Pim
On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:40:11 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>PM>If God used evolution, would that not be supernatural creation as
>well?
>SJ>"If God used evolution" then it indeed *would* "be supernatural
>creation" but not "as well". Because then it wouldn't be called "evolution"
>- it would be called "creation":
PM>Mere semantics.
No. An *accurate* use of terms.
But your objection is revealing. To you *everything* is "evolution", even
"supernatural creation"!
PM>"Darwinistic evolution would be a most peculiar creative method for
>God to choose given the Darwinistic insistence that biological evolution
>was *undirected.* That requirement means that God neither programmed
>evolution in advance nor stepped in from time to time to pull it in the
>right direction.
PM>Why would he have to do this. Is God not almighty ?
"Why would he have to do" what? There are two options above: 1) "God...
programmed evolution in advance"; or 2) "God...stepped in from time to
time to pull it in the right direction." Which one are you referring to
>SJ>How then did God ensure that humans would come into
>existence so that salvation history would have a chance to occur?
PM>He knew that given enough time and space that it would be inevitable
After all are you now not limiting God a bit too much?
If it was not "programmed...in advance" and God did not intervene *why*
would "it..be inevitable"?
>PM>And why would God provide us with all these data suggesting that
>>He indeed did it that way?
>SJ> What "data" is that exactly?
PM>Radiometric dating, fossil evidence, genetic evidence, you name it.
And how do these distinguish between: 1) undirected evolution; 2)
programmed in advance evolution; and 3) God intervening from time to
time progressive creation?
>PM>The alternative is far more troublesome, in that it requires the belief
>>that God is trying to fool us .
>SJ>Maybe you are fooling yourself Pim:
PM>Possible but irrelevant to the discussion.
You raised the question.
>SJ>"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." (Johnson P.E., "How to
Sink a >Battleship: A call to separate materialist philosophy from empirical
>science", The Real Issue: Edited from the final address at the 1996 Mere
>Creation conference" http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9602/johnson.html)
PM>Indeed, it might as well apply to you, God or me. So why this non
sequitor ?
You were the one who raised the question of whether "God is trying to
fool us." Further, you admit that "it imight...apply to" you. So it is not a
non sequitur.
>PM>And rightly so if the issue is science.
>SJ>What is "rightly so"?
PM>Because religious faith and science are unreconcilable if they are to be
>applied at the same moment.
Why? What Biblical statement or scientific experiment reveals that
"religious faith and science are unreconcilable."
>SJ>Note the *automatic* assumption above of fully naturalistic causes
>>"there is a mechanism (unknown to us at this moment" and "I don't
>>know the mechanism but there is one".
>PM>No the issue is the the criticism made by creationists and potential
>>mechanisms which could address this.
>SJ>Disagree. Glenn does not even consider that the creationists might be
>right.
PM>So you claim but your feelings are irrelevant
My "feelings are" indeed "irrelevant". What I said was a matter of fact.
>SJ>He assumes *apriori* that "there is a mechanism" for the origin of
>pure L- amino acids, even though he admits it is "unknown to us at this
>moment". Indeed, he repeats that there *is* such a mechanism: "I don't
>know the mechanism but there is one" even without any evidence.
PM>I would say that Glenn is pointing out that it is the creationist who by
>claiming that there is NO natural mechanism to explain L amino acids,
>makes the mistakes you accuse Glenn of falling for.
If a "creationist" was "claiming that there is NO" *known* "natural
mechanism to explain" 100% pure "L amino acids" then he would be right.
PM>Glenn's argument is that we don't know if there is no mechanism and
>until it can be shown that no mechanism can exist, this cannot be excluded
>from scientific inquiry.
Glenn actually says that there *is* a natural mechanism out there waiting to
be found.
>SJ>That is pure, Theistic Naturalism: a "fervent faith that a naturalistic
>explanation for the origin of life simply *must* be there to be found":
PM>Nope, it is not faith, it is realism and realization that one cannot
>dismiss something as a scientific possibility until it can be safely dismissed.
