that God creates through cooperation/call/persuasion/inspiration, etc. 

I don’t have anything against the idea that God creates irreducibly complex organisms.  In fact, I affirm that.  I am only opposed to ID, insofar as it states or implies that God does such creating coercively, without any contribution from creatures.

When ID proponents say “evolution can’t account for this, so God had to design it,” this statement seems to suggest either A) evolution on its own can give a full explanation of some organisms but not this organism (which I think most ID folk would want to deny) or B) some organisms came about ONLY through God’s designing action (which I think ID, unfortunately, affirms). 

I reject both A and B. I argue that C) God’s creating of complex organisms is always in love, and love never acts coercively. Creatures contribute to God’s creative activity.

I think God’s love is never coercive for two reasons.  The first speaks to the definition of love. I think love in itself is always expressed in relationship. Entire control of the other in relationship is never loving.

The second reason speaks to what it would mean if God had the capacity to coerce. If God could coerce, a loving God should use coercion to prevent genuine evil. Because genuine evils occur, we shouldn’t say God possesses the capacity to coerce.  If we do, we are undermining a robust notion of divine love.

Hope that clarifies my position…

Tom

Please write your article on creation ex nihilo!  I am intrigued.

Tom my friend, your ‘process upbringing’ is showing badly… The initial creative act is ‘alone’, that is, God creates alone, for there is no creation to created with, and no slight of hand with Trinity here, the Godhead acts alone…  You write,

“Acting all alone when creating would not be loving for at least two reasons.  First, love requires relationship. Relationship requires cooperation and collaborating, at least to some degree.

Acting all alone as a sufficient cause amounts to forcing one’s way on others. This is coercion. Almost everybody believes that love and coercion – when coercion is defined as total control – are incompatible.”

Unless, you are joining your mentors in arguing that God came upon the ‘chaos’ and ‘encouraged’ it to be, rather than ‘called’ it into being, this first act of creation was alone.  There was ‘no thing’ to cooperate with God.

But further, you cheat in your definition (and I have got to stop pointing this out in your work).  “Love cannot coercive…”  Once you set the rules, how are we to argue, less we challenge the rules you have made.  All one need do is suggest, “indeed love can and does coercive”.  Love would never leave the creation to its own chaos…  Rules are easily written and the winner of the game writes the rules as Wittgenstein argued so long ago.

What I think you have done is show why ID is valid approach.  And me thinks you didn’t intend that…  :o)

A fiat act of creation does not need to preclude love.  Adding complexity, color, symmetry, functionality, distinctive, etc. might just as well be seen as a loving act by a Good God.

Don’t traditional understandings of the Trinity give an explanation as to why we can say God acts “alone” initially (creation ex nihilo)?  This does not necessarily prove ID, and I too am skeptical of most of the claims of ID, but I don’t get how Process thought posits “something” here before God.  Can something pre-date God?  If not, then how did “something” get here? 

God’s love CAN be (and has been) seen as an outgrowth of the mutuality of the Trinity.  God desires THIS kind of community so much that God chooses to reproduce it.  If that is the case, then God as Trinity can act “alone” and not violate your definition of love.  Right???

Charles

Tom:

I too have enjoyed these articles, but take issue with some of your presuppositions.

1. With whom did God collaborate when the first non-God creation was being made?

2. On what basis do you draw the conclusion that coercion cannot be done in perfect love?

Have a great day, Tom!

Tony

Thanks for these posts.  I can see that I’ll need to provide a post stating reasons why I oppose creation out of nothing and why I affirm creating out of something through love.

Tom

Regarding your claim that “love requires relationship” and ” Relationship requires cooperation and collaborating” how might we imagine the relationship among/within the Triune God as it relates to creation?  Since “God IS love” might we conceive of this cooperation and collaboration relating from/within/through God’s trinitarian nature?

This is a very interesting post that is thought provoking. However, I would disagree with your analysis of the creation account given in Genesis 1 that there is a “divine-creaturely cooperation”. In the first versus God, the trinity, creates unilaterally with no cooperation from creation since as of yet creation was not in existence. Also the language not appear to give the land/creatures any part in the creation. I would lean more towards an analogy with God as master painter creating his master piece with all of creation as his canvas and paint. This is the kind of creation account I see in Genesis. What where the other references where creation contributes to creating? Thank you for your blog.

