George posted as follows:
" I guess maybe I'm not clear on the point you were making. A few
weeks ago there was an extensive discussion here on the claim that
"apparent
age" requires a "deceptive God." You challenged that claim with Gosse's
argument that divine creation must produce structures with apparent age."
The claim I challenge is simply that while a "deceptive god" argument is
very proper to be used by one who is challenging the YEC claim of a young
earth, it is an argument the YEC people, AFAIK of course, do not make
themselves, and, indeed, sometimes go to great lengths to argue against,
as did Gosse in OMPHALOS. I also said that I found his particular
arguments, made in the light of the science he knew in 1857, which did
not, of course, include the geological sciences, to be rather persuasive.
IOW, if I would, for a moment, assume the literal reading of Genesis,
what Gosse argued was in accordance with that and did not imply a
deceitful god.
It would be a fascinating exercise to see how Gosse himself responded to
Kingsley's comments and those of others. Gosse lived another 31 years and
continued to publish, although not, AFAIK, on the OMPHALOS theme again.
But it is likely there were personal letters.
George continued:
"The point I've tried to make is that that isn't true. We know at
least a possible creative scenario - i.e., creation through thoroughgoing
cosmic & biological evolution - which has no such structures.
Moreover, we have a good deal of evidence - & such evidence was already
emerging in the time of Gosse & Kingsley - which suggests that such
evolution
actually has taken place."
Sorry -- I do not understand your point here. If you are arguing that a
deceptive god argument is appropriate, I don't have a problem with that.
If you are arguing that a deceptive god argument is necessary -- that
such an argument must necessarily follow from the YEC position, then I
must respectfully disagree.
George again:
"Now of course it is still possible that God did create the whole
thing with apparent age and apparent evidence of evolution. But it is
clear
that God didn't _have_ to do that."
Not having universal knowledge, I'd have to modify the word "clear" with
"it seems to me."
George again:
"... & if God did indeed create a universe
with not only apparent age but apparent evidence for evolution, it seems
to
me very hard to avoid the claim that God is "deceptive.""
With that I will agree. But "very hard" is not the same as "impossible."
George again:
"Maybe such deception is part of the divine wisdom, but it is still
deceptive. Perhaps it has the nature of a test, a bit like problems we
sometimes make up for students with superfluous information to test their
ability to get to the hard of a situation. We are trying to mislead them
with a higher end in view, but we are still trying to mislead them."
I suppose this position might be taken by a person who argues that since
scripture is inerrant, that early Genesis tells how (and when) things
took place, and since scripture must always trump science, then there is
no deception involved. I think you and I can agree that arguing with such
a person is really futile, since our point of departure is on a
fundamental (sic) assumption.
BTW -- just got your book in the mail. Looking forward to reading it.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
This is my home page but it has been down for several days.
www.Burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
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 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 15:14:42 EST