Abiogenesis or God?

[Starstreak M86]

Actually this raises a funny point. Since God can hybridize with humans (Mary), does this mean humans and God are the same "kind"?

Actually, this is a misunderstood concept.

God did not "hybridize" with Mary. The Holy Spirit did not "impregnate" Mary (how can a feminine being impregnate another feminine being?).

In Ode 19 in the Odes of Solomon, it gives a good explanation of how Jesus was born. God the Word (Christ) incarnated into the human Jesus at birth, fusing and becoming the GodMan Jesus Christ.

 

[Vance]

Actually, this is a misunderstood concept.

God did not "hybridize" with Mary. The Holy Spirit did not "impregnate" Mary (how can a feminine being impregnate another feminine being?).

In Ode 19 in the Odes of Solomon, it gives a good explanation of how Jesus was born. God the Word (Christ) incarnated into the human Jesus at birth, fusing and becoming the GodMan Jesus Christ.

Some even push this "fusing" event forward all the way to Jesus' baptism, since the text could be read that way.

 

[mark kennedy]

" Where you got this is a mystery to me but methodological naturalism rejects theology as a matter of course."

Mark, I think this has been explained to you already. Methodoligal naturalism is a process, it makes no decision regarding theological issues and has nothing to do with any questions regarding the supernatural. It is PHILOSOPHICAL naturalism which is the actual belief that the natural is all there is.

You keep saying that but it is apparent that MN is exclusivly naturalistic:

"Methodological naturalism (MN) is the philosophical tenet that, within scientific enquiry, one can only use naturalistic explanation - i.e. one's explanations must not make reference to the existence of supernatural forces and entities. Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them within a scientific explanation."

methodological naturalism

This hypersecular worldview makes its why into every facet of modern life and it is nothing more then a rejection of God. You might find it interesting, naturalism is also a legal philosophy. We (creationists) are forever being told that there is nothing prejudicial in natural science to bar creation science from bieng demonstrated scientifically. I don't need the meaning of the word explained to me, I know what it means, it means that only naturalistic explanations are going to be used. Theistic reasoning is excluded before the evidence is ever examined.

You seem to be using naturalistic materialism, naturalistic methodology and philosophical naturalism interchangeably, which is an error.

I could throw in pragmatism, existentialism, scienctific positivism and instrumentalism because they are all essentially the same antitheistic rationalism.

Think of it like a Ven diagram. Some who use naturalistic methodology also hold to philosophical naturalism, but some who use naturalistic methodology do NOT (ie, scientists who are Christian, Muslim, etc). But all who hold to philosophcal naturalism also would use naturalistic methodology.

Naturalistic methodology is not religiously neutral in fact it is overtly hostile to theistic reasoning in any form. Theistic evolution may not be the most pronounced expression of this but it is essentially humanism put in theological terms, calling it theistic does not make it so. In the context of a discussion about aspects of natural science there is no discernable difference between TE and the naturalistic assumptions of the militant Darwinian evolutionist.

 

[Vance]

But Mark, this is from your very definition!

"Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them within a scientific explanation"

Thus, it is not ANTI-theistic in the least. Where this definition gets it wrong, though, is when it calls it a "philosophical" tenet. It is just a particular choice of methodology based solely on the idea that the supernatural can not be tested, or at least not in the way that the natural can.

Again (for the n'th time) naturalistic methodology is not a belief that says God could not have done it. It is not even a belief that there must be a naturalistic cause. It is not a belief system at all. It is just a method developed to determine what the natural cause would be if there is one. That is all. Period. It is the only way to study the natural world that actually works.

Now, true, very many of those who use this method also have a belief that there must be a naturalistic cause (philosophical naturalism). But the fact that Christian scientists actually follow the naturalistic methodology proves that it is just a method, a process for the discovery of the natural world, not any statement at all about whether that is all there is.

Think of all the areas of science outside of origin issues for a moment, which is 99.9% of science. Why is it not a problem at all for them to use, as they do, a naturalistic methodology to study the natural world, but it is all the sudden wrong to do it with the age of the earth.