Dr. Oord,

I guess my question after reading this is, with evolution, why does Christ come to earth?

It seems to me that if evolution in true, then sin is not really a choice. It is “evolutionary lag” in a way. If evolution is true, then the only reason I am here is because my ancestors were able to kill all those who opposed them. Evolution required my ancestors to put themselves above all others, because that is the only way that natural selection would have allowed humans to survive. So, if my ancestors had to do unloving things to survive, It would seem that instinct and genetics would force me to sin. It is sort of a ,” like father, like son” type of thing.

If sin is then not a choice, then why did Christ make it seem like it was?

I have tried to get as many different positions on this question as possible, but most professors seem to not see that one must change the traditional reason for Christ’s coming to earth if he or she accepts an evolutional worldview.

I am not sure what I believe as far as the whole creation theories go. I do not think that in the long run or the “big picture” it really matters whether people believe that God created out of nothing- or whether he simply put into action and then took a step back and let the rest take place. When it comes to a salvation issue, it is not important. What I do appreciate about your theory Dr. Oord, is that God must have created out of love and that the idea of Him creating alone would in all essence by definition of what we understand love to be-impossible since love requires a relationship and a relationship cannot exist with only one person

I had never thought about the idea that because of God’s love for even inanimate objects that God does not control them.  This makes hurricanes and tornado’s more understandable.  If God loves them enough to not control them, that would make it a little easier to explain why bad things can happen to good people.  God is in control, but He does not force control on anything.

It appears that each school of thought requires a total commitment to one idea over the other. I believe that there is a little good in each one of the ideas of creation you have presented in your blog. I think your example of the A-Team fit really well. My own experience of God can be and has been multifaceted, and when one takes the experiences of others with that same God, it serves as an illustration of a God that isn’t mono-method minded. One only has to look at the vast array of life on this planet to understand how eclectic God’s interest is. Just one look at the platypus and the argument for a singular method seems frustrated.

I appreciate your theory of Essential Kenosis.  I see a part of God’s love for the created is the willingness to partner with the created in creating.  The Creator trusts the created to create. God gives us the opportunity to contribute to what has already been started.  The problem, at least in humans, is that our love falls short of God’s love.  We try to control the created and therefore bring a lot of injustice into our world.

The example you used of the old TV show, The A-Team, illustrating biologist Ken Miller’s argument against irreducible complexity also fits well with the support of theistic evolution.  It seems there is an incredible fear between science and religion that the idea of having compatible views means a complete surrender and stripping of their individual truths.  This is tragic because the opposite can be true as you state, “together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”  I cannot help but think of the same parallel with the Christian faith and all of its various denominations.  The same type of fear seems to perpetuate itself instead of the various parts seeking the wholeness of the Body of Christ.

I love your breakdown of ID, Tom. But like a few others above me here, I lose you at the concept of God’s sole creatorship construed as coercion. I hate to waste space with analogies, but if I surprise my wife with a nice candlelight dinner and roses, I would hate that she would feel coerced into participating because I felt the initiative to create something special for her.

Onward….The spiritual aspect of creation takes us as Christians away from the scientific aspect, but it is valid nonetheless. God chooses words to create, speaking the world into existence, and grants humans the similar gift of an underlying power in our words. Although our power to “create” as God created via words might not carry the same weight as God’s, the words we choose to use ought to be considered somehow in the topic of design.

Now what biologist would take that bait?!

Dr. Oord,

  I have never heard of someone arguing against irreducible complexity in light of a loving and co-creating God. Very interesting indeed.

  You make a good point when you point out the lack of love present in God acting out of solitude… However I have a few questions in light of this suggestion.

  Could it be that God never acts in solitude? Would it be wrong to suppose that every action of God is a loving, relational, co-creation between the Trinity? Would this not make every action a loving movement held between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Essential Kenosis is appealing to me. I know that God has given each of us a free-will for us to make the choice to follow Christ or not.  God is a gentleman.  He never forces Himself on us.  Why would the theories of science be any different?  In choosing to submit to His will, would not our will succumb to the truth that God is love and with that love, he forms us into His image, as the potter forms the clay?  Why can’t He continue to create or form anything He wants when He wants?  I agree with Tom, that God is creator and still creating, because He is Love.

