Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: Allen Roy (
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 15:42:01 EST

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: YEC and loss of faith"

    From: John W Burgeson>
    >> Allen, you wrote: "In trying to decipher your argument, it has become
    >> obvious that Naturalism and Creationism should be defined:
    > I commend to you the definitions used by my friend, David Griffin. You
    > can read them in his excellent book, RELIGION and SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM.
    > Check out my review, which was published by Metanexus and also appears on
    > my web site (the link is on page 2).

    I have been reading and studying your review of Griffin's book.

    You state "Seeking a religion/science harmony, he [Griffin] sees three
    things as necessary:"

    It is right at this point that I and many YECs are in disagreement with
    Griffin. I do not see science as some kind of philosophy with which
    religion needs to be harmonized. Rather, Creationary Catastrophists
    (including YECs) think of science as only a logical methodology with which
    to study nature. Importantly, the scientific method does not have built in
    interpretive values, rather those values are supplied by the interpretive
    paradigm within which the scientific method is conducted such as:
    Naturalism(sam), Naturalism(ns), Creationary Catastrophism, or Creationism.

    The real issues in Evolutionism vs. Creationism have very little to do with
    science, but rather, have everything to do with basic assumptions. It is
    those basic assumptions with which I dealt in the previous email.

    Therefore, Creationary Catastrophists would disagree with the three things
    that Griffin things are absolutely necessary -- i.e. that Science and
    Religion must:
    1. share a worldview
    2. science must insist only on naturalism(ns),
    3. religion must live with naturalism(ns) and no supernaturalism

    What Griffin is really saying is that in order for Evolutionism and Religion
    to harmonize
    1. they must have the same worldview (i.e. abandon creationism)
    2. that science can only be interpreted within the philosophy of Naturalism
    (any kind of naturalism)
    3. and religion must submit to Naturalistic philosophy.

    It is no wonder that Griffin disagrees with P. Johnson. He doesn't
    understand what Johnson is talking about.

    However, Creationary Catastrophists and Evolutionists do hold in common some
    assumptions that must be true for the scientific method to have validity.
    As mentioned in my previous posting they are.

    1. Uniformity of law over time and space.
    2. Uniformity of process over time and space.
    3. Uniformity of rate over time and space.

    However, Creationary Catastrophists add the following caveats acquired from
    their Biblical worldview:
    1. These assumptions are valid only since origin.
    2. They are unable to define origins.
    3. That inorganic and organic origins are beyond the ability of science to
    4. That time is limited to that defined by God's word.
    5. That non-uniformity of rate and non-uniformity of process are possible
    on occasion as
          delineated by God. (Amos 3:7)

    Any scientific inquiry that is done within the Evolutionary/Naturalistic
    world view that does not violate these caveats is perfectly acceptable to
    Creationary Catastrophists. (This, of course, includes nearly all practical
    scientific inquiry.)

    The concept that God invented, designed and made the natural laws by which
    creation functions eliminates the silly notion of 'a god of the gaps.' Man
    may have discovered some of the laws by which nature works, but that does
    not mean that God has been eliminated from the explanation of how nature
    functions. It simply means that we have discovered some of the laws that
    God invented, designed and made. In this way, the more that man discovers
    about nature and how it works, the bigger God gets. Our gaps in
    understanding simply reflect the finiteness of man, not the smallness of

    Unlike Evolutionary theorists, who focus their study on
    developing theories of Origin of matter/energy/motion, Abiogenesis and the
    origin of species from common ancestory according to natural law,
    Creationists start with knowing how the universe and types of life forms
    originated. They have no need and, indeed, will not even attempt to
    develop theories of origins. Creationists study nature not to discover how
    it got
    here, but how it functions as designed by the Creator. The origins were
    singular events which have little to no relationship to the day-by-day
    functioning thereafter.

    Since Creationary Catastrophists disagree with Griffin's primary assumptions
    the rest of his book is basically irrelevant to the issues between
    Creationists and Evolutionists.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 15:42:01 EST