As for your statements about TE, they are just patently false and insulting to those of us who are deeply committed to the Christian cause as you are and are not in the least by humanistic, but happen to believe that God created through evolution. To say we are no different than atheists is something very serious.

Please note that modern geocentrists would label you just as "humanistic" for your obvious willingness to allow the discoveries of secular, even atheistic, science to override the literal reading of God's Word.

I know John Calvin would think so.

Here is a question for you. Given what Calvin said about heliocentrism when he was alive (basically everything you are now saying about evolution), what would he believe on that issue now? Would he still be an ardent Geocentrist, believing (as he did then) that geocentrism was plain and literal reading of Scripture? Or would he recognize the error in his interpretation and accept the conclusions of modern science?

 

[rjw]

Gidday Mark,

You wrote:-

This hypersecular worldview makes its why into every facet of modern life and it is nothing more then a rejection of God. You might find it interesting, naturalism is also a legal philosophy. We (creationists) are forever being told that there is nothing prejudicial in natural science to bar creation science from bieng demonstrated scientifically. I don't need the meaning of the word explained to me, I know what it means, it means that only naturalistic explanations are going to be used. Theistic reasoning is excluded before the evidence is ever examined.

There are several different kinds of explanation which range from pure speculation through to explanation based on observational evidence.

It is one thing to argue that the mainstream is biased because it rejects theistic explanations when it comes to issues such as the origin of life. But the mainstream also rejects theistic explanations when it comes to such things as the origin of the AIDS virus, the origin of a star’s energy, the origin of coal, the origin of rain etc.

You appear to suggest that theistic explanations can be or should be given for the origin of life. Can they also be given in the place of those other naturalistic explanations I listed above? If not then, why not?

Regards, Roland

 

[Jet Black]

This hypersecular worldview makes its why into every facet of modern life and it is nothing more then a rejection of God.

no it isn't.

 

[mark kennedy]

But Mark, this is from your very definition!

"Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them within a scientific explanation"

That is the naturalistic assumption I have been talking about. Now, if God does indeed act in time and space then there will be evidence, will there not? Since science focuses on the evidence then we should not be prejudiced against the explanation being God's special creation particularly when we have exausted every other explanation.

Thus, it is not ANTI-theistic in the least. Where this definition gets it wrong, though, is when it calls it a "philosophical" tenet. It is just a particular choice of methodology based solely on the idea that the supernatural can not be tested, or at least not in the way that the natural can.

You mean it cannot be accepted no matter what the evidence, or didn't you just dismiss all theistic explanations as unscientific.

Again (for the n'th time) naturalistic methodology is not a belief that says God could not have done it. It is not even a belief that there must be a naturalistic cause. It is not a belief system at all. It is just a method developed to determine what the natural cause would be if there is one. That is all. Period. It is the only way to study the natural world that actually works.

And again naturalistic methodlogy is not religiously neutral. The modern evolutionary mindset is expressed explicitly and being deadset against special creation and often calls God incompetant, deceptive and worse.

Now, true, very many of those who use this method also have a belief that there must be a naturalistic cause (philosophical naturalism). But the fact that Christian scientists actually follow the naturalistic methodology proves that it is just a method, a process for the discovery of the natural world, not any statement at all about whether that is all there is.

NM and philosophical naturalism are identical at the heart of the emphasis, both are overtly hostile to anything theistic, especially the Bible.

Think of all the areas of science outside of origin issues for a moment, which is 99.9% of science. Why is it not a problem at all for them to use, as they do, a naturalistic methodology to study the natural world, but it is all the sudden wrong to do it with the age of the earth.

Newsflash, there is no such thing as absolute dating. They just look at a rate of decay and guess at how long ago the geologic clock was set back to zero. I don't know where you get 99.9%, science is at best 20\20 hindsight looking back over past mistakes.

