On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 18:20:03 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>PM>But it is simply a description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the
>science of our time. No myth here unlike creation.
>SJ>Sagan's actual "description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the
>science of our time" in Cosmos pp337-338, is *very* compatible with
>the description of "creation" in Genesis 1.
PM>Compatible perhaps although there are still some contradictions. But even
>if you agree that they are compatible, under Occam's razor the explanation
>involking extra complications would fail.
As I have pointed out, you misuse "Occam's razor". All "Occam's
razor" says is that "entities are not to be multiplied beyond
necessity." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, vii:475-476). You
haven't shown that God is not a "necessity" or an "extra
complication". You would have to have a complete understanding of
the whole universe and indeed beyond it, to assert that.
Pim, your "Occam's razor" ploy is your ultimate fall-back position. You
claim to want theists to present evidence for God, but when they
provide it, instead of fairly considering that evidence you just rule
it out of court with "Occam's Razor"! So for you evidence for God is
not even necessary.
[...]
>PM>Again, science not religious faith which does not allow a change of
>its 'myth'.
>SJ>Why "change" when it is right first time? Science, originally
>thought the universe was infite in time, but now reluctantly,
>science has had to concede what Genesis 1:1 claimed all along, that
>there was a beginning:
PM>We do not know if the universe is infinite in time. We now know
>based upon observations that there was a bing bang several tens of
>billions of years ago and we cannot observe what was there before
>that.
There was no "before" the Big Bang. Time began with the Big Bang:
"...I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence
at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger
volume. The matter and energy content of the Universe likewise
originates at or near the beginning, and populates the Universe
everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from
which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object
surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely
compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite
duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately
expands...Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no
possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself
begins at this point. This is perhaps the most crucial and most difficult
aspect of the big bang theory. The notion that the physical Universe
came into existence with time and not in time has a long history,
dating back to St Augustine in the fifth century. But it took Einstein's
theory of relativity to give the idea scientific respectability. The key
feature of the theory of relativity is that space and time are part of the
physical Universe, and not merely an unexplained background arena
in which the Universe happens. Hence the origin of the physical
Universe must involve the origin of space and time too." (Davies P.,
"The Day Time Began", New Scientist, Vol. 150, No. 2027, 27 April
1996, p31)
You may note that a *Christian* theologian first thought of the idea
that "the physical Universe came into existence with time and not in time"
from his reading of Genesis.
PM>But if you want to hold the bible to a standard of scientific
>accuracy you will have to deal also with the scientific inaccuracies
>of the bible.
The Bible is not a textbook of science, so it does not need to have
"a standard of scientific accuracy". It expresses its views about
the world in the ordinary person's language of appearance, eg. "the
sun rises" rather than the Earth goes around the sun. Most of these
are trivial and have no great theological significance.
But the Bible's statement that the cosmos had a "beginning" out of
nothing (is unique to the Bible, and it has great theological
significance. If it turned out that there was no beginning (eg. the
steady-state theory), then the Bible would be wrong. As it is the
Bible alone of all holy books and against all scientific opinion
until the 1930's, held that there was a beginning of the universe.
The Bible has been proved right, and science and all other holy books
have been proved wrong. This is powerful evidence to me that the
Bible writers had supernatural assistance.
>PM>No matter how often you repeat the word myth, creation remains one
>while science changes according to observation and knowledge. No blurred
>distinctions.
>SJ>See above. Since Genesis 1 was revealed by God (I do not ncessarily
>mean this is a simplistic way), it does not need to "change", because it
>has been right all along, in its fundamental claim that: "In the beginning
>God created the heavens and the earth." (Gn 1:1), as Robert Jastrow,
>founder and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an
>agnostic admits:
PM>It does not need to change? And yet the bible revealed that the earth was
>flat until science found otherwise? Is this limited scientific accuracy also
>admissible?
There is *nowhere* that "the bible revealed that the earth was flat". I've
got multiple Bible's on line and I just did a search on the worlds "earth"
and "flat". It came back empty. I did a search on "flat" and it came back
with four verses in the KJV: "flat nose" (Lev 21:18); "fell flat on his
face" (Num 22:31); "the wall of the city shall fall down flat" (Josh 6:5,20);
and only one verse in the NIV "a flat cake" (Hos 7:9). Indeed, if anything
the Bible teaches the earth was a sphere:
"He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people
are like grasshoppers..." (Isa 40:22)
suspended in space:
"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth
over nothing" (Job 26:7)
PM>But your assumption is that it was revealed by God so it does not allow for
>1) errors 2) transcription errors 3) interpretation errors....
I would not have a problem if the Bible contained "1) errors" and certainly
not if it contains "2) transcription errors" or "3) interpretation errors"
after the Bible was revealed. The Bible nowhere claims to be 100% free from
"error".
PM>What if it was just a mythical story?
Some parts of the Bible have "mythical" elements, but few scholars would
claim that the Bible is "mythical" in the same sense as (say) Greek
mythology.
