Re: My daughter is a YEC

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 12:14:53 EDT

  • Next message: Freeman, Louise Margaret: "Re: My daughter is a YEC"

    Thanks for the response Darryl. Let me present another viewpoint which somewhat
    bypasses this.

    I heard John MacArthur present this viewpoint on the radio.

    Science is fine for telling us the present. However, it cannot validly
    extrapolate to the past and ignore God's Word. God created the Universe for man.
    It says so in the Bible. If He he did so, why waste 15 billion years when it is
    just as easy for Him to bring it into existence in 6 days as the Bible
    proclaims? That does not dispute what science sees in an "apparent" history.

    There is obviously no way to discriminate between these two outlooks. It is only
    a philosophy which says that it must be the way that it appears to be because
    God would not deceive in the physical universe. By the same token, one can claim
    that God does not deceive in the Bible.

    So I contend that a Christian non-scientist can well accept a literal Bible over
    the thoughts of a scientist. (I do not mean following the ICR!) If such opinions
    were reserved to a church Bible study it would be fine. It is just the Kooks who
    have to run around and make believe they have a scientific explanation of things
    that make life miserable.

    One of the more contentious issues is, Of course, evolution. It is the widely
    publicized outlook that this is a "random" process that makes for rebellion
    against scientific extrapolation to the past. If we spent more time attacking
    Dawkins and the ilk we might look more credible to the non-scientific Christian.

    Just an opinion.


    Darryl Maddox wrote:

    > Hello Walter and others,
    > I don't know what has been said before on this thread but perhaps some will
    > find the following helpful as an answer to Walter's question. I am going to
    > address this from the point of geology but readers should feel free to
    > substitute biology astronomy anthropology or any other field you think may
    > be more relevant to their individual situations.
    > I am a non-Ph.D. scientist, a geologist by education, avocation, and
    > profession. My wife says I am possed by geology. I am also a geologist who
    > teaches historical geology in a part of the country where many people
    > believe in a young earth, I attend a church where, as near as I can tell an
    > even higher % believe in a young earth and the ICR, AIG etc version of
    > Noah's flood. I am also currently writting a book on the Geology of Palo
    > Duro Canyon State Park. Needless to say my writing, my teaching, and my
    > church affiliation create some intersting conversations. So, from some 30+
    > years of going from Baptist, to athiest, to Mormon, to generic Christian and
    > from highschool aiming to be a music major nerd to college geology and
    > physics teacher nerd, I offer the following. As far as I can tell there is
    > no reason "Why should a lawyer, mill worker, or anyone else respect the
    > arrogant opinions of this list just because "PhD" can be tacked on after
    > most our names..."
    > Let me begin by saying that when a geologist, and most particularly a
    > Christian geologist, encounters a person who whose beliefs are essentially
    > YEC that we be particularly careful how, where, and when, we address their
    > beliefs. Otherwise we run the risks, none of which I personally care to
    > take. When I do my lecture on why regular geologists do not accept YEC
    > teachings about the science of geology I make sure the students know that
    > attendance is at their discretion, and that under no circustance do I wish
    > to interfere with or change their religious beliefs, and finally that if
    > they choose to attend and feel their faith beginning to waiver I would
    > rather the quietly leave the room than stay and loose it all together. If
    > they want to come back and discuss something with me later that is ok, but
    > the scientific classroom is not the place, nor will I, attempt to change
    > anyone's beliefs about anything except the current geologic paradigm.
    > Now, let finally get to the essence of this by tring to clarify something.
    > Are we asking: "Why should a non-geologist respect the geological opinions
    > and statements of professional geologists about geological matters?" or are
    > we asking: "Are non-scientists are obligated to subjegate their religious
    > beliefs to the current beliefs and teachings of the geological community?"
    > If we are asking the first question then I believe and will contend that the
    > answer is YES - they should respect our version of earth history unless one
    > or more of the following conditions apply.
    > 1) They are prepared to disregard every aspect of geological science.
    > 2) They can specify a logically consistent method, other than religious
    > belief, of differentiating those parts of geology with which they agree and
    > those parts with which they disagree.
    > 3) They can explain why people whom they accept as being compentent
    > chemists, physicists, etc. become incompetent when they apply their
    > knowledge to geological questions and furthermore why the techniques used by
    > those people in their "home" field to determine valide and useful data,
    > suddenly become worhtless when applied by the same people to determining the
    > same kind of data except in a geological context.
    > 4) They can explain why geologists, whom they must believe are incompetent
    > scientists because otherwise they would respect our version of earth history
    > as being the one supported by science, suddenly become competent scientists
    > when, as many have been forced to do and some have simply chosen to do, they
    > change their occupation to that of chemist, physicist etc.
    > 5) They either doubt or have reason to believe that geological data and
    > reasoning are valid for finding mineral resourecs, studying earthquakes,
    > volcanoes, rivers, beaches, and deltas, and for determining which bodies of
    > rock are suitable for disposing of various forms of polutants and which way
    > those polutents are going to migrate, but invalide for determining earth
    > history.
    > However, if we are asking the second question then the anwer is a loud and
    > resounding NO. There is no reason anyone should change their religious
    > beliefs about earth history just because those beliefs do not conform to
    > those of the most professional geologists.
    > One last note - I respect anyones right to hold whatever beliefs they wish
    > to and for what ever reasons they wish to. But the minute they start
    > talking about earth history AND CLAIMING TO BE DOING SO FROM A "SCIENTIFIC"
    > POINT OF VIEW, then, if and only if, the conditions are appropriate for such
    > a discussion, they had better be prepared to play hard ball because, in the
    > kindest way I know, and hoping not to offend them or destroy their faith,
    > the gloves are coming off and it's going to be bare fisted science, data and
    > logic, my version of earth history vs yours, and if they are that intersted
    > we can go look at some rocks and see how much their version explains vs. how
    > much mine explains. I frequently learn a great deal from these people and
    > these encounters, but it is rarely about geology. I greatly cherish the
    > friendship of some of them and their help, encouragement and Christian
    > companionship as I learn more about how to be and what it means and to be a
    > Christian, rather than to just have an intellectural acknowledgment of the
    > relgion.
    > I hope this helps. It's the best I can offer.
    > Darryl
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Walter Hicks" <>
    > To: "Michael Roberts" <>
    > Cc: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>; "John W Burgeson"
    > <>; <>; <>
    > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 7:13 PM
    > Subject: My daughter is a YEC
    > Why should a lawyer,
    > > mill worker, or anyone else respect the arrogant opinions of this list
    > just
    > > because "PhD" can be tacked on after most our names --- pray tell?
    > >
    > > Walt
    > >
    > >

    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 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 12:26:12 EDT