RE: [asa] Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Mon Feb 12 2007 - 12:04:00 EST

As a physics professor, I do not encounter the problems that some
biologist, paleontologists, etc. may have regarding the history of life
on Earth. However, why stop with these disciplines only. What can we
then say about historians, psychologists, sociologists and all other
practitioners of all sorts of disciplines? A Christian historian would
have to tell his/her university class that the biggest, over shadowing
historical event is the birth of the Creator. However, they do not. Are
they being deceitful if in history articles they do not mention Jesus
the Christ's birth with prominence?





From: [] On
Behalf Of Freeman, Louise Margaret
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:34 AM
To: American Scientific Affiliation;
Subject: Re: [asa] Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules


Ted wrote:

List members may recall that I mentioned Ross some time back, in
connection with talking about Kurt Wise and Paul Nelson as YECs with a
new attitude--an attitude not appreciated in many YEC circles. I noted
his contribution to the DVD on the Cambrian explosion that he did with
Steve Meyer, esp the fact that he apparently accepted the earth's great
age for purposes of doing the DVD.


>>And though his dissertation repeatedly described events as occurring
tens of millions of years ago, Dr. Ross added, "I did not imply or deny
any endorsement of the dates."<<


I don't see how stating a date in a dissertation can *not* imply
endorsement of that date! Is the same true of his central conclusion?
Can you actually write a 197-page scientific thesis and *not* believe
what you've written to be true?


I can imagine Ross being a liability in a Dover-style trial, if he
stated in a thesis (or peer-reviewed publication) that mosasaurs went
extinct 65 million years ago, but is forced to say under oath that he
believes the earth didn't exist then!


He'd probably counter that he said that it *appeared* from the evidence
that the mosasuars went extict 65 million years ago, (though I'd be
surprised if he made that qualification every time he stated a fact in
conflict with YEC in his thesis). But in a way, that "apparent age"
arguement frees you up to do science like any other researcher. After
all, what "appears" to you is what you "observe," putting you back in
the realm of methodological naturalism, i.e. basing your research only
on observable features of the natural world.


The only difference I can see, is that you'd be spending your time,
energy and possibly a lot of other people's grant money investigating
what you believe is a completely fictional ancient world, which hardly
seems like the act of a good steward. That and you might not get support
from ID types who want to overthrow methodological naturalism.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 12 12:04:39 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 12 2007 - 12:04:39 EST