Re: Special Creation

*This is related to the YEC appearance of age argument in which God
carefully crafts a universe with an appearance of age.*

No, it is not. In the YEC appearance of age argument, there is no real
connection at all between what we perceive and what the facts actually are.
The fossil bones were planted even though no such animals ever existed; M51
looks like the remains of a galactic collision untold eons ago even though
no such thing ever happened. I heartily agree with you that such arguments
are vaucous, and indeed dangerous for any kind of rational epistemology.
But I'm suggesting no such thing. There is data -- our genome is related to
that of earlier hominids -- the data tells us something true and real, but
the question is how to interpret the data. Is the only interpretation that
we evolved in the ordinary fashion? Or is there a possibility that God used
this preexisting material, in a very real way, to fashion an individual Adam
uniquely? In either case we would expect to see the same thing today -- a
clear genetic connection between us and the eariler hominids.

I will grant to you that ordinary evolution is a more appealing explanation
for those of us steeped in a culture that supremely values the scientific
method. No doubt, it is a simpler explanation and better survives the test
of Occam's Razor. The only reason to suggest an alternative is if we are a
priori committed to an understanding of the Biblical text that would require
it. And that is the 10,000,000 question, which I don't claim to be able to
resolve.

*He used MIRACLE. I know it is a quaint concept, totally outdated today and
only held to by the fringe.*

I believe whole-heartedly in miracles. If I object to your scenario, it
isn't because of the need for a miracle. Certainly God taking material from
a dead Homo Erectus and manipulating it to form a single man would qualify
as a miracle as well. So we don't disagree about miracles.

*You have degraded DNA in dirt which has to be carefully fitted back
together first and cloned. The artificial creatures created thusly, only
appear to have had apes as ancestors, but, the Great Deceiver doesn't care
about his deception.
*
No, you're misunderstanding my suggestion about the "genetic dust." It
doesn't have to be degraded DNA from a body that has fully decomposed. In
my scenario it could be material from a recently dead body with intact
DNA. It really is hardly different at all from your scenario. In fact, if
we wanted to apply Occam's Razor to our two competing scenarios, mine might
survive longer than yours, because yours requires the additional step of a
resurrection, whearas mine doesn't.

*But I will give you this, in a sense the main difference between us is the
source of hte DNA. So, why is yours so much better? Scientifically the most
likely explanation is that there was no miracle, no ape to resurrect, and we
are simply evolved from the apes--no special creation at all.*

It seems difficult to me to stretch the Genesis account of the creation of
Adam back millions of years. I can accept that Adam may not have been
neolithic, but I can't see anything in the text that suggests he was a
non-modern-human *homo *species from millions of years ago. If the Biblical
text requires a special creation of Adam, I think something like the
"genetic dust" scenario solves the "Templeton" problem in a way that is more
consistent with the Biblical context.

On 3/4/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>
> >>>
> GRM: For God to create a new creatures which had the same features as the
apes to which they are not supposed to be related yet include both
microscopic and nannoscopic features in a nested hierachy is just crazy.
>
> But in the "genetic dust" scenario, they are related. Really really. Not
just an appearance of relatedness. Why would it be "crazy" for God to
create this way? Why is this any more "crazy" than any other way?
> <<<<
>
> This is related to the YEC appearance of age argument in which God
carefully crafts a universe with an appearance of age. The age is al
illusion. And because God must do multiple different things, many of which
are totally unnecessary for the functioning of the universe, this view makes
God the Great Deciever. He would have to know how his data would be
interpreted, yet he goes ahead and fools us.
>
> With the genetic argument you are making you have the appearance of
relatedness. They are not related because they are cooked up from new and
God then has to make everything about mankind LOOK like he was evolved from
the apes when in fact that evolution is an illusion. Thus, once again, God
becomes the Great Deceiver. It is amazing to me how willing we Christians
are to place God, who supposedly doesn't lie, into positions of being the
Great Deceiver all for the purpose of saving our pet theological views.
>
> David wrote:
> >>>No more than he paid for the defibrillator that he used to wake up that
monkey a few million years ago.<<<
>
> He didnt use a defibrilator. He used MIRACLE. I know it is a quaint
concept, totally outdated today and only held to by the fringe. But at
least this fringe has a more reasonable source for the genes that appear to
make us related to the apes. I have a body which contains full strength DNA.
You have degraded DNA in dirt which has to be carefully fitted back together
first and cloned. The artificial creatures created thusly, only appear to
have had apes as ancestors, but, the Great Deceiver doesn't care about his
deception
>
> But I will give you this, in a sense the main difference between us is the
source of hte DNA. So, why is yours so much better? Scientifically the most
likely explanation is that there was no miracle, no ape to resurrect, and we
are simply evolved from the apes--no special creation at all.
>
Received on Sat Mar 4 09:48:15 2006