Re: The Impotent God of the Anti-evolutionists 1/2

mortongr@flash.net
Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:02:43 +0000

At 11:01 AM 11/11/1999 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>
>Glenn is deluding himself if he *really* thinks that what I wrote
>substantiates the thesis he was advocating! I quite clearly said that
>"Theism has no problem with chance defined as 1) the `intersection of
>two or more lines of causality'".

And that is not the definition of chance I am using. So don't play those
semantic games.

>
>I also quite clearly said that theism was only incompatible with chance
>defined as: 2) "the lack of any cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause
>itself":

And if your god (little g) can't deal with chance (2/3definition) then your
god is not omnipotent. He is powerless against them and thus impotent.
Your note still proves my point.

>
>I doubt that there would be many Christian Evolutionists would agree
>with Glenn on this.

Argumentum ad populum--a logical fallacy!

>If yes, then I wonder if any on the Evolution side would agree with
>Glenn?

Truth is now determined by having at least one person second the argument?
argumentum ad populum--a logical fallacy!

>
>If no, then what is Glenn's point?
>
>BTW, this is page 6 of my copy of Wilder-Smith's, "The Natural
>Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution".

Page 5 in mine.

>
>GM>"By intelligence I mean that the Designer is capable of performing actions
>>that cannot adequately be explained by appealing to chance - the Designer
>>can act so as to render the chance hypothesis untenable." ~ William A.
>>Dembski, "On the Very Possibility of Intelligent Design," in J. P.
>>Moreland, editor, The Creation Hypothesis, (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity
>>Press, 1994), p. 116.
>
>This says nothing about the origin of life.
>
>Does Glenn deny what Dembski says above?

Yes, a slot machine is designed to work with chance. Thus we humans are
more powerful than God.

>Like a lot of Glenn's arguments, this depends for its existence on fuzzy
>definitions. If Glenn defines what he means by "chance" his argument
>would collapse.

CHance in your definition 2 or 3.

>
>This is simply not true. Maybe some extreme YECs "rule out evolution
>as being impossible" but most "anti-evolutionists" don't "rule out
>evolution as being impossible". I certainly don't claim that evolution is
>"impossible".

Ha ha ha ha ha [Rolling On The Floor Laughing]. For someone who thinks
evolution is possible you sure spend a bunch of time fighting it. ha ha ha
ha ha ha ROTFL. Ha ha ha ha ha ha....
glenn

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

Lots of information on creation/evolution