I repeat. Glenn actually says that there *is* a natural mechanism. You are
putting words in his mouth.
And when exactly will it be when "a naturalistic explanation for the origin
of life" "can be safely dismissed"?
>PM>Before looking into supernatural explanations, should we first not
>>exhaust the natural ones?
SJ>In the case of *origins* why not do both:
PM>Sure, in science we use the scientific method and in faith we use
>introspection. We can use both, just not for the same purpose.
If God supernaturally created: 1) the universe out of nothing; 2) the first
life from non-living chemicals; and 3) life's major design innovations; then
how can we find this out by "introspection", and why can't "we use the
scientific method" to prove or disprove it?
>PM>And what is so destructive about Glenn pointing out this
>SJ>I didn't say that Glenn *was* being "destructive about Glenn pointing
>out this". I said that "Glenn attacks relentlessly and destructively any
>Christian apologist like Johnson or Ross who proposes *any* form of
>supernatural creation."
PM>At a scientific level that is indeed very appropriate. On a faith level, no
>attacks should be made, after all it is an issue of faith.
What if there *was* a "form of "supernatural creation"? Glenn would then
be "relentlessly and destructively" attacking "Christian apologists" who
were right?
>SJ>Indeed, Glenn "proudly pleads guilty" to destructively criticising the
>positions of Christian apologists:
PM>As long as the position is argued on a scientific level, then I applaud
>his efforts.
Even if there *was* a "form of "supernatural creation" and he was wrong
and the "Christian apologists" were right, you would still "applaud his
efforts"?
[...]
>>SJ>Moreover note above that Glenn *criticises* "creationists" and
>>"Christians" who believe that "nature can't produce anything but racemic
>>forms". Indeed Glenn declares that concept "flawed" apriori, despite the
>>fact that there is still no hard evidence that unaided nature can produce
>>100% pure L-amino acids which is what life requires.
>PM>That is incorrect as Glenn has pointed out.
>SJ>Where exactly has "Glenn...pointed out" that "unaided nature can
>produce 100% pure L-amino acids?"
PM>He has shown a potential mechanism. That your argument now is
>'pure L amino acids' is irrelevant. Glenn has shown that there are
>mechanisms which prefer one form of Amino-acids over the other.
There are no "mechanisms which prefer one form of Amino-acids over the
other" There are mchanisms which produce slightly more of L- or R- amino
acids. But there are no known mechanisms that produce "100% pure L-
amino acids".
>PM>Now whether this is THE mechanism is open to discussion.
>SJ>Again the *automatic* assumption that there *must* be a
>"mechanism" for producing fully naturalistically 100% pure L-amino
>acids.
PM>Even a miracle would still be a 'mechanism' albeit not a very
[text missing]
Glenn's point was that there was a *non*-miraculous "mechanism" out
there that could produce 100% L-amino acids.
SJ>Pim I *don't* "ignore this possiblity". I have repeatedly said that God
>*could* have worked through natural processes". Indeed it is the name I
>gave this thread:
>
>"RE: God could have worked through natural processes (was
Evolutionary
>Information 1/2)"
>
>I just don't assume apriori like Theistic Naturalists do that God *must*
>have worked through natural processes.
PM>If that is your argument, then we agree, God by virtue of being
>unobservable is unpredictable as well.
I take it you "agree" "that God *must* have worked through natural
processes"?
>>SJ>Disagree. We are talking of positions *within* Christian "theism".
>>True "deism" is incompatible with Christianity becuase it denies
>>supernatural Revelation and salvation miracles:
>PM>Of course that is merely an opinion. What if you are wrong ?
>SJ>Pim, I gave a definition of "true `deism'" from a book about Deism
>and quoted the reference. So how can you claim that this is "merely an
>opinion"? Have you got any other references that contradict it?
PM>I was talking about your conclusions not your statements.
Are you claiming that "Christianity" is *compatible* with the denial of
"supernatural Revelation and salvation miracles"?
