Re: deceptive god

From: John W Burgeson (burgytwo@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jan 20 2001 - 16:07:34 EST

  • Next message: Bjoern Moeller: "Re: Righteous Indignation (was: Is this a signal from aliens?)"

    >>

    I have read your posting with interest. Are you able to provide full
    details of the book that I may immediately order it?
    >>

    Vernon -- it took me a little time to find the file which I had so
    cleverly named that
    it was lost in the heap.

    Here is the text of the review I wrote for PERSPECTIVES:

    OMPHALO3.TXT

    OMPHALOS: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot by Phillip
    Henry Gosse. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press, 1998. 376
    pages, index. Paperback; $34.95. ISBN 1-881987-10.

    This is a reprint of a book originally published in London in
    1857, two years before Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Long out of
    print, unavailable to students of origins issues, it has
    reappeared as a study text for historians who would like to see
    how one scientist struggled to reconcile what he understood of
    both science and the scriptures.

    References to Gosse's book appear often. Martin Gardner gives it
    a sympathetic treatment in FADS & FALLACIES (1957). He wrote (in
    chapter 11) that "Not the least of its remarkable virtues is that
    while it won not a single convert, it presented a theory so
    logically perfect, and so in accordance with geological facts
    that no amount of scientific evidence will ever be able to refute
    it." More recently, Chris Morgan and David Langford's FACTS AND
    FALLACIES (1981) mentions it as an "ultimate invincible theory,"
    overcoming "all conflict between evolution and the Bible."
    Gosse's son, Edmund Gosse, in his 1905 book, FATHER AND SON,
    reported at length his father's bewilderment, following
    publication, of the expressions of derision that were expressed,
    by believers and non-believers alike.

    Phillip Henry Gosse was no pseudo-scientist, but a respected and
    admired naturalist of his time. Thomas Huxley called him "an
    honest hod carrier of science," by which term he paid respect to
    Gosse's powers of observation and writing. Gosse is associated
    with the development of salt water aquariums and published many
    books on water creatures of the English countryside. He was an
    admirer of the new scientists, as seen in this quote from his son:
    "Where was his place, then, as a sincere and accurate observer?
    Manifestly, it was with the pioneers of the new truth,
    it was with Darwin, Wallace and Hooker" (FATHER AND SON, page 128).

    But Gosse was also a biblical literalist. The Bible does not
    lie, and the facts of nature must take second place to the
    revealed word, a word which he was convinced he knew and knew
    well. When his wife died painfully of cancer in February of 1857,
    he turned his attention to a reconciliation of the issue.
    OMPHALOS appeared in print that fall; within two years it had
    disappeared into history's rubbish heap. Twenty years ago, I
    found a second generation photocopy at Gordon-Conwell. For the
    past two decades a photocopy of that photocopy has resided on my
    bookshelf.

    Gosse's argument is simple. If you had been present in Eden
    twenty minutes after Adam's creation, you would have observed his
    navel, a scar left from a birth that never happened. In his
    digestive tract would have been the remains of a meal he had not
    eaten two hours before. His feet would have had calluses from
    walks he had never taken. A nearby tree, cut down, would have
    shown real rings of unreal years of growth. Gosse goes on and on
    with this argument, separating all time into historic time, what
    Gosse calls "diachronic" time, and un-historic time, unreal time,
    virtual time, what Gosse calls "prochronic" time. He argues two
    propositions, ones which my friends at ICR might well take into
    account: (1) All organic nature moves in a circle; and
    (2) Creation is a violent irruption into the circle of nature.

    Gosse quotes the philosopher Chalmers, who wrote "We have no
    experience in the creation of worlds..." From this statement,
    Gosse concludes, at least for the organic world
    (he disclaims any arguments for the inorganic),
    that any act of creation must involve the creation of
    a being with a history that never took place. On page 336 he
    writes, "...we cannot avoid the conclusion that each organism was
    from the first marked with the records of a previous being. But
    since creation and previous history are inconsistent with each
    other; as the very idea of the creation of an organism excludes
    the idea of pre-existence of that organism, or any part of it; it
    follows, that such records are false, so far as they testify to
    time; that the developments and processes thus recorded have been
    produced without time, or are what I call 'prochronic.'"

    The objections to Gosse's thesis are well known. The two
    objections most often cited are (1) that it is simply a variation
    of Russell's hypothesis, "last Thursdayism," the hypothesis that
    we were all created, complete with memories of unreal events, on Thursday
    morning of last week, and (2) that it must be rejected because "God can't
    lie" and a false history must be taken as evidence that He did lie.
    But Gosse's arguments go well beyond Russell's hypothesis, and he
    argues well that any fiat creation, even by God, must necessarily
    include unreal history. His arguments need to be taken seriously.

    Gosse's thesis is not, of course, "scientific." While it may be
    true, it is not testable, nor does it suggest future research
    projects. It is a dead end. Gosse recognized this. Nevertheless,
    he urged his fellow scientists to continue as if unreal history
    were real and to construct their theories independent of his thesis.

    For many years I have asked my friends at ICR for comments. To
    date, they have declined that opportunity. Holding, as they do,
    that fiat creation did happen, it seems that part of OMPHALOS
    ought to play a part in their theorizing. One thing seems
    certain. If one posits fiat creation of any kind, an appearance
    of age must be a part of that hypothesis. That fact makes
    scientific tests of the claim difficult, if not wholly
    impossible, leading to the observation that "Scientific
    Creationism" is simply an oxymoron. Sorry about that, Henry.

    I highly recommend this book to my ASA colleagues interested in
    origins issues. It is a good read. For the biblical literalist,
    one who has honestly and thoroughly confronted the scientific
    data, I see it as the only intellectually coherent position
    possible.

    Thanks to Jack Haas, Richard Ruble, George Murphy, Emrys Tyler
    and Loren Haarsma for help in improving this review.

    Rviewed by John W. Burgeson,
    Stephen Minister at First Presbyterian Church,
    Durango, CO 81301.

    Submitted to PERSPECTIVES,
    the quarterly journal of the ASA, October 31, 2000.

    ________________________________________________________________
    GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
    Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
    Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
    http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 21 2001 - 16:47:04 EST