Reflectorites
On Mon, 08 May 2000 16:05:35 -0500, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...continued]
[...]
>>>SJ>I must say at this point that the Bible does not actually use the
>>>words "the fall" and "original sin". These concepts were probably
>>>introduced into medieval Christian theology by Augustine, who had a
>>>Greek Platonic background. They are no so much wrong as inexact:
>>SB>St. Paul was also heavy into Greek thought. So what?
>SJ>Again I fail to understand Susan's point.
SB>A lot of his writings were saturated with Greek (ie pagan) philosophy which
>he much admired. The "soul" is obviously modeled on Plato's "essential
>essence."
Not really. The Hebrews had their own word for "soul", namely nephesh
(lit. `breath'), way back in the Old Testament (e.g. Gn 2:7 "and man
became a living soul [Heb. nephesh]"), long before "Plato." This Hebrew
word was translated by the Greek word for "soul", psyche (lit. `breath') in
the Greek translation of Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) that the
early Church, including Paul, used. Thus Paul in 1Cor 15:45 Paul quotes
from Gn 2:7 and renders nephesh as psyche "so it is written, The first man
Adam was made a living soul [Gk. psyche]....".
[...]
>>SB>I tend to lump all Christians who fight evolution tooth and nail in spite
>>>of the huge amount of evidence supporting it under the general term
>>>"creationist." You guys can decide amoung yourselves what kind of
>>>creationist you are.
>SJ>I have no problem with that. I call myself a "creationist." The problem I
>>have is with Susan's continual confusing of "creationist" with *young-
>>Earth* "creationist", ie. ignoring that there are "old-Earth/progressive
>>creationists." She does it so often, after I have pointed out her error
>>that I am beginning to think that it is deliberate.
SB>other than the fact that I just don't care about the distinctions, it is
>deliberate. "Creationist" is someone who wants that evil atheist science
>ignored and the Bible in its place.
Again, not really. It may be that a minority of YECs have talked of "evil
atheist science" and wanted to put "the Bible in its place" but not any "old-
Earth/progressive creationists" AFAIK.
To keep claiming that "creationists" without distinction (which therefore
includes "old-Earth/progressive creationists"), are wanting what only a
minority among the young-Earth creationists may be wanting, even after
the fallacy has been pointed out repeatedly, is IMHO bordering on
dishonesty.
>>SB>Theistic evolutionists--people who know evolution is
>>>true and that it has no theological, ethical, or moral implications for
>>>Christians--are not creationists in my book. I don't mind if people have
>>>religion. Heck, I've got a lot of them as you can see if you've been to my
>>>website!
>SJ>Theistic evolutionists, as described above by Susan sounds like a very
>>convenient belief for those Christians to have. Imagine, something as
>>important as God making the living world and yet it having "no theological,
>>ethical, or moral implications for" them!
SB>For them, God not only made the world, but evolution and the Big Bang as
>well. As I said above, science merely observes His handiwork. Genesis is a
>discription of how humans properly relate to a deity. NOT a science text.
I don't know why Susan keeps on about "Genesis" not being "a science
text". I don't know of any creationist, "young-Earth" or "old-Earth"
who these days maintains that. If Susan knows of any creationist who
maintains that "Genesis" is "a science text" then I would be happy to
agree with Susan that that creationist is wrong.
[...]
>>SB>you are assuming that evolution has something to do with religion. It
>>>doesn't. "Materialistic-naturalism" is required for science. There's no way
>>>to conduct science without that assumption.
>SJ>Science was practiced for centuries without assuming "Materialistic-
>>naturalism". The only valid reason for "Materialistic-naturalism" being
>>"required for science" would be if "Materialistic-naturalism" was ultimately
>>*true*.
SB>Science didn't truly exist before the Enlightenment and the invention of
>the scientific method.
Since the Enlightenment began in the 18th century that would make
Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo (1564-1642) and maybe even Newton
(1642-1727) not practitioners of "the scientific method" according to
Susan. BTW all three of these were devout Christians, as were most (if not
all) 18th century Enlightenment scientist.
Materialistic-naturalism in science AFAIK did not appear until the mid-19th
century, mainly through Darwin and T.H. Huxley.
>SJ>If it is possible that there is a God and that He could have intervened in
>>and/or guided the origin and development of life, then it is *absurd* to
>>assume in advance that He didn't.
