Stephen: <<"If God used evolution" then it indeed *would* "be supernatural creation"
but not "as well". Because then it wouldn't be called "evolution" - it would
be called "creation":>>
Mere semantics.
<<"Darwinistic evolution would be a most peculiar creative method for God
to choose given the Darwinistic insistence that biological evolution was
*undirected.* That requirement means that God neither programmed
evolution in advance nor stepped in from time to time to pull it in the right
direction. >>
Why would he have to do this. Is God not almighty ?
Stephen: <<How then did God ensure that humans would come into
existence so that salvation history would have a chance to occur? >>
He knew that given enough time and space that it would be inevitable ? After all are you now not limiting God a bit too much ?
PM>And why would God provide us with all these data suggesting that He
>indeed did it that way?
Stephen: What "data" is that exactly?>>
Radiometric dating, fossil evidence, genetic evidence, you name it.
PM>The alternative is far more troublesome, in that it requires the belief
>that God is trying to fool us .
Stephen: <<Maybe you are fooling yourself Pim:>>
Possible but irrelevant to the discussion.
Stephen: <<"In his famous 1974 Commencement address at Caltech, Richard Feynman
provided an inspiring counter-example of how science ought to be
practiced. He began by warning against self-deception, the original sin of
science, saying that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself,
and you are the easiest person to fool." (Johnson P.E., "How to Sink a
Battleship: A call to separate materialist philosophy from empirical
science", The Real Issue: Edited from the final address at the 1996 Mere
Creation conference" http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9602/johnson.html)>>
Indeed, it might as well apply to you, God or me. So why this non sequitor ?
PM>And rightly so if the issue is science.
Stephen: <<What is "rightly so"?>>
Because religious faith and science are unreconcilable if they are to be applied at the same moment.
SJ>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".
PM>No the issue is the the criticism made by creationists and potential
>mechanisms which could address this.
Stephen: <<Disagree. Glenn does not even consider that the creationists might be right. >>
So you claim but your feelings are irrelevant
Stephen: <<He assumes *apriori* that "there is a mechanism" for the origin of pure L- amino acids, even though he admits it is "unknown to us at this moment". Indeed, he repeats that there *is* such a mechanism: "I don't know the mechanism but there is one" even without any evidence.>>
I would say that Glenn is pointing out that it is the creationist who by claiming that there is NO natural mechanism to explain L amino acids, makes the mistakes you accuse Glenn of falling for. Glenn's argument is that we don't know if there is no mechanism and until it can be shown that no mechanism can exist, this cannot be excluded from scientific inquiry.
Stephen: <<That is pure, Theistic Naturalism: a "fervent faith that a naturalistic
explanation for the origin of life simply *must* be there to be found":>>
Nope, it is not faith, it is realism and realization that one cannot dismiss something as a scientific possibility until it can be safely dismissed.
PM>Before looking into supernatural explanations, should we first not
>exhaust the natural ones?
Stephen : In the case of *origins* why not do both:>>
Sure, in science we use the scientific method and in faith we use introspection. We can use both, just not for the same purpose.
PM>And what is so destructive about Glenn pointing out this
Stephen : <<I didn't say that Glenn *was* being "destructive about Glenn pointing out
this". I said that "Glenn attacks relentlessly and destructively any Christian
apologist like Johnson or Ross who proposes *any* form of supernatural
creation.">>
At a scientific level that is indeed very appropriate. On a faith level, no attacks should be made, after all it is an issue of faith.
Stephen: <<Indeed, Glenn "proudly pleads guilty" to destructively criticising the
positions of Christian apologists:>>
As long as the position is argued on a scientific level, then I applaud his efforts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 27 May 1998 21:50:01 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>SJ>For the record, unless I indicate otherwise, when I say that Glenn
>>destructively criticises Christian apologists, I mean he destructively
>>criticises their *positions*, not their persons.
GM>We might actually be making progress here. I would absolutely plead
>guilty to this. In fact I would proudly plead guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>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.
PM>That is incorrect as Glenn has pointed out.
Glenn: <<Where exactly has "Glenn...pointed out" that "unaided nature can produce
100% pure L-amino acids?">>
He has shown a potential mechanism. That your argument now is 'pure L amino acids' is irrelevant. Glenn has shown that there are mechanisms which prefer one form of Amino-acids over the other.
PM>Now whether this is THE mechanism is open to discussion.
Stephen : <<Again the *automatic* assumption that there *must* be a "mechanism" for
producing fully naturalistically 100% pure L-amino acids.>>
Even a miracle would still be a 'mechanism' albeit not a very lity". I have repeatedly said that God
*could* have worked through natural processes". Indeed it is the name I
gave this thread:
"RE: God could have worked through natural processes (was Evolutionary
Information 1/2)"
I just don't assume apriori like Theistic Naturalists do that God *must*
have worked through natural processes.>>
If that is your argument, then we agree, God by virtue of being unobservable is unpredictable as well.
>SJ>Disagree. We are talking of positions *within* Christian "theism".
>True "deism" is incompatible with Christianity becuase it denies
>supernatural Revelation and salvation miracles:
PM>Of course that is merely an opinion. What if you are wrong ?
Stephen : <<Pim, I gave a definition of "true `deism'" from a book about Deism and
quoted the reference. So how can you claim that this is "merely an
opinion"? Have you got any other references that contradict it?>>
I was talking about your conclusions not your statements.
Stephen : <<Or are you saying that "deism" does deny "supernatural Revelation and
salvation miracles" yet it is not "incompatible with Christianity"?>>
Perhaps it might be incompatible with your interpretation of Christianity but that does not necessarily make it so to others ?
>SJ>"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)>>
PM>I believe it is far more limiting to assume that God must have worked
>through supernatural powers.
Stephen : <<Agreed. But I don't claim that "God must have worked through
supernatural powers." I repeat my position: "God could have worked
through natural processes".>>
So far so good.
>SJ>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!>>
PM>A fine example of 'if one is free of sin, let him throw the first stone'.
>How ironic Stephen.
Stephen: <<Indeed it is "ironic"! Actually it was *John Rylander* who threw *this*
"first stone":>>
As I said, still not taking responsiblity ? It's so easy to blame others for one's actions, isn't it ?
But I agree that much of it is rethorical lawyer speak.