Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Let's reveal the full quote, shall we?and you got all that from this filthy slur?
God of dysentery?
3,890 posted on 07/17/2003 2:16 PM CDT by js1138
From the looks of you evo's attachment to things anal, you ALL are merely taking license to sign on to js1138's disgusting God Bashing spree.
Also let's show a little more of the text that Vade was quoting from (than he quoted) (emphasis mine):
To: VadeRetro
Would a theist truly be satisfied with an argument which meekly asserted "well . . . the Almighty is at least responsible for the flagellum of a bacterium?"
God of dysentery?
3,890 posted on 07/17/2003 12:16 PM PDT by js1138
As science progressively answers more questions about the natural world, God is relegated to a smaller and smaller creative role. However, this argument is clearly attractive to creationists. Since science can never hope to fully answer every question, there will always be gaps where God can still play a role. Teaching the "God of the Gaps," in science classes has serious ramifications to science. This mentality, if adopted, could potentially lead to lazy science. Why work a lifetime on difficult scientific questions? Don't worry, when you get stuck on a tough question, the answer is already there, "then the miracle happens." Furthermore, "God of the Gaps" should clearly be offensive to theists. Giving God responsibility over only those things whose naturalistic mechanism we don't fully understand, would trivialize God's role. Would a theist truly be satisfied with an argument which meekly asserted "well . . . the Almighty is at least responsible for the flagellum of a bacterium?" That's just pathetic.The fact that your creationist theory implies that God explicitly designed H. pylori to use its God-designed flagellum to cause us diarrhea is your dragon to slay, not ours.
What the heck are you writing about?
That quote was from someone antipathetic to creationists and IDists some of whom are not creationists. The implication was drawn by himin his attack on ID, and not attributed to a creationist. Nice straw man.
The God of the Gaps is the essence of Irreducible Complexity. Once science discovers how the IC mechanism could indeed have evolved (or discovers how it did evolve), then it's no longer IC. By definition.
And if you want to argue that ALS doesn't think the Designer of the flagellum is God, good luck.
Well whether ALS does or does not believe the designer is God, I do believe it. In any case, my comment was addressed to your argument. A false one. As to whether God created evil, I think I have displayed the answer clearly.
What difference does the source make? Circumstantial ad hominem. That the stated problem presents itself is obvious. Indeed it's been obvious, in some form, to Christians and other theists all along. They only debate is about the solution to the problem, or if there is a solution.
Frankly I think God does, as The Bible has him say of himself, "create evil." Or, rather, in my view, he invests the world and all the things in it with being, and some of those things are "evil" in the sense of tending to thwart human wants, needs and desires. Tough toodies. That's the price that must be paid for the wonderful diversity, multiplicty and dynamism of the creaturely world.
Well, that's the "problem of evil". There is also the "God of the gaps" problem here, or what might also be called "the unintended promotion of deism". I don't think you're so obtuse as to fail to see how that arises, or at least tends to, in creation science, and maybe even especially in ID.
The problem doesn't arise for me, as I hold that the world is not in any sense apart from God, but is rather a manifestation of (a portion of) God's own being. (I think there are also aspects of God's being that are expressed non-materialy, and exist beyond the world, so I'm not a pantheist positing that God and the world are co-equal. In terms of a very rough analogy, I suspect that the world is like God's "body", or maybe even just a portion of His body, and that other aspects of God, including his mind, transcend the world.)
ID, OTOH, is all about saying, "these things were the product of a designer because they couldn't have been created by natural causes." The corollary to that is that things that things which can be explained by nature cause need not be attributed to God. Creation science is likewise about arguing that there is evidence of God acting in the world in this or that instance or respect.
The problem is that all these arguments point to a God (or "intelligent designer") who is present and active here and there, now and then, in the world. But a God that is occassionaly present is also one who is occassionaly absent, and this is deism rather than theism.
Where was that? (Pardon, I'm just jumping in to this conversation.)
I thought I made it clear. You don't want Jerry Falwell teaching biology, and I look askance at creationist arguments put forth by one antipathetic to creationists. Simple isn't it.
Don't you read?
Where was that? was Stultis' question. Post 4130 contained the answer(Vaderetro understood and selected the precise portion out of the context). The answer to the question "Does God create evil?" is yes. I gave Stultis the direct answer to save him time if he wished.
Because He said He did.(through Isaiah)
Alamo-girl explained it. The verses in post 4130 also explain it. You can't have a drawing on white paper without darker lines. Without evil we would have no free choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.