LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  January 2005

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE January 2005

Subject:

THE ILLOGIC OF CREATIONISM

From:

Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:50:32 +1300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

        THE  ILLOGIC  OF  CREATIONISM

                by  L R B  MANN

                        Sep 2003

        The word 'evolution' has become, for some Christians, a
provocation.  They have been led to believe that evolution is essentially
an atheistic idea.  This misunderstanding has been misused for much
unnecessary disputing.
        VisioNetworkNZ leader Glyn Carpenter writes (DayStar Sept 03) that
the creationist/evolution argument is "also referred to as the young earth
/ old earth debate".  This is an unfortunate confusion.  Let's get a clear
understanding of what the terms mean, and what are the various main
beliefs, connected with evolution.
        Two main sub-sects of "creationism" exist.  One version of
"creationism" asserts not only that all species were created in 6 days but
also that this brief period of biological creation occurred less than
10,000 years ago.  That is 'young earth creationism' (YEC).   'Old earth
creationism' (OEC), exemplified by Hugh Ross's 'Reasons to Believe'
organisation of S. Calif., acknowledges the scientific evidence that the
Earth is much, much older, but also asserts like YEC that evolution has not
occurred.  The difference between these two sub-sects is of some interest,
but it is different from the dispute between those who believe in evolution
and those who refuse to believe that evolution has occurred.

        These differing views on evolution and creation can be diagrammed
as a logic-tree, to be read from the bottom:

theistic evolution              OEC        YEC
         x                x               x
           x                             x
              x          creationism
                 x                                x
                      x           x
                 theism          deism           atheism
                        x            x                    x
                              x     x                  x
                            x                 x
                                x            x
                                     x     x
                                  x

        The diagram summarises the main logical options.
        Start reading it at the bottom.
        You can believe in God, or not; this is the basic, most important,
choice in the logic-tree.
        If you choose the atheism fork, you can then try like Dawkins etc
to explain how the incomparable coherent complexity of ecosystems, or even
just the functions of a humble bacterial flagellum, could have evolved by
the workings of physical & chemical laws, with no creative planning.
        If instead you choose to believe in God, you have an option of a
largely defunct view, deism, holding that God did create the universe but
that he then turned it loose, like a clockwork toy he had wound up and left
to run by the natural laws which he'd created.  By contrast, theism holds
that God not only created the universe but also sustains & guides it from
moment to moment.
        The tendency known as creationism is  -  though not usually billed
as such by its adherents  -  a version of deism in its purported
explanation of life.  Proceeding up the logic-tree, within the creationism
branch, we find the two versions, YEC and OEC, holding that, at least
regarding the creation of species of organism, God did it all at the start
and has not done any more creation since then.  Although most creationists
are theists because they believe in God's continuing involvement in the
world (in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, God's responses to prayer,
etc), they are deists in their biology  -  they believe creation was
completed at the start.
        Both YEC and OEC are opposed to the mainstream Christian view,
which is theistic evolution, combining traditional theology with scientific
findings that the different types of organism have been created at
successive times over several billion years.  God as the maker & sustainer
of the universe is affirmed by theistic evolution.  To me as a Christian,
physical & chemical laws are an expression of creative planning, not an
alternative to it.  Dawkins just has to accept them as an extraordinary
brute fact, the origin of which he studiously ignores.
        Theistic evolution results from reading both the book of scripture
and the book of nature.  It relies on faith that God will not mislead us if
we examine honestly what we find in strata, fossils, molecules, and other
aspects of nature that allow us to infer past processes in biology.
Creationists have misrepresented these scientific findings in many ways
(and as a scientist I deeply deplore that misbehaviour, documented in e.g.
Prof. Ian Plimer's book 'Telling Lies for God').  But it is their logic
that is the prime defect of creationism, falsely counterposing the concepts
of creation "vs." evolution, implying that they are somehow incompatible.
        Where in this logic-tree does Intelligent Design fit?  Exemplified
by the video 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life' and the writings of William
Dembski, this approach to explaining life confines itself to what is called
natural theology, i.e.  reading the book of nature with intent to infer
properties of the designer(s).  ID's effect is thus at the base of the
logic-tree, helping those who have yet to decide whether organisms are
caused by merely material processes or are designed.  This is the Argument
to Design developed by William Paley two centuries ago.  It is fine as far
as it goes but is only a tiny, if basic, part of theistic evolution as set
forth by leading Christian scholars such as William Temple, Sir Alister
Hardy, and our own John Morton (see 'Man, Science and God', Collins 1972).
Another leading scholar in natural theology, but taking a broader view than
Dembski expounds, is Neil Broom of the University of Auckland (see 'How
Blind Is the Watchmaker?'  IVP 2001).  Broom expounds the Argument to
Design as well as anyone, while seeing no theological difficulty in an
ancient biosphere and evolution as shown by science.
        My essay available at <http://www.spc.org.nz/Science.asp>
maintains  -  following Morton  -  that a more intelligible, direct &
conclusive argument is to insist on all four causes as required to explain
life, rather than relying principally on gaps in scientific understanding
of the evolution of bacterial flagella etc.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager