RE: It's the Bible or evolution

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Fri Sep 30 2005 - 10:02:02 EDT

I am sure this must have been said before. The creation account in
Genesis is both temporal and in order of complexity. I am sure someone
like Darwin must have been inspired by these words. Is not special
creation both serving to create a scientific theory and thus make it
testable?

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Ted Davis
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:49 AM
To: randyisaac@adelphia.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: It's the Bible or evolution

>>> "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@adelphia.net> 09/29/05 9:04 PM >>>writes:
I always cringe when I hear an argument about what a designer or creator

would have or would not have done. We can hardly presume to know what
reasons a creator might have or whether something was done without any
reason at all.

Ted replies:
Cornelius makes the same point--indeed, it's a central point to his
whole
approach.

Darwin on the other hand, when he compared evolution with special
creation
in the final chapter of the Origin of Species (it's worth rereading, if
anyone hasn't read it recently), has to make some assumptions about what
sorts of things would favor creation over evolution, and vice versa--in
order actually to do a comparison of the two views.

I'm sympathetic with Randy and Cornelius, but then the only recourse is
to
say this.

(1) We can't make any assumptions about what a creator would/would not
have
done relative to making creatures.

(2) Thus, anything we find is consistent with special creation.

(3) Thus, special creation is wholly untestable.

(4) Thus, we can *never* put special creation on the same level with
evolution--that is, we can *never* consider it as an alternative
scientific
explanation of the same data.

Special creation then becomes entirely and only a faith position,
emptied of
content for purposes of comparing it with an alternative view to account
for
data.

Is something wrong with the reasoning above? Is it perhaps (2) or (3)
or
(4)? Or the links between them? If so, I don't see it.

My own voluntarist theology leads me to like (1). I don't like to put
rational restrictions on God, I think God is higher than us and does
what
God wants to do. I've often argued for this, and I think that view of
God
was crucially important for the formation of the modern scientific
enterprise in the first place. But I am unwilling to push it this far,
so
that it becomes impossible to draw observable consequences from the
claim
that special creation is true/false vis-a-vis evolution.

Ted
Received on Fri Sep 30 10:06:57 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 30 2005 - 10:07:05 EDT