Re: A neat syllogism

glenn morton (
Sun, 28 Nov 1999 12:31:19 +0000

At 12:52 PM 11/26/99 PST, Adam Crowl wrote:
>So God isn't alive then? If we accept (2) then that fllows from any
>non-material definition of God. Of course if we accept both and replicating
>chemicals are found/made and seem quite simple outcomes of chemistry, then
>chemistry is God, or God doesn't need a "miracle" to make life...
>very clever

Darn, you got it right away. I was reading Overman's The Case Against
Accident and Self-Organization, (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997). On
page 48-49 he was discussing the Miller Urey experiment. He said,

"As Brooks and Shaw have noted: 'These experiments...claim abiotic
synthesis for what has in fact been produced and designed by highly
intelligent and very much biotic man.' Only biotic processes direct energy
flow to the work of forming life. To paraphrase Louis Pasteur, in
experience only life produces life."

As I was thinking about this, and Overman's objection to non-life producing
life, it occurred to me that there is a great equivocation in that line of

1.God created life.

2. By this we mean Life is defined as a self-replicative system of
chemicals. Everything else is non-life.

3. God is NOT self-replicative and is NOT a system of chemicals

4. Therefore God is NOT life as defined in 2.

5. This means that God--nonlife by definition 2--created life.

6.Thus Overman's (and all anti-evolutionary claims) that non-life can't
create life is wrong on the face of it. Non-life did create life whether
one is a theist or an atheist.

I found it very interesting. ONly by equivocating on the term 'life' and
including God as 'life' can one claim that non-life doesn't create life.


Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution