Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 05:01:09 EDT

Ted Davis wrote:

>The following point might go both ways (for George and against George),
>I've not thought it through carefully enough to see which way it goes more
>strongly. It does seem to me, that it is not possible to evaluate any
>version of "Creationism" (here I use the term very broadly, to mean simply
>the idea that a creator has created the world) without making assumptions
>about God, from which one can deduce some consequences that can be compared
>with the world as it actually appears to be.
>
Yes, yes, yes. The problem with a deity is that it can explain anything
and does has no explanatory power. This is one of ID's main
shortcomings, its failure or rather inability to constrain the
intelligent designer.

Of course such an intelligent designer could have created any way
desired. Which means that any evidence can be used to argue for or
against the designer. Luckily science is far more constrained and as
such has a much better explanatory power.
I have noticed that CH sometimes scoffs at the ability of science to
incorporate new hypotheses when the data makes such demands. Rather than
a shortcoming of science this is a strength of science. As long as it
can provide was to validate and invalidate these new hypotheses.

CH responded with the following quote

[quote]
What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it
plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible
qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that men are without
excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God
nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their
foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they
became fools
[/quote]

Which of course is a double edged sword. But perhaps CH can explain to
us what God has made plain to him? How does CH's revision of Ted's
original statement make it possible to evaluate this version of
'creationism'?
It's not what God ought or ought not to do, it's what the evidence best
suggest.
If divine action cannot be rationalized, as CH suggests, how can one
evaluate it?
Received on Sat Aug 6 05:02:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 06 2005 - 05:02:23 EDT