Please address me directly. Speaking about me in the third person is
extremely rude and doesn't really help your case. I think they are both
imaginary--so what? You think Zeus and fairies are imaginary.
>SB>I said--and meant--that when you use a supernatural explantion for
>something
>>you have no compelling need to inquire further.
>
>The same is true when a materialist-naturalist assumes that there are only
>*natural* explanations for *everything*. At some point he/she will stop and
>"have no compelling need to inquire further."
Naturalistic explanations are open-ended. Religious explanations are not.
>The point is that if God *did* mediately create the living world then it is
>*right* to "have no compelling need to inquire further" past that point.
I agree.
>But that does not mean that there is still a role for science to find out
>more
>how God did mediately create the living world.
that's very kind of you :-)
>>SJ>Except that in the case of *origins*, the "inquiry" rules out God
>>>*absolutely* before the "evidence" is even considered! This is metaphysical
>>>naturalism.
>
>SB>there is *evidence* for supernatural origins? Measurable, observable
>>evidence?
>
>See above. Susan, like Lewontin, rules out *absolutely* that there can be
>"evidence for supernatural origins" and now she asks for me to supply
>such evidence!
you had me going there for a minute. I thought the clear implication of
your paragraph above was that there *is* some evidence for supernatural
origins. Weren't you saying that science is not considering evidence for
supernatural origins? Doesn't that mean there is evidence to consider?
>Moreover Susan's demand that the evidence for *evidence* for supernatural
>origins be "measurable" and "observable" ignores the fact that there
>is no measurable and observable evidence for *naturalistic* origins.
oh, but there's plenty. That's why I mentioned you should keep in mind that
Johnson is a *lawyer* not a scientist. He has discovered a clever line of
argumentation, but not any evidence. He doesn't understand that science
floats on *evidence* not rhetoric.
Consider this:
All football players are women.
Emmet Smith is a football player.
Therefore Emmet Smith is a woman.
The logic is correct, but the information in the first sentence is wrong.
Johnson, for religious reasons, is trying to convince everybody that Emmet
Smith is a woman.
>For
>example, in the case of macroevolution, Dobzhansky, one of the founders
>of Neo-Darwinism admitted that there was no measurable or observable
>evidence for macroevolutionary events:
>
>"On the other hand, it is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the
>laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the
>modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike
>ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
>irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as
>it is to
>effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental
>method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely
>restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed
>the lifetime of any human experimenter....Experimental evolution deals of
>necessity with only the simplest levels of the evolutionary process,
>sometimes called microevolution." (Dobzhansky T., "On Methods of
>Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology," Part I, "Biology," American
>Scientist, Vol. 45, No. 5, December 1957, p388)
but this paragraph does not say that there is no measurable or observable
evidence for macroevolutionare events. There's plenty. Dobzhansky is saying
you can't reproduce it entirely in the lab. He's not saying there's nothing
to observe and measure. (You must have a text scanner. I'd *never* type in
all that, especially if it didn't support my point!)
>
>>SJ>For example, it is hardly "provisional" when Michael Ruse, the leading
>>>Darwinist philosopher states that:
>>>"Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!" (Ruse M., "Darwinism Defended," 1983,
>>>p58)
>
>SB>when you watch something happen in front of your face
>
>Susan just *assumes* that the processes she can see happening today in
>front of her face are the *same* processes that happened in the distant
>past.
the old "things were different back then" argument. Haven't seen that
chestnut in ages!
>>SJ>But actually the Bible doesn't say that "The earth can cease to rotate
>>for a
>>>time." What the Bible it says in Josh 10:13 is that "the sun stood
>>>still, and
>>>the moon stopped..." While I have no problem if God did cause the earth to
>>>"cease to rotate for a time", it is possible to legitimately interpret this
>>>passage literally that the sun and moon only *appeared* to Joshua to stand
>>>still. Ramm points out that there are at least four possible
>>>interpretations
>>>of this passage, only only one of which is that the earth ceased to rotate
>>>for a time:
>
>SB>So only Genesis I & II are *literally* true. I hadn't realized that.
>
>Susan's prejudice continues. First, in the case of Joshua 10:13 (which Susan
>brought up but now she apparently wants to drop), the Bible *literally*
>says that "the sun stood still, and the moon stopped..." It does *not*
>literally say that "the earth ceased to rotate for a time". Indeed Joshua
>would not have known in 3,500 BC that the Earth rotates around the Sun.
that's true. The author of the book of Joshua did *not* know the earth
rotates and therefore did not know that for the sun to stand still the
earth would have to stop rotating for a while.
>Second, I made it quite clear in my first message (indeed this vey thread)
>that I do not believe that "Genesis I & II are literally true":
then why are you bothering with all of this?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:01:34 +0800, Stephen Jones wrote:
>
>>I believe that the Bible is the unique message of God revealed through
>>human writers, and I regard Genesis 1-11 as real history expressed in
>>symbolic form.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok
>>SJ>And even if the Christian does say "The Bible says it, I believe it.
>>Period"
>>>what is wrong with that? The vast majority of Christians haven't got the
>>>ability or training to decide what in the Bible should be accepted and
>>>what rejected. In those circumstances, the soundest approach, in the first
>>>instance, is to accept it all on face value, and then work at increasing
>>>one's
>>>understanding and resolving difficulties. This is in fact analogous to what
>>>scientists do.
>
>SB>as Chris pointed out, this is the exact *opposite* of what scientists do.
>
>And as I pointed out, Chris' claim is a scientific myth. Scientists have
>no choice
>but to accept on authority things outside their immediate field. Indeed, even
>most things in their immediate field, they have to accept on authority.
in a sense you are correct. But there's scientific acceptance and religious
acceptance. All scientific knowledge is held very loosely. Everyone knows
it can turn on a dime. Religion, of course, cannot change.
Susan
----------
"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/