As for your statements about TE, they are just patently false and insulting to those of us who are deeply committed to the Christian cause as you are and are not in the least by humanistic, but happen to believe that God created through evolution. To say we are no different than atheists is something very serious.

With regards to evolution I see none and know of no departure from the naturalistic assumptions of the atheist or the agnostic. No need to feel insulted, this has been the case in human nature from the begining.

By nature “God is not in all our thoughts”: we leave him to manage his own affairs, to sit quietly, as we imagine, in heaven, and leave us on earth to manage ours; so that we have no more of the fear of God before our eyes, than of the love of God in our hearts.
Thus are all men “atheists in the world.” But atheism itself does not screen us from idolatry.

(THE SERMONS OF JOHN WESLEY, taken from: Heritage of great evangelical teaching)

Please note that modern geocentrists would label you just as "humanistic" for your obvious willingness to allow the discoveries of secular, even atheistic, science to override the literal reading of God's Word.

Who are these modern geocentrists? I know of many Calvinitsts and none support a geocentric earth. Now when Descartes came up with his Ego sum, ego existo (I think therefore I am) Newton rejected it for being too atheistic. The reason was that one of the things he rejected was the ability to know that God in fact existed. We have very few geocentrists left, if any, there are a lot of egocentrists though.

I know John Calvin would think so.

You are thinking of Martin Luther I think, he called Copernicus a fool for suggesting the heliocentric concept because it contradicted Joshua where the earth is said to have stood still in the sky. There is a reason why this may have just been prolonged light but living in that day and age I might have just shrugged and said, dunno Martain... ...I just dunno.

Here is a question for you. Given what Calvin said about heliocentrism when he was alive (basically everything you are now saying about evolution), what would he believe on that issue now? Would he still be an ardent Geocentrist, believing (as he did then) that geocentrism was plain and literal reading of Scripture? Or would he recognize the error in his interpretation and accept the conclusions of modern science?

I would have to see the quote but chances are I don't think there would be a conflict for me. Geocentrist thinking would not have given me much reason to worry. Now if we are talking about the original creation, this is inextricably linked to the Gospel at its foundation.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
(Hebrew 11:1,2; The King James Version, 1769)

A thought for you, Galileo would seem to have been vindicated for his statement before the Inquisition, "The Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work". Was he on trial for contradicting the Bible, or Aristotle? Keep in mind, scientific thought in that day was derived from Aristotle, not the Bible. Aristotle's work represented the naturalistic assumptions of his day.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

because I understand them and know that they are not violated in evolution and abiogenesis. tell me, which one of those laws is violated and why?

First law, says matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[ernest_theweedwhackerguy]

so are you going to tell us about lunar dust and the eaths magnetic field?

how about sticking to the laws of thermodynamics, we questioned you and you just replied with the usual PRATT list.

Lunar dust? That proves that the earth is young, and not 80 million years old. On the moon, there was only 1/2 inch of dust in 1969. One inch accumulates every 10 thousand years (or so say the scientists). That means the earth and moon are only about 6000 years old. I can't tell you much on the "eaths" magnetic field because i'm only 17 and not very reliable. But ill try to answer it after i do a little research...I have another question. What about stalactytes(spell check please)? Explain your side so i can prove you wrong.

 

[Jet Black]

Lunar dust? That proves that the earth is young, and not 80 million years old. On the moon, there was only 1/2 inch of dust in 1969. One inch accumulates every 10 thousand years (or so say the scientists).

actually that rate of dust influx was refuted before the apollo missions. the dust influx rates you mentioned were based on flawed experiments carried out from within the earth's atmosphere.

That means the earth and moon are only about 6000 years old.

only if you use 40 year old data.

I can't tell you much on the "eaths" magnetic field because i'm only 17 and not very reliable.

don't bother, because the creationist arguments are flawed, and use a flawed model of field production. modern modelling based on what we know about the core of the earth fits in perfectly well with an old earth in fact it justifies an old earth when we consider the setting of field lines within certain types of rock.

