RE: [asa] Harvard study

Just food for thought:
If someone travelled through time to the past and then made some change,
would any of us in the present be aware of th change? NO. So even if God
made some interjection somewhere in history, we would likely not perceive
it. We would still be oblivious to anything other than the random
occurences we see now looking back into the past. How then can the
Intellectuals, claim that there is no proof of God in nature, since they
would not be aware of it anyway? And how can the IDers insist that proof
can be found? The fact that there is even an existence which we even
discuss should be sufficient. "I think therefore I am". Let's put this
into a universal sense. "The universe exists therefore there is a God".
And no I'm not trying to be monist.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 13:55
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Harvard study

Again, it seems like the writer does not register that this says nothing
about God one way or the other (at least without more information on the
project or researcher's perspective).
This is just akin to the science-disproves-God assertion again.
Even if he achieves the stated objective (which seems to deal only with the
life origin question), it does not seek to answer the "who" or "why"
questions.
Consequently it leaves open Howard Van Till's conceptualization (for
example) of a creation sufficiently endowed from the outset to achieve God's
creative purpose through subsequent natural (God-created) processes.

This need not be faith-shaking. A non-scientific explanation might offer
that our understanding of creature life, plant development, human knowledge,
solar cycles, etc. seems to be always about becoming, as contrasted with
simply being or doing. We are very familiar with this way of framing the
Christian experience, . . . transformation, . . .
becoming. It might not then be all that surprising should the whole of
Creation also be shown fairly definitively [within the constraints of our
particular space-time existence] to also be continuously developing,
becoming, unfolding,. . . dare I say, . . . evolving, . . . as contrasted
with being brought into some of finished, completed state of being. There is
nothing compelling that commends a conclusion that a creation that is
complete and "good" has no "mission", . . . no continuing trajectory toward
the future that involves continued change.
Or so it seemeth to me.
JimA

burgytwo@juno.com wrote:

>Latest AIG blurb, with which I have some sympathy. Too bad they did
>not identify the yahoo from Harvard whose quote they lifted.
>
>Q: Is an Ivy League school really spending millions of dollars to prove
>there's no God?
>
>A: These days it seems as though everyone is jumping into the
>creation/evolution debate. Not wanting to be left out, Harvard
>announced a new multimillion dollar research project, the "Origins of
>Life in the Universe Initiative." They're setting aside $1 million a
>year to try to prove what they already believe.
>
>Listen to what a Harvard professor of chemistry and chemical biology
>told the New York Times about the origin of life: "My expectation is
>that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical
>events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
>
>For all the PhDs that Harvard may hand out-and for all the good science
>they may do-none of it is important when it comes to eternity. If
>they're producing atheists, then what's the point in the long run?
>
>As Matthew 16 tells us, "What profit is it to a man if he gains the
>whole world, and loses his own soul?"
>
>Burgy
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 28 14:14:10 2006