Re: [asa] Does the flagellum prove Genesis?

John said: *How exactly does the bacterial flagellum actually substantiate
the Genesis account (for those who think it does)?*
**
I personally don't think it does (aside from the question of whether the
flagellum matters at all). I'm not sure anybody thinks this. I think some
OEC's see it as consistent with the notion that God intervened in the
creation at various times to make new kinds, but not as direct evidence of
this. My impression is that YEC's are ambivalent about IC -- they might use
it as an evidence against evolution, but it doesn't really support their
views in the main.

John said: *Isn't this what Behe's science/theology leads to, is a God who
is only a part-time, partial creator, who uses biological processes but
creatively intervenes when those processes aren't sufficient for His
purposes?*

Again, setting aside the merits of the IC argument per se, I guess most TE's
will agree with this statement, but it doesn't make much sense to me. God
is free to create however He chooses. If He created entirely through
evolution, He is still the creator; if He created through instantaneous
fiat, He is still the creator; if He created in six 24-hour days, He is
still the creator; if He created through an act of front-loading followed by
evolution, He is still the creator; if He created through evolution
punctuated by intervention, He is still the creator; if He created through
any combination of the above, He is still the creator. None of these
alternatives would make God a "partial" creator.

On Dec 7, 2007 12:56 PM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

> How exactly does the bacterial flagellum actually substantiate the
> Genesis account (for those who think it does)?
>
> ID can only point to the flagellum and some other specific instances as
> being potential scientific evidence of design. But did God supernaturally
> add the flagellum to bacteria (or related organism) which had existed for
> hundreds or thousands of years? If so, how does this support young earth
> Biblical claims? What does it say about God, if all we can objectively
> (subjectively?) say he supernaturally created only certain parts of certain
> organisms? A strict reading of Genesis doesn't imply that God created parts
> of organisms at certain specific instances and let the other parts of
> organisms develop naturally over time. Isn't this what Behe's
> science/theology leads to, is a God who is only a part-time,
> partial creator, who uses biological processes but creatively intervenes
> when those processes aren't sufficient for His purposes?
>
> Or alternatively, if the YEC response is, "We can see from bits of
> evidence within organisms that God *obviously* created those parts that we
> interpret as irreducibly complex, so that just proves that the whole
> organism was supernaturally created." But then they are jumping from
> whatever bits of scientific evidence are provided by ID theory, and ending
> with a purely theological conclusion, not a scientific one.
>
>
> Jon Tandy
> <http://www.arcom.com/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Cooper
> *Sent:* Friday, December 07, 2007 10:11 AM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* [asa] Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty...
>
> John,
>
> The carpet fiber is objective evidence. If the matching of carpet fibers
> can be shown objectively to constitute a direct connection to the accused,
>
> then this evidence can serve in the way finger prints and DNA serve as
> evidence.
>
> This is not the same for ID which is a subjective based view, IMO. To
> believe that God is manipulating certain motorized bacterial formations is
> a
> subjective, not objective.
>
> GeorgeA
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 7 13:47:17 2007