I am glad that you realize your errors. Now back to the Mediterranean <g>
JR>For those not oblivious to finer points: no Christian in the discussion, so
>far as I know anyway, believes that God -had- to use evolution.
Stephen:
<<On the contrary, *the whole thrust* of Glenn's posts is that "God -had- to use evolution". He *automatically* assumes evolution and *never* even seriously considers supernatural creation as an option. What's more, Glenn attacks relentlessly and destructively any Christian apologist like Johnson
or Ross who proposes *any* form of supernatural creation.>>
If God used evolution, would that not be supernatural creation as well ? And why would God provide us with all these data suggesting that He indeed did it that way ? The alternative is far more troublesome, in that it requires the belief that God is trying to fool us .
And rightly so if the issue is science.
A good example is the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 21:40:25 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
Stephen continues:
<<GM>One of the criticisms creationists make about the inorganic origin of life
^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
Note the *automatic* assumption above of fully naturalistic causes "there is a
mechanism (unknown to us at this moment" and "I don't know the mechanism but
there is one".>>
No the issue is the the criticism made by creationists and potential mechanisms which could address this. Before looking into supernatural explanations, should we first not exhaust the natural ones ? And what is so destructive about Glenn pointing out this >
Stephen: <<Moreover note above that Glenn *criticises* "creationists" and "Christians" who believe that "nature can't produce anything but racemic forms". Indeed Glenn declares that concept "flawed" apriori, despite the fact that there is still no hard evidence that unaided nature can produce 100% pure L-amino acids which is what life requires.>>
That is incorrect as Glenn has pointed out. Now whether this is THE mechanism is open to discussion. You should try to read what Glenn writes before attacking him with a statement which is directly contradicted by what you responded to.
Stephen refering to Glenn's writing
>different wave. In a very real sense, he is the creator of each wave even
>though he is nowhere in sight. Why must we limit God to ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This is the classical deistic picture of God as the clock-maker who winds up a clock at the beginning and then withdraws from any further involvement. What is even more revealing is Glenn's assumption that somehow "we limit God" if He is "standing in the office.">>
Given the evidence this is far more likely an explanation. And why not ? Certainly such an involvement, or lack of involvement shows a far 'greater' God than one who has to keep fine-tuning things ?
Stephen:
<<No. If we are talking about "He" (ie. God) then t's "whether or not he -did-
use" *natural processes". Your assumption that it natural processes are
automatically "evolution" just begs the question and proves my point.>>
Given the evidence, why ignore this possibility. It is definitely far more likely than the alternatives.
Stephen: <<Disagree. We are talking of positions *within* Christian "theism". True
"deism" is incompatible with Christianity becuase it denies supernatural
Revelation and salvation miracles:>>
Of course that is merely an opinion. What if you are wrong ?
Stephen:
<<"A person who assumes a priori that such creation events must have
scientifically ascertainable material causes is a metaphysical naturalist. If he
believes in God he is a theistic naturalist, who limits God's freedom by the
dictates of naturalistic philosophy." (Johnson P.E., "God and Evolution: An
Exchange: Howard J. Van Till - Phillip E. Johnson", First Things, June
1993. http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9306/johnson.html)>>>
I believe it is far more limiting to assume that God must have worked through supernatural powers.
Stephen<<And it certainly "retards the discussion" by Theistic Naturalists just ignoring
the *content* of the arguments of "Johnson (and...his defenders)", and
focusing on their *form* claiming it is just "lawyerly rhetoric" and done
"sloppily and polemically" at that. If anyone is using "rhetoric...polemically"
it is Theistic Naturalists like yourself!>>
A fine example of 'if one is free of sin, let him throw the first stone'. How ironic Stephen.