From: "Chris Ho-Stuart"

Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: creationism





> (I have taken the liberty of reformatting quoted text. Material

> quoted '==' ( or with no indication) is by Chris; quoted '=' or '===' is

by Gladys. I have

> added paragraph breaks to Gladys' text and fixed line lengths.)

>

=Gladys Swager <> wrote:

> >> > The BIG ISSUE is, if BLACK HOLES exist, how did they come

> >> > to be there in the first place.

> >

> > Chris, you answered me by saying, among other points, "By the

> > gravitational collapse of large stars, for the most part."

> > " A lot goes on in the world without the benefit of modern

> > technology."

> >

> > I can understand how (my comment) 'the laws of science(as

> > were) taught to First Grade pupils is that only living beings

> > can move, act on their environment.' has been misunderstood. I

> > left the school system in 1975

> >

> > My teaching is now mostly in English and Mathematics, but

> > because of the 'across-subject-areas' information on Evolution

> > I have an interest in this aspect of children's education.

> >

> > Evolution, as I have seen it presented, is that it occurred

> > without the creative force of a supernatural living being -

> > I've used small letters, (rather than capitals as referring

> > to the Almighty God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures),

> > to broaden who that superhuman identity may be.

>

> I think this is a major misconception you have above evolution.

>

> Evolution does not refer to a supernatural creative force; but

> neither does a scientific theory of embryological development,

> or a scientific text on formation of volcanos.

>

> If you teach that there is a conflict between something being

> formed by natural processes, and something being formed by God,

> then it seems to me that sets up a number of serious theological

> problems.

>

> This implies a model of divine creative action where God is

> just another being in the universe, who makes some things

> but not other things, and it means the finding a natural

> cause for a thing amounts to a demonstration that God was

> not the one who made it.

>

> On the other hand, if you employ a model of divine creative

> action in which God's action is seen in the natural processes

> in the world He created, then you no longer have a basis for

> saying evolution occurs without the creative force of God.

>

> >> 'perhaps New Age types who think everything that moves ... is...

> >> is alive... be it a river, a cloud, an avalange.'

> >

== That is pantheism. But surely a godless evolution must be,

> > to a greater or lesser extent, pantheistic. That's a point

> > I've never considered before.

>

> Yes, it is a bit like pantheism. That is why I was so astounded

> to see you as a Christian express the notion that moving or

> acting is always an indicator of life.

>

> I don't think there is anything pantheist about evolution,

> or about any of the other natural processes by which things

> grow and develop and change and form in the natural world.

>

> How do you tell the difference between evolution and godless

> evolution? Is there a difference?

>

> In the past, before the development of the scientific method

> for study of the natural world, it was often felt that God was

> involved in all things. The wind, the rain, lightening, birth

> and death, the shape of the mountains, etc; it was considered

> to be made by God, or gods, and sometimes the side results

> of the actions of the gods.

>

> The monotheistic religion developed by the Israelites

> incorporated this idea; but it also included hints of a creation

> set up with divinely ordained rules which it must follow.

> Some historians have even attributed the development of the

> scientific method to the this concept of order; and many early

> scientists were quite explicit in thinking they were finding

> the rules ordained by God for how the world operates.

>

> In the modern age, we now know a great deal about how the world

> works, and the "laws" which constrain its operation.

>

> In none of the processes studied by science has there ever been

> any indication of a point at which God is required as a distinct

> step.

>

> Christians seem to react to this in various ways.

>

> On the one hand, many regard the study of natural processes

> with no explicit role for God as being in some sense atheistic,

> or a denial of God. This sets up science as being in conflict

> with religion, and the many discoveries of science as being

> disproofs of God. Such Christians perceive a conflict between

> modern science and their faith, and often seek to show where

> science has got it wrong. However, when they amply the tools

> of science itself in this endeavor -- as in "scientific"

> creationism -- they always and without exception end up with a

> laughable and absurd pseudo-science which rightly makes them a

> laughingstock amongst people who have learned something about

> the science involved.

>

> At the other extreme, many Christians take the notion of a God

> who ordains rules for creation to an extraordinary level far

> beyond what was conceived by the Israelites. This approach has

> its own difficulties. For example, evolutionary biology has a

> large role for contingency; if a bolide had not collided with

> Earth 65 million years ago, we would not be here now. One can,

> of course, presume that God ordains all things from the very

> beginning by means we cannot identify empirically, and this is

> not disprovable. Neither is it very convincing; except perhaps

> for those persuaded by some other non-empirical means of God's

> existence.

>

> The first approach sees the very conclusions of science as being

> in conflict with their religion. The second approach accepts what

> we learn of the world by science, and attempts to develop a

> theology which is informed by that.

