Re: YEC and loss of faith

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 23:18:20 EST

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: YEC and loss of faith"

    george murphy wrote:
    > 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.)
    > > O.K.
    > >
    > > 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.

    The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with what I said.
    The subjective notion of an arrow of time conflicts with the time
    symmetry of the electromagnetic equations.
    The 2nd law is unrelated to this.

    > 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."

    The question of interpretation is a smokescreen for the fact that
    science simply has no explanation for the inconsistency of wave
    mechanics and the process (not interpretation) of measurement -- when it
    happens to happen.

    > Third, the authority of the Bible isn't in question, but that of YEC
    > hermeneutic is.
    > & 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.

    I once heard a viewpoint that says that God created the Universe with
    man in mind. In fact: that by the Gospel of John this is conveyed very
    clearly. If then the universe is created for man, is it so obvious that
    God would have it do 20 billion years of preparation for the coming of
    historical mankind. If that "history" is what is needed for the backdrop
    to mankind, then so be it. Do you think that God could not just as
    easily start the clock ticking some 10,000 years ago? Yeah, I know that
    you probably hate the "history built in" argument. Do I perhaps see an
    a-priori bias for "naturalism" that refuses to even consider anything

    I don't subscribe to YEC, but I think the arguments generally presented
    here don't hold overwhelming weight.

    If they did, then the reaction might be better.

    > Shalom,
    > George
    > George L. Murphy
    > "The Science-Theology Interface"

    Walt Hicks <>
    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 - 23:19:24 EST