More Answers

Below, I've finished out the questions from John.

4. What is the definition of science? How does one determine if Darwinian evolution or intelligent design (or any other theory) is a valid scientific theory?

Science is defined by Merriam-Webster as "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method" and "such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena." I agree with this definition. It accurately shows the method for discovering scientific knowledge, the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation leading to principles and laws that the physical world is governed by. It also accurately shows science's limits - the physical world. Science does NOT and can NOT answer epistemological and metaphysical questions. With the above definition and limitations, I whole-heartedly accept science.
My problem is with those who would claim that science is the only way we can know anything for certain. This materialistic worldview is extremely common among the scientific community and colors much of what is said to be fact. Implicit is the claim that the material world is all that exists. This definition of science, I must reject.
So, can either Darwinian evolution or intelligent design theory be classified as "good science?" I am inclined to say "no" to both. Taking the above definition, neither theory can be tested through the scientific method. Clearly it is ridiculous to think of an experiment where God is asked to duplicate His creation so that scientists can see it all happen. It is equally strange to claim that evolution can be tested, when nearly all of the supposed data used to prop up the theory is based upon observations of the current world and propositions about the world that existed at a previous time - no actual observations of evolution occurring before our eyes.
I guess, and I'm not completely sure of my position on this at this time, I would argue that if one of these theories is to be accepted as scientific, then the other has a fair claim, as well.


5. What is to be done about the science upon which evolution is based (chiefly geology and paleontology)?

These two scientific disciplines are some of the least scientific (see above definition). They are based chiefly upon theoretical observations of the current state of the world with reference to what happened long ago, without actually seeing it. Also, both assume that at least one Biblical event, Noah's flood, did not and could not have occurred. The problem with this is that such a flood could account for much of the observations that geology and paleontology make - denying the flood cancels out the best explanation for the data.
I am not against these disciplines, just how they are applied. Geology can tell us much about the way the earth is moving (plate tectonics, quakes, volcanoes, etc.) and could be quite useful if it could be developed as a safeguard against these natural disasters. This seems thoroughly scientific to me, but postulating past events which cannot be observed does not.

6. How does your viewpoint account for the problem of evil in the world?

I account for the problem of evil, theodicy, through the twin Christian doctrines of the supremacy of God and the free will of mankind. The Bible clearly states that, while God is in absolute control of the world, He cannot be implicated for any sin/evil. That responsibility rests entirely upon the human race (as well as Satan and his angels, if we are to complicate the matter). Christians down through the ages have oscillated between these doctrines, as if they are in opposition to one another. Unfortunately, the Bible teaches both quite clearly. This means that a Christian must find some way to acknowledge them both. When taken to their extremes, these doctrines, with the balance of the other, can lead alternately to a God who created evil in order to work out His sovereign choice or a God who has no real control within His own world. I believe that, in order to remain faithful to the whole Bible, both must be accepted, with their inherent tension acknowledged but not resolved.
The real issue, when dealing with theodicy, is not where evil comes from but what hope is offered to those suffering the evil. Christianity offers the best hope - God is at work to put a complete end to evil and suffering and has taken the decisive steps to accomplish this Himself through the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

I hope these questions and answers will spur on further thought and discussion. There really is opposition to God's work in the world, from three sources: the world system, Satan, and from the sinful self. Given this opposition, working for truth is extremely important.