Re: Phil Johnson

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 14:09:42 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Evolution and the Image of god"

    I have yet to find a situation in which a person cannot find an excuse to
    pursue an explanation they want. Of course, if the money dries up, they
    may have to go to a different area of study. But I note that Fred Hoyle
    was pushing Steady State to the end. Others have made the Big Bang only
    one of an infinite number of "bubbles" in the attempt to avoid any
    possibility of a creation. Is not rationalization one of the primary
    mental activities among human beings?

    Note also that something that seems plausible will keep a mistake going
    at least for decades. The old notion was that dinosaurs' massive bodies
    needed the support of water, so they put the nostrils high on the head.
    The indications that they were thoroughly terrestrial did not change the
    assumption. But now examination of the skulls produces solid proof that
    their nostrils were out near the tip of the snout. How many will be
    convinced? I recall that Arthur Keith said that Piltdown Man was a fake
    when it was "discovered," but no one at the time believed him.

    Your statement indicates an assumption that scientists will find that
    natural causes will ultimately be found inadequate and they will turn to
    a non-natural explanation. This sounds to me like the deistic assumption
    that a natural explanation excludes the hand of God, that only miraculous
    interventions are evidence of the divine. I can't buy that view, for I
    contend that a truly theistic view requires the Almighty's continuous
    governance of his creation, so that the pattern of descent is as much
    God's activity as was the resurrection of Lazarus. The difference is that
    the event at Bethany catches our attention and we cannot scientifically
    recognize the hand of God in nature. If God is thought to be only in the
    miracle, this is deism rather than theism.

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:50:33 -0400 "Moorad
    Alexanian<>" <> writes:
    > It is not a proof that will force people into belief but a dead end
    > to
    > scientific pursuit. It is not inconceivable that there can be a
    > proof that
    > essentially invalidates the claims of evolutionary theory. Isn't
    > that in
    > essence what the ID movement is all about? I am toying with the
    > notion that a
    > genuine scientific search for answers becomes so fruitless that it
    > leads to
    > belief. Moorad
    > >===== Original Message From "D. F. Siemens, Jr."
    > <> =====
    > >On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:46:21 -0400 "Moorad
    > >Alexanian<>" <> writes:
    > >> As I wrote you can do some intellectual gymnastics and reconcile
    > your
    > >> theology
    > >> with evolutionary theory. I am not ready to do that yet.
    > However,
    > >> within the
    > >> context of a scientific theory, it is hard to reach such a
    > position
    > >> that those
    > >> proposing it will throw up their hands and say there must be a
    > God.
    > >> One must
    > >> have a sort of Godel type theorem negating the possibility of
    > >> evolutionary
    > >> theory in order for all scientists to discard it and become
    > >> believers. I do
    > >> not think that is possible for otherwise there is no need of
    > faith
    > >> which goes
    > >> contrary to the nature of God. Moorad
    > >>
    > >>
    > >Moorad,
    > >I'm having trouble with this. How can there be a proof that will
    > coerce
    > >belief in God? Again, you confuse a scientific theory with denying
    > the
    > >existence of the deity, when the problem is with the atheism,
    > materialism
    > >and scientism which are not part of science at all.
    > >Dave

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 14:18:07 EDT