But ill try to answer it after i do a little research...I have another question. What about stalactytes(spell check please)? Explain your side so i can prove you wrong.

if you could prove us wrong, science would have been compiled to the scrap heap aeons ago. Creationist "science" is consistently refuted as even AIG's "do not use" list testifies to.

 

[caravelair]

Lunar dust? That proves that the earth is young, and not 80 million years old. On the moon, there was only 1/2 inch of dust in 1969. One inch accumulates every 10 thousand years (or so say the scientists). That means the earth and moon are only about 6000 years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

 

[notto]

First law, says matter cannot be created or destroyed.

What mechanism used in the theory of evolution claims that matter is created or destroyed?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And the first law of thermodynamics does not say that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Nor does evolution require such a process anyway.

 

[Jet Black]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

not to mention:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moondust.asp

Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.

 

[Vance]

“That is the naturalistic assumption I have been talking about. Now, if God does indeed act in time and space then there will be evidence, will there not? Since science focuses on the evidence then we should not be prejudiced against the explanation being God's special creation particularly when we have exausted every other explanation.”

Well, sure, there might be evidence of God’s work, such a miraculous healing, Lazarus raised from the dead, etc. But events that are brought about by supernatural causes are simply not in the realm of study for the scientist. His role is a very limited, and specific role: to figure out how things happens naturally, in the absence of the supernatural. This does not mean that they believe that the supernatural does not exist, or cause things, only that it is not their job to figure out how and when that happens. Science is not the arbiter of all truth, it is just one tool for figuring out the ultimate truth. They have developed a VERY good method for determining how things work in the natural world, when there ARE natural causes (which is almost always the case, since God created the world to run according to natural laws).

To the extent that there was a supernatural cause for an event, scientific method (which is methodological naturalism) can’t spot it and scientists admit as much.

The scientists job is to seek how things happen naturally and whether there is a natural cause for events. They can not consider whether it might be supernatural since they, with their limited methods, would never be able to test and establish this. If they can find a potential natural cause, we must look to see the degree of likelihood that this explanation is correct, as compared with the possibility of a supernatural cause. The concept of thunder is a good way of looking at it. Up until modern times, man thought that thunder was a supernatural event. If we had not used the naturalistic methodology, we would never have discovered it’s natural cause.

Regardless, for Christians, we know that it is ALL supernatural, even when there is a natural cause.

“You mean it cannot be accepted no matter what the evidence, or didn't you just dismiss all theistic explanations as unscientific.”

No, they are not “unscientific”, just not able to be investigated by science. We use naturalistic methodology to determine whether there is a natural cause, and if so, to determine how that natural process works. If no natural cause can be found, scientists will come up with their best explanation, but admit that the degree to which it is speculative. And, yes, they do admit this regularly.

“And again naturalistic methodlogy is not religiously neutral. The modern evolutionary mindset is expressed explicitly and being deadset against special creation and often calls God incompetant, deceptive and worse.”

Wrong, only atheists have done that. It has nothing to do with an “evolutionary mindset”. You want to equate evolution with atheism so that you can then discount evolution. But the millions of Christians who accept evolution belie that attempt.

“NM and philosophical naturalism are identical at the heart of the emphasis, both are overtly hostile to anything theistic, especially the Bible.”

No. You are just plain wrong on this. If the scientific method was hostile to anything theistic, Christian scientists would not be able to use it. Do you know any Christian scientists? Ask them whether they use the scientific method. Ask them whether there is a distinction between naturalistic methodology and philosophical naturalism.

“I don't know where you get 99.9%, science is at best 20\20 hindsight looking back over past mistakes.”

I said that 99.9% of science has nothing to do with origin issues. It is just accepting how the natural world works. You don’t seem to have any problem with all that science, and you depend upon this investigation of the natural world in hundreds of ways every day. So, why should this incredibly useful method be abandoned for the study of the age of the earth or the development of life?

“With regards to evolution I see none and know of no departure from the naturalistic assumptions of the atheist or the agnostic. No need to feel insulted, this has been the case in human nature from the begining.”

