From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug25.131853.8962@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.162037.5468@acuson.com>, 
> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug21.155926.8939@bsu-ucs.uucp> 
>>  00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:

>>>different words.  Using forms of expression that I *know* will result
>>>in misleading your honest efforts to understand me would be deceit on
>>>my part.
>> Here, you are making the assumption that your listener is trying to
>> understand you.  I feel that that is a flawed analogy for this topic.
>
>Then you have done little or no reading about the history of science. 
>A significant (though far from the *only*) motivation for the study of
>the natural sciences was an attempt to better understand God through
>His handiwork.  (Admittedly this motivation has declined significantly
>over the last couple of centuries as it has become increasingly

I think you made my point for me.  I am not questioning Galelio's
intent.  I am questioning current intent of the masses.

>obvious that this is not terribly relevant to getting to heaven.  :-)



>> If I make a (for example) medical statement to a group of people where
>> half are medically trained and the others are not, the statement is
>> likely to be misunderstood by half of the crowd.  However, if it is
>> intended for those who are trying to learn about medical matters, the
>> confusion of the others is irrelevant.
>
>Not a bad point.  The only problem (for you) is that it argues
>*against* creationism.  (How many 2nd millenium BC Isrealites were
>scientifically trained?  How does their confusion bind us to the
>confused account that they recorded?)

I'm afraid you lost me here.  If spiritual matters are presented and
only those seeking spiritual learning understand, how does that derail
the creation?  Why do you feel that "2nd millenium BC Isrealites"
needed to be scientificly trained to understand that God created the
world?

I'm sure I've missed part of your intent, but I'm not sure where.


>>>Therefore, if such a God chooses to act in a certain way, knowing the
>>>consequences, it is bizarre to assert that the consequences were
>>>unintended.  
>> 
>> The consequences were, of course, forseen.  That does not mean that
>> they were intended.  God gives each of us the chance to make choices.
>> The decisions are ours to make.  The consequences are there to follow.
>>
>> I am free to choose to let go of an anvil over my foot.  Does this mean
>> that God _intended_ me to be crippled?
>
>Bad analogy.  Your analogy would hold only if you asserted that God
>took some specific actions that caused you to believe that letting go
>of that anvil would not cause harm.

I know this is simplistic, but what harm would be caused by letting go
of evolutionary origin?

>>>Your actions or my actions can produce unintended consequences.  If
>>>you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God, then you cannot
>>>assert that His actions could produce unintended consequences, since
>>>He would be in a position to both know the consequences of any action
>>>and avoid such consequences if He did not want them to occur.
>> 
>> Let me ask you a question about this.  Lets say you have two children,
>> about 5-7 years old.  Through some course of events, the three of you
>> are high up on a building, and slip.  You manage to grab each by the
>> wrist, but you haven't the leverage to pull them up, and both grips are
>> slipping.  You _know_ that if either falls, he will die.  You _know_ that
>> if you try to hold with one hand, each will slip.
>> 
>> Do you _intend_ for your children (or one child) to die?
>> 
>> God doesn't _intend_ for us to fall, even though He knows whether we
>> will.  If He didn't allow it, though, the choices would not be ours to
>> make.
>
>This is another stupid analogy.  I am not omnipotent.

That's an easy way out of answering the question:  "That's stupid.
Next question."


>> If this "evidence" were not there, would you have any choice about
>> accepting the story of the creation?  You cannot have a choice unless
>> there is an alternative available.  God makes two doors and says, "Go
>> through door #1."  When you go through door #2, you say, "God didn't
>> make this door.  It made itself."
>> 
>> What is lacking from this discussion is that, while mistakes are
>> allowed, choices are _essential_.  We cannot get from this life the
>> kind of growth we need without the oppurtunity to choose between right
>> and wrong.

>What you appear to be claiming in your 2 immediately preceding
>paragraphs is that God has manufactured a second door for us, and not
>content with merely leaving us the alternative of simply not accepting
>your Biblical interpretation (which says to choose door #1), He has
>also deliberately created physical evidence for us that strongly
>suggests that door #2 is a better choice.

When you make that statement, you imply that you are ready to choose
door #2.  Actually, you have already walked through it.


>>>have not managed to read all of it, it is quite clear on many points
>>>that conflict with the creationist reading of Genesis.  It has already
>>>been established (above) 
>> 
>> asserted, not established
>
>Let me get this straight.  You are appear to dissenting (with your
>insertion of "asserted, not established") from the proposition 
>
>>>that an omniscient, omnipotent God would know
>>>the consequences of His actions in creating this physical evidence. 

My appologies.  On a reread, I realize that I mistook the punctuation.
I thought that you were saying that the preceeding statement ("quite
clear on many points that conflict with the creationist reading of
Genesis") was establisted.


>>>Thus, assumptions (A), (B) and (C) lead to a contradiction when
>>>confronted with the world.  Either the world really is old and life
>>>did evolve or someone intentionally took specific actions to make it
>>>look that way.
>> 
>> Or took actions to create things which some consider to make it look
>> that way.
>
>Here you are apparently disputing the quality of the evidence.

No, here I am questioning the uniqueness of the explanation.


>In this case, the observers are virtually all
>of the people who have devoted their careers to looking closely at the
>relevant portions of the world.  You can certainly say that they are
>wrong, and (almost) all of them will gladly admit that they could be
>wrong.

The others post to Usenet. ;-)

>What you would have a harder time with, though would be
>claiming that the evidence (and its straigtforward interpretation) are
>not present at all.

Parentheses are interesting.  If I disagree, are you going to accuse me
of disputing the evidence?  I don't hold that the "straightforward
interpretation" is the only valid viewpoint.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic