Brian wrote:

John W. Burgeson (johnburgeson@juno.com)
Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:48:16 -0700

Brin wrote: "I'm becoming more and more confused :), so let me ask a
question to hopefully clarify. Which of the following
best describes this scenario ?:

1) God specially creates individual species with the deliberate
intention of making them appear to be related by common ancestry
even though they are not.

2) God specially creates according to his own divine will and
plan. This plan includes perfection in the sense of "thoroughness"
(whatever this means??). Scientists, acting in a thoroughly
Kuhnsian manner, interpret the results in terms of descent with
modification from a common ancestor.

3) Something else."

Option 2. Option 1 is us INFERRING from an incomplete knowledge of God's
mind.

Brian continues: " Cuvier's idea of a perfect (thorough) creation
would be one that had no hint whatsoever of common ancestry."

That's Cuvier's idea. But it may, or may not, correspond to what God
thinks. < G >

Brian ends with: "I hesitate to try an answer to your question since the
concept of perfection in terms of thoroughness is not
clear to me. Hopefully I can assume that "thorough" does
not mean "appears to be related by common descent" :-)."

You are correct on your last sentence. I have been doing some study of
the Greek word used in the verse "Be ye perfect... ." Not that I know
Greek -- I don't. But two guys I respect a lot have suggested the words
"mature" and "thorough" appear to fit the context there rather well.
Neither is "correct," but both carry part of the Greek meaning not found
in the English word "perfect."

When Van Gogh painted the Mona Lisa, we might all agree he did it as
least close to "perfectly." Yet he might have done it differently -- yet,
still "perfectly." The end results "met requirements." That's "thorough."

A newly created unicorn that did not appear (to scientific
investigations) to "appear old -- i.e. with a history, would probably not
work!

A newly created tree, 20 feet tall, necessarily has to have tree rings
showing growth that never happened. Else it could not stand; the tree
rings give it strength.

Adam, at creation, had to have blood circulating which had it it energy
and oxygen from food and breaths never taken. But is this "lying?" If
such were not there, Adam would have fallen dead immediately.

Burgy