The "natural world" we observe is not the world God created. It is a ruined version of it.
Why, Satan of course
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?
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.
Thanks, but when we're talking about the defining paradigm of biology, I prefer the views of biologists.
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.