4 ms·

The "natural world" we observe is not the world God created. It is a ruined version of it.

yters 17y ago
Yeah, wish people would critique good versions of their opponents rather than bad versions. Otherwise, no one learns anything. Both sides remain content in their arguments and assume the other side is a moron.
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  I have no idea what you two are talking about. Are you ambiguously trying to argue for creationism? If so, could you point me to those "good arguments"? I've never seen them.
  - rizzn 17y ago
    Methinks you haven't looked. I went to seminary briefly before deciding to go back to being a coder, and my favorite courses were apologetics and the courses having to do with creationist theory. They didn't teach creationist theory as the absolute definitive truth, they tought it as a plausible element to many Christian worldviews (in many variants, including Deism, Intelligent Design, Young Earth, and others). If you're looking for a variety of resources representing the different creationist worldviews, check the curriculum and resources at Summit Ministries. They were, at one time, loosely affiliated with Dobson's Focus on the Family organization (not sure of the current status of that affiliation), and lead by really deep thinkers in Protestant beliefs. http://www.summit.org/resources/ http://www.summit.org/resources/
    - MikeCapone 17y ago
      Ok, thanks for clarifying what you were saying.
      - swombat 17y ago
        In case you didn't notice, it's not the same person who replied, so there was no clarification.
    - gort 17y ago
      > lead by really deep thinkers in Protestant beliefs. Thanks, but when we're talking about the defining paradigm of biology, I prefer the views of biologists.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        Presumably you believe these groups to be mutually exclusive?
        gort 17y ago
        Indeed, I doubt there's much overlap between Protestant theologians and professional biologists.
    - swombat 17y ago
      They didn't teach creationist theory as the absolute definitive truth, they tought it as a plausible element to many Christian worldviews That's kind of the point, though. Creationism is not a plausible theory. It does not explain the evidence and is contradicted by the world around us. The only way you could allow for creator god that fits the observed evidence is if you posit that he does exactly what nature would do by itself. I.e. the only god that fits the observed evidence is nature... which is exactly the point of Eliezer's article.
  - yters 17y ago
    No, just that if Eliezer is going to critique a position, he should critique the best version of said position.
gort 17y ago
Who ruined it? Certainly not humans, who haven't been genetically engineering anything until recently. So who created these predators / parasites / diseases designed to kill and maim?
- Evgeny 17y ago
  Who ruined it? Why, Satan of course
  - swombat 17y ago
    You mean Sauron, and his daddy Morgoth. He took the beautiful and perfect Elves and twisted and tortured them into Orcs. Now that's pretty screwed up.
- dfragnito 17y ago
  Let me clarify my initial comment. The author critiques the notion that the God of the Bible created a "natural world" in which there are mutations and other observed travesties. One would expect, as the author points out, that a world created by God would be perfect. The creation account does in fact describe a creation that was perfect and in complete harmony, physicality and spiritually. When an imperfection (SIN) was introduced into a perfect world everything changed. One could argue if it (the natural world) was perfect how could an imperfection be introduced. This leads into the topic of free will. Could there be a perfect world where there exist no free will? As the account goes free will was part of creation so the imperfection was allowed to be introduced and the rest is history. I am not attempting to arguing that the creation account is accurate, I am pointing out that the author is not describing the Creation account accurately. It seems to be an effect strategy when trying to win an argument to tell a half truth about the apposing idea or position then attack that idea or position based on the half truth. By truth I mean the "true" creation account not the accuracy of the creation account. I was away for a few days so I could not respond in a more timely manner. On a completely different subject regarding down voting. Does it mean that one does not agree with the content, that the content has no insight, or that the content adds no value? The third is the area that I/We are trying to solve in a web application solution soon to be deployed. Using my initial comment as an example had I not posted that comment what "value adding" content would have never been created. If my content resulted in "value adding" content is it not then "value adding" content? Is a good proxy of "value adding" content, content which produces or causes other content creation?

yters 17y ago

Yeah, wish people would critique good versions of their opponents rather than bad versions. Otherwise, no one learns anything. Both sides remain content in their arguments and assume the other side is a moron.

