[_ Old Earth _] Irrational Naturalism

[JM]

by Henry Morris, Ph.D

Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2469

 

[ArtGuy]

by Henry Morris, Ph.D

Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2469

How is the idea that chemicals mixed together to form rudimentary life incompatible with the notion that it was God who made these interactions possible? The exploration of the precise mechanism by which God created life isn't anti-Christian.

I'll give the article props, though, for not conflating evolution and abiogenesis. I think this is the first Christian article I've read that was honest enough to not get those things mixed up.

 

[JM]

by Henry Morris, Ph.D

Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2469

How is the idea that chemicals mixed together to form rudimentary life incompatible with the notion that it was God who made these interactions possible? The exploration of the precise mechanism by which God created life isn't anti-Christian.

I'll give the article props, though, for not conflating evolution and abiogenesis. I think this is the first Christian article I've read that was honest enough to not get those things mixed up.

I don't know, I was hoping a Christian on this forum would be willing to offer something...maybe it's the idea that simply mixing chemicals together in a rudimentary form can produce life...ex. a man who mixed so and so together could create life...I really don't know.

What do you think of Dr. Morris and his work? He seems to be a legend and I've seen his study Bible all over the place.

 

[ArtGuy]

I don't know, I was hoping a Christian on this forum would be willing to offer something...maybe it's the idea that simply mixing chemicals together in a rudimentary form can produce life...ex. a man who mixed so and so together could create life...I really don't know.

Well, as a Christian, I have no problems with the theory behind abiogenesis. Even if you could mix a bunch of chemicals and produce Lassie, it would still be God who created the mechanism in the first place. It would be because of God directly that humans had the "ability" to create life, just as it's because of God that we have the "ability" to create light by running a current through a piece of tungsten. God made the rules, whatever they may be. We just have to play by them. Everything we do is allowed by virtue of God's creation and the laws of physics He created.

What do you think of Dr. Morris and his work? He seems to be a legend and I've seen his study Bible all over the place.

I'm not really familiar with his work. Based on this article, he seems pretty reasonable, for a creation scientist. I disagree with him, but he doesn't appear to deliberately misrepresenting the opposing opinions in order to score cheap points. I'll give him kudos for that, if nothing else.

I view him the same way I view most liberals, I guess. Nice people with good motives who are ultimately mistaken. ;)

 

[JM]

lol, Dr. Morris is not a liberal...did God greate ex nihilo or did God create in steps using chemicals....? :bday: [it's a dunce cap for myself]

 

[ArtGuy]

lol, Dr. Morris is not a liberal...did God greate ex nihilo or did God create in steps using chemicals....? :bday: [it's a dunce cap for myself]

Oh, I should have spoken more clearly. I didn't mean to say that he was liberal. I was trying to say that I respect him but disagree with his views in the same manner by which I respect liberals but disagree with their views. It was a pseudo-non-sequitor, I suppose.

And I think that God created the universe ex nihilo, in steps using chemicals.

 

[JM]

It was a pseudo-non-sequitor, I suppose.

Ok, I understand.

And I think that God created the universe ex nihilo, in steps using chemicals.

Is there anything about a process in creation from Scripture?

jm

 

[jwu]

Is there anything about a process in creation from Scripture?

There are passages like "let the earth bring forth...", which suggests that God let things develop on their own.

 

[ArtGuy]

Is there anything about a process in creation from Scripture?

jm

Even if you accept Genesis as literal rather than allegorical, there was still a process. God didn't snap his fingers and suddenly human civilization was there. He created the light, then he created the firmaments, then he created the earth, the animals, the plants, then man, gradually over the course of six days.

It seems odd to me to suppose that God created the laws of physics, then completely ignored them in the process of creating the universe. Given that even eons are an insiginificant blip on the Godclock, it makes more sense to suppose that God created the laws and started with an arrangement of matter in such a way as to lead to the universe he wanted to create. The Genesis account, then, is just a poetic way of illustrating that God didn't just snap his fingers and say, "Presto - Mankind!" but rather he had a gradual process of creation over some period of time.

 

[Slevin]

by Henry Morris, Ph.D

Evolutionists still place great faith in the famous Miller-Urey experiments of a generation ago, which showed that some amino acids could be synthesized from hydrogen-rich ammonia, methane, and water.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=2469

Evolution is a separate idea from abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with the origins of life.

Naked assertion.

 

[Slevin]

double post.

