On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 19:25:20 +0000, grmorton@argolink.net wrote:
[...]
GM>You seem to be able to misunderstand almost anything!
Yet another ad hominem from Glenn, which the online Merriam-Webster
dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) defines as: "1 :
appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect..." and "2 : marked
by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the
contentions made".
This "appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect" and "attacks
on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions
made", is *pervasive* in Glenn's posts. And yet it is so obviously contrary to
Christian ethics (Mt 5:22; Lk 6:28; Rom 12:14), that it is itself a fact which
cries out for an explanation.
My explanation which seems to be the only one which fits all the facts, is
that Glenn, as a TE/EC, has been taken "captive through [a] hollow and
deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic
principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col 2:8), namely scientific
materialism-naturalism.
The result is that TE/ECs like Glenn are trying unsuccessfully "to serve
two masters" (Mat 6:24), namely Christian theism and scientific
materialism-naturalism. This generates an inner conflict which can only be
resolved by one `master' winning (Mt 6:25). In most cases it seems to be
naturalism:
"I do not think that the mind can serve two masters, and I am confident
that whenever the attempt is made, naturalism in the end will be the true
master and theism will have to abide by its dictates." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", 1993, p169)
Glenn's ad hominem attacks on creationists, if my analysis above is correct,
is merely his attempt to resolve his inner conflict, by `shooting the
messenger'.
As long as Glenn keeps making sub-Christian ad hominems of his
creationist Christian brothers, then I will take that as further confirmation
of my explanation.
>>GM>That is exactly what I think. It has always struck me as odd that casino
>>>owners use chance to make millions. They design their machines to win more
>>>than they lose.
>SJ>I presume Glenn means lose more than they win!
GM>As Art already pointed out, the casinos rig their machines to win more than
>they lose.
I respectfully disagree with Art. While in some gambling games the casino staff
actually play against the gamblers, and so could then be said to "win", in the
case of gambling *machines* only the gambler play, so only they actually "win" or
"lose". Therefore I presumed that what Glenn really meant was that the "casino
owners design their machines" so that the *gambler* "lose more than they win".
GM>Doing the opposite is stupidity and the casino owners are
>anything but stupid.
See above.
>>GM>This is design, yet it uses chance.
>SJ>First, if "casino owners design their machines to lose more than they win
>>then this is indeed "design" but it is not really "chance". Indeed, I am
>>not an expert on gambling but I would have thought that casinos who rigged their
>>machines to lose more than they win would be guilty of fraud!
GM>No they wouldn't. It wouldn't be fraud at all. THey would be highly popular
>among the gambling set!
See above.
SJ>>I always
>>thought how casinos did it was that the machines were random but the
>>prize money took into account the chance of winning and deducted the
>>casino's profit up front.
GM>As I said, you seem to be able to misunderstand anything.
See above.
I note that Glenn does not provide any *facts*. Clearly there are two ways
for a casino to make a profit out of gambling machines:
1. design the machines with a non-random bias so that the players lose
more than they win; or
2. have them perfectly fair and random, but deduct up front from their prize
money the casino's profit. For example, if the statistical probability of
winning the top prize is on average only one win per player every thousand
games, and the price of each game is one dollar, then all the casino has to
do is set the prize at $900 to make, on average, a $100 profit.
I would have thought that 2. is the preferable way to do it, since it avoids
all allegations of rigging the machines. I know that in Australian horse-
racing if a bookmaker sets his odds so he makes a profit that is OK, but if
he fixes the race so that his horse wins, then he would go to gaol. I would
assume the same rules apply to casinos here.
But as I admitted, I don't know much about casinos, so if Glenn and Art
know for sure that in the USA the casino owners do 1. and not 2., then I
will chalk it up as one of the differences between our two countries!
>SJ>Second, this might be Glenn's idea of evolution but it is not the mainstream
>>Neo-Darwinist idea of "chance" (as in random mutation), which is what is
>>taught in public schools and universities. Darwinists maintain that
>>mutations are random in the precise sense that they are *not*
>>systematically biased "to win more than they lose":
GM>That was not my point nor my idea of evolution.
