From: Howard J. Van Till:
" The historic doctrine of creation"
Silk here: And just what might that doctrine be?
I'm so relieved that you are not going to say
"why the bible of course"! You are going to do the reasonable, logical &
intelligent thing which can "always" be expected of members on this list &
give us a "doctrine"
which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt for how could you do less?!
I'm waiting with baited breath! Proof, that sacred "thing", we are taught
from childhood, that MUST exist before any honest individual can expect us
to believe anything! And in the unfortunate instance whereby we find
ourselves in a distressing situation where upon this "holy proof" is not
available then we, at least, demand to be given, at a bare minimum, a
logical deduction: If A is equal to B & B is equal to C then A is equal to
C! Nothing short of this reasoning will be permitted! What the hell am I
rattling on about? If these proofs were required this list would cease to
exist! Please do pardon me, sometimes I do forget where I'm at, oh well the
holidays can do that to a person................. chao/silk
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard J. Van Till <hvantill@novagate.com>
To: <evolution@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] 098: Intelligent Design Coming Clean, Part 2 of 4
The historic _doctrine_ of creation articulates the belief that the entire
universe was given its "being" (its existence, character, resources,
> > capabilities, potentialities,...) by a Creator. This doctrine says
nothing
> > about the particulars of the formational history of the created world.
> >
> >
> > So, if Darwin says "I had two distinct objects in view; *firstly*, to
shew
> > that species had not been SEPARATELY created ..."
> >
> > And if Darwin says that he has "...done good service in aiding to
> overthrow
> > the dogma of SEPARATE creations..."
> >
> > ...then Darwin has said nothing contrary to the _doctrine_ of creation,
> but
> > has made a contribution only to the matter of the particulars of the
> > universe's formational history. In his judgment, the dogma of SEPARATE
> > creations (pictured as a succession of episodes of form-imposing divine
> > intervention) was contradicted by the empirical evidence.
> >
> > For Mr. Jones to confuse the dogma of SEPARATE form-imposing
interventions
> > (a matter of formational history) with the DOCTRINE of creation (a
matter
> of
> > the source of the universe's being) is seriously to
> > misunderstand/misrepresent the issue.
> >
> > Howard Van Till
> >
> > PS: If anyone is interested in my response to Dembski's "Intelligent
> Design
> > Coming Clean" see Metaviews #100
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 23 2000 - 02:57:22 EST