On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:51:04 -0500 Jan de Koning <jan@dekoning.ca>
writes:
>
> >,
> >The point simply assumes that the deity understands as much about
> >efficiency as human engineers.
>
> This is not a very Christian way to start an article if you want to
>
> convince Christians of certain points.
>
>
> >If God is creating each species or genus /de novo/, then we assume
> that
> >he would produce a finished form, not one that would die and have
> to be
> >superseded time after time with new fiat creations.
>
> "We assume" is a very strange way of a creature to talk about the
> Creator. A sentence like that makes me think right away, that a
> proud
> human is criticizing his Creator, which takes away any influence of
> what
> follows might have had.
>
> >We would not have
> >found a half-dozen creatures on their way to becoming the
> efficient
> >cetaceans of today's oceans. You can find this principle in
> Augustine,
> >who claimed that the Almighty created everything instantaneously,
> though
> >it had to unfold over time. But the unfolding was perfect, not
> >Ambylocetus or Pachycetus on their way to becoming efficient. In
> >contrast, if God is using secondary causes to produce developed
> creatures
> >over billions of years, we expect the half-way entities. To be
> sure, God
> >acts as he sees fit, but does he know what he is doing beforehand,
> or
> >does he bumble along like his creatures, us?
>
> I do think that this way of talking about God's works is
> sacrilegious. It
> takes away any influence this writing might have had. Like as if we
> say:
> "God is trying to fool us."
>
> > We are as efficient as our
> >understanding and finances allow us to be. Why should we expect God
> to be
> >less efficient than omniscience and omnipotence allow him to be if
> he is
> >acting directly rather than mediately? Indeed, I would further ask
> why
> >God needed six days to fashion the heavens and the earth when he
> could
> >have had everything up and functioning in less than an attosecond.
> >Dave
>
> Talking like this does not take into account what God gave in
> nature, and
> just assumes, that the people in old times are as knowledgeable as
> we are
> now, after millennia of studying. God did not speak modern-day
> English
> . Arguing like this has the contrary result to what the writer
> means to
> accomplish.
>
> Jan de Koning
>
Sorry. Jan, to disturb you. All I did was put in the open what underlies
what I find people saying. I did not remark on what the ancients may, or
may not, have understood. I spoke about what contemporary persons are
trying to make of it, and the consequences thereof. You should note that
I argue as a finite human being, so I do not claim that God must be so
and so, but that certain ascriptions, based on YEC and OEC claims, make
sense to me. If you do not draw the same logical consequences, you may be
seeing something that I have missed, or you may be missing something.
Despite any differences we may have, I agree wholeheartedly that my
arguments will not change the minds of Ross's minions or Morris's. But is
that because I'm not consistent or because of invincible ignorance?
Dave
Received on Wed Mar 2 23:45:55 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 23:45:55 EST