MikeCapone 17y ago
I have no idea what you two are talking about. Are you ambiguously trying to argue for creationism? If so, could you point me to those "good arguments"? I've never seen them.
- rizzn 17y ago
  Methinks you haven't looked. I went to seminary briefly before deciding to go back to being a coder, and my favorite courses were apologetics and the courses having to do with creationist theory. They didn't teach creationist theory as the absolute definitive truth, they tought it as a plausible element to many Christian worldviews (in many variants, including Deism, Intelligent Design, Young Earth, and others). If you're looking for a variety of resources representing the different creationist worldviews, check the curriculum and resources at Summit Ministries. They were, at one time, loosely affiliated with Dobson's Focus on the Family organization (not sure of the current status of that affiliation), and lead by really deep thinkers in Protestant beliefs. http://www.summit.org/resources/ http://www.summit.org/resources/
  - MikeCapone 17y ago
    Ok, thanks for clarifying what you were saying.
    - swombat 17y ago
      In case you didn't notice, it's not the same person who replied, so there was no clarification.
  - gort 17y ago
    > lead by really deep thinkers in Protestant beliefs. Thanks, but when we're talking about the defining paradigm of biology, I prefer the views of biologists.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      Presumably you believe these groups to be mutually exclusive?
      - gort 17y ago
        Indeed, I doubt there's much overlap between Protestant theologians and professional biologists.
  - swombat 17y ago
    They didn't teach creationist theory as the absolute definitive truth, they tought it as a plausible element to many Christian worldviews That's kind of the point, though. Creationism is not a plausible theory. It does not explain the evidence and is contradicted by the world around us. The only way you could allow for creator god that fits the observed evidence is if you posit that he does exactly what nature would do by itself. I.e. the only god that fits the observed evidence is nature... which is exactly the point of Eliezer's article.
- yters 17y ago
  No, just that if Eliezer is going to critique a position, he should critique the best version of said position.

gort 17y ago

Who ruined it? Certainly not humans, who haven't been genetically engineering anything until recently. So who created these predators / parasites / diseases designed to kill and maim?

Evgeny 17y ago
Who ruined it? Why, Satan of course
- swombat 17y ago
  You mean Sauron, and his daddy Morgoth. He took the beautiful and perfect Elves and twisted and tortured them into Orcs. Now that's pretty screwed up.
dfragnito 17y ago
Let me clarify my initial comment. The author critiques the notion that the God of the Bible created a "natural world" in which there are mutations and other observed travesties. One would expect, as the author points out, that a world created by God would be perfect. The creation account does in fact describe a creation that was perfect and in complete harmony, physicality and spiritually. When an imperfection (SIN) was introduced into a perfect world everything changed. One could argue if it (the natural world) was perfect how could an imperfection be introduced. This leads into the topic of free will. Could there be a perfect world where there exist no free will? As the account goes free will was part of creation so the imperfection was allowed to be introduced and the rest is history. I am not attempting to arguing that the creation account is accurate, I am pointing out that the author is not describing the Creation account accurately. It seems to be an effect strategy when trying to win an argument to tell a half truth about the apposing idea or position then attack that idea or position based on the half truth. By truth I mean the "true" creation account not the accuracy of the creation account. I was away for a few days so I could not respond in a more timely manner. On a completely different subject regarding down voting. Does it mean that one does not agree with the content, that the content has no insight, or that the content adds no value? The third is the area that I/We are trying to solve in a web application solution soon to be deployed. Using my initial comment as an example had I not posted that comment what "value adding" content would have never been created. If my content resulted in "value adding" content is it not then "value adding" content? Is a good proxy of "value adding" content, content which produces or causes other content creation?