From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Fri Jun 13 2003 - 15:14:40 EDT
>What you refer to as 'numerical tricks' are widely recognised in other =
areas as a sure means of advertising/detecting intelligence (eg =
SETI)............The fact that the biblical numbers to which I have =
drawn attention rest on such a secure _secular_ foundation suggests they =
have been specifically chosen to accomplish some important purpose; and =
the fact that they have been revealed in our day implies an imminent =
realisation of that purpose. =20
In this instance the question of whether an intelligence is behind the =
phenomenon is answered by the existence of understandable words in a =
known language. Numerical tricks don't contribute anything in that =
respect. If there's any "important purpose" it's totally obscure to me. =
=20
>But if the words God actually used are not believed, what good do you =
think further words along the lines you suggest would achieve?=20
By "not believed" I assume you mean "not taken as literally true in a =
scientific sense." The words of the creation accounts are indeed not =
believed in that sense precisely because they are utterly irreconcilable =
with huge volumes of scientific evidence. As indicated previously, I =
(and many others) would have a much different attitude towards the Bible =
and its inspiration if in some small way the inspired texts acknowledged =
the scientific evidence. In other words, such further words would have =
made a huge difference, would have done a huge amount of "good." The =
fact that they're not there has had a huge impact on my personal =
theology, on my view of the kind of person God is. =20
>Are you really happy with the idea.........that reading the distant =
past has now become an _exact_ science?=20
How exact it is depends on the quantity, quality and kinds of data =
available and what scientists say about it. Some of their conclusions =
are very well established. Other conclusions are supported only by =
plausibility arguments. Overall, there is no way a reasonable, =
intelligent, open-minded person who knows the data could conclude that =
the world is young except by saying that God tricked us by making =
something young look old. (Then you might say the person wasn't =
reasonable.) Therefore the reality of the Earth's _distant_ past is as =
firmly established as anything in any science. =20
As for scientists' coming to the wrong conclusions because man is evil: =
Come on, some men are not evil but are living sanctified lives through =
God's grace. I'm one, I've examined a lot of the scientific data, and =
my conclusions about the age of the world aren't wrong. =20
>I suggest the clear evidence of intelligent design in the choice and =
use of the numerical structures supporting key biblical texts offers us =
a further valuable insight into the Lord's character.=20
How many key biblical texts don't have any such numerical structures? =
We're talking about really simple declarative sentences. What are =
chances that these numerical structures are statistical accidents? =
Given the large number of sentences in the Bible, is it not likely that =
one or two would exhibit such numerical structures? How many sentences =
in War and Peace or For Whom the Bell Tolls have such structures? I =
know I'm risking a barrage from you for asking such questions, but come =
on, these are really simple sentences. There aren't that many different =
ways you could say what these sentences say. =20
>He is intent on following His plan of redemption through to the end, =
and is now inviting man to reason his way to belief.
No one reasons his way to belief. Everyone whether sophisticated or =
not, whether intelligent or not, is rightfully suspicious of pure =
reason. Maybe the assumptions or premises are flawed, maybe the logic =
is subtly twisted, and one just doesn't recognize the problem. =20
>.........The coordinated numerical structures.........are undoubtedly =
_real_; and as Christians and scientists we should be able to face their =
scriptural presence in a spirit of healthy curiosity, and make =
reasonable inferences concerning them.=20
Yes, someone (you and Iain?) should face and examine their presence; but =
so far I see no reasonable inferences. =20
Don
[snipped]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 13 2003 - 15:14:41 EDT