From: Josh Bembenek (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 11:26:41 EST
>Josh Bembenek wrote:
> >IMO ID is perfectly compatible with a theory which states that
> >initial conditions held all capacity to derive life given by God.
>The point of departure is "intervention." TE denies it. ID demands
>it. So "perfectly compatible," they are not.
>If you read Genesis 1 carefully you will see that the Hebrew word bara for
>"create" is used in three specific instances. God created the "heaven and
>earth" (Gen. 1:1), God created sea life (Gen. 1:21), and God created Adam
>(Gen. 1:27). God also commanded: "let the earth (land) bring forth" (Gen.
>1:11), and "let the waters bring forth" (Gen. 1:20), clearly delegating and
>delineating between his personal acts of creation and the impersonal acts
>Postulating intermediate specific acts of special creation is without
>scriptural support. Since there is no evidence for ID, and Scripture
>doesn't require it, who needs it?
Again, the application of Dembski's filter is the best way to demonstrate
the veracity of your claim. The question doesn't rest solely on
identification of the designer, but also extent of design- both can be
ascertain in theory by the explanatory filter. A rigourous method should be
generated for making these claims, shall we only rest upon the revelation
from the bible to state our claims about the identity of the designer and
the nature of his actions?
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.Ý Try MSN!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 16:36:11 EST