On Tue, 01 Jul 1997 18:20:03 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>PM>But it is simply a description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the
>science of our time. No myth here unlike creation.
>SJ>Sagan's actual "description of cosmic evolution as revealed by the
>science of our time" in Cosmos pp337-338, is *very* compatible with
>the description of "creation" in Genesis 1.
PM>Compatible perhaps although there are still some contradictions. But
even
>if you agree that they are compatible, under Occam's razor the explanation
>involking extra complications would fail.
SJ: As I have pointed out, you misuse "Occam's razor". All "Occam's
razor" says is that "entities are not to be multiplied beyond
necessity." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, vii:475-476). You
haven't shown that God is not a "necessity" or an "extra
complication". You would have to have a complete understanding of
the whole universe and indeed beyond it, to assert that.
Do you ? One explanation asserts that there is a purely naturalistic
explanation, the other one asserts that a supernatural entity did all
this. The latter requires the presence of the naturalistic reality but
also the existance of an invisible/unobservable entity. And then the
question becomes who created the creator ?
SJ: Pim, your "Occam's razor" ploy is your ultimate fall-back position. You
claim to want theists to present evidence for God, but when they
provide it, instead of fairly considering that evidence you just rule
it out of court with "Occam's Razor"! So for you evidence for God is
not even necessary.
If you provide evidence for a god you would have a viable theory with
facts and data. Now you have mere speculation and need to invoke more
complicated matters to explain the natural reality.
[...]
PM>We do not know if the universe is infinite in time. We now know
>based upon observations that there was a bing bang several tens of
>billions of years ago and we cannot observe what was there before
>that.
JB: There was no "before" the Big Bang. Time began with the Big Bang:
How do you know ? We cannot observe what happened before the big bang so
how can you claim that there was no before ?
SJ: You may note that a *Christian* theologian first thought of the idea
that "the physical Universe came into existence with time and not in time"
from his reading of Genesis.
Yes but genesis also gets some details wrong. So are we to take what you
consider 'good parts' and ignore the bad parts ?
PM>But if you want to hold the bible to a standard of scientific
>accuracy you will have to deal also with the scientific inaccuracies
>of the bible.
SJ: The Bible is not a textbook of science, so it does not need to have
"a standard of scientific accuracy".
Then don't use it as proof for something.
SJ: But the Bible's statement that the cosmos had a "beginning" out of
nothing (is unique to the Bible, and it has great theological
significance.
Was it ? I am sure other religions believe that the universe was created
out of nothing ? It is however not even certain if there was a beginning.
For all we know we are in an endless loop of inflation/deflation/big bangs.
SJ: If it turned out that there was no beginning (eg. the
steady-state theory), then the Bible would be wrong.
Which would not be the first time. Nor is steady state the only possible
scenario.
SJ :As it is the
Bible alone of all holy books and against all scientific opinion
until the 1930's, held that there was a beginning of the universe.
The Bible has been proved right, and science and all other holy books
have been proved wrong. This is powerful evidence to me that the
Bible writers had supernatural assistance.
And that they got other facts wrong means that this assistance was flakey ?
Come on Steve...
PM>It does not need to change? And yet the bible revealed that the earth
was
>flat until science found otherwise? Is this limited scientific accuracy
also
>admissible?
SJ: There is *nowhere* that "the bible revealed that the earth was flat".
But it is implied.
SJ : Indeed, if anything the Bible teaches the earth was a sphere:
SJ: "He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people
are like grasshoppers..." (Isa 40:22)
You mean like a circle ? A pancake is a flat circle.
SJ: "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the
earth
over nothing" (Job 26:7)
Only the northern skies ? And how does this show that it is a sphere ?
PM>But your assumption is that it was revealed by God so it does not allow
for
>1) errors 2) transcription errors 3) interpretation errors....
SJ: I would not have a problem if the Bible contained "1) errors" and
certainly not if it contains "2) transcription errors" or "3)
interpretation errors" after the Bible was revealed. The Bible nowhere
claims to be 100% free from "error".
So how do you know what part is accurate and what part is accidental ?
PM>What if it was just a mythical story?
SJ: Some parts of the Bible have "mythical" elements, but few scholars
would
claim that the Bible is "mythical" in the same sense as (say) Greek
mythology.
Why ? The ancient Greeks would disagree with you.
PM>If you want to claim accuracy in genesis you will have to deal with
>inaccuracies in other books as well Steve.
SJ: I don't claim "accuracy" in "Genesis 1", in the sense of comparing it
with a 20th century precise scientfic report.
So it might be accidental or incidental accuracy ?
SJ: I claim merely that comparing Genesis 1 with other similar ancient
literature (eg. Babylonian, etc), it portrays an amazingly accurate
account in pictorial form.
Some parts it does, some parts it doesn't. Sort of a conflict...
PM>Why ? As far as I am aware there is no evidence against the theory of
>evolution. But perhaps I am wrong about this? And is this evidence fatal
>for the theory of evolution?
SJ: No. It just confirms that "the theory of evolution is functioning as a
creation myth for you". If it really was "falsifiable, testable, unlike
religious creation myths" then you would be able to think of some evidence
against it.
Oh you mean if I know how it could be tested or falsified ? But that is
different from asking "do you know evidence against evolution".
Finding human fossils or 4 billion years of age would do it. Testable ?
Natural selection, speciation and mutation have been tested and they
appear not to disprove evolution.
SO perhaps your question was slightly unclear ? You suggested the
existance of evidence against evolution. If you meant it to be this, then
I would like to hear some evidence. To call something a "creation myth"
because one is convinced by the evidence is misleading.
PM>The similarity of word choice is merely coincidental or perhaps
sarcastic
>? To claim this as evidence like you have done above is of course hardly
>support for your assertion that evolution is a "creation myth". Unlike the
>religious myth it is open to criticism, change, it can be falsified, it
>makes predictions.
SJ: How can "evolution...be falsified" to you, when you do not know any
"evidence against" it?
You are making no sense here. One can know how evolution can be falsified
and still there has not be any evidence against evolution Steve.
Two different issues here.
PM>To refer to this as a myth indicates that you are trying to reduce the
>value of science to an issue of faith. If your personal faith is that
>limited that you have to resort to such tactics then perhaps the problem
lies >at your end.
SJ: What "tactics"? I gave you a test that Professor Kerkut (an
evolutionist) used to give his students, to "tell me...some of the
evidence against the theory of Evolution".
And ? The question is misleading if you meant it to be "how can evolution
be falsified" ?
PM>Two very different issues. If you consider your religious faith strong,
>then you should admit that the scientific creation myth has similar
>strenght as it relies on mere faith so why call it a creation myth?
SJ: I am not sure what the above means. But if the theory of evolution
is a "scientific creation myth" then why shouldn't I "call it a creation
myth"?
1) Evolution does not address creation
2) It is not a myth but a scientific theory.
PM>So either way I am curious why you decide to refer to science in a
manner
>to suggest it to be similar to religious faith when in fact it isn't?
SJ: I was not referring to "science" in general. I was not even referring
to
"the theory of evolution" as a scientific theory. I was referring to the
"evidence...that `the theory of evolution'" is functioning as a creation
myth *for you*." The main "evidence" is that you cannot even think of any
evidence against it! If evolution was only a scientific theory *for you*
you should have noproblem stating the evidence against it:
No this is evidence of a poorly phrased question. I could think of ways to
falsify evolution which does not mean that there is any such data.
So why now use a poorly phrased question as evidence for something it
cannot support ?