RE: Flawed anthro views of RTB

From: Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 22:41:59 EST

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "RE: Flawed anthro views of RTB"

    Moorad wrote:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Moorad Alexanian<alexanian@uncwil.edu>
    >[mailto:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
    >Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 10:39 AM
    >To: george murphy; Glenn Morton
    >Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
    >Subject: RE: Flawed anthro views of RTB
    >
    >
    >George when an author writes a novel and creates all the
    >characters and the
    >world in which these characters exist, isn't there a logical
    >consistency that
    >the author can insist on? Couldn't our world be analogous to that? Moorad

    Then it is a sham, a fraud. More ominously it is another form of the
    appearance of age argument which means we can't trust our senses. I will
    explain because George is hitting at a very important point of inconsistency
    among the anti-evolutionists.

    If the nuclear resonances were not fixed as they are, we could not have
    evolved. For instance there are three features of nucleosynthesis which must
    exist or elements higher than helium wouldn't exist. If the precise
    resonances were not as they are, either stars would burn their fuel very
    quickly and thus explode or nothing higher than helium would exist. See

    1 nuclear resonances in formation of carbon p 251
    2 fortuitous non resonance of O16
    3 radioactive nature of Beryllium 8 p 253
    John D. Barrow Frank J. Tipler THE ANTHROPIC COSMOLOGICAL
    PRINCIPLE New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

    Now, If life didn't evolve, this doesn't mean anything for creation because
    everything including the resonances and rates of decay of beryllium means
    nothing for the origin of life, in spite of it looking like it should. The
    truth is, in this scenario, that life was magically and instantaneously
    created which gives us no reason to understand why the resonances are as
    they are. In the special creation viewpoint, life didn't need the resonances
    in order to be created. Thus they are meaningless but they make the universe
    look rigged for an evolutionary scenario. If that is the case, then our
    senses can not tell us the truth about the universe.

    AND IF OUR SENSES CAN'T TELL US THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UNIVERSE FROM THE SENSE
    DATA WHICH COMES TO OUR EYES, EARS ETC., THEN HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE THINK
    WE READ IN THE BIBLE IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE PAGE? The gospel depends
    utterly upon our ability to trust both our sense data and logic. That is
    what the disciples based their decisions upon when they came to believe that
    Jesus was the Christ. But make the universe a grand illusion and we can't
    trust that the resurrection isn't illusory also! Christians often envisage a
    universe in which the age is one of only appearance, or the anthropic
    coincidences are illusory, where what looks like evolution really isn't,
    where animals which have 98% the same DNA sequence aren't related even
    though they appear to be, where human-like behavior found in the fossil
    record doesn't indicate humanity, where what looks like speciation isn't
    speciation, where transitional-looking fossils really aren't transitional
    fossils, where the gradual complexification of life in the Precambrian isn't
    really the gradual complexification of life, etc. All of the above are
    cases where the sense data is doubted for theological reasons, with the
    doubter often thinking he is doing Christianity a service when in fact he is
    undermining the entire reason for our faith--the real, non-illusory
    resurrection which was determined to happen based solely upon sense data!

    Beleive the sense data!

    glenn

    see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
    for lots of creation/evolution information
    anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    personal stories of struggle



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 21 2002 - 14:43:48 EST