NAME: Cecil Allen Roy
VOCATION: Tour guide, Rock hound, Amateur geologist
Could not find what I wanted to do/be...
Started in Electrical Engineering, switched to Electronics, then
Elementary Education, and finally, after 9 years, got an AA degree in
Civil Engineering Technology (I needed something to feed my family
with). After working for 5 years for the WA State Highway Department I
got promoted to my level of incompetency -- writing Highway Project
Environmental Impact Reports for which I had no training and even less
interest. Then my wife left me and I went in search of a better life.
After another 4 years as a part time Computer Science major, I put
education on hold again with enough credits for nearly 2 majors, but
spread out too thin to be of any real good. I held a number of
assorted odd jobs then discovered somewhat by accident that I love
giving specialized private tours interpreting Grand Canyon within the
Creationary Cataclysmist paradigm. I am fascinated with geology and am
self educating myself through wide reading on the topic. One of the
reasons I'm on the ASAnet is to expose myself to what I believe is the
latest thinking in the realm of what is typically called Theistic
Evolutionism or progressive Creationism, etc.. (And, to argue my
position from time to time).
At age 50 I was shocked to find that after testing I was able to join
RELIGION: Seventh-day Adventist
ORGANIZATIONS: Creation Research Society (supporting), MENSA
"Fountains of the Great Deep: The Primary Cause of the Flood" CRSQ
Volume 33, June 1996, pp. 18-22.
FAMILY: married (second time) for 12 years to Diane L. Harris this
coming January. Daughter, Amanda Suzanne Roy (10), more trouble than
the other two put together. Labeled by her Grandmother at age 8 as the
youngest teenager she ever met.
Children from previous marriage
Cecil Andrew Roy (poor kid got tagged with Cecil) married to Dena
Carrie Ann Bergherm (Roy) married to Brent.
No Grandchildren! Yet.
Interesting trivia: 1. Cecil Olan Roy (my dad): Cecil Allen Roy (me):
Cecil Andrew Roy (son) Not sure what to expect for the next
generation. 2. My initials spell CAR. My first wife's initials spelled
CAR. My Son and Daughter's initials spelled CAR. So, we were a four
CAR family. :)
My religious training introduced me to what I now call straight-forward
reading of the Bible -- letting the Bible speak for and interpret
itself. And, the Historistical interpretive methodology of Bible
prophecy. And, learning that fulfilled prophecy proves God exists.
Concerning science: I have found that the scientific method is
philosophy driven. It can only function within a paradigm that guides
the observation process, the hypothesis development and the
interpretation of the data acquired by the methodology. The conflict
between Evolutionism and Creationism is not about facts, but between the
interpretations of the facts as guided by the two mutually exclusive
religious paradigms. There is really no conflict between science and
religion whether we are talking about Evolutionism and science or
Creationism and science. Science is, and must be done, within either of
these (or perhaps even other) paradigms.
For the scientific method to function the student of nature must accept
the philosophical assumptions of uniformity of law over time and space
and uniformity of process (actualism) over time and space.
For the Evolutionist, time is either limited or unlimited depending upon
whether it is assumed that matter had an origin or if it is thought to
be unbounded based on the materialistic paradigm where matter is all
there is, has been or ever will be. In either case, time is consider to
have been vast.
Creationists also accept the philosophical assumptions within which the
scientific method must function -- uniformity of law over time and space
and uniformity of process (actualism) over time and space. However,
time is limited based on philosophical assumptions acquired from a
straight-forward reading of the Bible.
There are two singularities mentioned in the Bible. As such, they lie
outside the realm of scientific inquiry that requires repeatability.
These are the origin of the inorganic (i.e.,, the universe) at "The
Beginning," And the events of the Creation Week, including the origin
of life (the organic) on the planet. While science can study matter and
life as they function according to natural laws, this study cannot
illumine how nor when the inorganic and the organic came into
existence. We are given the approximate time (~6000 +/- ??? years) for
the origin of the organic on the planet. But the age of the inorganic
is indeterminable but for being prior to the Creation Week.
There is one other factor that places bounds on time in the Creationary
paradigm with regard to the inorganic on planet earth -- Noah's Flood.
A straightforward reading indicates that this was a global event that
occurred some 4000 years ago. If it was so, then one would expect to
find the record of it in the geologic record. However, one needs to
start with the assumption that it did happen else the evidence will not
be interpreted within Creationary paradigm. This is because the ruling
geological interpretive method starts with the assumption that no such
event has ever occurred. The present is taken as the key to the past
and within the era of scientific inquiry, no event on the apparent
magnitude of a global cataclysm as described in the Bible has ever
happened, so there is nothing on that scale in the present with which to
apply to the geologic record. Therefore, the geologic record is
interpreted as if no such event ever occurred, that thing continue
forever just as they do today. However, there is growing evidence of
large catastrophic interpreted events, i.e. the extinction of the
dinosaurs because of asteroid impacts, the impacts of Comet
Shoemake-Levy 9, and the increasing number of earth orbit crossing
asteroids of significant size.
When the Creationist accepts the geologic record as being the result of
a global cataclysm, then the entire method of dating the geologic record
of sedimentary and associated igneous rock through radiometric means
goes by the board. By assuming that there was a global cataclysm that
emplaced nearly all the geologic record within a years time, the
Creationist drop-kicks all application of radiometric dating to the
geologic record. Thus, any and all computed dates acquired through
radiometric means has absolutely no meaning or relevance to the
Creationary model based on philosophical assumptions acquired from the
Bible. A creationists has no problem with the accuracy with which
quantities of elements and isotopes are measured in an assortment of
rocks, but the interpretation of those measurements into ages is
irrelevant to the Creationary model. Radiometric ages of the geologic
record therefore do not conflict with the Bible, they are simply
irrelevant to a world view based on the Bible.
However, it may be possible that computed ages of rock and meteorites
over which the global cataclysm would have no influence, may have some
validity because the age of the inorganic was prior to the origin of the
organic and not directly influenced by the global cataclysm.
Thus, the creationists does science within time bounds as defined in the
bible -- the origin of the inorganic, the origin of the organic and the
global cataclysm. Scientific inquiry of the universe is bound by the
origin of the universe as created by God. Scientific inquiry of the
organic is bound in time by the Creation week. Scientific inquiry of
the geologic record of sedimentary and associated rock is time bound to
the Global cataclysm. The dating of the global cataclysm dates the
sedimentary rocks, not other, unrelated systems.
Thus there is no problem between science and "religion," either
Creationism or Evolutionism. Science is the logical method by which we
study nature within our chosen paradigm. Evolutionism is the logical
corollary to the philosophy of Materialism. Creationism is the logical
corollary to Biblical "literalism" or the straight-forward reading of
That apparent conflict arises when Science is erroneously equated with
Evolutionism. Evolution = Science and Science = Evolution.
Creationists reject this lapse of logic.
This got longer than I had expected, but its seems necessary to explain
my creationary position as part of the Bio because I believe that there
is much confusion on the topic. ANd when one says, I'm a Creationary
Cataclysmist, an inexact picture is often conjured up in the minds of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 15:08:04 EDT