If so, why would be the tenets of that "Christianity"?
>SJ>Or are you saying that "deism" does deny "supernatural Revelation
>and salvation miracles" yet it is not "incompatible with Christianity"?
PM>Perhaps it might be incompatible with your interpretation of
>Christianity but that does not necessarily make it so to others?
What "others" exactly?
>>SJ>"A person who assumes a priori that such creation events must have
>>scientifically ascertainable material causes is a metaphysical naturalist. If
>>he believes in God he is a theistic naturalist, who limits God's freedom by
>>the dictates of naturalistic philosophy." (Johnson P.E., "God and
>>Evolution: An Exchange: Howard J. Van Till - Phillip E. Johnson", First
>>Things, June 1993.
>>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
>PM>I believe it is far more limiting to assume that God must have
>>worked through supernatural powers.
>SJ>Agreed. But I don't claim that "God must have worked through
>supernatural powers." I repeat my position: "God could have worked
>through natural processes".
PM>So far so good.
But neither do I limit God by assuming that "God" *must* "have worked
through natural processes".
>>SJ>And it certainly "retards the discussion" by Theistic Naturalists just
>>ignoring the *content* of the arguments of "Johnson (and...his
>>defenders)", and focusing on their *form* claiming it is just "lawyerly
>>rhetoric" and done "sloppily and polemically" at that. If anyone is using
>>"rhetoric...polemically" it is Theistic Naturalists like yourself!
>PM>A fine example of 'if one is free of sin, let him throw the first stone'.
>>How ironic Stephen.
>SJ>Indeed it is "ironic"! Actually it was *John Rylander* who threw
>*this* "first stone":
PM>As I said, still not taking responsiblity ? It's so easy to blame others
>for one's actions, isn't it ? But I agree that much of it is rethorical lawyer
>speak.
You were the one blaming me for throwing the first stone. I pointed out
that I didn't, it was John Rylander. Why should I take "responsibility" for
John Rylander's "actions"?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pim
On Fri, 4 Sep 1998 11:40:11 -0700, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>PM>If God used evolution, would that not be supernatural creation as
>well?
>SJ>"If God used evolution" then it indeed *would* "be supernatural
>creation" but not "as well". Because then it wouldn't be called "evolution"
>- it would be called "creation":
PM>Mere semantics.
No. An *accurate* use of terms.
But your objection is revealing. To you *everything* is "evolution", even
"supernatural creation"!
PM>"Darwinistic evolution would be a most peculiar creative method for
>God to choose given the Darwinistic insistence that biological evolution
>was *undirected.* That requirement means that God neither programmed
>evolution in advance nor stepped in from time to time to pull it in the
>right direction.
PM>Why would he have to do this. Is God not almighty ?
"Why would he have to do" what? There are two options above: 1) "God...
programmed evolution in advance"; or 2) "God...stepped in from time to
time to pull it in the right direction." Which one are you referring to
>SJ>How then did God ensure that humans would come into
>existence so that salvation history would have a chance to occur?
PM>He knew that given enough time and space that it would be inevitable
After all are you now not limiting God a bit too much?
If it was not "programmed...in advance" and God did not intervene *why*
would "it..be inevitable"?
>PM>And why would God provide us with all these data suggesting that
>>He indeed did it that way?
>SJ> What "data" is that exactly?
PM>Radiometric dating, fossil evidence, genetic evidence, you name it.
And how do these distinguish between: 1) undirected evolution; 2)
programmed in advance evolution; and 3) God intervening from time to
time progressive creation?
>PM>The alternative is far more troublesome, in that it requires the belief
>>that God is trying to fool us .
>SJ>Maybe you are fooling yourself Pim:
PM>Possible but irrelevant to the discussion.
You raised the question.
>SJ>"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." (Johnson P.E., "How to
Sink a >Battleship: A call to separate materialist philosophy from empirical
>science", The Real Issue: Edited from the final address at the 1996 Mere
>Creation conference" http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9602/johnson.html)
PM>Indeed, it might as well apply to you, God or me. So why this non
sequitor ?
