PM>Mere semantics.
Stephenn: <<No. An *accurate* use of terms.
But your objection is revealing. To you *everything* is "evolution", even
"supernatural creation"!>>
Not at all. Supernatural creation can never be a scientific concept. If God used natural methods for creation, then it is not Supernatural per definition. So the term supernatural is an *inaccurate* use of terms.
PM>"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.
PM>Why would he have to do this. Is God not almighty ?
Stephen: <<"Why would he have to do" what? There are two options above: 1) "God...
programmed evolution in advance"; or 2) "God...stepped in from time to
time to pull it in the right direction." Which one are you referring to>>
If a choice is required number 1 is prefered as it would coincide with actual evidence.
>SJ>How then did God ensure that humans would come into
>existence so that salvation history would have a chance to occur?
PM>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?
Stephen : <<If it was not "programmed...in advance" and God did not intervene *why*
would "it..be inevitable"?>>
Because would God not known the outcome ? Or is he in some way limited ?
>PM>And why would God provide us with all these data suggesting that
>>He indeed did it that way?
>SJ> What "data" is that exactly?
PM>Radiometric dating, fossil evidence, genetic evidence, you name it.
StephenL <<And how do these distinguish between: 1) undirected evolution; 2)
programmed in advance evolution; and 3) God intervening from time to
time progressive creation?>>
1 and 2 are undistinguishable. For 3) to be relevant you need evidence of such interventions.
>PM>The alternative is far more troublesome, in that it requires the belief
>>that God is trying to fool us .
>SJ>Maybe you are fooling yourself Pim:
PM>Possible but irrelevant to the discussion.
Stephen : <<You raised the question.>>
I surely did but your comment is still irrelevant.
>PM>And rightly so if the issue is science.
>SJ>What is "rightly so"?
PM>Because religious faith and science are unreconcilable if they are to be
>applied at the same moment.
Stephen <<Why? What Biblical statement or scientific experiment reveals that
"religious faith and science are unreconcilable.">>
If applied at the same moment. With this I mean that in the realm of science, religious faith has no place and in the realm of religious faith, science has no place.
>SJ>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.
PM>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.
Stephen: <<If a "creationist" was "claiming that there is NO" *known* "natural
mechanism to explain" 100% pure "L amino acids" then he would be right.>>
Very well then.
PM>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: <<Glenn actually says that there *is* a natural mechanism out there waiting to
be found.>>
Perhaps, perhaps not. Science will tell us.
PM>Sure, in science we use the scientific method and in faith we use
>introspection. We can use both, just not for the same purpose.
Stephen: <<If God supernaturally created: 1) the universe out of nothing; 2) the first
life from non-living chemicals; and 3) life's major design innovations; then
how can we find this out by "introspection", and why can't "we use the
scientific method" to prove or disprove it?>>
Please show how such a scenarion could be disproven ?
>PM>And what is so destructive about Glenn pointing out this
Stephen : <<
What if there *was* a "form of "supernatural creation"? Glenn would then
be "relentlessly and destructively" attacking "Christian apologists" who
were right?>>
Based on a big if. Especially since we will never know in our lifetime.
>SJ>Indeed, Glenn "proudly pleads guilty" to destructively criticising the
>positions of Christian apologists:
PM>As long as the position is argued on a scientific level, then I applaud
>his efforts.
Stephen: <<Even if there *was* a "form of "supernatural creation" and he was wrong
and the "Christian apologists" were right, you would still "applaud his
efforts"?>>
Yep.
PM>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.
Stephen: <<There are no "mechanisms which prefer one form of Amino-acids over the
other" There are mchanisms which produce slightly more of L- or R- amino
acids. But there are no known mechanisms that produce "100% pure L-
amino acids">>
But once you have a slight difference, this might be enough.
PM>If that is your argument, then we agree, God by virtue of being
>unobservable is unpredictable as well.
Stephen: <<I take it you "agree" "that God *must* have worked through natural
processes"?>>
It surely appears to be that way.
>SJ>Or are you saying that "deism" does deny "supernatural Revelation
>and salvation miracles" yet it is not "incompatible with Christianity"?
PM>Perhaps it might be incompatible with your interpretation of
>Christianity but that does not necessarily make it so to others?
Ste[hen: <<What "others" exactly?>>
Others than you