On Sat, 20 May 1995 23:21:39 -0400 you wrote:
>Bill Davis wrote:
>"To repeat, I want a plausible story of how genes arose."
>I replied:
>>God did it. As I have agreed many times on the reflector, I do not think
>evolutionists have proven their case that life can arise un-aided.
>
>Stephen Jones responded.
>"I am glad to see this"
>
>Why is this so important? If God baked bread by mixing the ingredients,
>placing the dough in a pan in the oven, setting the timer on the oven so that
>it would go off at the proper time, God still did it. Even though he didn't
>touch it after the original mixing. If God set the universe in motion, with
>qualities which would lead to the otherwise unaided origin of life, God would
>still be Creator.
Agreed. You have just asnwered your own question!
>It has always struck me as odd that Christians want God to
>work as a magician rather than a patient and meticulous engineer. In either
>picture, God was the creator. We Christians have an odd idea which limits
>HOW God could be the Creator.
Where did I say that God works as a "magician"? Perhaps you are
projecting on to me your own previous views as a Creation-Scientist?
>Stephen wrote:
>"No. Firstly, it is not necessary to provide an alternative when
>critiquing a scientific theory. If Darwinism does not stand up to
>scrutiny it should be scrapped and a search commenced for a better
>theory. The fact that creationism may or may not be able to explain
>thumbless monkeys does not really help Darwinism."
>
>While technically you may be correct that you do not need to provide an
>alternative explanation, to omit an alternative means that you have lost the
>battle for the hearts and mind of your audience. It is human nature for
>people to hold onto any explaination even if it has problems rather than jump
>to no explanation at all.
Agreed in the long run. But the first task IMHO is to examine
Darwinism and see if its assertions are valid. Macbeth says:
"Courtroom experience during my career at the bar taught me to attach
great weight to something that may seem trivial to persons not skilled
in argumentation-the burden of proof. The proponents of a theory, in
science or elsewhere, are obligated to support every link in the chain
of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of
the
theory, testing it for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any
theory
of his own or to offer any alternative explanations. He can be purely
negative if he so desires. William Jennings Bryan forgot this in
Tennessee, and was jockeyed into trying to defend fundamentalism,
although this was not necessary to the matter in hand. The results
were disastrous. They would have been equally disastrous for CIarence
Darrow if he had tried to discharge the burden of proof for the other
side. The winner in these matters is the skeptic who has no case to
prove."
(Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason", 1978 (reprint),
Garnstone Press, London, p5)
>Besides, to me, it is not intellectually honest to
>always avoid coming up with a workable theory rather than merely critiquing
>what others have created. We should be more than mere debunkers of evolution
>or nihilists!
Give me a break Glenn! Are you seriously advancing the proposition
that the average layman has either to accept Darwinism or come up
with their own alternative?
Besides, what is wrong with being a "debunker of evolution"? It is
only a theory. It is not Holy Writ.
>You wrote:
>"Secondly, it is not a proble for Theistic Science to be unable to
>explain some aspects of origins. Remember Phil's posting of Arthur
>Shapiro's paper? By definition, Theism's God "moves in mysterious
>ways His wonders to perform". There are plenty of verses in His
>special revelation to man warning us we will never know all the
>answers, espcially regarding Creation: "Job 38:4 "Where were you
>when I laid the earth's foundation?""
>I agree we will never have all the answers, but that does not mean we
>will never have any answers. I am frustrated by our Christian
>contentment with no working theory for Science other than that God
>did it. If that is all we can say about Nature, then there is no
>reason for us to discuss anything at all. No explanation will work.
As far as Christianity is concerned, it is not necessary to have a
"working theory for Science other than that God did it." It might be
important to you as a scientist, but that is your own particular
burden.
>You wrote:
>"Keep in mind Glenn, that Darwinism is not some optional extra. It is
>compulsorily taught as fact in taxpayer funded schools and
>universities in your country and mine. My two Christian children were
>forced to be indoctrinated by Darwinist theory, and the Christian
>revelation of Creation was excluded, on the presumption that the
>former is "fact" while the latter is "religion" (ie. fantasy). If
>Darwinists cannot make there case then they are taking my money under
>false pretenses! (It *is* getting late! <g>)."
>Yes, you are correct. Tax payers are supporting Darwinism. But even
>when I was a YEC, I did not want my children taught what ICR was
>teaching about geology. I knew that what they were teaching was just
>plain wrong. FACTUALLY WRONG. If my children were taught that these
>wrong things supported the Bible, and then they learned the truth,
>they would be in danger of rejecting the Bible. To me this is an
>important point.
Again, you seem to think that there are only two alternatives,
Darwinism or the "ICR". I don't accept either. And I always taught
my children that both the Bible and Nature were the two "books" of
God and ultimately they must agree, since the have the one Author.
>I was reading a book today and ran into the following quote.
[...]
>Secondly, note the ellipses in the above quote. It is quite important. I
>happen to own the book Austin quoted. I looked it up. Here is the real
>quote. by McKee
[...]
>Conglomerates do exist so why did Steve cut that part out of his quote? Was
>it not important for his reader to know that they exist? Compare the
>quotations. If you teach your children from the above quotation, and then
>he/she reads the entire quotation, will this strengthen his faith in God's
>Word? When they discover that lithification is not an indication of age will
>it make them believe that the supposed lack of consolidation proves that the
>flood deposited these strata? Our children's spiritual future may depend
>upon whether we taught them the truth about nature. As is said more
>colorfully in West Texas, if they ever believe we taught them a pile of cow
>patties, they are likely to discard Christianity. I want my children taught
>the factual truth. They will have to struggle like I have struggled. But
>Truth is better than teaching them the untruth in the name of God.
Of course we must never teach our Children untruths about nature. But
it is even more important we do not teach them untruths about God.
>To me, this is why it is so important for Christians to have a theory.
> Without one, we can't handle the data very well. If we can't put the facts
>in a coherent picture or theory, and our opponents can, who is better
>prepared to reach the hearts and minds of our children?
I agree. The theory that I believe fits the Biblical and scientific
facts best is Progressive Creationism.
>You wrote:
>"If Darwin's theory cannot explain how the spider monkey lost its thumb
>(amongs a myriad of other similar problems), then average intellectual
>honesty should require them to admit it and stop pretending it can."
>
>I would point you to the post Gordon Simons made a couple of days ago. It
>seemed to explain the loss of the thumb quite well. Did you read it?
Yes. I was not impressed. It seemed more Lamarckian than Darwinian.
It seems to me an inadequate Darwinian explanation to say the spider
monkey lost its thumb because it got in the way and/or they didn't
need them. Has any hard research been done to try to falsify this?
What about other arboreal monkeys? Why didn't their thumbs get in the
way? IMHO this is just another Darwinian "just-so" story.
Stephen