I found your statement that “the God in whom Christians believe is foremost a Lover who NEVER acts unloving ” to be unique.  My first thought was whether this was true.  The more I contemplated it the more I began to see the truth in this statement. If we look at it from the angle of a parent who genuinely loves his or her child it is absolutely true. God as the Creator is the parent in cooperation with creation. This gives new meaning, in my view, of the term Mother Earth.

Having only a high school biology education in the science field, I am hardly one to make a detailed post on ID.  However, some of Tom’s points pro ID where helpful.  Scientifically, if a researcher believes that a designer created nature and reevaluates their finds without the subjective view of random chance, eventually they may discover that only God create the complexity of nature.  As Tom points out in this blog, logical and research dictates that random chance and evolution cannot account for the complexity of organisms and multi cell creatures.  Eventually, all research will lead to the Creator.  Therefore, I suppose those who support ID support those who look to reveal God through the discovery of science.
Theologically, is this not the same line of thinking which lead to the multi language world after the tower of Babel?  Is humanity is search for God because of lack of faith?  This is my discord with the ID scientific movement: are Christian’s trying to prove there is a God through physical science.  Has faith become an after mentioned thought superseded by our scientific theory?  This is why I strongly believe that theology and science are not even siblings fighting at the dinner table.  There is a vast separation in the purpose for each field of study.  Theology defines the relationship with humanity and God.  Theology interprets the divine, and the spiritual functions of God, and humanity.  Science interprets the physical world.  I cannot say for sure where these fields may overlap.  Perhaps they do not.  Therefore, ID, should be left for scientist to argue and out of the realm of theology.

I think God loves and has connection with all he has created. If an artist paints or a sculptor sculpts a wonderful work of art then it easily said that the artist has invested amounts of themselves and a great level of love into the work. However, God instilled much more of himself into we humans. He may love and be connected to all; but it is the souls of people he invested the life of his son into. That is what places us above all the rest of creation, a soul to be saved through the death and rising of Christ.
    I also agree with this all being taught in school, but should be by a Christian teacher. In MS. a Bible class is taught as a History class. The teacher is Christian. Campus Life supplies Bibles for all the students and they keep them at the end of the class. I was happy to see this being taught and was ask to be a guest speaker for the class.
  There can and should be balance with science and religion. We as Christians should be leading the way in reaching this balance. After all….. God is creator of all and we are HIS children.

I understand your critique of ID by saying that God could not “lovingly” control the development of humanity.  However, is it always true that God never acts alone?  What about Jesus healing the lame man at the pool of Bethsaida?  The man didn’t ask Jesus to be healed.  Jesus didn’t ask anyone to help him wash in the pool or bring anyone else into this healing.  There was simply a man who was lame sitting by the pool.  Jesus asked him if he wanted to be well and he healed him.  He “intervened” in creation without the cooperation of any other creature.  Also, God seemed to force Jonah into doing his will. 
I agree that God cooperates with creatures as He is creating.  I do wonder if we box God in by saying that He CAN’T create in any other way.

While I am not sure that intelligent design is the full meal at the discussion table of creation it does at least in some ways begin the conversations that I hope will offer a civilized set of table manners.  I believe that in many ways Christians should set in listening silence and hear what science is saying and before speaking we should pray that God’s will be done speaking only in generous love, a difficult task for some and a challenge for all.  That said Tom wrote: “To put it simply: this means that God’s creating irreducibly complex organisms is not an act of love.”  It may be that if we centrifuge out the concept of irreducibly this would not be an issue.  But I fail to see how it is outside of God’s love for us to specifically and intentionally create us.  I really like ice cream and I like to make ice cream but if I really want to make the best that I can I must step in a do more than toss the mix in the freezer.  This would result in hard grainy ice cream full of ice crystals that interfere both with texture and flavor.  So in order to make a smooth cohesive ice cream I must intervene, I must mix and manipulate it.  I guess I just do not find it unloving of God to have interacted in the creation of humanity, rather I am humbled that God would have do such a thing.

I need some time to process this further! I have never been comfortable with the idea that creation happened from “nothing”. God was there so something was there.
What I have never considered before is God’s love for even inanimate objects what that means in terms of his unwillingness to exert control. I agree that God’s character of love means that he will not or cannot exert control over creation. (Billy, I think the example you gave is an example of persuasion rather than coercion since dinner isn’t really a show of force or intimidation, right?) What I think I need to better understand is how God partnered with creation in creating at the beginning. I understand it in terms of continuing creation, but what about “in the beginning”? Was God partnering with something created previously to further create? Anyone have any help for me?

