And how, precisely, is this different from deism? Just curious"¦
"“Allen

In the vague hope that Allen will read this, I can only ask (understanding that we are talking of an analogy here), how is it that in your world a Farmer, once he has planted a seed, withdraws entirely from the scene?

What Farmer, having once cultivated the soil, plants a seed, only to leave it to the vagaries of nature?

kernest135.
If God did create the world and all the basic life forms, as the Bible claims then why? What purpose?

If you are prepared to accept that God is real, for long enough to read the article, then try:-

http://www.creationtheory.8k.c...

It seems to be a logical possibility since the Bible has many prophesies that have come true, and some from more than 2000 years ago that are coming to pass in our time. So someone knew or was confidant they could control the future. Apart from the many completed about Jesus, one obvious one from the Old Testament, is of Israel becoming a nation again in what was then the distant end times, and being a "cup of reeling" to the nations around them. Now they are back as a nation and the recipient of hatred and continual rocket attacks and condemnation for defending themselves, all as predicted, showing mans hatred for other men.

kernest135

And how, precisely, is this different from deism? Just curious"¦

Ehhhh…what's up, doc? Before I answer your question, I have a question of my own: Have you read Mike Gene's book, yet?

Now, back to my analogy: I'm suggesting that we might view God's creative acts as a farmer planting seeds. And — as far as natural history is concerned, if Mike's front-loaded hypothesis turns out to be correct, there may have been only two such acts: the initial creation of the universe, and the initial creation of life on earth.

The New Testament suggests that there was a third creative act: the Incarnation, where the Word of God became flesh. One need not believe the New Testament in order to accept the farmer analogy. It's just that I got the farmer analogy from the New Testament, which made me think it might help interpret God's acts of creation.

I think God very much cares about each and every human being (and sparrows, too). And I think God intervenes in the universe, beyond what may have been only two or three creative acts. So, perhaps I should make a distinction between divine acts of creation and other divine actions.

I think there might be a hint in the New Testament about how to understand the problem of evil. I'll try writing that up sometime.

As something of a Christian, Naturalistic Intelligent Design Advocate

A christian and a naturalist? I can already hear the brains exploding.

I say that as someone who may well be classified as the same, mind you. Naturalism was more palatable as a philosophical position to take in opposition to religious views back before QM, the big bang, computation, etc - as in, back before realizing what the 'natural' is actually capable of. So sayeth I, anyway.

How does this fit into me still being an ID advocate? Well, it is obvious, IMO, that we can scientifically determine the effects of intelligence. IOW, a mere random set of laws and variables (absent intelligence) acted upon by chance will not produce information processing systems or CSI. Thus an intelligence is necessary to cause the production of life within an overarching program.

Allen_MacNeill: If ID theory is valid, then the deity of deism is not only a crypto-atheist Himself, he is also a utilitarian Who gives not a whit for individuals nor their welfare. Makes Him kind of a tough sell, no?

…calling a kettle black:

Allen_MacNeill: And as for Dr. Dembski's essay on theodicy, it's both incoherent and sophomoric

Some people just don't seem to have an imagination.

"all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; "¦ the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for living systems."

It is the only designer that doesn't include some form of intelligent, purposeful organization.

All thoughts about the identity of the designer will remain speculative; I'm confident its nature will never be known with certainty. However my favorite speculation is that the designer is an intelligence and volition innate to reality. The universe has designed itself. Each piece of living matter, down to individual cells, has some limited ability to respond, intelligently and purposefully. Living matter makes limited, non-automatic choices when stimulated to do so. Since I don't believe in miracles, I doubt this intelligence suddenly popped into existence with the creation of life. I suspect it was always an aspect of reality, but too weak to be detected in inanimate matter by our present measuring methods (except perhaps at the quantum level). However most living systems can be observed sometimes overriding automatic mechanisms, and responding creatively, intelligently and purposefully. I have no objection to religious people attributing the creative intelligence to a deity, but if intelligence of any form is involved, life is intelligently designed.

The universe has designed itself. The laws of nature are entrenched habits. The laws governing inanimate matter are quite entrenched by this time, but living systems are still, to some extent, a design in process.

Questions about Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

But there may be another analogy that might make even more sense of God's action: the image of a farmer planting seeds. In this case, maybe only two or three seeds. The first seed would have been the universe itself, which we are told started out as a very small thing, much smaller than a mustard seed. Yet it has grown into a giant tree, that all the stars and planets can find shelter in. The second seed would be the first microorganisms planted on our planet, billions of years ago. If Mike Gene's hypothesis of front-loaded evolution turns out to be correct, this is all the direct design intervention that may have been necessary. And from this tiny seed grew the huge tree of life that we see around us today.

I don't think that the analogy that Bilbo is making is necessarily a deistic one. In fact I will argue that it is actually very consistent with Biblical theology; it's all of matter of how many seeds. If you carefully (and allegorically) read the opening chapters of Genesis you'll see that the Creator revealed there is not a micromanager, but someone who creates and intervenes episodically and occasionally. For example he doesn't create everything all at once but does so over a span of six "days." Even his interaction with "˜un-fallen' mankind is occasional. He isn't hanging around all the time instead he comes to visit the man and his in the cool of the evening. He grants human being free will, but also moral responsibility. Of course on the seventh "day" he rest

In my thinking there are probably several other seeds we need to consider: what about multie-cellularity, plants, animals and sexuality, or the Cambrian explosion? What about consciousness and self consciousness? (Or the emergence of what we call mind and intelligence?) In my mind explaining how conscious and mind arise out of matter is even more difficult than explaining how life originates from non-life.

Precisely; and as nearly any theologian would be happy to tell you, deism is functionally indistinguishable from atheism, in that the deity of deism is either constrained (or distains) from intervening in significant ways with the universe following its creation.

I'm sorry, but that's entirely and utterly wrong. Maybe you could make a hesitant claim in that direction with regards to pantheism - and even there, problems begin to arise.

But among deists, you see many beliefs about natural law and right of man, ideas of destiny and purpose, and so on. God isn't necessarily 'hands off' in the deistic view out of a detachment or lack of care, but a lack of need - and when it's argued that God isn't directly intervening in the world past creating it, it's usually coupled with the justification of 'because that implies God created something imperfect that needs tuneups'. In other words, because it's an insult to majesty.

Why, there have been and still are christian deists. Shocking, no? It's very hard to draw the line between deism and western theism.

If ID theory is valid, then the deity of deism is not only a crypto-atheist Himself, he is also a utilitarian Who gives not a whit for individuals nor their welfare. Makes Him kind of a tough sell, no?

Not at all. You just (willfully or accidentally) vastly mistake the scope and basics of deism.