>

== The fact that there are living and non-living in our world is

> > clearly observed in everyday life. What I wrote above comes

> > from the attributes of each as a distinct group within our

> > experience. The existence of those two groups caused me to

> > reason in 1975 that there needed a Superhuman God to create. I

> > was also told that was how Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury,

> > reasoned about the 1100's AD, and it caused me to take part

> > in Talk-Back Radio on this matter.

> >

= NON-LIVING THINGS CAN'T ACT. So that takes us back to

> >> > the FIRST MOVER - the ONE who made it all happen WHO in

> >> > the Judeo-Christian scriptures is called GOD-ALMIGHTY,

> >> > revealed in the NEW TESTAMENT as JESUS CHRIST.

> >>

> >> It appears that you are giving this, for example, as

> >> the explanation for black holes. What about clouds?

> >> Snowflakes? Stalegmites? Grass?  Volcanic islands?

> >>

> >> All of these are formed, naturally, by natural processes,

> >> studied by science.

> >

=== The above is the crux of the problem. Secular scientists have

> > led the onslaught on the Christian faith. To them, only what

> > can be observed, tested in a laboratory or in field work IS

> > SCIENCE.  But the actuality of GOD can't be proved that way.



> Why is that a problem?

>

> Science studies the natural world by empirical means. Science

> is not intended to study the "actuality of God", so what is

> the problem?

>

> I think the real problem is this... it is not consistent to

> disparage science for not making explicit mention of God, and

> yet also to claim that lab and field work cannot address God

> directly.

>

> You cannot have it both ways; either God cannot be addressed

> by the empirical lab and field work used in in science; in

> which case you should expect scientific models to have no

> explicit reference to God. Or else God can make identifiable

> differences, in which case God is subject both to proof and

> disproof, depending on what the empirical data will show.

>

> It seems that you place the actuality of God at discrete points in

> space and time. For example, you propose that on such and such a

> place and time God acted to create so and so; but that all the

> development which has happened since then is by natural processes.

>

> Now science can, and does, study the natural processes which take

> place over time very easily and effectively. And by placing the

> creative action of God at a special place in the past, so as to

> take Genesis as describing that time and place in history, you

> effectively place God's action at a point where it CAN be proved,

> or disproved. And that model has been disproved, emphatically and

> without any hope of rational recovery.

>

> If you want to place the action of God on a plane which cannot be

> addressed by science, then you cannot turn around and also complain

> about the lack of explicit reference to God in science.

>

=== Are you treating this as a denial of God in some sense? That

> >> is, if we can find a natural process by which something is

> >> formed, does that mean God was not involved?

> >>

> >> You have a much much bigger problem than evolution. You

> >> appear to regard *any* natural process as an alternative

> >> to God's action.

> >

> > What I believe is that all of the universe was set in motion

> > by the Superhuman God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures -

> > either by the scientific principles that can be observed

> > today OR by God's own principles used as He thought fit in

> > certain given circumstances. Jesus turned water to wine -

> > speeded up the process, caused bread and fish to multiply

> > to feed thousands, walked on water, caused illnesses to be

> > cured, death to be reversed.  Some speaking from science say

> > those things could not happen, the records are only myths -

> > made up stories.

> >

> > The issue is HOW GREAT YOU THINK GOD TO BE and whether JESUS

> > WAS/IS THE SON OF GOD, as claimed in the New Testament record,

> > and THEREFORE GOD.

>

> That is not the issue for me. The issue I am addressing here is

> whether or not the hypothesis of God's involvement in some

> event is disproved by finding it proceeds by natural causes.

>

> Is it a denial of God's involvement in the making of a black hole

> to say it forms by gravitational collapse? Is it a denial of God's

> involvement in the making of Mt Fujiama to associate its beautiful

> symmetric cone with the deposition of material ejected by the

> volcano? Is it a denial of God's involvement in your creation to

> attribute it to the development of a zygote modulated by proteins

> and enzymes generated by expression of genes? Is it a denial of

> God's involvement in the creation of whales to observe that they

> have four legged terrestrial ancestors?

>

> Don't ask me... I don't even believe in God. These are questions

> for the believer; and they are important questions for an educator

> involved in guiding students in how they approach the findings

> of science.

>

= I ask you -- again -- do you think YOU were created by God?

> >> Do you think that the scientists who study the processes of

> >> emryological development by which you were formed are rejecting

> >> God? HOW do you see God fitting into the picture of your own

> >> personal growth and development?

> >

> > I believe that God created all living beings and put into

> > their genetic make-up the ability to procreate. In that sense,

> > God created me. through the actions of my parents.



> This is interesting. You say God created all living beings; but

> you place that creative act in the ancient past, in the creation

> of the parent forms; and only in that sense are you created by

> God. In other words, you the individual are formed naturally

> by natural processes, by the procreation of your parents. God's

> involvement is removed to the past, where He does not have

> direct responsibility for you individually, but only for the

> general human form.

>

> That is, you do identify a supernatural event in which God must

> step in and alter the natural order; but since then things

> proceed naturally. This explicitly identifies God's creative

> act at a point in time, in the ancient past, not involving

> you personally.

