> You have implied that the present fallen system should serve as
> a model for the unfallen one that you and I have no sensible model
> for. Our own ignorance should never be the basis for so profound a
> philosophical position. It makes no sense whatsoever to model an
> unfallen system we have never experienced after one that we have
> experienced that certainly can bear little resemblance to the
> original, juat because we cannot imagine how it could have been.
> The logical fallacy of so doing should be obvious.
Given that have essentially no evidence that "pre-fall biology" was
anything different from "post-fall biology", what is the logical
fallacy of thinking that the biology of living organisms worked
similarly pre- and post-flood? Sure, this may pose a theological
problem, but it certainly isn't one within the realm of the philosophy
of science. ...Unless, of course, someone has good data suggesting
that life change physically during the "event".
One other question/comment: If the physical death and suffering
of animal life "before the fall" presents moral problems for a
creator, why is it later seen as a good thing to occassionally
sacrifice animals to the same creator "after the fall"?
- Tim Ikeda
firstname.lastname@example.org (despam address before use)