I don't know where we're going here. And sorry in advance for what turned out
to be a too-long post.
If the issue is simply that we don't know exactly where a
fiat-creation-with-functionally-mandated-apparent-age would differ from a
creation with -real- age, then that's interesting, but hardly an objection to
an old earth or to evolutionary theory.
On the other hand, if the contention is "If God created by fiat, there would be
no empirically discernible difference between objects so created and those
developed naturally", then there are real problems. (I'll call this "the
contention".)
"The contention" can have two broad contexts. (There are more, of course, but
let's simplify.) If
(1) God generally created via evolution or some similarly lengthy divinely
guided natural process, and he supernaturally and instantaneously created a
number of objects (wine, fish, etc.) to be -materially identical- to their
natural counterparts
then of course they will (being materially identical) have ALL the signs of age
that the natural objects have. The contention isn't very contentious in this
case.
BUT if
(2) God created all objects instantaneously by fiat,
then I can't see any reason why ALL aspects of age will be built in to them,
including those that are unrelated to an object's function or nature (as I
expressed earlier, and Brian detailed).
You've given compelling reasons to think that SOME or MANY aspects of age will
be built-in even in case (2), but no reasons that I can see that ALL would be
(which is what the contention above requires).
Beyond that, you need to decide which of two "modal" spins you'd be arguing for
here:
(2a) The contention is POSSIBLY true -- that it, it is POSSIBLE (logically, at
least) that if God created all things instantaneously, then he created them
with every aspect of age and even apparent evolutionary ancestry.
This seems uncontroversial amongst orthodox Christians. From an orthodox Ch
ristian perspective, the burden of proof would be on those who deny this. But
remember that little of interest follows from the mere -possible- truth of this
contention.
(2b) The contention is LIKELY true -- that is it is LIKELY that if God created
all things instantaneously, then he created them with every aspect of age and
even apparent evolutionary ancestry.
or
(2c) The contention is IN FACT true.
This seems very controversial, and the burden of proof would be on those who
assert this. On the up side, if you can show this, you've shown something of
serious interest.
So if you're arguing for (2b) or (2c), the burden of proof and the rewards of
any such success are with you.
You've offered numerous and fairly uncontroversial examples of where we would
expect to find apparent age in properly functioning context (2) objects
(especially organisms -- e.g., oxygen in the blood as though one had breathed,
etc.), but none of those strongly support the claim ALL aspects of the context
(2) objects (especially the subtler dating techniques) would be consistent with
age and an evolutionary history. To justify something like (2b) or (2c), one
need offer strong arguments as to why God would build in appearances of age in
ALL aspects, -even those that add no value whatever to the object in question-.
(Again, see Brian's details.)
If, on the other hand, you're just asserting (2a), there's nothing to argue
about, because it's uncontroversial amongst orthodox Christians, and because
such empirical evidences would still confirm an evolutionary history over the
contention, since while (2a) asserts such appearances are -possible-,
evolutionary theory suggests they're nearly -inevitable-. (If phenomena A, B,
and C occur, a theory which -predicts- A, B, and C will be more strongly
confirmed than one which simply asserts that A, B, and C are -possible-.)
What I'd hope to see in your reply:
Are you discussing "the contention" in the context of (1), or (2)? (I take it
(2)?)
If in the context of (2), are you suggesting (2a), (2b), or (2c)?
And I hope that if I've been a bit overly precise in a mistaken way, you'll
bear with me and respond to the gist of what I'm saying. (I'm just trying to
make things clear, so that we can see them better.)
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: John W. Burgeson [SMTP:johnburgeson@juno.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 1997 4:25 PM
To: EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
Subject: John said:
John Rylander said:
"They'd be the ones to make up the tests to decide on the fiat creation
issue, if by "thorough" and "perfect" you mean only something like (a)."
By thse two words I mean only your "a," but I am unconvinced that "b"
adds anything to the mix.
The same sort of argument(s) must (I think) apply to Christ's miracles.
If one is convinced (as I am) that water really did change into wine at
Cana, was the wine "perfect?" If we were there, how would we be able to
tell the difference?
If one is really convinced (as I am) that fish and bread appeared "fiat"
at the feeding of the 5,000, then was the food provided "perfect?" Did
the scraps picked up by the disciples get eaten later? Were there scraps
left uneaten? Did those scraps rot? If we were there the next day, or
even at the feast ourselves, how could we tell the food was "sudden" and
not gathered normally?
If one is really convinced (as I am not) that the earth and all organic
life, including humanity, appeared "suddenly," how would we be able to
tell the "suddenness" if we were there on day #8?
It does seem to me that these scenarios, and others I have suggested, are
enough in parallel that they raise some reasonable questions. Among which
are those above.
Burgy