" Similarly, from the scientific point of view, a creationist fails as
soon as he says "... but we don't know the purpose of God.""
The inclusion of the word "scientific" in there probably makes it a true
statement. Without that word, I'd likely disagree.
I appreciate the quote from "The Argument from Design", by George
Lauder in <Adaptation>, M R Rose and G V Lauder eds., Academic Press,
1996.
You also wrote: "The detrimental effects
of aging have been subject to extensive scientific study
for many years and thus are not comparable to Gould's
"no engineer would do this" argument which really amounts
to an opinion only. "
To which I will agree. But I am not the person who brought up "aging," or
"wear and tear." Can we put these aside?
Finally, you said: "But most of my previous argument was a theological
argument.
It is true that we could never know the mind of God or completely
understand his methods. But we can tentatively make some judgements about
what we might expect to find based upon what has been revealed to us in
the Bible regarding the nature of God. "
I think what I am probing here is either theology or philosophy, not
"science-as-such." You said "tentatively" above -- this allows
exploration of other possibilities.
Speaking philosophically, then, what do we really know about God,
exclusive of Scripture/Revelation? Not much.
Let me use another term, "Intelligent Agent (IA). IA could be plural,
BTW.
These three things seem to be self-evident about the IA:
1. The IA is at least as intelligent (whatever that eans) as humanity.
2. The IA is technologically advanced beyond the civilization of 1997.
3. The IA has a sense of humor.
Most of us, including me, also add the assumption
4. The IA is not a liar.
The best argument for a YEC seems to be that the IA created us with an
apparent history but avoids the "liar" label by telling us about the
young earth in Genesis. Why did he do it this way? Either he:
1. Was "just fooling"
2. There was no other way it could be done.
Now I've not been arguing the young earth position, but I have been
probing the "progressive creation" position, primarily on the basis of
(2) above.
I am beginning to come down on the PC side (vs TE side) of this, having
"fence-sat" for a long time. One of the arguments is this. It is clear to
us, as Christians, that SOME progressive creation events have most
certainly taken place. The Cana event, the feeding event, various events
in the life of Moses, David, etc. It seems odd to pick out the creation
of humanity as counter to these events.
Well -- enough of this for now. Just got a phone call from Austin -- son
& daughter arrived safely home after a 20+ hour trip across ice --
normally a 16 hour trip -- we were getting a little concerned! Blessings
to all...
Burgy