>SJ...my main point was that "Darwinian...macro evolution...*functions* as
>a creation-myth".
>PM>So it functions as one but it isn't? It explains the scientific data,
>unlike myths, is adaptable, falsifiable, testable, unlike religious
>creation myths. So it might appear to be a myth but it isn't?
>SJ>I don't have any brief for "religious creation myth" in general. But
>in the case of Genesis 1, it stands apart from all other ancient creation
>accounts in that it outlines in popular language an account that in the
>words of leading Middle East archaeologist W.F. Albright:
PM>If you want to claim accuracy in genesis you will have to deal with
>inaccuracies in other books as well Steve.
I don't claim "accuracy" in "Genesis 1", in the sense of comparing it with a
20th century precise scientfic report. I claim merely that comparing Genesis
1 with other similar ancient literature (eg. Babylonian, etc), it portrays
an amazingly accurate account in pictorial form.
>PM>You mean how evolution could be falsified? If your question is to
>suggest that there is little evidence against the theory of evolution and that
>there is plenty of evidence in support then we agree.
>SJ>No. I did not ask "how evolution could be falsified?", I asked you to
>"tell me...some of the evidence against the theory of Evolution."
>That you cannot even frame the question (much less answer) it, is evidence
>to me that "the theory of evolution" is functioning as a creation myth for
>you.
PM>Why ? As far as I am aware there is no evidence against the theory of
>evolution. But perhaps I am wrong about this? And is this evidence fatal
>for the theory of evolution?
No. It just confirms that "the theory of evolution is functioning as a
creation myth for you". If it really was "falsifiable, testable, unlike
religious creation myths" then you would be able to think of some evidence
against it.
>SJ>I find it most significant that you use the words of *religion*
>("doubters or disbelievers" in respect of "the theory of evolution". That is more
>evidence that "the theory of evolution" is functioning as a creation myth
>for you. But you are in good company - it functions as a creation myth for many
>(if not most) leading evolutionists, as the following religious language
>used by Francis Crick of Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" indicates:
PM>The similarity of word choice is merely coincidental or perhaps sarcastic
>? To claim this as evidence like you have done above is of course hardly
>support for your assertion that evolution is a "creation myth". Unlike the
>religious myth it is open to criticism, change, it can be falsified, it
>makes predictions.
How can "evolution...be falsified" to you, when you do not know any "evidence
against" it?
PM>To refer to this as a myth indicates that you are trying to reduce the value
>of science to an issue of faith. If your personal faith is that limited that you
>have to resort to such tactics then perhaps the problem lies at your end.
What "tactics"? I gave you a test that Professor Kerkut (an evolutionist) used
to give his students, to "tell me...some of the evidence against the theory
of Evolution".
PM>After all what is wrong about believing in a creation myth? But why do
>you feel the need to bring a scientific theory to the level religious
>faith?
There is nothing "wrong about believing in a creation myth", if it is *true*.
And I have nothing evolution as "a scientific theory" if that's all that it
was.
PM>Two very different issues. If you consider your religious faith strong,
>then you should admit that the scientific creation myth has similar
>strenght as it relies on mere faith so why call it a creation myth?
I am not sure what the above means. But if the theory of evolution
is a "scientific creation myth" then why shouldn't I "call it a creation
myth"?
PM>But if your religious faith is weak and you feel that evolution is
>subverting your faith then bringing it down to a religious level makes it
>possible for you to reject it in favour of your own faith.
I am not concerned about "evolution...subverting" my "faith". If "evolution"
is proved true I will accept it as the natural means God used in developing his
world. But as a theist, I consider it possible that God also used *super*-natural
means in developing his world. However the non-theist, has no option but to
believe in naturalistic evoltution. As Christian geneticist David Wilcox pointed out:
"One can be a theistic `Darwinian,' but no one can be an atheistic
`Creationist.'" (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds.,
"Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", 1994, p215)
PM>So either way I am curious why you decide to refer to science in a manner
>to suggest it to be similar to religious faith when in fact it isn't?
I was not referring to "science" in general. I was not even referring to
"the theory of evolution" as a scientific theory. I was referring to the
"evidence...that `the theory of evolution'" is functioning as a creation
myth *for you*." The main "evidence" is that you cannot even think of any
evidence against it! If evolution was only a scientific theory *for you*
you should have noproblem stating the evidence against it:
"In his famous 1974 Commencement address at Caltech, Richard
Feynman provided an inspiring counter-example of how science
ought to be practiced. He began by warning against self- deception,
the original sin of science, saying that "The first principle is that you
must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." To
avoid self- deception scientists must bend over backwards to report
data that cast doubt on their theories. Feynman applied this principle
specifically to scientists who talk to the public: "I would like to add
something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of
believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you're
talking as a scientist...I'm talking about a specific, extra type of
integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how
you're maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when
acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists,
certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen." (Johnson P.E.,
"How to Sink a Battleship: A call to separate materialist philosophy
from empirical science", final address, 1996 Mere Creation conference"
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9602/johnson.html)
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------