This is an interesting point. Glenn says he believes in "evolution" but it is
not "the mainstream Neo-Darwinist idea of" "evolution". Indeed, in my
experience very few (if any TE/ECs) believe in "the mainstream Neo-
Darwinist idea of" evolution. Most seem to believe in a vague form of
evolution that is not really scientific:
"...Standen...has put his finger on two of the sorest points of evolutionary
theory, showing its possible ultimate embarrassment with facts. (i) He
correctly observes that there is the vague theory and the precise theory.
The vague theory is the belief of scientists that evolution has occurred. The
precise theory is the hypothesis as to how evolution actually works. There
is no known satisfactory and clearly demonstrated precise theory of
evolution. If evolution is to "stick" as a scientific theory it must establish
precise theory. In spite of the fact that as yet no precise theory is
forthcoming, the evolutionists have unbounded faith in the vague theory.
This is not science at its best..." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture", 1967, p189)
Glenn's "idea of evolution" seems to be a form of Deistic Evolution, in
which all the designing was built-in from the start and unfolded somehow
over time automatically but with no particular evolutionary mechanism driving
it:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue 20 Jun 1995 11:55 CT, Glenn.Morton@ORYX.COM wrote:
[...]
GM>Why must God be limited to creating each species rather than creating a
>system which can in turn produce the varieties? I love those wave tanks you
>can buy in which blue water lies under clear mineral oil. The motor causes
>the tank to tip back and forth producing waves. The creator of this
>time-waster could have come to my office and created each individual wave form
>me if he wanted to, but other customers would want him to do the same for
>them. He solved his difficulty by attaching a motor which would produce each
>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 standing in the
>office?
[...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be interested to hear more details from Glenn exactly what *is* his
"idea of evolution" and what exactly were the *mechanisms* which drove it from
minerals to minerologists.
GM>If you can't get straight
>what happens in a gambling casino, how can you get other things straight?
See above.
>SJ>Glenn is often making claims of what "Christians" are supposed to have
>>said, with little or no evidence to back it up. Now maybe *some* Christians
>>have said that "God can't master chance...he can't use chance" (personally
>>I doubt that any have) but if they did that would not be a historic,
>>mainstream "Christian" position.
GM>I know that you will misconstrue this but here is Henry Morris:
Glenn apparently does not have a lot of confidence in his own example, so
he protects it from falsification by stating in advance that my answer will
"misconstrue" it!
GM>'Despite the attempts by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact
>is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
>fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are
>antithetical concepts.' Henry M. Morris, "The Compromise Road," Impact,
>177, March, 1988, p. i,ii
First, Glenn fails to acknowledge that these words in their entirety
were a quote from Denton:
"Despite the attempts by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is
that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are antithetical
concepts. [3]
...
[3] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (London: Burnett Books,
Ltd., 1985), p. 66."
(http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-177.htm)
Now Denton is not even a Christian, so it is unlikely to bear the
interpretation that Glenn wants to put on it, namely that "...Christians say
God can't master chance; they say he can't use chance...".
Second, Morris's quote of Denton is that "Chance and design are
antithetical concepts". That is, if it is designed, then it is not really chance,
and vice-versa.
Third, even if Glenn was able to find one or two Christians who said that:
"...God can't master chance...he can't use chance...". this would not
establish Glenn's claim. Glenn would need to show it was a common and
pervasive claim by many Christian authors, or at least by a small number of
leading Christian theologians.
As the Christian theologian R.C. Sproul points out, the very *existence* of
true chance is incompatible with the concept of a sovereign God:
"As long as chance rules," Arthur Koestler has written, "God is an
anachronism." (Koestler A., "Darkness at Noon", Bantam: New York,
1941, p149) Koestler's dictum is a sound conclusion...to a point. It is true
that if chance rules, God cannot. We can go further than Koestler. It is not
necessary for chance to rule in order to supplant God. Indeed chance
requires little authority at all if it is to depose God; all it needs to do the job
is to exist. The mere existence of chance is enough to rip God from his
cosmic throne. Chance does not need to rule; it does not need to be
sovereign. If it exists as a mere impotent, humble servant, it leaves God not
only out of date, but out of a job. If chance exists in its frailest possible
form, God is finished. Nay, he could not be finished because that would
assume he once was. To finish something implies that it at best was once
active or existing. If chance exists in any size, shape, or form, God cannot
exist. The two are mutually exclusive. If chance existed, it would destroy
God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, he is not God. If he is not God,
he simply is not. If chance is, God is not. If God is, chance is not. The two
cannot coexist by reason of the impossibility of the contrary." (Sproul R.C.,
"Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology",
1994, p3).
