Re: My daughter is a YEC

From: Darryl Maddox (
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:47:07 EDT

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: My daughter is a YEC"

    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" <>
    To: "Darryl Maddox" <>
    Cc: "Michael Roberts" <>; "Alexanian, Moorad"
    <>; "John W Burgeson" <>;
    <>; <>
    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
    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"
    > 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
    > 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
    Bible over
    > 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
    Kooks who
    > 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.
    > Walt
    > 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
    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
    > > 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
    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
    > > 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
    be a
    > > 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" <>
    > > 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 - 13:49:45 EDT