Re: Human explosion (fwd)

Stephen Jones (sjones@iinet.net.au)
Sun, 03 Dec 95 22:00:00 EST

Brian

On Sun, 19 Nov 1995 15:38:45 +0000 you wrote:

JWB>2. I have a gut fear that should Phil, and Norm, and others ever
>be successful, it will open up science to all sorts of nonsense. For
>the Christian views are only a few among many. And without ANY means
>of testing -- well, the National Inquirer, with its "2,000,000 blunt
>edge readers" will most certainly thrive!

SJ>This seems to be saying, "Even if God did create the universe, life
>and life's major groups, it is better for science to ignore that
>possibility"? :-)

BH>No, it is saying that there is no reason for us to believe that God

>did anything of the sort and therefore, it is rejected as a
>possibility.

I am not sure that is what Burgy was saying. :-) But to answer your
point, I was once an atheist and I came to believe that God created
the Universe - two years before I became a Christian. To me the
impression of design was overwhelming.

I suggest (on the basis of Romans 1:20) that it is overwhelming to
scientists too, but the logical inference to the Creator is usually
"rejected as a possibility" because of their desire to suppress
the uncomfortable truth (Romans 1:18).

BH>If creationists want to propose evidence which suggests
>that God, did indeed, do anything, we will reconsider the position.

What "evidence" did you have in mind, Brian? Romans 1 says you have
all the "evidence" you need in the witness of creation. The fact that
you deny this "evidence" is not due to its non-existence. The vast
majority of mankind is in fact aware of God's existence and power
through this very same "evidence".

BH>However, creationists have still not been able to produce a
>scientific formulation for their hypothesis, so I doubt that said
>evidence is likely coming.

Not surprising, since "scientific" (as it currently defined) equals
"materialistic" and "naturalistic". Since God is essentially
non-material (John 4:24) and super-naturalistic, the God "hypothesis"
can never be acceptable as a "scientific formulation", while that
definition stands.

Regards.

Stephen

-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------