You say, “It is difficult to imagine God loving and relating to rocks, snowflakes, and air molecules. These entities don’t seem to have the capacity for freewill responses.” I’m curious whether or not you have seen the microscopic photo images of water molecules taken by Dr. Masaru Emoto and how they change shapes based on what emotion a human is projecting? I saw this first on What the Bleep Do We Know and was fascinated by it. Would you say these responses are “freewill responses” as we know the definition of free will?

Throughout the Bible, there are scriptures that suggest all of creation, from people to rocks, recognize God as creator. In Romans 8:19-21, we are told that creation is waiting for God to work. “For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.”

As you pointed out in your essay, consistency must be present to produce sound theology. The wonderful implications of free will and God being love is that every act of creation, whether animate or inanimate, is an act of love. All matter, is an expression of God’s love. This is an important observation, because it follows suit with Jesus’ teaching of heaven colliding with earth.

I believe God does create in love through the Trinity.  The act of creation is out of love but I believe free will is also an act of love in which we as the creation can choose to reciprocate or not.  I agree God is always creating as this is His nature as “God is Love”.  In being made in the image of a loving God are we going to love as God loves?  This is our choice to follow Him or not.

While I stuck with the first two sections of this blog pretty good, the third has me wondering.  I had not made a connection between the ID hypothesis and the implications for God’s love before.

One serious question I have:
Is it necessarily true that unilateral action equals lack of loving relationship?

Said differently:
Does forcing your will on someone always mean you don’t love them?

Especially in the endeavor of creation, there might not be a hard and fast rule that direct, unilateral intervention is an unloving thing.

HE is the Creator after all.  (I recognize I’m trying to balance God’s love and God’s sovereignty, Wesley and Calvin.)  Even though we and other creatures are invited into the creative process, there are some things that God does unilaterally in the Genesis account.  Light and dark, sun, moon, and stars, seperation of waters above and below, etc., are all unilateral moves on God’s part - which: (1)have direct impact upon species development; and (2) could be interpreted as a sort of “irreducible complexity.”

I don’t know, I’m still chewing.

Tom,
One of the first things that came to my mind after reading your blog was the imagery in the Psalms—of all of creation bringing glory to the Creator.  “Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and all that is in it; let the field be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy;” (Psalm 97:11 & 12).

I understand this as metaphor, but you are expanding my view.  I believe that God is first and foremost defined by love—and that God would love everything that God has created, including the trees of the forest, the seas, the balls of gas in the sky called the heavens—why wouldn’t God love all that God created?

Does God love all creatures equally?  Why would God be discriminating?  It seems that to love means NOT to discriminate, but to fully embrace all.

I do not follow your logic here. To say that love is relational and therefore creation by God alone could not be an act of love… That is saying that God who “is” love was not love before something else existed.  Even if you want to say that love is just a part of God’s nature, does that mean that God’s nature was not complete until after creation and therefore love could become a part of God’s nature?  Are you saying that God evolves?

Trying to define what is or is not love for God seems to me to be a rather impossible thing.  If God created what we call love, how can we determine love in it’s fullness and therefore exclude the things that God can not do because we have determined that they are not loving?

I would also add that the reference to John 3:16 seems to lack context.  I am not talking about a whole chapter even - just the verse.  Whoever believes, not whatever believes will have ever lasting life.  Is God relating to whos or whats in the redemptive act? 

Maybe I’m just stirring the pot, but if I don’t push where I have questions I may miss out on grasping these things.  Thanks for any response.

I do agree with the five points that you agreed with ID. Now I don’t necessarily agree with you that schools should not teach a Christian View of things. It is important to reach a conclusion in everything it does not matter if we are right or wrong. In schools children and new generations need to reach a conclusion. If US was based on Christian beliefs they should be stated in schools, (this does not mean that others point of view from other cultures could not be studied). Leaving students with uncertainty is not neutral, to me it only encourages doubt.

I have always been curious about ID and sometimes I get interested in it.  Most of the time I think that it is too open for deism to be even useful.  However, it does help address the non-unique label attacks of naturalists.

I don’t agree that irreducible complexity necessitates a God that is unloving.  Doesn’t that require a preconception that God uses macro evolution at all?  Does a theologian have to include evolution in their origins theory to be credible?  If yes, wouldn’t that be an authoritative statement from modernity?

