I was thinking of saying "you people are idiots", but anything to get your attention.
I'm not going to debate the following, because frankly I have no desire to. What I want is some recognition by someone (hopefully by both "creationists" and "evolutionists") that the following is self-evidently valid.
When a child asks "Where do babies come from?" there reaches a point where we quit saying "God did it" or "the stork did it". Rather we outline the mechanism involved, in terms comprehensible and inoffensive to the child (and us). When the child gets older he may take high-school biology, and get a much more detailed and thorough explanation of sexual reproduction, with reference to lower-level mechanisms such as cell division, cell differentiation, DNA, RNA, etc. The child may one day do post-doctoral research and discover new unknown mechanisms involved in cell reproduction. [Insert obligatory sex joke here.]
But the point is, there is a mechanism - a fact neither evolutionists nor creationists would debate, its really immaterial to any religious considerations. Some people see in a new-born baby evidence of the existence of God. Others do not. But the mechanism directly involved is irrelevant to the question.
This brings us to the existence of life of earth. Anybody that denies that it is a result of a mechanism is less than a child mentally. Even a child at some point asks the question, "Where do babies come from", and at that point he's not looking for a one-word answer (e.g. "God").
To the biblical creationist consider: The bible often talks about natural phenomenon - earthquakes, tornadoes, snow, rain, etc. Many times (e.g. in the book of Job) highly poetic imagery is employed to describe these things (even when God himself is speaking). To the creationists, I ask you, which of these natural phenomenon is adequately described scientifically in the Bible? The answer: none of them. Of course, no biblical creationist is offended that seismologists make reference to plate tectonics or other mechanisms not mentioned in the bible when explaining earthquakes.
Are there creationists that honestly think that in the creation week, herds of animals just materialized instaneously into existance? Is that what happens when a baby is born?
Here's my proposed mechanism (You can debate this part if you want.) I think that a very special cell somehow arrived on earth and started dividing like crazy. There were no predators at that time, so the entire ocean was one big huge womb. I would speculate that every living thing on earth came from that cell. But where did this special cell come from? I'll just assert it was created purely by chance in the universe. As a creationist, I don't think God created a universe as unimaginably vast as it is, and containing the astronomical ammount of energy that it does for no reason at all. I think that this cauldron of unimaginable energy was harnassed, and out of it a very special cell came into existance.
But the universe is a very ineffecient process - lots and lots and lots of energy and little direction. An ineffecient process means lots of waste. Basically, it took the entire universe just to create one special cell. For creationists offended by the idea of God utilizing wasteful processes in creation, consider our own solar system as an illustration: eight barren desolate waste planets, and one shimmering jewel - the planet Earth. Ask yourself, why did God do it that way? To use a slightly more provocative example from the Bible, consider that most people ever born will be suffering eternal torment in Hell, the cosmic waste dump. But only the sons of God - those humans preordained to eternal life through Christ - matter. Another "wasteful" process.
But to return to my proposed creation mechanism, if there had been a human present to observe the creation of life on earth he might not see in it the hand of God, just as many do not see the hand of God when a baby is born. This would be true whatever mechanism was involved in the creation of life on earth. But please, let us all agree now, there had to be a mechanism.
Let's talk about mechanisms:
If a mechanism f and its input x generate output y, then f(x) together consitute a complete and alternate specification for y. Anybody with high school algebra is familar, that because f(x)->y, then f(x) is just an alternate name for y.
Suppose I find on my computer a directory that contains the complete works of Shakespeare, and I ask, "where did that come from?" Then later, I find on my computer a self-extracting zip file that contains the complete works of Shakespeare. That could be considered an explanation. A self-extracting zip file contains a space-compressed version of some information (x) bundled together with an extraction program (f). This zip file, f(x), when executed outputs y, i.e. f(x)->y. In the above case, x was a compressed version of the compete works of Shakespeare, y is the uncompressed version, i.e. the output. The fact is, any mechanism plus input (together f(x)), is an alternate specification for its output y.
In essence, any time you explain y by proposing some mechanism f plus input x, you're just saying that y was created by a self-extracting zip file. Is a self-extracting zip-file an adequate explanation for the works of Shakespeare? Pure materialists, evolutionists, whatever, say Yes. Theists, creationists, etc. say No.
