JAR's amazing theory of a Creator who doesn't Design (Faith & jar & invitees)

I don't want to get off on how the ToE does or doesn't equal atheism on this thread, but just address this idea that there can be a Creator who is not a Designer. And I don't get this idea at all.

Is there a creator of fiction who didn't design his characters? Is there an inventor who didn't design the invention? Is there an artist who didn't design the work of art? Etc.

Scripture says He SPOKE it all into existence I believe. ... and the Word was God and by Him were all things made that were made.

jar writes:He created the four forces, evolution and all the basic rules we are only beginning to understand.

Perhaps this is merely a semantic problem and what you mean to say is that he did indeed design the universe but left it to work itself out according to the laws he put in place, pretty much a Deist position. But even in this case to say he created any of it is to say he designed it -- designed it to play itself out as it is doing.

You assert God created the 4 forces, evolution, etc,...but not man. Where's your evidence?

My view of this is that I already answered jar sufficiently in my original post showing how there is no such thing as a true creator who is not a designer, so I really have nothing more to say.

If he's simply stating a Deist premise I can leave it at that.

Faith writes:I think you operate by the rule that if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will believe it.

Assuming you believe in the Biblical god, Jehovah, and assuming you learned your theology of this god from the Biblical scriptures, here's what those scriptures say concerning the origin of man:Genesis 1:26, quoting God: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:......So God, in effect said, 'let us make man, designing man in our image and after our likeness.

You now bring up the question of what is meant and implied by the word "creator" in the thread topic. After all, this thread is really about your concept of the creator, so we need to define exactly what we're debating here.

Then if we go with the Biblical god, you cheat by Xing[sic] out the portions of scripture that destroy your argument, for you have no empirical basis for alleging that Genesis one is any less authoritative than the rest of scripture for theological doctrine and for determinations in this debate.

Genesis 1 teaches that the one true God calls the universe into existence, and all of creation responds to God’s call. The creation has order and structure. It is transfigured and reveals God’s presence, but it is natural, not divine. It is dependent upon its Creator for its continuing existence and for all of the powers and capacities it possesses. Each element is declared to be good and the whole of it very good. Finally, Genesis 1 teaches that the Sabbath, God’s holy day of celebration and rest, is anchored in the act of creation.

Haven't I shown that it is contradictory to your position that the creator does not design?

The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.

Haven't I shown that it is contradictory to your position that the creator does not design?

No, IMHO you have not.

Both some non-believers and some conservative Christians promote this Conflict approach. The former group claims that the universe is all there is and therefore the concept of God is outdated and irrelevant. Some conservative Christians perceive modern scientific theories to be hostile to their Christian faith and reject them as contrary to their beliefs about the Bible. There is a middle way, which some call a Complementary approach. Its supporters say that while they are separate fields of study with different sources of knowledge, science and Christian theology can complement one another in the quest for truth and understanding. Together they can create a more complete understanding of and give greater meaning to our world.

This is not to argue their historical or scientific acuracy, but whether you consider them to be mythical.

Were they written as intentionally mythical?

Genesis 1 teaches that the one true God calls the universe into existence, and all of creation responds to God’s call. The creation has order and structure. It is transfigured and reveals God’s presence, but it is natural, not divine. It is dependent upon its Creator for its continuing existence and for all of the powers and capacities it possesses. Each element is declared to be good and the whole of it very good.

buz writes:Relative to creation, do you agree with your cited catechism that the creator calls and all creation responds?

Biological evolution means that living things change over time. A great variety and diversity of organisms have come into existence over the past four billion years from one or a few original life forms. All living things”bacteria, archaebacteria, protists, fungi, plants and animals, including human beings”are descendants of other life forms, most of which are extinct. The evidence for evolution shows that all life on earth is related and interconnected, and is often depicted as a great "Tree of Life." Evolution happens gradually, sometimes at a rapid rate and sometimes slowly, but never with discontinuities. Evolution happens because of natural selection; in the face of environmental pressures, some organisms will survive at higher rates than others. Charles Darwin was the first to bring together all these ideas. Scientific researchers since Darwin have refined and added to them, but never thrown out his basic theoretical framework.

Genesis 1 teaches that the one true God calls the universe into existence, and all of creation responds to God’s call. The creation has order and structure. It is transfigured and reveals God’s presence, but it is natural, not divine. It is dependent upon its Creator for its continuing existence and for all of the powers and capacities it possesses. Each element is declared to be good and the whole of it very good.

There are three major areas of evidence: the fossil record, biogeography, and genetics.Fossils of hundreds of thousands of now extinct species show that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms over millions of years. Thousands of transitional fossils help us to understand how the changes took place. Scientists use techniques based on the rate at which radioactive elements decay to date fossils and the rock layers in which they are found. In this way layers of fossils from one part of the world can be related to fossils of a similar age from another continent. These studies, combined with comparing the structures of various fossilized creatures, provide evidence for the relationships over time among living things.While paleontologists study fossils and their relationships over time, biogeographers study the relationships and changes in species from one place to another. The distribution of species provides clues to how they evolved. For centuries naturalists have noted that similar creatures living in separate locations show differences in appearance and behavior, particularly when they do not interbreed. The unique plants and animals of islands have provided some of the most dramatic examples of evolution. The finches of the Galapagos Islands that inspired Darwin are one famous example.Studies in genetics provide the third major field of evidence. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, basic to all life. An analogy to language is helpful in explaining how genetics helps us understand evolution. Genes speak a universal language using only four chemical letters. The structure of the DNA molecule, which carries the genes, is identical in all life; that is, it uses the same grammar. But the arrangement and number of genes vary widely among species. Thus each species has its story. Individuals have different versions of that story. Similarities and differences in genetic make-up, then, help scientists identify how closely or distantly related individuals and species are.Beginning in the twentieth century, genetic research has added tremendously to the knowledge gained from fossils and biogeography. Together they show that the diversity of life has evolved; it was not produced by a series of separate acts of creation.