SB>no its not. It is *undetectible*. Even if one completely assumes that he
>did. It would still be undetectable and therefore irrelevant.
How does Susan *know* that if God "intervened in and/or guided the
origin and development of life", it would be "undetectable"?
And if it was "undetectable" how would it be any more "undetectable"
than random mutations?
>>SB>Or, at least, neither you nor
>>>Johnson has come up with any viable suggestions as to how one would go
>>>about conducting science without that assumption.
>SJ>Yes we have. It's simple. Don't assume in advance that you know what
>>*must* have happened, just because it is what you would *like* to have
>>happened, but have an open mind to *all* logical possibilities.
SB>"God did it" is not a logical possibility.
This would have to be about the most extreme atheist statement I have
ever seen. To deny that it is even *possible* that God *could* have done
something in the world must be the ultimate in atheist closed-mindedness.
But a few sentences before Susan said that "Even if one completely
assumes that he" God "did" (ie. intervened in and/or guided the origin and
development of life), it would be "undetectable". This shows that Susan
accepts that "God did it" *is* "a logical possibility".
>SB>Science should be "a search for truth, no holds barred" (Ratzsch D.L.,
>>"The Battle of Beginnings," 1996, p.168)
SJ>"God did it" *Automatically* "bars some holds." It prevents further
>investigation.
Not really. God could have created:
1. 100% through natural processes as the TEs maintain. That would allow
"further investigation" of those natural processes in exactly the same way
that materialistic-naturalistic science proceeds at the moment; or
2. God could have created 100% supernaturally using no natural processes
as the YECs maintain. That would allow "further investigation" of those
natural processes up to the point of the creation event. Scientists study the
Big Bang up to 10^-43 seconds after that unique origin event, yet no one
says this prevents them having a science of cosmology; or
3. God could have created supernaturally through natural processes by
intervened in and/or guided natural processes at strategic points (e.g. the
origin of life, the origin of new designs, the origin of humans, etc). That
would still allow "further investigation" of those natural processes both
before and after each unique origin event.
In fact, if God in fact *did* `do it' in one of the above three main ways, the
fact is that science *is* carrying out "further investigation" anyway. All it
would mean is that science's "further investigations" would get up to the
point of the creation event, an the trail would run cold, and they would be
faced with an unresolvable singularity, like the Big Bang.
Materialistic-naturalistic science would then of course be perfectly free to
go round and round that event, spinning all sorts of naturalistic theories,
but they would eventually have to abandon it as a mystery.
A good example of this in the biological world is origin of the feather.
Materialistic-naturalistic science has IMHO correctly identified this as
having derived from a reptile's scale. They have even subjected the feather
to intensive molecular biological analysis but there again the trail grows
cold and they are faced with an impenetrable mystery. The evolutionist
Brush, carried out this "further investigation" and he found that they
required "novel events", "revolutions in genomic organization", and
"simultaneous and important changes at the genic, cellular, tissue and
organismal levels":
"The appearance of feathers defines the appearance of birds. A number of
changes defined, preceded or accompanied the event. The changes were
hierarchical in nature and included revolutions in genomic organization
(i.e., HOX and the feather keratin genes), protein sequence and shape, the
large scale organization of proteins into filaments, and in the geometry of
the cells and their roles in the follicle. Changes at each of these levels differ
or produced different products than found in its analog in reptiles. They are
essentially unique to birds and produced an evolutionary novelty. I used
analysis of extant structure and information on development to reconstruct
key events in the evolution of feathers. The ancestral reptilian epidermal
structure, while probably a scale or tubercles, is still unidentified. The
structural genes of feather proteins (phi-keratin) are tandem repeats
probably assembled from preexisting exons. They are unlike the alpha-
keratin of vertebrate soft epidermis. Amino-acid composition, shape, and
behavior of feather keratins are unique among vertebrates. The 3-
dimensional organization of the follicle and the developmental processes
are also unique. Although we lack a complete understanding of the
appearance and early role of feathers, they are clearly the results of novel
events." (Brush A.H., "On the origin of feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, 9, 1996, pp131-132)
"It is clear that the appearance of novel structures requires simultaneous
and important changes at the genic, cellular, tissue and organismal levels
(Ashley and Hall, 1991). Defining the particular changes and recognizing
the emergent consequences is not always possible. The morphological
revolution that produced feathers is inextricably associated with a set of
closely coordinated structural genes and a unique production machine. The
mechanism appears to retain linearity, but several epigenetic processes are
involved. The degree of iteration is remarkable at several levels.
