Rather than inviting the Carolina community into a potentially fruitful conversation about a rich subject, columnist Patrick Mitchell, “The Coffee Shop Atheist,” has provided us, for the third time in the past several weeks, with too many ideas to consider at once: an introductory critique of intelligent design concluding with a disputation of biblical interpretation.
“Intelligent design” is a form of the “teleological argument” for God’s existence. Thomas Aquinas argues everything in the known universe exhibits design or purpose; therefore, there must be a designer or “purposer.” Creationism is similar, but is not the same concept as is suggested.
C.S. Lewis reminds us that many of the founders of modern science studied science because they expected to find law in nature. They expected to find such laws because they believed in a “purposer” or “legislator.” Francis Collins, the National Institutes of Health director most noted for the Human Genome Project, is himself a Christian, believing (as I do) in the harmony of science and faith.
The Bible is a diverse anthology of history, poetry, allegory, narrative, parable and letters written and funded by prophets, teachers, scholars, fishermen, physicians, apostles, philanthropists and disciples. It moves through thousands of years of dynasties, cultures and contexts, all pointing to a message that we unfortunately don’t have time for here. In short, please use discretion when answering Mitchell’s question, “What parts of the Bible are meant to be literally followed ... which are not?” When Jesus told us to be like doves, He wasn’t telling us to lay eggs.
— Brewer Eberly, third-year biology student