This is why I qualified "chance" with "what humans call chance". I don't
believe there really is such a thing as "chance", but it is just a word we use
as placeholder for our ignorance:
"Stanley L. Jaki begins his chapter "Loaded Dice" with a quotation from
Paul Janet: "... chance is a word void of sense, invented by our ignorance."
I quarrel with Janet's statement about chance. Certain aspects of it are true,
but one is in error. It is true that chance is a word. It is also true that it is
invented by (or because of) our ignorance. It is not true, however, that the
word is void of meaning.
Chance is a perfectly useful and meaningful word....Its use in ordinary
language is meaningful. When we say that two people met by chance in a
railroad station, we describe a meaningful situation that we often use the
word coincidence to describe. Recently I arrived by train at Chicago's
Union Station. My train from Washington, D.C., arrived about the same
time commuter trains from the Chicago suburbs were discharging their
passengers. In this mass of humanity I bumped into an old friend named Al.
This serendipitous encounter was unplanned by either of us. We had no
scheduled rendezvous. It was a chance encounter." The coincidence was
compounded later in the day. I returned to Union Station to catch my
connecting train to Los Angeles. As I walked to the boarding area, I
bumped into At again. He was on his way home.
Here the term chance describes an event that was not planned by the
parties involved. However, it was not an event without a cause. There were
many causal factors involved that had us both at that place at that time. But
the crucial point is that neither of us was there by the causal power of
chance."
(Sproul R.C., 1994, pp21-22).
So God doesn't really use chance. He uses the "many causal factors involved"
that produce an event, that we humans, in our ignorance, collectively label
"chance".
GM>This clearly says that if it is designed it isn't due to chance. And since
>Henry believes that God designed the universe this leads to the inference
>that God can't use chance.
No. It "leads to the inference that" true "chance" does not really exist.
GM>Scott Huse writes:
>
>"The most logical and reasonable conclusion which can be reached based on
>mathematical analysis is that complex, ordered systems, which so
>characterize the world in which we live, never happened by mere chance but
>are the handiwork of our Creator, Almight God." Huse, The Collapse of
>Evolution, p. 69
This actually supports my point. Huse is saying that if something is "the
handiwork of our Creator" then it is not really "mere chance". Huse does
*not* say that "...God can't master chance...he can't use chance...".
GM>This conclusion can only be logical if one has already rejected the idea
>that God can use chance.
Not really. The "conclusion" could be "logical if one" accepted "the idea
that" if "God" used "chance" then it is not really *chance*. It would then
be *design*.
>SJ>Mainstream Christian theology has always stated that God can use chance.
GM>[quotes snipped]
Note how Glenn quotes from two young-Earth creationists, neither of whom
is a theologian, yet when I cite *real* theologians, refuting Glenn's claim
that "Christians say God can't master chance; they say he can't use chance",
instead of acknowledging that he is wrong, Glenn just chops off the quotes
without comment. This is not the mark of a genuine truth-seeker.
>SJ>So the real question is not, can God work through chance? But *did* he
>>work *solely* through chance? The God of the Bible indeed worked through
>chance at times but that is not the *only* way He worked.
Note also how Glenn subtly changed what I wrote. Here is what
appears on the Reflector archives on 19 September at:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199909/0512.html
So the real question is not, can God work through what humans call
chance, but *did* he work *solely* through chance? The God of the Bible
indeed worked through chance at times but that is not the *only* way He
worked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn changed what I wrote above by: 1. cutting out without ellipses my
important qualifier "through what humans call chance, b", 2. inserting a
full-stop, and 3. capitalising the "b" to make "But" look part of my
sentence. Here it is how it appears in the archives to show that it is not
something that I have changed on my copy:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199909/0525.html
>So the real question is not, can God work through chance? But *did* he
>work *solely* through chance? The God of the Bible indeed worked through
chance
>at times but that is not the *only* way He worked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it hard to believe that this is a simple mistake by Glenn. Eliminating
my words "through what humans call chance" makes my argument appear
internally inconsistent. Glenn would at best have only saved one line and in
fact as it turned out, he did not save any lines by cutting out those 5 words.