Um, how about the belief that God was the creator of the entire universe and the implementer of the evolutionary process. How can you say that this belief by TE’s is not distinct from agnostics or atheists?

Do you agree with agnostics and atheists regarding how photosynthesis works? How about gravity?

“Who are these modern geocentrists? I know of many Calvinitsts and none support a geocentric earth.”

See my thread on geocentrism. It provides a link to a group of modern geocentrists.

“You are thinking of Martin Luther I think, he called Copernicus a fool for suggesting the heliocentric concept because it contradicted Joshua where the earth is said to have stood still in the sky.”

Would you like to see a quote from Calvin indicating that heliocentrism is contrary to Scripture, which teaches geocentrism?

Please check out that other thread.

“I would have to see the quote but chances are I don't think there would be a conflict for me. Geocentrist thinking would not have given me much reason to worry. Now if we are talking about the original creation, this is inextricably linked to the Gospel at its foundation.”

If you have now read that thread and the quote, maybe you can answer my question: would Calvin still be an ardent geocentrist, or would he admit his literal reading of Scripture was wrong and accept the modern scientific evidence?

“A thought for you, Galileo would seem to have been vindicated for his statement before the Inquisition, "The Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work". Was he on trial for contradicting the Bible, or Aristotle? Keep in mind, scientific thought in that day was derived from Aristotle, not the Bible. Aristotle's work represented the naturalistic assumptions of his day.”

Yes, he was vindicated, and yes, he was on trial for contradicting the Bible. While the current scientific thought of the day was geocentrist, the Church also had Scriptural and theological bases for believing in geocentrism (see my other thread on this) and it was on this basis that the Catholic Church, Luther, Calvin, etc, condemned his teaching. Similarly, the scientific belief of the day in, say, 1800, was for a young earth and fixity of species. But the Church’s adherence to these positions was not based on the science, but on their literal reading of Scripture.

 

[Ondoher]

You keep saying that but it is apparent that MN is exclusivly naturalistic:

"Methodological naturalism (MN) is the philosophical tenet that, within scientific enquiry, one can only use naturalistic explanation - i.e. one's explanations must not make reference to the existence of supernatural forces and entities. Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them within a scientific explanation."

methodological naturalism

This hypersecular worldview makes its why into every facet of modern life and it is nothing more then a rejection of God. You might find it interesting, naturalism is also a legal philosophy. We (creationists) are forever being told that there is nothing prejudicial in natural science to bar creation science from bieng demonstrated scientifically. I don't need the meaning of the word explained to me, I know what it means, it means that only naturalistic explanations are going to be used. Theistic reasoning is excluded before the evidence is ever examined.

Yes, within science. Science as a method MUST exclude the supernatural. That does not prevent the SCIENTIST or anybody who uses science from accepting theological positions. However, science cannot touch it.

I could throw in pragmatism, existentialism, scienctific positivism and instrumentalism because they are all essentially the same antitheistic rationalism.

Naturalistic methodology is not religiously neutral in fact it is overtly hostile to theistic reasoning in any form. Theistic evolution may not be the most pronounced expression of this but it is essentially humanism put in theological terms, calling it theistic does not make it so. In the context of a discussion about aspects of natural science there is no discernable difference between TE and the naturalistic assumptions of the militant Darwinian evolutionist.

No, methodological naturalism is a requirement of science. Science does not work without assuming the consistency of nature, something that supernatural explanations must throw out the window. The bottom line is that science cannot test supernatual explanations.

Theistic evolution is the combination of religiously neutral science put within the theistic framework of a real person.

 

[Ondoher]

Newsflash, there is no such thing as absolute dating. They just look at a rate of decay and guess at how long ago the geologic clock was set back to zero.

HAHAHA That's kind of funny.

You do yourself a huge disservice making such bold proclamations. OBVIOUSLY that's not true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

 

[tocis]

Adding one "other" to the results...

...while I'm in no way sure of that, lacking objective proof, I wouldn't rule out that neither natural processes nor the christian deity is responsible... but other Divine entities started at least some things. Hey, what else to expect from a heathen?