To the idea of sufficient cause:

Beethoven composed many great works.  I’ll take one - the 9th symphony.  It only required Beethoven to write the symphony - he had no assistant (that I know of).  So in a very important respect, Beethoven was the sufficient cause of his 9th symphony.

However, without the skills of an orchestra, the 9th symphony would never have been heard.  It would have remained notes on paper.  Beethoven could never have played it by himself.  So the orchestra, too, is in some respect a sufficient cause for Beethoven’s 9th symphony.

Could it not be possible that, in evolution, God works like this - God “writes the symphony” and is thus a sufficient cause but the symphony is not played without the help of the created world?

I have enjoyed all three of the blogs and your thoughts regarding ID. I admit I do not recall ever hearing of this theory before although I have heard of similar Creation Theory ideas. I admit I have a tendency to lean toward a young earth as apposed to an old earth. I am not offended by the idea of an old earth and I think it makes for good conversation. I am thinking that someday we will have an answer to our many questions but until then it is sure a lot of fun trying to figure it out for ourselves.

Joe, I disagree that Beethoven was sufficient cause in creating the symphony. He did not create in a vacuum “out of nothing” and he did not impose his will on the music. He worked within the rules of music, under inspiration from his surroundings, and in partnership with the Creator. Same with the orchestra. I know I’m being picky, but I want to go to the edges on this.
This is why I want to know more about what existed before “creation” so I can better understand the partnership aspect.

I have taken some extra time to take all of this in.  I want to be a pursuer of the Truth because I believe that if I don’t then I am just lying to myself.  Since I have not encountered this idea (at least in this explicit form), I have had to wrestle with it.  So, here is what I think.

Many use the Old Testament to suggest that God is coercive.  He directs and punishes.  He get’s angry and destroys whole racial groups.  He lets his people know that if they don’t follow him then they will be punished through men who he apparently preferred to talk to more than others.  The god portrayed at times in the OT seems to be set in contrast with Jesus who is the manifestation of God.

Jesus is so genuinely confident and gentle and firm and artsy and unwavering.  What he never is?  Coercive.  He is never forceful.  He beckons and questions.  Sure, he tells people that they are making poor decisions and that they are bringing hurt to the world, but mostly, he tells people that he is the way and beckons them (us) to come follow him.  He endears himself to those who would soften their hearts to him, but to someone needing to control and coerce, he is a threat to their system by simply telling people that they are free and loved. 

And Jesus seems to support the theory in this blog post.  He doesn’t stick around.  He leaves the teaching and the continuing of what he started to people, inviting them (us) into the evolution of the creator/creation relationship.

So, if Jesus is God incarnate, and God is love, this means that what and who Jesus was was love incarnate.  He is our example of what and who God is.  Because of this, in my mind, I have to agree with Dr. Oord.  The theory of irreducible complexity does not lend itself to supporting a loving God.

Tom,
You state, “The second reason we should not think that God acts all alone to design irreducibly complex organisms is that God’s acting all alone – being in complete control of the situation or creature – implies that God has the capacity to control anyone at anytime and at any place.”  I understand this premise.  However, can’t this argument be refuted by the installation of free will in creation for humanity and God’s decision to limit His own power to ensure true relationship?  In Jeremiah 31:34b we read, “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”  In this instance God is limiting His own ability to remember motivated by His love for humanity.  God’s great love for humanity brings about constraint that is hard to comprehend with the human mind.  When you combine free will and God’s restraint doesn’t it speak against “God’s capacity of controlling anyone at anytime and at any place?” 

Stephen Willis

You can not separate what God does from who he is.  Who he is determines what he does is a favorite line of mine.  The term “Essential Kenosis” is used to describe God’s love for others and never overriding free will.  This description is built upon who God is.  The Truth Project is a popular series among mainline Protestants.  They tackle creationism in one of the lessons.  How they present God is disturbing.  God is not described as creative or relational.  Love is never talked about as essential to creation.  ID builds a wall between creation and the character of God involved within it creation.