You were the one who raised the question of whether "God is trying to
fool us." Further, you admit that "it imight...apply to" you. So it is not a
non sequitur.
>PM>And rightly so if the issue is science.
>SJ>What is "rightly so"?
PM>Because religious faith and science are unreconcilable if they are to be
>applied at the same moment.
Why? What Biblical statement or scientific experiment reveals that
"religious faith and science are unreconcilable."
>SJ>Note the *automatic* assumption above of fully naturalistic causes
>>"there is a mechanism (unknown to us at this moment" and "I don't
>>know the mechanism but there is one".
>PM>No the issue is the the criticism made by creationists and potential
>>mechanisms which could address this.
>SJ>Disagree. Glenn does not even consider that the creationists might be
>right.
PM>So you claim but your feelings are irrelevant
My "feelings are" indeed "irrelevant". What I said was a matter of fact.
>SJ>He assumes *apriori* that "there is a mechanism" for the origin of
>pure L- amino acids, even though he admits it is "unknown to us at this
>moment". Indeed, he repeats that there *is* such a mechanism: "I don't
>know the mechanism but there is one" even without any evidence.
PM>I would say that Glenn is pointing out that it is the creationist who by
>claiming that there is NO natural mechanism to explain L amino acids,
>makes the mistakes you accuse Glenn of falling for.
If a "creationist" was "claiming that there is NO" *known* "natural
mechanism to explain" 100% pure "L amino acids" then he would be right.
PM>Glenn's argument is that we don't know if there is no mechanism and
>until it can be shown that no mechanism can exist, this cannot be excluded
>from scientific inquiry.
Glenn actually says that there *is* a natural mechanism out there waiting to
be found.
>SJ>That is pure, Theistic Naturalism: a "fervent faith that a naturalistic
>explanation for the origin of life simply *must* be there to be found":
PM>Nope, it is not faith, it is realism and realization that one cannot
>dismiss something as a scientific possibility until it can be safely dismissed.
I repeat. Glenn actually says that there *is* a natural mechanism. You are
putting words in his mouth.
And when exactly will it be when "a naturalistic explanation for the origin
of life" "can be safely dismissed"?
>PM>Before looking into supernatural explanations, should we first not
>>exhaust the natural ones?
SJ>In the case of *origins* why not do both:
PM>Sure, in science we use the scientific method and in faith we use
>introspection. We can use both, just not for the same purpose.
If God supernaturally created: 1) the universe out of nothing; 2) the first
life from non-living chemicals; and 3) life's major design innovations; then
how can we find this out by "introspection", and why can't "we use the
scientific method" to prove or disprove it?
>PM>And what is so destructive about Glenn pointing out this
>SJ>I didn't say that Glenn *was* being "destructive about Glenn pointing
>out this". I said that "Glenn attacks relentlessly and destructively any
>Christian apologist like Johnson or Ross who proposes *any* form of
>supernatural creation."
PM>At a scientific level that is indeed very appropriate. On a faith level, no
>attacks should be made, after all it is an issue of faith.
What if there *was* a "form of "supernatural creation"? Glenn would then
be "relentlessly and destructively" attacking "Christian apologists" who
were right?
>SJ>Indeed, Glenn "proudly pleads guilty" to destructively criticising the
>positions of Christian apologists:
PM>As long as the position is argued on a scientific level, then I applaud
>his efforts.
Even if there *was* a "form of "supernatural creation" and he was wrong
and the "Christian apologists" were right, you would still "applaud his
efforts"?
[...]
>>SJ>Moreover note above that Glenn *criticises* "creationists" and
>>"Christians" who believe that "nature can't produce anything but racemic
>>forms". Indeed Glenn declares that concept "flawed" apriori, despite the
>>fact that there is still no hard evidence that unaided nature can produce
>>100% pure L-amino acids which is what life requires.
>PM>That is incorrect as Glenn has pointed out.