 

[gluadys]

That is the naturalistic assumption I have been talking about. Now, if God does indeed act in time and space then there will be evidence, will there not? Since science focuses on the evidence then we should not be prejudiced against the explanation being God's special creation particularly when we have exausted every other explanation.

The question though is "How do we know when we have exhausted every other explanation?" And the fact is, we do not know.

So it cannot be a scientific hypothesis that "God intervened here". The closest science can come to suggesting divine intervention is to say "We have no current scientific explanation of this event."

You mean it cannot be accepted no matter what the evidence, or didn't you just dismiss all theistic explanations as unscientific.

All theistic explanations are unscientific because they are not scientifically testable. That doesn't make theistic explanations untrue. They may well be true. But they cannot be validated by scientific methods.

One basic reason why theistic explanations cannot be tested is that you cannot set up a control by which to test the presence or absence of divine activity. How would you verify, for example, that God is acting on the substance in one test tube and NOT acting on the substance in a second one? How could you verify that you have totally shielded the second test tube from any possible contact with God?

And again naturalistic methodlogy is not religiously neutral. The modern evolutionary mindset is expressed explicitly and being deadset against special creation and often calls God incompetant, deceptive and worse.

Theistic evolution is not dead set against special creation. Some TEs do believe in the special creation of the first living species. For other species there needs to be evidence that the life form originated with no connection to previous species which could have been its ancestors, and that evidence is hard to come by.

As for assertions that God is "incompetent, deceptive or worse", you are missing the point of the argument. Those who espouse Intelligent Design and identify the designer (most of them choose not to identify any designer) as the Christian God, have a burden of proof when it comes to sub-optimal design.

Intelligent Design per se does not call for optimal design in all cases. See
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design.pdf

But note also the conditions under which intelligent design can be sub-optimal design.

"Intelligent," after all, can mean nothing more than being the result of an intelligent
agent, even one who acts stupidly. ... The automobiles that roll off the assembly plants in Detroit are intelligently designed in the sense that human intelligences are responsible for them. Nevertheless, even if we think Detroit manufactures the best cars in the world, it would still be wrong to say they are optimally designed.

The ID can be "stupid".

Critics who invoke the problem of evil against design have left science behind and entered the waters of philosophy and theology. A torture chamber replete with implements of torture is designed, and the evil of its designer does nothing to undercut the torture chamber's design. The existence of design is distinct from the morality, aesthetics, goodness, optimality, or perfection of design.

The ID can be "evil".

No real designer attempts optimality in the sense of attaining perfect design. Indeed, there is no such thing as perfect design. Real designers strive for constrained optimization, which is something completely different. As Henry Petroski, an engineer and historian at Duke, aptly remarks in Invention by Design: "All design involves conflicting objectives and hence compromise, and the best designs will always be those that come up with the best compromise."[1] Constrained optimization is the art of compromise between conflicting objectives. This is what design is all about.

The ID may be constrained by conflicting objectives and unable to produce optimum design.


Which of those characteristics would you be willing to apply to the Creator revealed in scripture?

There is not much point in a Christian invoking an intelligent designer of sub-optimal design if that means the ID cannot possibly be the Creator God of Christian theism.

NM and philosophical naturalism are identical at the heart of the emphasis, both are overtly hostile to anything theistic, especially the Bible.

Not at all.

Now when Descartes came up with his Ego sum, ego existo (I think therefore I am)

It's Cogito, ergo sum

cogito=I think,
ergo=therefore,
sum=I am.

 

[rjw]

Hello Mark,

Vance, quoting Mark:-

But Mark, this is from your very definition!

"Note that methodological naturalism does not hold that such entities or forces do not exist, but merely that one cannot use them within a scientific explanation"

Mark in reply:-

That is the naturalistic assumption I have been talking about. Now, if God does indeed act in time and space then there will be evidence, will there not? Since science focuses on the evidence then we should not be prejudiced against the explanation being God's special creation particularly when we have exausted every other explanation.