Consequently, simple timing changes in development can produce
structures of diverse morphology. Essentially, feathers are a two-
dimensional surface of variable dimensions constructed from a single family
of proteins. The hierarchical organization emphasizes that morphological
changes and changes at the molecular level may evolve in different ways.
At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered
homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development,
morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament
formation and structure, feathers are different. Clearly, feathers provide a
unique and outstanding example of an evolutionary novelty. As a key
innovation they may explain the rather sudden diversification of birds. The
combination of simple construction, relatively inexpensive production and a
plethora of functions may have afforded the subsequent avian radiation."
(Brush A.H., "On the origin of feathers," Journal of Evolutionary Biology,
9, 1996, p140)
But "novel events", "revolutions in genomic organization", and
"simultaneous and important changes at the genic, cellular, tissue and
organismal levels" is equivalent to a miracle!
SB>After all you might discover that "nature did it." However,
>if you might decide that God is the author of all of nature. If you decide
>that, then science is left unmolested to investigate where it will.
The fact is that unless there is any alternative allowed in science to "nature
did it" science can never "*discover* that `nature did it.'" The only way
that materialistic-naturalistic science could ever truly "discover that `nature
did it'" would be to admit the possibility that it didn't and allow all
challengers to the contest and beat them all in a fair fight.
Materialism-naturalism is like an ageing world champion heavyweight
boxer who proclaims itself to be the champ, but does everything it can to
prevents its opponents even getting in the ring. Such a champ is really
deluding himself (and indeed robbing himself), because unless he allows
challengers into the ring and beats them in a fair fight, he would never
"discover" for himself, to his own satisfaction, that he was after all, *truly*
the champ.
And of course his challengers would not "discover" that he was truly the
champ either. They would have heard of course of his illustrious career
way back to 1859, and of the opponents he had beaten, some fair and
square over the years. but they would also know that in later years the
champ had dexterously avoided challengers and had hired an army of PR
men to discredit the challengers so that he could argue that they weren't
worthy challengers.
The challengers would, of course, think to themselves that they were
worthy challengers, and they would start to think that the champ was really
*afraid* to meet them in the ring, in a fair fight. They would just keep on
continually taunting the champ, challenging him to a fair fight.
If this went on long enough, even the general public, who had long been
subject to the champs PR machine, and who thought the champ was
invincible, would start to wonder why, if the champ *was* invincible, he
would not just get into the ring and dispose of those upstart challengers,
once and for all. Eventually, if this went on long enough, the champ would
start to be held in contempt, and he would be dethroned as world champ,
even if he never got into the ring.
You see, one simply *cannot* go on forever, claiming to be the world
champ, but never facing one's challengers in the ring, in a fair fight.
[...]
>>>SJ>I am glad that Susan recognises the absurdity of this position. These so-
>>>>called `Christians' haven't faced up to the fact that Jesus was either
>>>>who He said He was, namely God, or else he was a complete fruit-cake:
[...]
>>SB>both you and Lewis are presenting a false dichotomy. Alexander the Great
>>>was far from a lunatic or a fruitcake and believed in the literal existence
>>>of Zeus and Aphrodite--he also believed (or said he did) that he, himself
>>>was a god. Most of the Roman emporors believed they were either gods or
>>>descended from gods. They were mistaken, obviously.
>SJ>The Greek and Roman idea of "gods" was pretty low. It was not the same as
>>the Jewish concept of the one and only true God.
SB>Stephen, that is one of the weakest darned arguments I've ever seen come
>out of your keyboard!
I regard this as a compliment coming from Susan!
But to answer Susan's argument for the sake of lurkers who might have
bothered to read this far, my point was that the many Greek and Roman
gods were regarded by them as not much better (in fact sometimes worse)
than human beings. The Hebrews, OTOH regarded God as unique and far
exalted above human beings. Perhaps the simplest way of making this point
is that the Greeks and Romans thought nothing of making physical
representations (ie. idols) of their gods, even their highest ones. Yet to the
Hebrews it was blasphemy punishable by death to make a physical
representation of God. If one's view of the gods is pretty low, it is no big
deal for one to claim to be one.
In fact, Susan's argument actually makes my point. On Susan's own
admission the Greeks and Romans thought it was OK for their emperors to
claim to be a god. But the Jews put Jesus to death for claiming to be even
the Son of God.