However, as a matter of natural justice I will first give Glenn the
opportunity to explain why he cut out my 5 words without ellipses,
inserted a full-stop and capitalise the "B".
GM>Stephen, no one has ever said that chance is the only way God worked. I
>can't think of a single Theistic evolutionist who would agree with that
>statement.
First, I was not up to that point discussing "theistic evolution". I was
discussing *Darwinistic* evolution, which claims that most (if not all) the
design of living things was built up by random mutations and natural
selection.
Second, in my experience it is hard to get "theistic evolutionists" to "agree"
on *anything* except their opposition to creationists! From my observation
TEs are a diverse group of Christians individuals who believe in
"evolution" in a vague sense, but who don't necessarily agree with in any
particular scientific theory of evolution.
But if "theistic evolutionists" don't "agree" with "that statement" that
"chance is the only way God worked", at least in the case of *biological*
evolution (ie. from the origin of life up to the appearance of man), then it is
difficult to see how TEs would distinguish their position from creationism,
as this long quote from Geisler makes clear:
"Evolution, Theistic. Definition. Broadly speaking, theistic evolution is the
belief that God used evolution as his means of producing the various forms
of physical life on this planet, including Human life. However, there are
several kinds of evolution in which God is said to be involved. Indeed,
there are various conceptions of God connected to evolution.
Kinds of Evolution Involving God. Not all forms of evolution involving
God are technically forms of theistic evolution, since many of them do not
involve a theistic concept of God. The following typology is intended as
suggestive, not exhaustive.
Theistic Evolution. By "theistic" evolution is meant the belief that a theistic
God used an evolutionary process he had created to produce all living
species of life. In addition, "theistic" means that God performed at least one
*miracle after his original creation of the universe ex nihilo (see
CREATION, THREE VIEWS). Otherwise, there is no difference between
theism and deism on the matter of origins. Of course, a theistic evolutionist
(who does not deny more than two supernatural acts of creation) could still
believe in other miracles in the Bible after creation, such as the *Virgin
Birth or *resurrection.
Minimal *Theistic Evolution. The minimal theistic evolutionist believes that
God performed two supernatural acts of creation: (1) the creation of matter
out of nothing, and (2) the creation of first life. After that every other living
thing, including human beings, emerged by natural processes that God had
ordained from the beginning.
Maximal Theistic Evolution. The maximal theistic evolutionist holds that
God performed at least three supernatural acts of creation: matter first life,
and the human soul. After the initial creation of matter and life, all animal
organisms including the human body, evolved by natural laws God
established from the very beginning. This is the traditional Roman Catholic
view, at least for the last century.
The belief in any more supernatural acts of creation would probably be
better called a minimal form of creationism (though this is an arbitrary line),
since it would hold that God supernaturally intervened at least four times in
creation. Most scholars who hold this, also believe that God supernaturally
intervened many more times than this. They often refer to themselves as
Progressive Creationists. Bernard *Ramm and Hugh Ross (The
Fingerprints of God) fit into this category.
Deistic Evolution. *Deism does not believe in any supernatural acts or
miracles after the initial act of creating the material universe out of nothing.
As far as the evolutionary process and the production of life forms,
including human beings, there is no real difference between deistic
evolution and naturalistic evolution, which includes *atheism and
*agnosticism."
(Geisler N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", 1999, p233)
GM>Since you asked documentation of me for my contention that
>Creationists do reject the use of chance by God, please provide
>documentation for the above assertion.
See above. First Glenn has *not* provided "documentation" for his claim
that "Christians say God can't master chance; they say he can't use
chance...". The two quotes he gave from YEC non-theologians do not
make that claim.
Second, I did not make the "assertion" that Glenn says I made about
"Theistic evolutionists".
But I would be interested in Glenn and other TE/ECs on this List clarifying
where they fit in Geisler's categories.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put
forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes
unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their
sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the
inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation",
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p8)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------