Posted by Walker on July 02, 1998 at 19:28:48:
In Reply to: Abiogenesis posted by rpcman on July 02, 1998 at 14:12:21:
:Biblical Theism: Man is created out of thin air (or dust if you like the Chapter 2 version).
Woman is also created out of thin air (or the first man's rib if you like the Chapter 2 version
better). Since man is made in God's image--God too must have been created out of nothing at
all.
:Behe Theism: Man (and everything else more complicated than say RNA) is created by
evolution. An intelligent designer created these "irreducibly complex" items out of thin air or
by some other supernatural means. This supernatural being's origin is still not explained. It is
probably safe to say that this incredibly powerful and complex deity came into being from
nothing at all.
:Deism: A supernatural being creates the universe. It is probably safe to say that this incredibly
powerful and complex deity came into being from nothing at all.
:"The truly stupid" in the scientific community: Organic self-replicators came into being from a
primordial soup.
:Which of the above is most plausible and why?
:Which of the above 'conjectures' is most
'asinine' and why?
:Are there any other possibilities which are more believable?
Definitions for Deism and Biblical Theism seem alike to me. I see the other three thus:
1) God did it.
2) God started it.
3) God didn’t do it.
I am jaded by the conjecture: "God did it ". One reason being that it no more useful than saying "I don’t know". It is worse than that of course because it implies "no one knows" and/or "no one can know". When someone says, "God did it" I hear "I am to lazy to study it", "I am not interested in it", "I discourage everyone to try to study it", or some combination of the above. I think Mormons are well off here because they believe men are capable of learning all that God knows; therefore they have no excuse or reason to cop out with "God did it".
It seems in all areas of study, when the thing is finally understood, a result is that there was no need for God. I can think of a lot of phenomena that once were explained as controlled by God. But after they were understood, God was no longer needed and in fact not controlling: motions of the planets, spontaneous generation, coloring of leaves, spin of the earth, etc. When after something was fully understood did someone say, "We now know that this thing only works by the power of God"? I can’t recall a single instance of this.
The second conjecture, "God started it" is similar to the first. The difference is that we recognize God is not needed everywhere, just somewhere. Even Steven Hawking gave a meager allowance where God may have contributed to the big bang, but put very tight parameters on Him. I think he wanted to please those of us who like to think there is some use for a God.
The third conjecture, "God didn’t do it"; Is another way of saying, "I know how this works and I can demonstrated it and/or back it up with evidence". If you don’t know the subject matter, you ought not invoke this one. "Organic self-replicators came into being from a primordial soup" sounds a lot like "God created it out of thin air" if the meaning of "self-replicators", "primordial soup", "God", "thin air" are not defined or understood.
What does it matter if God did it or didn’t do it? Isn’t the REAL question "How was it done?"
I re-read the origins FAQ provided by Carlos and I must say, I still don’t get that stuff. I need some time to study those terms, learn chemistry. It is clear that the problem of "How is it done" is being worked on and although there remain many questions, most likely, we WILL learn how, and God will be pushed further away as credit is taken from Him and given to Nature. Science has a good track record of doing just that.