Re: A neat syllogism
George Murphy ("firstname.lastname@example.org"@raex.com)
Sun, 28 Nov 1999 21:25:22 -0500
glenn morton wrote:
> At 02:46 PM 11/28/99 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> > Maybe (some would say certainly) I'm dense but I don't see the point
> >of the exercise. From a theological standpoint 2 is essentially flawed
> >God is "living" (Dt.5:26, Ps.42:2, Ps. 44:2, Jer.23:36, Jn.6:57, Acts
> 14:15 &c).
> Crowl thought this was clever and you think it was pointless. Such is life.
> The point is as I stated, anti-evolutionists state over and over that life
> can't arise from non-life. Consider Gange (not a young-earther):
> "All experiments that have ever been done to create life fall into two
> categories; those that start with life and those that don't. If you start
> with life and get life, it doesn't count because everyone knows that life
> makes life. But when its's tried without life, we don't succeed, because
> we can't succeed." ~ Dr. Robert Gange, Origins and Destiny, (Waco: Word,
> 1986), p. 79
> Harold Coffin (a well known young-earther) says, "Significantly,
> mechanistic evolution requires for its survival as a theory, exceptions to
> two of the best substantiated laws of life--life begets life, and like
> begets like!" Harold G. Coffin, Creation-Accident or Design?" (Washington
> Review and Herald Publishing, 1969 p. 391
> Randy Wysong, a YEC, in the seventh printing of his book wrote: "These
> experimenters found that when matter was presterilized and sealed off from
> the environment, no life arose. The work of these three men plus that of
> the pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1858), who showed that cells do not arise
> from amorphous exudate, but rather from preexisting cells, and the labors
> of countless scientists in all of the various disciplines of biology since,
> have established the law of biogenesis--life springs from preexisting
> life." Randy Wysong, Creation-Evolution The controversy, (Midland, Mich.
> Inquiry Press, 1976), p. 181-182
> life does NOT spring from pre-existing life if life is defined as it is in
> number 2.
Sorry if I'm being too heavy handed &/or humorless, but the claim that
physical life comes only from previously existing physical life can't be maintained by
anyone who takes Gen.1 seriously, & especially by those who claim to take it
"literally". Anyone who does see that Gen.1 speaks about life originating from
the waters & earth can certainly add "We don't understand this scientifically"
but simply can't make the claim that physical life arises only from physical life.
This seems to me a much stronger argument than the proposed syllogism & gets at the
real heart of the anti-evolution position, which of course is a narrow way of reading
Genesis than anything to do with science.
George L. Murphy