Re: In Defence of my beliefs.doc

Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 13:17:09 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: 'Ish List (was Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race)"

    Vernon Jenkins wrote:

    > I'm not as impervious to reasoned argument as you suppose. In suggesting
    > that I only believe what I want to believe you appear to be confusing
    > _evidence_ (meaning the 'hard' stuff) with _particular interpretations_ of
    > the evidence - often based upon unwritten assumptions that I am unable to
    > accept.

    If I understand what you mean by "hard stuff" correctly,
    the only evidence that will satisfy you is to watch a
    laboratory experiment in which you seem the immediate
    change from one species to another. How much change
    is sufficient to satisfy you. Are drug resistant bacteria
    enough? Are poison resistant insects a start? Do you
    reject these as adaptations? How many adaptations do you

    It's not that scientists agree or disagree with evolution
    per se, certainly not the really good ones in my opinion. The
    reason scientists typically accept evolution is because they
    find it unassailable when they examine it closely. It may
    still be because no one has been clever enough. Are you
    willing to study it that seriously?

    > As a case in point, I had occasion, just recently, to question Glenn
    > regarding his web page dealing with the alleged fish>tetrapod transition. I
    > accepted the fossil evidence as genuine but questioned his interpretation on
    > the grounds, (a) that the progeny of the particular fish that first
    > exhibited the tendency to convert must, inevitably (perhaps for a million or
    > so years) be deficient in fin function with no compensatory advantage from
    > leg and foot development; their survival, therefore, hardly reasonable -
    > indeed, a great mystery, and (b) that because Darwin thought it _hardly
    > likely_, and his co-worker, Wallace, _impossible_, that special creation
    > might account for all the creatures whose fossilized remains are now held to
    > represent an evolutionary series, these can hardly be considered logical
    > reasons for ruling out the possibility. However, perhaps you have some
    > observations of your own regarding these matters and would be prepared to
    > share them with the forum.

    I still don't understand why you reject Glenn's answer. If the
    fish found a way to make a living by hiding in murky water and
    catching unsuspecting prey that just happens to stumble on their
    corner, why is that so unacceptable an answer? People find all
    sorts of strange ways to make a living too. Why can't a fish
    get lucky once and a while as well?

    > Finally, concerning 'evidence': none can be more certain than that which may
    > be found on my website concerning the remarkable underwriting of the Bible's
    > first verse. As far as I am aware, you are numbered among those who say "I
    > don't believe it, and that's that". But this is real hard evidence, Wayne -
    > not conjecture. Why won't you follow your own good advice and examine it?

    Actually, for me, I find numbers very interesting, but
    my faith does not stand or fall on whether Biblical verses
    can be shown to add up to pi, sqrt(13), the fine structure
    constant or any other numbers for that matter. It seems
    reasonable that God did indeed create the heavens and the
    earth (although there is a continuing discussion here about
    whether it should be creation ex nihilo or creation continuum
    as the valid model). I'm willing to accept that there is
    a vast reality that we don't understand, have (at best) only
    a remotely vague notion about, and beyond that we are completely
    blind. In short, my acceptance of that first statement is
    simply faith and faith alone. Yet it somehow makes sense
    (to me) to accept it as true.

    By Grace alone we proceed,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 15:59:33 EDT