On Mon, 22 May 1995 22:06:55 -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"
>
GM>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.
SJ>Agreed. You have just answered your own question!"
GM>No I didn't answer my own question. In the above, I was merely
>agreeing that it is quite likely that God created life by fiat. You
>were glad to see that (at least that is the way I interpreted what
>you said.
No. I was glad to see that you believed that "God did it" and that
"life can arise un-aided".
GM>And if you didn't imply this I know others who do feel
>this way). My question to you, which you either didn't understand or
>avoided, was Why is it so important for God to create by fiat?
Because in Genesis 1, God is depicted as creating by fiat "Let
there be...and there was (Gn 1:3, 6,14) or simply "Let..." (Gn 1:9,
11, 20, 22, 24, 26). However, IMHO that does not mean that God
necessarily created instantaneously or without natural process.
GM>If I make a robot which mixes the wheat flour, eggs, milk, and
>whatever in a bowl, places the dough in a pan, puts the pan in the
>oven, turns the temperature to the proper setting, removes the bread
>at the proper time and then slices it and bags it, if it does all
>that, who made the bread - me or the robot? If you walk into the
>room just after I finish programming the robot and watch it make the
>bread, can you conclude that I had nothing to do with the
>manufacture of the bread?
This is a Deistic concept of God-it is not the Theistic God
depicted in the Bible. I don't believe that nature is as autonomous
as this "robot". God does work through natural process, but it is
always God working through them, not them working on their own without
God:
Phl 2:12 -13 "...work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do
of his good pleasure."
GM>I see two extremes here. One the one hand, classical creationism
>would seem to want to rule out the possibility that God "programmed"
>his robot (the universe) for the purpose of making bread (man). They
>seem to say that if God accomplished his purpose in this manner
>(something akin to Mark Phillips option 5 in his post this morning)
>that it is not creation.
Yes. I believe it is not the Biblical picture of "creation". It
is a Deistic, not Theistic picture you are proposing. If you can
support your view from scripture that nature is analogous to a
programmed "robot", then please do so.
GM>On the other hand the atheists seem to walk into the room as the
>robot pulls the bread out of the oven and declare that there was no
>designer for the system.
Yes. Even on your Deistic view there must be a "designer." We are
agreed on that.
GM>Now my question is why is it important for God to create by fiat
>rather than by designing the entire system - robots, subrobots and
>all?
Because that is the Biblical, Theistic picture.
SJ>"Agreed in the long run. But the first task IMHO is to examine
>Darwinism and see if its assertions are valid. Macbeth says:
SJ>"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)" >**end quote**
GM>With all due respect to Macbeth, and other well known lawyers,
>science is not a courtroom nor do the rules of the courtroom apply in
>anyway to the methodology of science. In science, the winner is the
>person who advocates the successful theory!!!
Yes. And is not the "successful theory" the one that can stand up to
critical analysis?
SJ>"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?
SJ>Besides, what is wrong with being a "debunker of evolution"? It is
>only a theory. It is not Holy Writ."
GM>You've got your break. I certainly do not feel that the average
>layperson is able to come up with an alternative. But then the
>average reflectorite is NOT the average layperson. Most of the
>people on the reflector have more education than I and represent the
>creme de la creme of Christian scholars. It is not unreasonable to
>expect an august group like this to come up with alternatives.
Well, we all do have our various creationist models, but the sucess or
failure of these alternatives has nothing to do with whether Darwinism
is itself correct.
GM>For christians to continue to be nothing more than "debunkers'
>means that we will contribute nothing positive.
It is always "positive" to expose error.
GM>After 130 years of debunking evolution, what has christianity
>gained?
It has ensured that Christianity has survived and souls (including
yours and mine) have been saved.
GM>Have we come up with a plausible explanation for the flood? for
>the psuedogenes?
I believe so, but even if they are wrong, that does not automatically
mean Darwinism is right. Darwinism can't even plausibly explain a
feather!
GM>But we not only debunk evolution, we have christians who debunk
>everything that geology and astronomy say. I would respectfully
>submit that debunking is doing nothing but turning Christians into
>Luddites! Where the luddites were against modern technology, 20th
>century evangelicals are against most of observational science! We
>are always debunking the latest scientific discovery.
This is a generalisation and an extreme stereotype.
GM>And no evolution is holy writ, but I don't think anti-evolutionism
>is holy writ either. Genesis 1:11 states: Then God said, 'Let the
>land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land
>that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."
>And it was so." NIV
GM>For years and years I read this verse as being against evolution.
>But it isn't. God didn't create the vegetation directly, he used the
>intermediary of the land. The land produced the vegetation. Isn't
>that what evolution says?
I agree that there is much process in Genesis 1. But that does not
mean it was Darwinism. It is God's creative word (ie. Christ John
1:1-3), who was the means.
GM>The "according to their various kinds"
>phrase is not a limitation upon genetic variability but is merely a
>description of the fact that more than one type was created! If I
>send you to the grocery store telling you "to get vegetables after
>their kind", are you going to infer that I have made a proclamation
>about the reproductive life of the carrot? No! You are going to
>get various kinds of veggies! That is what God is commanding the
>land to do- produce various kinds of veggies.
I think it is more than that. It is saying that God created order out
of chaos by putting boundaries (ie. separating) between things.
>This same use of 'after their kinds' is found in Genesis 1:21 and
>Genesis 1:24 where once again, the land is told to produce living creatures.
>The Scripture does not teach against evolution. It teaches against pure
>materialism. There is a big difference.
I agree. But Darwinism *is* pure materialism.
SJ>"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."
GM>Yes it is my burden. It should be the burden of others also. If
>everything
>I teach about geology is obervationally false, why should anyone listen to
>me? If I connect my false teaching with God's inspiration, I have not only
>made me look foolish but God as well! I hate to pick on Steve Austin again,
>but it just happens to be the book I am reading now. On page 87 of GRAND
>CANYON he rejects the standard explanation of the erosion of Grand Canyon
>because he says if the Colorado river had been in place for 70 million years,
>it would have eroded far too much sediment and there is no evidence for that
>sediment anywhere in California where it should have been dumped. But then
>on page 102 he presents geologic proof that the Colorado river had only been
>in place for max 5.5 million years. He uses that fact to support his view of
>how the canyon formed. If you go back and use the 5.5 million in the
>original calculation, there is absolutely no reason to reject the standard
>view because not very much sediment would have been eroded! One can't reject
>the standard theory because the river has been in place 70 million years
>(when geologists think it has only been there for 5.5 million) and then use
>the correct length of time to support your own view. This is observationally
>poor logic. His mechanism would require the existence of huge boulder beds
>in Southern California but he does not even mention that prediction (no
>non-geologist would be likely to pick up on it either) and he procedes to
>show that the boulder beds do not exist! The beds he does cite are
>geologically incompatible with his mechanism but once again, most laypeople
>(non-geologists) would not know that and so would believe his explanation.
> Now he says it was the flood and its aftermath which eroded the canyon.
> He has connected his poor reasoning with God's word. This is a bad thing to
>do. This causes young Christians to leave Christianity.I hate to be
>disagreeable, but this SHOULD be our burden.
Again, I think this is the same problem as yours. Trying to make the
Bible fit a particular model of science. I am not a geologist, so it
is not my burden. My message to all you scientists trying to fit
science and the Bible is, first find out exactly what the Bible is
saying!
SJ>"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."
>
>All the more reason that you should do more than merely debunk. When
>problems and discrepancies arise what do you tell your children?
I don't "merely debunk". I am merely obeying 1Th 5:21 "Test
everything. Hold on to the good."
God bless.
Stephen