Re: inference

Paul Arveson (
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:52:01 -0400

At 11:31 PM -0400 11/12/97, George Murphy wrote:

> & such questions about inference don't just have to do with
>the past. Do we know that there are _really_ electrons, pions, &c? So
>some YECs find themselves allied with those post-modernists who think
>that scientists have simply "constructed" quarks &c instead of
>discovering them. & there is _some_ truth in that - as long as you
>don't think that quarks are _entirely_ a construct, no more or less real
>than elves and trolls.
> George Murphy

It was clear even going back to Henry Morris' writings in the 1960's that
he was a selective skeptic. Very critical at a philosophical level of
things that didn't agree with him, and utterly uncritical of things that
agreed. He wanted to say that secular science was based on atheistic
presuppositions and hence was as religious and non-empirical as
creationism, but then he would devote chapters to describe 'evidences' for
creation. Wanted to have his cake and eat it too. All his followers have
taken this tactic. It seems to work in some audiences that are sensitive
to the philosophical critiques but are unfamiliar with this history of
selective use by creationists.

There is this 'gravedigger thesis' that Christian theology, having begun
the scientific revolution, is -- after Darwin and modernism -- being torn
down by the monster it produced. I think there may be another twist to
this thesis -- that the grave is being dug not so much by modernists, but
by believers who want to please God with a lie. Is creationism just a
trivial fringe, or is it the beginning of a revolution that will bury
science in relativism and dogmatism?

Paul Arveson, Code 724, Research Physicist, Signatures Directorate
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
9500 MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
(301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)