>

> You would probably accept the existence of "microevolution"; the

> existing of small amounts of change in our genes accumulating within

> bounds. The normal human has roughly sixty new mutations in their

> genetic code resulting from copying "errors" from the code of their

> parents. Most of these have no appreciable effect, but generally

> three or four are in "coding" regions of the genome, and can make

> small difference in the expression of genes.

>

> Some creationists insist that this kind of change is always a

> gradual degradation of the original pattern. So in fact, your

> individual pattern was not created by God, in this model. There

> was a pattern created by God; but you individually do not have

> that pattern; only a naturally degraded copy. In this model,

> Adam and Even are created by God, and the creative act of

> God is in formation of their genetic information. You and

> I as individuals, on the other hand, are the results of the

> vagaries of chance and change.

>

> This has strong echos of deism.

>

==                                              Because

> > of toxemia in my mother - it was not expected that either

> > of us would live through the childbirth process, but we

> > did. Unbeknowns to anyone, I was affected in that, to express

> > it from my experience, 'I lived in the present and the future'

> > I had little conscious recall of the past, but was able to

> > learn by intense rote-learning which enabled me, with the help

> > of tutors, to gain my Leaving Certificate and my Teachers'

> > Certificate - those two certificates despite developing health

> > problems coming from the War Years as I helped on our farm as

> > 'an unofficial land army girl' as I now call myself in those

> > years. Anaemia, then Rheumatic Fever - continuing teaching

> > with debilitated health as there were no relief teachers and,

> > I think, because my parents kept working when health problems

> > arose (as many farmers do). I broke down in tears - sent to a

> > Psychiatrist - left to find my own recovery plan - continued

> > to be distressed - given the worst form of Shock Treatment.

> >

> > As a teenager, I had heard a voice say to me, while collecting

> > eggs, "I want you to do something that no one else can do." I

> > took it to be the voice of God, but in later years, I have

> > recalled that a clergyman had said that we all have tasks

> > to do that no one else can do. So whether what I heard was

> > just a subconscious replay of his words or whether God had

> > used that situation to assure me that I did have a unique

> > role in life, I can't say.

> >

> > Finally, I became an advocate of reform in respect of the

> > treatments I had been given by Psychiatrists (which I claim

> > were wrong and from insufficient diagnosis of my condition)

> > and proposed that conditions, called Mental Illnesses, could

> > be prevented and perhaps cured by more natural - alternative

> > - means. I did that work after praying that 'the doors of

> > Psychiatric Hospitals would be opened and patients would

> > go out cured, never to return, and others would not enter

> > those hospitals because preventitive methods had been found.

> >

> > As if by miracles, you might say, I found .. the ability

> > to go to the top of Government departments,.. books that

> > guided me in my thinking.  In November 1975, from the text

> > by an American Professor of Psychiatry who claimed that

> > such conditions were at their height in the Middle Ages

> > I put together what I called a KNACK of LIVING programme

> > of generalised areas for the realisation of my prayer. I

> > contacted many in authorative positions asking for more

> > health information to be given to the public so that what had

> > happened to me would not happen to others.  The professionals

> > have the means to collect the statistics, I haven't.

> > They can claim the successes if what I desired eventuates.

> > As one Media Medic wrote me, "I approve your comments on

> > mental health. .... It maybe that the path to the goal that

> > you seek is longer and harder than you anticipate." It

> > has been that. With a high ESP level the way the issues

> > were managed through the media created intense atmospheric

> > vibes so that I have had to pray for 'strength to endure.'

> > Professionals must be in power or seem to be in power.

> >

> > The Universe that God created - perfect and beautiful -

> > has been marred, time and time again, by the wrong-doing of

> > humans.  BUT GOD HAS CALLED US INTO PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM TO

> > RIGHT THE WRONGS.  Jesus told His disciples that they would do

> > greated things than He did, (John 14). I wondered how and then

> > I reasoned that to prevent illness was better than to heal it.

> >

> > I am sure I have not answered, in full, your question,

> > "How do (I) see God fitting into the picture of (my) own

> > personal growth and development?", but that will have to be

> > enough for now.



> You do address the matter about five paragraphs back, and

> the answer appears to be that God's involvement is in the

> past, in the creation of an original human form; NOT of you

> as an individual with your own individual attributes and

> characteristics.

>

== However, I do appreciate you pushing me with your thoughts

> > and criticisms.  They have made me think on these matters

> > to a greater degree than I had done previously.



> Thanks for a generous reaction.

>

> Yes, I am certainly aiming to encourage anyone involved in

> the evolution/creationism debates to reflect not just on

> the science involved, but on the theological implications

> of a model of creation in which God actions is explicitly

> identified with events in the ancient past, as a contrast with

> natural processes.

>

> Best wishes -- Chris