Summations Only

Hi, Genomicus. Think of a car's make and model as it's "family" and "species" (or some such), and Jar's analogy makes a lot of sense. Once a new innovation appears and proves advantageous, it quickly crosses the boundary between "species," and appears in all Fords, Volkswagens and Hondas.The only trouble with the analogy is the implicit assumption that the Designer would be improving upon the original design after creating it, which is not compatible with the Designer envisioned by most IDists, who would presumably have made it all the right way the first time.In my mind, the argument is best rephrased in a simpler fashion: traits in organisms always come in homologous bundles, whereas human designs display freedom to mix-and-match parts from different tool sets. For example, the apparent design principle behind the ostrich is the equivalent of making a car by individually modifying and customizing all the parts of an airplane, and not once reaching into the "car parts" bin. Clearly, that's an odd design choice, and it would need some unique explanation.

Hi, Faith. I think this "Biblical fact" is far from clear. There are several later miracles that seem to involve mechanics that resemble "creation," such as the flies and frogs that spontaneously appeared in Egypt by God's power (Exodus 8), the manna that appeared with the dew by God's power (Exodus 16), perhaps even an assortment of fiery objects that were manifested by God's power (Genesis 19, Exodus 10, 1 Kings 18). And I'm not sure how to explain that whole business with the loaves and the fishes without invoking some mechanism that I would be obliged to call "creation."Also, if I accept this "Biblical fact" that God has not created anything new since Genesis 2, it leads me inescapably to one of two conclusions about myself:

1. I, Blue Jay von Thylacosmilustein, having been born in 1982 (several thousand years after Genesis 2), was not created by God.
2. I actually was created by God, but it was several thousand years ago; meaning that my parents have simply misremembered something or (as AlphaOmegakid would likely claim) are among the damnedest of liars.

Clearly, your claim that "Creation ended with Genesis 2" causes some tension with the core components of the Creationist belief system, so perhaps you should reconsider it.

Hi, Faith. These, I think, are the salient points of your post. It seems that you view "Creation" as referring to the creation of templates or prototypes, rather than the creation of individual things, is that correct? So, there's is 'creation,' and then there is 'Creation^TM', so to speak.It's certainly a valid position, but it feels an awful lot like splitting hairs in the name of specific -- and somewhat strained -- interpretation of the phrase "rested from all his work" (Genesis 2:2). Is there some other reason (other than Genesis 2:2) why you think God isn't creating things anymore? I mean, clearly God didn't have any qualms about going back to work after Creation Week, because the Bible has Him doing all kinds of miracles well after Creation Week ended. And, if He can go back to work, what's stopping Him from going back to 'creation'?Are you willing to consider that maybe God can and does still create things? Or are you now thinking about ways to interpret the word 'work'? Is there also going to be a 'work' and 'Work^TM' now? Okay, but did God actually 'Create^TM' Adam, or did He merely 'create' Adam? Genesis 1:26-27 describes God as creating man "in His own image" and "after His own likeness."That sounds like God was working from a pre-existing template, which would mean Adam is not the actual prototype. So, if we're following your strict definition of "creation," God therefore did not actually create Adam. I cited Exodus 10, when I was supposed to cite Exodus 9, where the 7th plague was described as "fire mixed with hail." But, the newer translations apparently translate it as "lightning," so I was wrong to include that example. Great, so I was not created by God. I think it turned out this way because you were more willing to redefine terms than to consider an alternative to your pre-existing beliefs.