>> In my opinion, God would not create by fiat if that entailed deception
or even a strong "appearance of deception" since deception is so counter
to the revealed nature of God.>>
I respect that opinion, but I don't think I buy it. The counter argument
that says "I told you what was true" in Genesis" would, to me, be
sufficient. I would, of course, have questions to ask "on the other
side." But, then, I already have a bunch of questions -- like "what was
the idea of natural disasters," and, "why was it necessary for my mother
to linger in pain so long," and the like. Those come first!
...
In response to my assertion that the IA is technologically advanced
beyond the civilization of 1997., you wrote:
>>Oooh, you hit another sensitive point with me. Why technology?
Aren't we creating the IA in our own image? Technology is part
of the whole "machine" metaphor which I am really uncomfortable
with. >>
By "technology, I was thinking of everything that differentiates humanity
from animals. Tool making, language, the wheel, pottery, clothing, PCs
and all the rest. Not just mechanical things.
You wrote:
> Perhaps God isn't either a Watchmaker or an Engineer. Perhaps organisms
are not watches or machines ! We are so technology oriented that this may
be a difficult idea to even contemplate.>>
Makes sense to me.
You then wrote:
"Although you changed terminology from God to IA, items (3)
and (4) seem to me nevertheless to be modeled after
what we generally perceive as God's nature, especially
item (4). If we are talking about some general theory
of intelligent agents then I will always and forever
be suspicious of the IA's motives and honesty."
I agree. That is why I put #4 separate from the rest.
The support I have for the ID movement is based on the observation I have
that the IA they postulate may, indeed, simply be a different form of
life from us, and not a supernatural being.
After I said
>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.
>
You replied:
Both the above are completely unacceptable to me theologically,
so I'll add another:
3. We misinterpreted Genesis.>>
That's my assumption, also, but I'm not defending my position here, just
trying to see how a YEC might argue it.
Finally, you wrote:
>>Isn't this a category mistake? Why would the miracles of Jesus
be considered part of "progressive creation"?>>
The same question in reverse. Why would they not be. It is apparent that.
in both cases, something "was created." Suddenly. Without a "scientific
cause." Perform any study you want on those events, you cannot point to a
cause/effect relationship.
Burgy