OK – I have pulled three statements from the three different articles from the Blog.  Each of them seemed to speak to me in one way of another.  The first speaks about how the Bible tells us HOW to find abundant life, NOT the science of the HOW. 
I have said before and I am sure I will say it again, that I appreciate both the Theological point of view that GOD created all that is, the intelligent Design theory.  I also appreciate that science has presented a theory as to HOW it all came to be, evolution. There is nothing saying, for me that there are not truth contained in both theories.
The Second article touched on the idea of teaching the theories in a public school. The line that stood out to me is, “Although I tolerate a variety of religions, I am a Christian theologian.”  That says that I tolerate the others, but I believe ONE point of view over the others.  However, should my point of view be the ONLY point of view that is taught in a PUBLIC setting?  Probably not, however, I would say that the science point of view should be taught as a THEORY not as TRUTH along with the idea that there are OTHER THEORIES to be considered as well.
The third article speaks of the improbability that science theory of evolution cannot completely explain the detail of some organisms or creatures.  That only Intelligent design can explain.  This goes back to the idea that I spoke before, Why not both?  God did it, but leave the HOW up to Him.

This is a great read, and presents your Essential Kenosis idea in a very succinct way.  I know that in our course later this year we will cover these ideas more and one thing that I have not fully had explained, or maybe just overlooked while reading your books is this incompatibility of love and what you have labeled coercion by use of force.  This would suggest that when I prevent my kids from touching a hot stove by forcefully telling them not to, I am not acting in a loving way.  I don’t think this is true.  I see that as the most loving act a parent can do.  I look forward to understanding this concept more fully when we study it in a few weeks.

I don’t think that ID requires a theological response. Also, if ID proponents don’t care what scientists say, then they’re not going to care what theologians say either; but I don’t suppose your target audience is ID proponents. At the same time it’s nice to see that ID can be argued to be preposterous on more than one front.

On the biological side of things, (1) ID makes testable claims which have been shown to be false, and (2) the worst problem with ID is that it is a scientific non-starter. Its basic stance is that when one finds something which they subjectively deem to be irreducibly complex then they can declare god’s hand and therefore there’s no need to keep investigating. That’s not a straw man representation, and this point is illustrated by Ken Miller’s response to Michael Behe (the person who coined the term ‘irreducible complexity’), in that a basic mousetrap (Behe’s key analogical model for irreducible complexity) minus its catch (the piece which holds down the lethal, spring-loaded bar) makes a great tie clip. Behe’s lack of imagination prevents him from seeing beyond what’s right in front of him, but a better biologist would say, “Perhaps a simpler structure can have a different function.”

In the biological case of the bacterial flagellum, it should have been clear to Behe (had he chosen to look just a bit further) that the flagellum shares a great deal of structural (though not functional) homology with the bacterial type III secretion system - a syringe-like structure which bacteria use to pierce through a host cell’s membrane and deliver toxins - and thus presents a potential evolutionary connection. This shows that ID’s willful and subjective myopia leads it to completely miss important evolutionary connections. It doesn’t have the humility to say “I don’t know. I’d better keep searching and testing.”

Even when biologists point out this homology to him, Behe can’t bring himself to concede that his ‘theory’ of irreducible complexity is scientifically bankrupt. Unfortunately, his reputation and the field of ID are now SO dependent on this claim that he cannot afford to concede that he was ever incorrect.

And let’s not forget that the supposed distinction between micro and macroevolution is actually fallacious, and any high school level biology student today can see that. It is a ploy which, while rhetorically clever, lacks any and all real imagination.

Hi Tom,
I’m also convinced that (ID) is weak in the foundational arguments that it endorses as it concerns itself with science and theology. I believe in creation theory and I struggle with many of the conjectures that are in circulation today concerning the precepts inherent within the (ID) paradigm of reasoning. You stated, “As a theologian, I’m convinced that we must think consistently about God. And this consistent thinking should especially occur in the science and theology dialogue.”  Consistently reflecting on God throughout the dialogue we employ is a key component to furthering our understanding as it relates to our human experiences. By keeping God centered in our thinking we have the opportunity to catch the truth that lies in both Scripture and science. These two disciplines each possess value and when they are viewed in the spirit of mutuality and not as combatants, we acquire an awe-inspiring description of what God does. In this perspective, theology and science entertain a variety of questions that encompass the metaphysical and the material. Nature and the material world are full of God’s manifest glory. The more we study and interpret God in this realm, the more we are struck with its silence and presence as it relates to what Scripture reveals. While science indeed points to causation as it continually reveals order and understanding, it does not confirm how these things initially came to be. It is only when these findings are examined within the crucible of theology that the true revelations of God begin to appear. Interestingly, science and theology are often woven together throughout the biblical account and in doing so; profound truths can be discovered about us and our communal relationships. With this understanding we must never underestimate the power and influence each of these disciplines wields as they collectively lead us on to even greater inspirations and understandings concerning God’s timeless revelations.

