In a previous article, rwertz@aztec.asu.edu (RANDY A. WERTZ) says:
>In a copywritten article in _First Things 97_ (November 1999):18-20,
>William E. Carroll had some interesting observations concerning an
>ongoing discussion that has aired here many times before. Carroll
>argues :
Carroll may provide arguments in the original article that support his conclusions (though I doubt it), but the quotes provided here are mainly just empty assertions. He's following the creationist's common method of "argument." They begin by pointing out supposed flaws in scientific explanations. Then they expect us to accept their nonsensical notion that their own view wins by default. In other words, since science supposedly fails to explain something, then we are expected to swallow their "God did it" conclusion even though they offer not a whit of evidence or logical argument in support of it.
By similar mode of "argument," a Christian early in the first millennium could have "proven" that the Christian god is the cause of lightning simply by showing fault with the then-common notion that lightning is an expression of Zeus' anger. Just because answer "A" may be wrong, this does not prove that answer "B" is correct.
Even if we accept Carroll's notion that the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe is somehow faulty, that doesn't mean that his baseless view is correct by default. He needs to show cogent reasons supporting his conclusion that his god is the cause of the universe. Otherwise his view is no more convincing to the rational person than various other religion's "explanations" for the origin of the universe.
>....Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole
>existence of whatever exists.
We are supposed to ignore the fact that Carroll's own criticisms (as nebulous as they are) of the scientific explanation apply equally well to his own God-did-it "explanation." This method of argument (I'm being overly generous when I apply that term) exemplifies another common feature of creationist claptrap: the double standard. First they raise objections to the scientific explanation, then they claim "God did it" is the only explanation, even though their own "explanation" falls victim to the same problems they just finished finding insurmountable.
>To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in
>something,.....
I'd just love to see Carroll explain how it is that his God-did-it explanation is unique, i.e. that his god can "cause completely something to exist" yet not "produce a change in something." But of course, due to the religionist double standard, Carroll no doubt feels that he has no obligation to actually detail his God-did-it "explanation."
>Carroll argues that God was the creator and that this question of
>creation is not the domain of science.
Is anyone surprised that Carroll wants to proclaim his "explanation" outside the domain of science? He has nothing in support of his claims but empty assertions. So of course he wants to have us accept the idea that we shouldn't expect something substantive from him; he has nothing.
Second, and contrary to what we are being told here, my bet is that Carroll doesn't argue anything (i.e. doesn't supply cogent logical arguments in support of his assertions). Instead he makes one empty assertion after another, as he did here, and then hopes that we won't notice his double standard and how vacuous his claims are.
Rick
The destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor whether soweth grain or not. --Robert Ingersoll