The Creation Hypothesis PDF James Porter Moreland

Photo provided by Flickr

Moreland(1994) The Creation Hypothesis

Now, the obvious response to du Nouy--and, indeed, to Bradley and Thaxton--is that evolutionary theorists need not and do not assume that such incredibly unlikely events have occured. Proteins are not assembled directly from atoms (and, indeed, Oparin did not assume that they are). Rather, atoms are first assembled into amino acids, and other building blocks (something which Bradley and Thaxton do not suppose is ruled out by probability considerations). Given this modest success, evolutionary theorists might well wonder whether the trick can be turned again. Could it be, for example, that there are replicating biopolymers which are less complicated than the familiar proteins, but which can nonetheless act as stepping stones on the way to the formation of the familiar proteins? Perhaps there is some reason why this is ruled out but, if so, Bradley and Thaxton do not give it. What they give are some reasons for doubting proposals along these lines--but that falls a long way short of a demonstration that this general line of thought is incorrect.

The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer [J
Photo provided by Flickr

Creation Hypothesis - Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer

Editor J. P. Moreland and a team of experts examine arguments and evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, paleontology and linguistics in support of the creation hypothesis.

Moreland (ed.) The Creation Hypothesis Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press Graham Oppy
Photo provided by Flickr

German philosopher Immanuel Kant in 1755 hypothesized the originof the solar system as beginning with a rotating gaseous nebulaout of which condensed globular bodies that became the sun andplanets---all revolving in the same direction. (Ref. 2). Essentiallythe same theory, now called "the nebular hypothesis"was proposed by the French mathematician Laplace in 1796. Accordingto this model the hot rotating gas cloud began to cool and contract,and if this were to happen the law of conservation of angularmomentum requires a more rapid rate of rotation. This speed upwas supposed to have flung off rings which condensed into theplanets.

Book Reviews The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer
Photo provided by Flickr

The Creation Hypothesis: ARN Book Review

Of course, given that the commitment is , it would be inconsistent to appeal to a principle of 'methodological naturalism' to rule out 'theistic science' on grounds. However, I doubt that many of those who ridicule the notion of 'theistic science' really think that it can be ruled out on grounds. Rather, what they think is that the history and success of science provides very good reasons for holding that the prior probability that we might need a 'theistic science' is extraordinarily low. ('Theistic science' belongs with astrology and phrenology and scientology and ...; endeavours which have been discredited by the history and success of non-supernatural science.) Given that Moreland and his co-contributors disagree, their task is to show that we do need 'theistic science'--and, indeed, this is what they try to do in the second part of the book. If their enterprise were to bear fruit, then I have no doubt that we would all hear about it. (Part of the point here is that it seems very doubtful that there is any kind of 'conspiracy' against 'theistic science'. All that creationists need to do is to provide decent reasons for taking 'theistic science' seriously. To date, there is, I think, no doubt that they have failed to do this. More about this in my concluding remarks.)

Moreland, editor InterVarsity Press, 1994, 335 pp

These claims for 'theistic science' are quite strong--and seem to go far beyond anything that is really argued for in the rest of the book. Moreland makes it fairly clear that, by 'God', he means the God of , etc.--and that he means to be taken to be suggesting that the can be taken to be a literal account of the origins, history and governance of the world. But, of course, if this is what 'theistic science' is to be then these claims are subject to the same strictures as any other scientific claims. Does the evidence--from comparative literature, history, etc.--really bear out the claim that the is the word of God? Does philosophical examination really bear out the claim that the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, etc. creator of the world is so much as coherent or logically consistent? Does philosophical investigation really bear out the claim that there are satisfactory answers to the problems of evil, divine foreknowledge, divine freedom, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and so on? Does the alleged evidence from cosmology and biology really suppport the claim that the universe and living species were designed and created by an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, etc. being?