But what created f(x)? Let's call it f'(x'). What created f'(x')? Let's call it f''(x''). So you have a chain of mechanisms f''''''''''(x'''''''''')->........->f'''(x''')->f''(x'')-?f'(x')->f(x)->y. In this backward chain of causation you must hit something at some point that was not caused and has always existed. You can call that God. But the point is, any phenomenon you want to explain, i.e. y, any f(x) that caused it is an analogue for it. Any f'(x') that caused f(x) is also an analogue for y. Keep going backwards and you hit an analogue for y that has always existed and was not caused by anything preceding it, and as stated, you can call that God.
Let's say that f(x) is a self-extracting zip file for the works of Shakespeare, f'(x') is a self-extracting zip file for f(x) and so on. If f(x) is a highly compressed version of the works of Shakespeare, then f'('x) cannot be much smaller than f(x) in bytes. To put it another way - say f'''(x''')->f''(x")->f'(x')->f(x)->y (i.e. the works of Shakespeare). No zip file (i.e. mechanism) in that chain can be smaller than the smallest complete specification for the works of Shakespeare. Note furthermore that each zip file in that chain is a complete specification for the works of Shakespeare. For example, If the works of Shakespeare is 5 mg in size, and the smallest specification for the works fo Shakespeare is say 2.2 mg, then no mechanism in the chain above can be smaller than 2.2mg.
Evolution is a mechanism that proposes some set of natural selection laws (f), plus a series of mutations (x) that together generated y, life on earth as we see it today, This f(x) came into existance purely by chance and output the natural world, y. You're just explaining the natural world by saying a self-extracting zip file f(x) for life came into existance by chance and created life. To use the "tornado in a junkyard analogy" , evolution does not say a tornado in a junkyard created a 747. Rather, evolution says a tornado in a junkyard created a jet manufacturing plant, i.e. f(x), and that f(x) created the 747. It doesn't make any difference what mechanism you propose - evolution, or anything else - the principle is the same. You're just pushing back what needs to be explained until you hit some mechanism that wasn't caused by anything, e.g. God.
So assuming we all agree that some mechanism was involved in the creation of life, what specifically is offensive about evolution? Probably, the part about Man coming from monkeys. For those offended by this, try this rationalization on for size (and you can debate this part as well): Genesis says that man and every other animal was created out of "the dust of the earth" (perhaps a metaphor for some veritable sea of microorganisms). Whose to say that some ape wasn't given the Spirit of God, permenantly changing the course of its history? Now, its behavior was no longer determined by mere instinct. As a result of this radical change in its nature, invoked by God, this ape started shaping its environment in a way that it no longer needed fur for the protection from the elements (for example), and as a result, selective pressure in this new human family no longer favored fur, and thus it dissappeared.
There is at least one instance we know of in the Bible where an animal was given the spirit of God - Balaam's donkey. Suppose that it had not been a temporary gift, but that from that point on donkeys, like men, had the "Image of God"? What would donkey culture be like today? Also, the serpent, like Balaam's donkey, could speak at one time. We also know that according to the Bible there was profound morphological change in serpents form the time of their intial creation (i.e. at one time they walked upright). Might not that imply a similar level of change in other animal species? In the case of Man, he does not rely as heavily on features of his morphology for his survival. Rather he shapes his own environment in a way that other animals do not (I would submit becase Man has the spirit of God, which other animals do not.) Thus, I would speculate that from the time Man was given the Spirit of God, his morphology did not change as much due to selective pressures as in the rest of the Animal Kingdom. Incidentally, As far as the six-day week of creation, the Bible uses time symbolically more than any other concept (e.g. Daniel's 70 week prophecy in which each day represents a year, etc.)
I don't know that the natural selection mechanism is sufficient as an explanation for life on earth. But I do know that there was a mechanism. I also know that this does not demonstrate there is no "God".
I am not going to debate the above, because there is nothing to debate (except where noted). It might be stated more effectively, but I am tired of doing all the work. Admittedly, the whole thing kind of tapered off in a haphazard manner, but its not a doctoral thesis. I don't want to attempt to explain it anymore to those who cannot grasp it. If no one in this forum is capable of elaborating on this further, extending it, refining it, explaining etc. then you are all idiots.
)
™ Version 4.2