Indeed, if God/god/gods act in time and space, one would hope that there is evidence. So why do you not present it in a manner that convinces us? After all, that is how knowledge and understanding occur – someone presents evidence by way of argument that is convincing. Why should I keep an “open mind” to the point of searching ad-nauseum for evidence which satisfies your understanding of the world, but adds nothing to mine? Do you keep an open mind yourself when it comes to other possibilities (say creating deities), or is an “open mind” something you require only of your opponents?

And why does your argument only apply for God’s special creation? As I noted the other day:-

Rjw:-

“There are several different kinds of explanation which range from pure speculation through to explanation based on observational evidence.

It is one thing to argue that the mainstream is biased because it rejects theistic explanations when it comes to issues such as the origin of life. But the mainstream also rejects theistic explanations when it comes to such things as the origin of the AIDS virus, the origin of a star’s energy, the origin of coal, the origin of rain, the origin of Mark Kennedy etc.

You appear to suggest that theistic explanations can be or should be given for the origin of life. Can they also be given in the place of those other naturalistic explanations I listed above? If not then, why not?”

You also appear to hinge your argument for accepting “Gods special creation” on the notion of exhausting of all other explanations. What other explanations have actually been exhausted? How do you know they have been exhausted?

There is much in science that we still do not understand. Does this failure to understand therefore mean that supernatural explanations must be invoked? Or does this criteria of yours only apply to very specific concepts which offend your religious beliefs?

Later you wrote:-

The modern evolutionary mindset is expressed explicitly and being deadset against special creation and often calls God incompetant, deceptive and worse.

Given that evolutionary theory does not invoke the supernatural, any more than meteorological theory invokes the supernatural, why single out evolutionary theory? Modern meteorological theory goes against the words of Job, who in chapter 37 states that many phenomena are caused directly by God. And certainly, modern meteorological theory goes against the supernatural theories of many other religions. Do you keep an open mind with respect to these other theories – particularly since modern science still cannot explain so much that is fundamental with our weather?


Later you wrote:-

NM and philosophical naturalism are identical at the heart of the emphasis, both are overtly hostile to anything theistic, especially the Bible.

Why throw this at someone who is obviously a theist? NM and PN cannot be “overtly hostile to anything theistic” in such a case, given that a theist obviously accepts MN, PN and theism.

Perhaps you are really saying, without saying it, that “NM and PN are both overtly hostile to some things theistic, particularly your own beliefs about the supernatural and your own interpretations of the Bible”. There is a big difference.

At the end, you wrote:-

A thought for you, Galileo would seem to have been vindicated for his statement before the Inquisition, "The Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work". Was he on trial for contradicting the Bible, or Aristotle? Keep in mind, scientific thought in that day was derived from Aristotle, not the Bible. Aristotle's work represented the naturalistic assumptions of his day.

This seems to be a very selective reading of history. The scientific thought of the day was indeed derived from Aristotle, simply because Aristotle’s science (and Plato’s?) could be brought into line with the Bible.

So, was Galileo brought to trial for contradicting the Bible or Aristotle? Probably both.


You also wrote:-

Newsflash, there is no such thing as absolute dating. They just look at a rate of decay and guess at how long ago the geologic clock was set back to zero. I don't know where you get 99.9%, science is at best 20\20 hindsight looking back over past mistakes.

No. It is not a “newsflash”.

Do you get your science from AiG articles? If so these are a very poor source for information on things such as radio-isotope dating etc. If you doubt me then pick up an article from one of AiG’s technical publications, say TJ. Ensure that it is an article critical of some mainstream science and which offers many references to mainstream journals. Obtain those mainstream references then read and understand them (it does take some effort but is well worth it). Then you will see how sloppy YEC science is; how badly it misrepresents the mainstream, shifts goal posts, adopts double standards, and uses very sloppy arguments etc. IOW, do not rely on AiG for sensible descriptions of mainstream science which AiG is critical of.


Regards, Roland