From: Darryl Maddox (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:47:07 EDT
I think I can agree with that. In fact I thought that is at least part of
what I said, it just didn't take you as many words as it did me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hicks" <email@example.com>
To: "Darryl Maddox" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Michael Roberts" <email@example.com>; "Alexanian, Moorad"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "John W Burgeson" <email@example.com>;
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: My daughter is a YEC
> Thanks for the response Darryl. Let me present another viewpoint which
> 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
> It says so in the Bible. If He he did so, why waste 15 billion years when
> 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"
> There is obviously no way to discriminate between these two outlooks. It
> a philosophy which says that it must be the way that it appears to be
> God would not deceive in the physical universe. By the same token, one can
> that God does not deceive in the Bible.
> So I contend that a Christian non-scientist can well accept a literal
> the thoughts of a scientist. (I do not mean following the ICR!) If such
> were reserved to a church Bible study it would be fine. It is just the
> have to run around and make believe they have a scientific explanation of
> that make life miserable.
> One of the more contentious issues is, Of course, evolution. It is the
> publicized outlook that this is a "random" process that makes for
> against scientific extrapolation to the past. If we spent more time
> Dawkins and the ilk we might look more credible to the non-scientific
> 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
> > find the following helpful as an answer to Walter's question. I am
> > address this from the point of geology but readers should feel free to
> > substitute biology astronomy anthropology or any other field you think
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > Duro Canyon State Park. Needless to say my writing, my teaching, and my
> > church affiliation create some intersting conversations. So, from some
> > years of going from Baptist, to athiest, to Mormon, to generic Christian
> > 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
> > 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
> > YEC that we be particularly careful how, where, and when, we address
> > 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
> > attendance is at their discretion, and that under no circustance do I
> > 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.
> > they want to come back and discuss something with me later that is ok,
> > 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
> > Are we asking: "Why should a non-geologist respect the geological
> > and statements of professional geologists about geological matters?" or
> > we asking: "Are non-scientists are obligated to subjegate their
> > beliefs to the current beliefs and teachings of the geological
> > If we are asking the first question then I believe and will contend that
> > answer is YES - they should respect our version of earth history unless
> > 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
> > 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
> > those people in their "home" field to determine valide and useful data,
> > suddenly become worhtless when applied by the same people to determining
> > same kind of data except in a geological context.
> > 4) They can explain why geologists, whom they must believe are
> > scientists because otherwise they would respect our version of earth
> > as being the one supported by science, suddenly become competent
> > when, as many have been forced to do and some have simply chosen to do,
> > 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
> > rock are suitable for disposing of various forms of polutants and which
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > POINT OF VIEW, then, if and only if, the conditions are appropriate for
> > a discussion, they had better be prepared to play hard ball because, in
> > kindest way I know, and hoping not to offend them or destroy their
> > the gloves are coming off and it's going to be bare fisted science, data
> > logic, my version of earth history vs yours, and if they are that
> > we can go look at some rocks and see how much their version explains vs.
> > much mine explains. I frequently learn a great deal from these people
> > 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
> > Christian, rather than to just have an intellectural acknowledgment of
> > relgion.
> > I hope this helps. It's the best I can offer.
> > Darryl
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Walter Hicks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: "Michael Roberts" <email@example.com>
> > Cc: "Alexanian, Moorad" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "John W Burgeson"
> > <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <ASA@calvin.edu>
> > 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 <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 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:49:45 EDT