Pgs 123-124--After citing the debunked "Peppered Moth" example Mr. Mills moves even further into the absurb by citing the Urey-Miller experiment as evidence for his view. This makes my head spin. A simple google search will help anyone to see that this experiment was thrown out BY THE EVOLUTIONISTS years ago. It did not come up with the right elements for earth's early atmosphere. It only got a couple of amino acids but in these it didn't get the right ones to build towards proteins. It would be like saying you found a bolt in the dirt and you are readily on the way to having your own spaceship. To read more about how this theory is impotent click here (notice this is from Princeton, hardly a Christian source).
Or click here for a more scientific explanation on the experiment.
Pg 143--"Genesis and the scientific method are mutually exclusive". I have no clue how you can even make this statement. Maybe one could say that 'Genesis and the modern scientific interpretation are mutually exclusive.' I would probably agree with that on some levels. But how is Genesis at war with the scientific method? You mean the one that says we are to use observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses? If so, then how is Genesis at odds with it? If the scientific method has the capability to be applied to the Big Bang and hypothesize something coming from nothing then why can't it be applied to something coming from someone? This seems absurd and very presuppositional.
Pgs 163-165--He argues that any natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one. Then goes on to give an illustration of a “highly unlikely” event as something nobody would consider miraculous just bc it happened. I have a few problems with this. 1) The evidence for the natural explanation doesn't always have the greatest explanatory scope. Sometimes a miraculous explanation IS more likely. For example. If we saw a man blind from birth immediately able to see right after a man prayed for him then would we say a natural explanation has a greater explanatory scope and power than the miraculous one? It seems as if he is ruling out the miraculous from the beginning and that really isn't too scientific of him to rule out possible causes a priori. 2) Something being “highly unlikely” and something being only likely by supernatural means are two different things. For example: It is highly unlikely that I win the lottery but if I do it is not miraculous. But if I was an amputee and then grew a brand new leg in the matter of 3 seconds after someone prayed that God would heal me then that is miraculous. So his whole example of "highly unlikely" doesn't even apply to miracles. It is a category mistake.
Or click here for a more scientific explanation on the experiment.
Pg 143--"Genesis and the scientific method are mutually exclusive". I have no clue how you can even make this statement. Maybe one could say that 'Genesis and the modern scientific interpretation are mutually exclusive.' I would probably agree with that on some levels. But how is Genesis at war with the scientific method? You mean the one that says we are to use observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses? If so, then how is Genesis at odds with it? If the scientific method has the capability to be applied to the Big Bang and hypothesize something coming from nothing then why can't it be applied to something coming from someone? This seems absurd and very presuppositional.
Pgs 163-165--He argues that any natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one. Then goes on to give an illustration of a “highly unlikely” event as something nobody would consider miraculous just bc it happened. I have a few problems with this. 1) The evidence for the natural explanation doesn't always have the greatest explanatory scope. Sometimes a miraculous explanation IS more likely. For example. If we saw a man blind from birth immediately able to see right after a man prayed for him then would we say a natural explanation has a greater explanatory scope and power than the miraculous one? It seems as if he is ruling out the miraculous from the beginning and that really isn't too scientific of him to rule out possible causes a priori. 2) Something being “highly unlikely” and something being only likely by supernatural means are two different things. For example: It is highly unlikely that I win the lottery but if I do it is not miraculous. But if I was an amputee and then grew a brand new leg in the matter of 3 seconds after someone prayed that God would heal me then that is miraculous. So his whole example of "highly unlikely" doesn't even apply to miracles. It is a category mistake.
RSS Feed