I am uncertain that I can buy into the perception of God’s love entirely, as it is presented here.  I can appreciate the fact that God is love and that because of God’s love that God does not coerce.  But, at the same time, I think that this statement is made from the standpoint of “love” as we desire it as humans.  God is God and all was created for God.  From my view, God does not “owe” me love, but instead, trough His mercy and by grace I am, in the end love.  To the point of debate though, I am not convinced that “love” as we desire it is what God intends.
  God’s love is a love that He intends for His created and, from my perspective, that love can manifest in any number of ways.  If in “seeing His big picture”, God determines that an absolute intervention within a biological event of creation or of destruction, for example, is necessary within His plan, then that is His inherent perogative to do so.
  I don’t see God as a God who owes us anything in relationship.  If we expect something, then we have limited God automatically.  We are promised God’s love in the scripture, but I think that we must be careful when we define, describe or anticipate how that love may manifest. 
Just thoughts,
Colby

Thank you, Dr. Oord, for the informative series.  I would like to comment on something you wrote in the first installment—“My second criticism is that ID promoters sometimes seem interested in changing culture through changing public school science curricula. In this sense, ID is more about culture wars.”  I agree with your disapproval here.  It is somewhat disturbing that we use the 8th grade science classroom as a battleground for competing ideologies.  If people are concerned about what their children learn (as they should be) then there are constructive ways of being invested in their education.  Having taught young teens in a private school setting, I can tell you that our forty-five minutes to an hour of science (or any class, really) five days a week cannot undo what the students are learning at home—if their parents are invested.  The culture war aspect of ID is troubling, because it really isn’t just about what their children are learning—it is about controlling the education of the other children.

Hi Tom,
When my daughter was in kindergarten at a public school at Christmas they were not allowed to talk about Christian Christmas, it was a “Winter Festival.” Yet they were singing a Jewish song about Hannukah and another song about kwanza.  I didn’t remain silent, I called the principal and requested that they treat it evenly. I was okay with “Winter Festival” but do not exclude Christmas because it’s the PC thing to do at the time and include other religious/cultural themes.  They added “Joy to the World.” But they didn’t get it at first, they assumed that I was complaining about the other songs and I wasn’t, just pointing out the double standard of it.  Anyways, I think of science the same, political, biological, whatever, we need to give equal time to them. 

On this issue I think that we feel the same.  ID has some positives, but there are negatives.  The implications on God’s character are substantial.  If God acted alone to create, than why doesn’t he stop little girls from being hit by cars? Why doesn’t he stop tsunami’s? Even the very beginning of creation, before creatures (human or not) God wasn’t alone.  Do you think this is why the writers are sure to say that the Word was with God, that the Spirit moved over the waters, to make man in “our” image???? He was not alone even before creatures were created. God is love and relationship matters to him.  We are co-creators in this world in which we live. 
Sharon
Sharon

“ID” as you refer to it is not science. Certainly God never acted alone if we first of all believe that He is a Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God did what He does best and we must remember that His ways are not our ways. Somewhere along the way we must allow God to be God all by Himself and quit attempting to dictate what we believe is His intelligent Design. I think about that crazy looking duck billed platypus.  Who would say that was ID? Somewhere in God’s design this creature fits purposely.

The balance you strike between evolution and ID is one that helps answer some questions that arise between the two for me. This balance seems to keep evolutionists from declaring God is not required. I appreciate your statement of religious science in schools. If creationists desire for creation to be taught in school, we must be fair and have every understanding of creation shared. The Bible is not a book of science, but science helps us understand that Bible in new ways.

Tom, you said, “A God who always loves and never coerces would always act in relationship…God creates in cooperation with creatures.”

I feel your point is valid following the moment of creation. But, what about the instant when God declared “Let there be ________?”  My understanding of the creation story is that God spoke everything into existence out of nothing.  If that is true, then how can God act in relationship when He is declaring something out of nothing?  Isn’t He, in fact, fully in control?  Not coercing, yet fully in control?  Is it not possible that God is acting out of love, yet being fully in control?  And, if your answer is affirmative, what was the object of God’s love at the moment of creation?