 

[Guest]

Is there anything about a process in creation from Scripture?

jm

Even if you accept Genesis as literal rather than allegorical, there was still a process. God didn't snap his fingers and suddenly human civilization was there. He created the light, then he created the firmaments, then he created the earth, the animals, the plants, then man, gradually over the course of six days.

It seems odd to me to suppose that God created the laws of physics, then completely ignored them in the process of creating the universe. Given that even eons are an insiginificant blip on the Godclock, it makes more sense to suppose that God created the laws and started with an arrangement of matter in such a way as to lead to the universe he wanted to create. The Genesis account, then, is just a poetic way of illustrating that God didn't just snap his fingers and say, "Presto - Mankind!" but rather he had a gradual process of creation over some period of time.

I agree with this concept. However, I am not so inclined to take it and run with the "evolution ball" either. I kinda take the whole creation episode as a conglomeration of both ideas. Not necessarily starting off with amino acids, but starting off with rather primative types, millions of years ago (again, as you say ,a blip on the God Clock), and gave them the ability to adapt to whatever environment and surrounding they found themselves in.

No way to test such a idea though. :-?

 

[Guest]

Is there anything about a process in creation from Scripture?

jm

Even if you accept Genesis as literal rather than allegorical, there was still a process. God didn't snap his fingers and suddenly human civilization was there. He created the light, then he created the firmaments, then he created the earth, the animals, the plants, then man, gradually over the course of six days.

It seems odd to me to suppose that God created the laws of physics, then completely ignored them in the process of creating the universe. Given that even eons are an insiginificant blip on the Godclock, it makes more sense to suppose that God created the laws and started with an arrangement of matter in such a way as to lead to the universe he wanted to create. The Genesis account, then, is just a poetic way of illustrating that God didn't just snap his fingers and say, "Presto - Mankind!" but rather he had a gradual process of creation over some period of time.

I agree with this concept. However, I am not so inclined to take it and run with the "evolution ball" either. I kinda take the whole creation episode as a conglomeration of both ideas. Not necessarily starting off with amino acids, but starting off with rather primative types, millions of years ago (again, as you say ,a blip on the God Clock), and gave them the ability to adapt to whatever environment and surrounding they found themselves in.

No way to test such a idea though. :-?

 

[Guest]

Is there anything about a process in creation from Scripture?

jm

Even if you accept Genesis as literal rather than allegorical, there was still a process. God didn't snap his fingers and suddenly human civilization was there. He created the light, then he created the firmaments, then he created the earth, the animals, the plants, then man, gradually over the course of six days.

It seems odd to me to suppose that God created the laws of physics, then completely ignored them in the process of creating the universe. Given that even eons are an insiginificant blip on the Godclock, it makes more sense to suppose that God created the laws and started with an arrangement of matter in such a way as to lead to the universe he wanted to create. The Genesis account, then, is just a poetic way of illustrating that God didn't just snap his fingers and say, "Presto - Mankind!" but rather he had a gradual process of creation over some period of time.

I agree with this concept. However, I am not so inclined to take it and run with the "evolution ball" either. I kinda take the whole creation episode as a conglomeration of both ideas. Not necessarily starting off with amino acids, but starting off with rather primative types, millions of years ago (again, as you say ,a blip on the God Clock), and gave them the ability to adapt to whatever environment and surrounding they found themselves in.

No way to test such a idea though. :-?

 

[moniker]

I agree with this concept. However, I am not so inclined to take it and run with the "evolution ball" either. I kinda take the whole creation episode as a conglomeration of both ideas. Not necessarily starting off with amino acids, but starting off with rather primative types, millions of years ago (again, as you say ,a blip on the God Clock), and gave them the ability to adapt to whatever environment and surrounding they found themselves in.

The idea that life was created by mixing amino acids, certain conditions, and a bolt of lightning is not a part of the theory of evolution. It is a separate theory known as Abiogenesis. The two aren't mutually exclusive but they don't rely upon each other either. Evolution does not explain or even claim to attempt to describe how life began, it all takes place after the fact and shows how life developed.

 

[JM]

Side note: If life was created by mixing amino acids, certain conditions, etc. that would make life a process, how does this process affect the Biblical idea of no death and suffering before the fall?

