Howard
Yes I have read some of your material but honestly not as much as you would
prefer. Let me do some homework
But, I still do not feel that you have responded to the basic question I posed.
"If God did it this way (insert your favorate view of his creative effort), then
the physical evidence would look a certain way and this way would differentiate as
to weither my favorate way is correct or not."
For example, the books of the Bible indicate from the text that they were written
at different times and by different human authors. Guess what, the physical
record supports the claims of the text.
If I had a theory that they were all written at an early date but simply passed
out at a later time, then the physical record should look different.
Thus, I know how to differentiate between these theories based on the examination
of the physical record.
So, tell me what I am to look for to differentiate between your fully formed
universe and the universe of the progressive creationist.
Bert
"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Bert, you wrote:
>
> > Not looking for an air tight proof, none exists. We argue to Okams razor.
>
> OK, we seem to agree here.
>
> > But, in what I have seen for example in Christianity Today and here on the
> chat
> > line, I don't have the slightest idea how to test you viewpoints by physical
> means.
>
> I asked if you had read anything that I have published in regard to my
> favoring the "Robust Formational Economy Principle." The only item you
> mention is the CT article, an excerpt of which I posted here recently. Did
> you read the entire article, or only the excerpt?
>
> Are you willing to do some homework? If so, you should begin by looking at
> the following:
>
> 1. "The Fully Gifted Creation," published as a chapter in the book, Three
> Views on Creation and Evolution, edited by J. P. Moreland and John Mark
> Reynolds, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), pp. 161-247.
>
> 2. "Intelligent Design: The Celebration of Gifts Withheld?" published as a
> chapter in the book, Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on
> Biological Origins, by Denis O. Lamoureux, Phillip E. Johnson, et al.
> (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1999), pp. 81-90.
>
> 3. "Science & Christian Theology as Partners in Theorizing," published as a
> chapter in the book, Science & Christianity: Four Views, edited by Richard
> Carlson, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), pp. 196-236.]
>
> 4. "Basil, Augustine, and the Doctrine of Creation's Functional Integrity,"
> Science and Christian Belief, Vol. 8 (1), April, 1996, pp. 21-38.
>
> 5. "The Creation: Intelligently Designed or Optimally Equipped?" published
> in Theology Today, October, 1998, pp. 344-64.
>
> 6. "Is the Creationıs Formational Economy Incomplete? A response to Jay
> Wesley Richards," scheduled to appear in the March, 2001, issue of
> Philosophia Christi. (as far as I know, not yet published)
>
> > What do I look for with my neat new 8 meter space based telescope that
> > would support your views?
>
> Bert, you would do exactly as astronomy has done for a good part of the last
> century. Example: You discover empirically that stars come in different
> varieties -- main sequence, red giant, white dwarf, etc. You also see
> evidence that stars are forming from globules of gas and dust embedded in
> large interstellar nebulae. You model the formation and subsequent
> development of stars and compute what sort of history stars might have. You
> discover that the computational model predicts that stars would first fall
> along the main sequence region of the H-R diagram, arranged according to
> mass value, consistent with earlier observations. You then discover that the
> model predicts that when medium mass stars complete their main sequence
> phases they become red giant stars, then shed their outer portion to form a
> planetary nebula, finally leaving behind a white dwarf star. You conclude
> from evidence of this sort (and _much_ more like it) that this computational
> model for stellar formation and development has the attractive feature that
> it not only accounts for the diversity of stellar types but also
> demonstrates that these diverse types are related to one another as members
> of a temporal sequence. The systematic interrelatedness of stellar types
> with the formational history of stars has an aesthetic quality that is
> highly valued in scientific theory evaluation.
>
> > You "fully gifted formation economy" is not very scientific,
>
> Sorry, Bert, but you are as wrong as wrong can be on this. One of the most
> important assumptions employed in formulating the scientifically successful
> computational model for stellar evolution noted in the example above is none
> other than what I call the "robust formational economy principle."
>
> To state it even more strongly, the assumption that this principle applies
> to the formational history of things from atoms to star-filled galaxies has
> demonstrated itself to be one of the most fruitful assumptions made in
> cosmology, astronomy, geology, and numerous other physical sciences. The
> vast majority of persons in the life sciences would, I believe, say the same
> for the formational history of life on earth.
>
> The scientific success of the robust formational economy principle is on
> public display. I don't know how you missed seeing it, Bert.
>
> Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 11 2001 - 21:53:16 EDT