>The examples given by Glen and myself would flatly refute common descent as
>would many other possilities. That common descent has not been refuted may
>just mean that it represents a true understanding of Earth's biological
>history. I grow tired of the constant accusation that those of us who
>accept evolutionary models and who work in the historical sciences are
>driven by previous metaphysical assumptions. It just is not true.
While I didn't see Bill actually say that we are driven by our metaphysical
assumptions, I agree that it is far too often a charge that young-earther's
make. I would counter that charge by my own life history. I became
converted to the YEC position shortly after I became a christian. I was
taught that that was what the Bible required. I then spent the next 15 years
working from the YEC metaphysical assumptions only to finally have to give
them up in the face of an unrelenting torrent of data that clearly said I
was spitting into a strong wind.
Thus, people cannot claim that I was taught naturalism in my geology
classes, I never had a geology class, having learned geology on the job.
They can't claim that I fail to appreciate the finer points of the YEC
position because I wrote over 20 article for the Creation Research Society
Quarterly, ghost wrote Josh McDowells, Reasons Skeptics should Consider
Christianity, and gave the first paper at the first International Conference
on Creationism in 1986.
I came to accept evolution because I grew very wearly of trying to
disbelieve everything I saw in nature.
>You also posted:
>>Just as you referred to the scientific community
>>incorrectly through your evolutionary bias, so also you see geology as
>>supporting what it may not.
I stand corrected from above. Bill did say it. Bill, what do you do with
someone like me that started with your metaphysical assumptions? I didn't
see geology through evolutionary eyes, until I began to see that Christians
weren't telling me the truth about geology.
Foundation, Fall and Flood