I just don’t see God as a “cosmic sculptor†or scientist who mixes this and that to get a result. If I mix the right ingrediences I can make a cake, it wouldn’t be God who made the cake, it would be me. If I’m able to mix the same properties together to make life, would that make me the creator of life? The word of God is powerful and what He utters in Genesis He calls into existence, this is the historical creatio ex nihilo. [Isn’t it? I’m new at this.]

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

If Herman Bavinck is correct, Romans 4:17 teaches that God called all things [ta me onta] from non-existance, as if they never existed before [hos onta]. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics vol. 2 pages 416-420 This is the same idea found in the Shepherd of Hermas, I, Vision 1.1; Theophilus to Autolycus, II, 4; Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics, 13; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 10.

For now I’ll continue to study, but I must remain in the pages of Scripture which does not presuppose or give any description of pre-existing matter from which life was brought forth.

Thanks for the give and take.

JM

 

[Slevin]

I just don’t see God as a “cosmic sculptorâ€Â

Doesn't Romans 9:21 kind of depict God as a "potter"? Would that not be in the same vein?

 

[Guest]

I agree with this concept. However, I am not so inclined to take it and run with the "evolution ball" either. I kinda take the whole creation episode as a conglomeration of both ideas. Not necessarily starting off with amino acids, but starting off with rather primative types, millions of years ago (again, as you say ,a blip on the God Clock), and gave them the ability to adapt to whatever environment and surrounding they found themselves in.

The idea that life was created by mixing amino acids, certain conditions, and a bolt of lightning is not a part of the theory of evolution. It is a separate theory known as Abiogenesis. The two aren't mutually exclusive but they don't rely upon each other either. Evolution does not explain or even claim to attempt to describe how life began, it all takes place after the fact and shows how life developed.

Of course, . . right. I should have stated 'Abiogenesis' instead of 'evolution'. Thanks for the correction.

 

[ArtGuy]

Side note: If life was created by mixing amino acids, certain conditions, etc. that would make life a process, how does this process affect the Biblical idea of no death and suffering before the fall?

Spiritual death? The idea of an existence in which there was literally no death anywhere is completely non-sensical. What about plants? What about single-celled organisms? What about cells? If you want to literally write off death of any sort, then the biosphere cannot function by any plausible means. And if you accept that okay, maybe some things died, then you have the daunting task of where to draw the line given the vast array of creatures we have that blur the lines between genres. Do things like plankton count as plant or animal? If single-celled organisms were allowed to die, what about organisms with just a few cells? The only way to reconcile this problem is to suppose that God created the universe initially with no rules, and only created the current laws of physics after the Fall. Which is pretty non-sensical.

All of these logical consistencies can just go away, though, by recognizing Genesis as allegorical, and the Fall as a spiritual thing.

 

[JM]

Side note: If life was created by mixing amino acids, certain conditions, etc. that would make life a process, how does this process affect the Biblical idea of no and suffering before the fall?

Spiritual ? The idea of an existence in which there was literally no anywhere is completely non-sensical. What about plants? What about single-celled organisms? What about cells? If you want to literally write off of any sort, then the biosphere cannot function by any plausible means. And if you accept that okay, maybe some things died, then you have the daunting task of where to draw the line given the vast array of creatures we have that blur the lines between genres. Do things like plankton count as plant or animal? If single-celled organisms were allowed to die, what about organisms with just a few cells? The only way to reconcile this problem is to suppose that God created the universe initially with no rules, and only created the current laws of physics after the Fall. Which is pretty non-sensical.

All of these logical consistencies can just go away, though, by recognizing Genesis as allegorical, and the Fall as a spiritual thing.

Whoa, now I understand where you're coming from.

Death entered the world by the fall, suffering as well, this isn't just found in Genesis but thru out Scripture. You would have to change the meaning of Romans 5:12 Romans 8:20–22 1 Corinthians 15:21–22

In 1 Corinthians 15:26 we find as an enemy, and suffering were not part of creation which will be done away with in Rev. 21:4.

By using the allegorical method you miss the fall of man and the physical realities of that fall from Grace. What I find troubling about what you posted is the absence of the fall of man into sin/death. If God can cause a world wide flood, raise the [which is the Christian hope and we have faith in the resurrection], heal the sick and dying, why can't He intensify or use natural law to His will? The Bible doesn't always tell us how things are done, but it does tell us the reason why things are done.

This isn't an attack on you, but I'd like know, didn't Peligius hold the same view you do?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... istory.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... fering.asp

If God created man using abiogenesis, then God didn't create man out of nothing, but out of something that God created before He created man.

JM