Stephen Replied:
SJ>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:"
You use Deism in a funny way. My Dictionary defines Deism as:
"1.The belief that God exists and created the world but thereafter assumed no
control over it or the lives of people.
2. In philosophy, the belief that reason is sufficient to prove the existence
of God, with the consequent rejection of revelation and authority."
If you are going to charge someone with deism please at least understand what
it means. I do not think that anyone who believes in the resurrection of
Jesus Christ can be a deist. I certainly believe that God raised Jesus from
the Dead as the scriptures indicate.
I also do not fall into the second definition. I believe that the Bible
is God's revelation to man and I submit freely to His and its authority. I
also do not believe that reason is sufficient to prove God's existence.
Does your dictionary have a different meaning for deism? Is it deistic to
believe that God set up the laws of gravity to govern the motion of physical
bodies in the universe? If it isn't deistic to believe that the laws of
atomic physics govern the strength of the steel girder in our modern
buildings, then why is it suddenly considered deistic to believe that God
might work over time in creating life.
I wrote:
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?
Stephen replied
SJ>Because that is the Biblical, Theistic picture.
So why did God command the LAND to bring forth life? Why didn't God command
life to come forth? There is a difference between these two concepts. I
would respectfully submit that the issue of God's creation instantaneously,
while widespread, is not entirely certain from the Biblical account. In the
former case, God used a process (something other than Himself) to create
life. In the latter case, God directly creates. The Bible clearly says that
God said "Let the land produce living creatures" Gen 1:24
I wrote:
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!!!
Stephen replied:
SJ>"Yes. And is not the "successful theory" the one that can stand up to
>crictical analysis"
and
SJ>"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."
A successful theory is defined as a theory which can make successful
predictions about future discoveries. For instance, If I have a theory that
the Babylonians actually conquered all of China, such a theory would predict
that I should be able to find lots of cuniform tablets in China or that the
language of China is related to or has absorbed words from the Babylonians.
With the known habit of leaving illigitimate offspring that all armies have,
I should be able to find biochemical similarities between the modern Iraqi's
and some groups of Chinese. Failing to find any of these predictions, my
theory must be considered erroneous. The successful theory is the theory
which explains the most phenomenon and makes the most successful predictions.
If Christianity is to influence modern science, they must first explain
the flood. Creation is trivial because I can say "God did it" and nothing
more can be discussed. You can't prove that statement wrong; I can't prove
it correct. With the flood, there are physical consequences to whatever
model you propose. In discussing creation, it boils down to a philosophical
argument about whether God was involved (the atheist says no) and if he was
involved, how, (the standard view has said God created by fiat, TE's say by
process.) Evolution may be wrong but I haven't seen a view put forth from
the Christians which explains more data than Evolution.
I wrote:
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.
Stephen replied:
>This is a generalisation and an extreme stereotype."
Not in this country. And I am not saying that everybody who disbelieves
evolution is a Luddite, but look around this country at how science is
treated by various church groups and ministers. Look at how scientists are
described.
"Stephen Jones wrote:
"But Darwinism *is* pure materialism."
Only if the adherent is a materialist. No one who believes in the
resurrection can be a pure materialist!!!!!!!
glenn