Walter Hicks wrote:
> george murphy wrote:
> > Walter Hicks wrote:
> > .......................
> > > Moreover the attitude that any YEC has no
> > > arguments in his favor come across as arrogance.
> > .......................
> > Name two.
> > Of course I can name one: If the Bible is an inerrant historical and
> > scientific chronicle then its genealogies &c add up to an age for the earth of
> > ~6000. But are there any other arguments that Christians who are knowledgeable
> > about science need to take seriously. (I do not count "apparent age", which is
> > simply a way of saying we have to fall back on the argument that I've already
> > cited.)
> I was speaking of the fact that science is a lot softer than scientists
> pretend that it is. I will name two soft areas in physics which may call
> into doubt it's validity in general -- as compared to an intrepretation
> of the Bible.
> First of all, I know for absolute fact that the time is now, the past is
> behind me and future is unknown. This is fact. Physics would tell me
> that we are governed by laws which are time symmetric. There is no
> distinction between past and future in terms of those forces which
> affect my memory (electrostatic and gravitational). Books abound by many
> famous writers on the subject and no cohesive explanation exists.
> Second, quantum mechanics is over a century old and it it is still a
> mystery. The transition from wave mechanics to observation is beyond the
> realm of science and gives rise to more "interrelations" than we have
> for the Bible.
> Science does not have the authority that the Bible does, so why should a
> YEC -- or anyone else -- take such a flawed activity as warranting
> greater belief that the teaching of the Bible?
First, what physics hasn't explained fully is how the 2d Law of Thermo
emerges in a world that is completely symmetric under time reversal. But it does
have the 2d Law with all its successes, so its not as if it were just helpless in the
face of irreversibility.
Second, quantum mechanics works extremely well. Yes, there are
interpretative problems especially with regard to measurement, but the theory can
hardly be compared with some theory that is completely devoid of predictive ability
like "scientific creationism."
Third, the authority of the Bible isn't in question, but that of YEC
& finally, my point stands that there is no good argument for YEC beyond that
based on its dubious assumptions about the character of biblical narratives.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
> And your response is?
> Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:13:22 EST