">Bill Davis wrote:
>"To repeat, I want a plausible story of how genes arose."
>I replied:
>>God did it. As I have agreed many times on the reflector, I do not think
>evolutionists have proven their case that life can arise un-aided.
>
>Stephen Jones responded.
>"I am glad to see this"
>
>Why is this so important? If God baked bread by mixing the ingredients,
>placing the dough in a pan in the oven, setting the timer on the oven so
that
>it would go off at the proper time, God still did it. Even though he didn't
>touch it after the original mixing. If God set the universe in motion, with
>qualities which would lead to the otherwise unaided origin of life, God
would
>still be Creator.
Agreed. You have just asnwered your own question!"
****End quote*******************
No I didn't answer my own question. In the above, I was merely agreeing that
it is quit likely that God created life by fiat. You were glad to see that
(at least that is the way I interpreted what you said. And if you didn't
imply this I know others who do feel this way). My question to you, which
you either didn't understand or avoided, was Why is it so important for God
to create by fiat? If I make a robot which mixes the wheat flour, eggs,
milk, and whatever in a bowl, places the dough in a pan, puts the pan in the
oven, turns the temperature to the proper setting, removes the bread at the
proper time and then slices it and bags it, if it does all that, who made the
bread - me or the robot? If you walk into the room just after I finish
programming the robot and watch it make the bread, can you conclude that I
had nothing to do with the manufacture of the bread?
I see two extremes here. One the one hand, classical creationism would
seem to want to rule out the possibility that God "programmed" his robot (the
universe) for the purpose of making bread (man). They seem to say that if
God accomplished his purpose in this manner (something akin to Mark Phillips
option 5 in his post this morning) that it is not creation. On the other
hand the atheists seem to walk into the room as the robot pulls the bread out
of the oven and declare that there was no designer for the system.
Now my question is why is it important for God to create by fiat rather
than by designing the entire system - robots, subrobots and all?
You wrote:
"Agreed in the long run. But the first task IMHO is to examine
Darwinism and see if its assertions are valid. Macbeth says:
"Courtroom experience during my career at the bar taught me to attach
great weight to something that may seem trivial to persons not skilled
in argumentation-the burden of proof. The proponents of a theory, in
science or elsewhere, are obligated to support every link in the chain
of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of
the
theory, testing it for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any
theory
of his own or to offer any alternative explanations. He can be purely
negative if he so desires. William Jennings Bryan forgot this in
Tennessee, and was jockeyed into trying to defend fundamentalism,
although this was not necessary to the matter in hand. The results
were disastrous. They would have been equally disastrous for CIarence
Darrow if he had tried to discharge the burden of proof for the other
side. The winner in these matters is the skeptic who has no case to
prove."
(Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason", 1978 (reprint),
Garnstone Press, London, p5)"
**end quote**
With all due respect to Macbeth, and other well know lawyers, science is not
a courtroom nor do the rules of the courtroom apply in anyway to the
methodology of science. In science, the winner is the person who advocates
the successful theory!!!
You wrote:
"Give me a break Glenn! Are you seriously advancing the proposition
that the average layman has either to accept Darwinism or come up
with their own alternative?
Besides, what is wrong with being a "debunker of evolution"? It is
only a theory. It is not Holy Writ."
**endquote**
You've got your break. I certainly do not feel that the average layperson is
able to come up with an alternative. But then the average reflectorite is
NOT the average layperson. Most of the people on the reflector have more
education than I and represent the creme de la creme of Christian scholars.
It is not unreasonable to expect an august group like this to come up with
alternatives.
For christians to continue to be nothing more than "debunkers' means
that we will contribute nothing positive. After 130 years of debunking
evolution, what has christianity gained? Have we come up with a plausible
explanation for the flood? for the psuedogenes? But we not only debunk
evolution, we have christians who debunk everything that geology and
astronomy say. I would respectfully submit that debunking is doing nothing
but turning Christians into Luddites! Where the luddites were against modern
technology, 20th century evangelicals are against most of observational
science! We are always debunking the latest scientific discovery.
And no evolution is holy writ, but I don't think anti-evolutionism is holy
writ either. Genesis 1:11 states: Then God said, 'Let the land produce
vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with
seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so." NIV
For years and years I read this verse as being against evolution. But it
isn't. God didn't create the vegetation directly, he used the intermediary
of the land. The land produced the vegetation. Isn't that what evolution
says? The "according to their various kinds" phrase is not a limitation upon
genetic variability but is merely a description of the fact that more than
one type was created! If I send you to the grocery store telling you "to get
vegetables after their kind", are you going to infer that I have made a
proclamation about the reproductive life of the carrot? No! You are going to
get various kinds of veggies! That is what God is commanding the land to do-
produce various kinds of veggies.
This same use of 'after their kinds' is found in Genesis 1:21 and
Genesis 1:24 where once again, the land is told to produce living creatures.
The Scripture does not teach against evolution. It teaches against pure
materialism. There is a big difference.
You wrote:
"As far as Christianity is concerned, it is not necessary to have a
"working theory for Science other than that God did it." It might be
important to you as a scientist, but that is your own particular
burden."
Yes it is my burden. It should be the burden of others also. If everything
I teach about geology is obervationally false, why should anyone listen to
me? If I connect my false teaching with God's inspiration, I have not only
made me look foolish but God as well! I hate to pick on Steve Austin again,
but it just happens to be the book I am reading now. On page 87 of GRAND
CANYON he rejects the standard explanation of the erosion of Grand Canyon
because he says if the Colorado river had been in place for 70 million years,
it would have eroded far too much sediment and there is no evidence for that
sediment anywhere in California where it should have been dumped. But then
on page 102 he presents geologic proof that the Colorado river had only been
in place for max 5.5 million years. He uses that fact to support his view of
how the canyon formed. If you go back and use the 5.5 million in the
original calculation, there is absolutely no reason to reject the standard
view because not very much sediment would have been eroded! One can't reject
the standard theory because the river has been in place 70 million years
(when geologists think it has only been there for 5.5 million) and then use
the correct length of time to support your own view. This is observationally
poor logic. His mechanism would require the existence of huge boulder beds
in Southern California but he does not even mention that prediction (no
non-geologist would be likely to pick up on it either) and he procedes to
show that the boulder beds do not exist! The beds he does cite are
geologically incompatible with his mechanism but once again, most laypeople
(non-geologists) would not know that and so would believe his explanation.
Now he says it was the flood and its aftermath which eroded the canyon.
He has connected his poor reasoning with God's word. This is a bad thing to
do. This causes young Christians to leave Christianity.I hate to be
disagreeable, but this SHOULD be our burden.
You wrote:
"Again, you seem to think that there are only two alternatives,
Darwinism or the "ICR". I don't accept either. And I always taught
my children that both the Bible and Nature were the two "books" of
God and ultimately they must agree, since the have the one Author."
All the more reason that you should do more than merely debunk. When
problems and discrepancies arise what do you tell your children?
glenn