>SJ>Where exactly has "Glenn...pointed out" that "unaided nature can
>produce 100% pure L-amino acids?"
PM>He has shown a potential mechanism. That your argument now is
>'pure L amino acids' is irrelevant. Glenn has shown that there are
>mechanisms which prefer one form of Amino-acids over the other.
There are no "mechanisms which prefer one form of Amino-acids over the
other" There are mchanisms which produce slightly more of L- or R- amino
acids. But there are no known mechanisms that produce "100% pure L-
amino acids".
>PM>Now whether this is THE mechanism is open to discussion.
>SJ>Again the *automatic* assumption that there *must* be a
>"mechanism" for producing fully naturalistically 100% pure L-amino
>acids.
PM>Even a miracle would still be a 'mechanism' albeit not a very
[text missing]
Glenn's point was that there was a *non*-miraculous "mechanism" out
there that could produce 100% L-amino acids.
SJ>Pim I *don't* "ignore this possiblity". I have repeatedly said that God
>*could* have worked through natural processes". Indeed it is the name I
>gave this thread:
>
>"RE: God could have worked through natural processes (was
Evolutionary
>Information 1/2)"
>
>I just don't assume apriori like Theistic Naturalists do that God *must*
>have worked through natural processes.
PM>If that is your argument, then we agree, God by virtue of being
>unobservable is unpredictable as well.
I take it you "agree" "that God *must* have worked through natural
processes"?
>>SJ>Disagree. We are talking of positions *within* Christian "theism".
>>True "deism" is incompatible with Christianity becuase it denies
>>supernatural Revelation and salvation miracles:
>PM>Of course that is merely an opinion. What if you are wrong ?
>SJ>Pim, I gave a definition of "true `deism'" from a book about Deism
>and quoted the reference. So how can you claim that this is "merely an
>opinion"? Have you got any other references that contradict it?
PM>I was talking about your conclusions not your statements.
Are you claiming that "Christianity" is *compatible* with the denial of
"supernatural Revelation and salvation miracles"?
If so, why would be the tenets of that "Christianity"?
>SJ>Or are you saying that "deism" does deny "supernatural Revelation
>and salvation miracles" yet it is not "incompatible with Christianity"?
PM>Perhaps it might be incompatible with your interpretation of
>Christianity but that does not necessarily make it so to others?
What "others" exactly?
>>SJ>"A person who assumes a priori that such creation events must have
>>scientifically ascertainable material causes is a metaphysical naturalist. If
>>he believes in God he is a theistic naturalist, who limits God's freedom by
>>the dictates of naturalistic philosophy." (Johnson P.E., "God and
>>Evolution: An Exchange: Howard J. Van Till - Phillip E. Johnson", First
>>Things, June 1993.
>>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)
>PM>I believe it is far more limiting to assume that God must have
>>worked through supernatural powers.
>SJ>Agreed. But I don't claim that "God must have worked through
>supernatural powers." I repeat my position: "God could have worked
>through natural processes".
PM>So far so good.
But neither do I limit God by assuming that "God" *must* "have worked
through natural processes".
>>SJ>And it certainly "retards the discussion" by Theistic Naturalists just
>>ignoring the *content* of the arguments of "Johnson (and...his
>>defenders)", and focusing on their *form* claiming it is just "lawyerly
>>rhetoric" and done "sloppily and polemically" at that. If anyone is using
>>"rhetoric...polemically" it is Theistic Naturalists like yourself!
>PM>A fine example of 'if one is free of sin, let him throw the first stone'.
>>How ironic Stephen.
>SJ>Indeed it is "ironic"! Actually it was *John Rylander* who threw
>*this* "first stone":
PM>As I said, still not taking responsiblity ? It's so easy to blame others
>for one's actions, isn't it ? But I agree that much of it is rethorical lawyer
>speak.
You were the one blaming me for throwing the first stone. I pointed out
that I didn't, it was John Rylander. Why should I take "responsibility" for
John Rylander's "actions"?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
----------------------------------------------------------------------_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--