>SJ>I read somewhere that the Roman emperors did not really believe that they
>>were a god - it was just politics, except maybe Nero who *was* mad.
SB>Jesus was a Jewish carpenter. He probably believed it. He was mistaken.
How does Susan *know* that Jesus "was mistaken"?
>SJ>But if they *really* thought they were God, in the Jewish sense
>>of the one and only true God, then they were fruitcakes in my book.
>>
>>Jesus, was a Jew who strongly but indirectly claimed to be God (Bill is
>>right on that at least), and his Jewish follower's understood Him to be God.
>>If He wasn't God then He was a fruitcake.
SB>Or he was a sincere man who was mistaken.
There is no such thing as "a sincere man" who thinks he is the unique
incarnation of the one true God, but "who was mistaken." If anyone today
claimed to be the unique incarnation of the one true God, whether he was
"sincere" or not, we would rightly regard him as a fruitcake.
>>SB>Christ could have similarly been mistaken
>SJ>If Jesus was mistaken about Himself being God, then He was simply a
>>fruitcake. Anyone who went around today mistakenly claiming they were
>>God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) of the one true God, would be
>>committed to a mental asylum.
SB>You've never heard the phrase "thou art God?" It's implied in the Hindu
>"shanti."
The Hindus are pantheists who think that *everything* is god! We are
talking about the *Jewish* conception of the one true God.
>>SB>and it would not damage the rest of his message at all.
>SJ>Of course it would. Every time one got to something they didn't like, they
>>would just assume that Jesus was mistaken. So it would not really Jesus
>>they were following but *themselves*! They might as well dispense with
>>the pretext they are following Jesus and honestly admit that they are just
>>trying to live good lives according to current community standards.
SB>why, because you have a personal, extremely narrow definition of Christian?
This thread started with Susan talking about Unitarian *atheists* who
called themselves "Christian", and (from memory) implying that they were
not really Christians.
But whether Susan thinks that atheists can or cannot be really Christians, in
the end, if Christianity is true, it does not matter what my, Susan's or her
atheist Unitarian `Christians' "definition of Christian" is. The *only*
"definition of Christian" that matters is *Jesus Christ's* (present tense)
"definition of Christian".
If Jesus is really God, then He has said He will make His own "definition of
Christian" (see Matthew 25, etc). But if Jesus was not God, He would be
at best just a harmless fruitcake, and the "definition of Christian" would
then be meaningless.
>>SB>It's my understanding his godhood was decided by vote 400 years after
>>>he died, anyway.
>SJ>Susan's "understanding" is simply wrong. Jesus "goodhood" is clearly
>>evident in the New Testament writings which were completed by ~100 AD.
>>The great church councils (e.g. Nicea 325 AD, Constantinople 381 AD,
>>Ephesus 449 AD, and Chalcedon 451 AD, merely ratified what the
>>majority of the Christian community had always believed, from the New
>>Testament writings.
SB>Right, they voted.
I don't know if they "voted" or not. They may have discussed it until they
reached a consensus. But my point was that they "merely ratified what the
majority of the Christian community had always believed."
In fact if Susan thinks she is right that "Jesus...was mistaken" then I
don't see why she is concerned what a bunch of bishops did 400 years
later. On Susan's premise, they would be wrong no matter how they
"decided" Jesus' "godhood". That Susan feels the need to try to
undermine Jesus' "godhood" further by making out it was just "decided
by vote 400 years after he died" indicates to me that she really has
some nagging doubts that "Jesus...was mistaken"!
But as I said before, this subject is off-topic on a Creation/Evolution
List, and I am now terminating this thread (or at least this `Jesus was
God' part of it).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There were at least three factors in Chain's dismissal of Darwin's theory of
evolution. One was his general dislike of theories which could not be
experimentally tested...There is no doubt that he did not like the theory of
evolution by natural selection - he disliked theories in general, and more
especially when they assumed the form of dogma. He also felt that
evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part,
not amenable to experimentation - and he was, and is, by no means alone in
this view. ...Scepticism was reinforced by his view that a belief in natural
selection like, he felt, too great a reliance on molecular biology - would
make men feel that they understood everything." (Clark R.W., "The Life of
Ernst Chain [Nobel Prize for Physiology & Medicine, 1945]: Penicillin and
Beyond," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, 1985, pp.146-148).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 10:37:59 EDT