Re: YEC and loss of faith

Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 - 11:11:23 EST

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "Re: How to discuss evolution with friends. WAs RE: YEC and loss of faith:"

    Walter Hicks wrote:

    > Wayne, I go to a church with about 2000 members. It is
    > non-denominational but dominantly Baptist oriented. There are many of
    > what you call YECs and many scientifically oriented people who disagree
    > with each other. We even have calsses to discuss it and nobody gets all
    > high and mighty about who is wrong and who is right.
    > It takes two people to tango or to make a fight, not one.

    Fair enough.

    Hence, if creationist really want YEC science taught in
    schools, they will need to demonstrate that YEC science
    can get the predictions right: but it is not only the
    predictions that are important in science, but the _unity_
    that gives science its credibility.

    No, science is not perfect. It is a human enterprise and
    subject human frailty, but hardly a day goes by that we
    don't see some discovery that builds on those unify
    principles of science.

    No, I do not expect that science can discern all things
    (indeed it would be foolish to think so), but it has proven
    reliable. Is it reasonable to think that millions of scientist
    working every day for their daily bread would insist on some
    utterly bunk notion simply because it promoted an atheistic
    world view? If YEC ideas really worked with the far greater
    power than evolutionary models worked, do you really think
    for one minute that millions of scientists would still stick
    stubbornly to their precious evolutionary models? Or more to
    the point, do you really think that I would stick with that
    evolutionary model if I found _any_ serious reason to
    challenge it?

    I commend Allen Roy for trying to explain the Haymond deposits,
    and especially for being halfway civil about it. Indeed, he has
    even shown some keen observation skills that I do respect
    as a scientist. However, I have yet to feel that this is
    any ground I can stand on. I must rely on frequent tsunamis
    to produce 15k layers (which I gather are rather flat),
    but then typically a scientist would try to pin down a date on
    the layers, and that gets into radioactive dating and beds of
    fossils in other areas that usually correlate with
    each other and with the radioactive dating. So this also
    requires accepting a radical explanation for why radioactive
    dating is not to be trusted, and then we ask how these
    explanations are to be reconciled with the astronomical data,
    and we get other incredible explanations. Perhaps such arguments
    are plausible, but they are hardly something to construct a
    unifying picture of a universe on.

    In the end, maybe it was all so incredible and we (millions of
    scientist working day to day refining the principles we have
    learned in our education and in our experience) are just too
    thick to get it. I can accept that. At some point however,
    we must lay our cards on the table, and what we have learned
    through experience as practicing scientists is the best hand
    we have.
    By Grace we do proceed,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 11:12:15 EST