RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

From: gordon brown <gbrown@Colorado.EDU>
Date: Tue Aug 21 2007 - 20:20:02 EDT

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Jon Tandy wrote:

> I've noticed that young-earth creationists want to debunk uniformitarianism
> to disprove evolution, but use uniformitarian assumptions when necessary to
> disprove evolution. This seems a logical fallacy, although this isn't to
> say that in some cases some of these assumptions may be warranted.
> However, I'm curious how often faulty uniformitarian assumptions do still
> appear and trip up philosophical naturalists, old-earth creationists, or TEs
> in their conclusions. It seems to me that steady-state assumptions are
> probably used quite commonly by de facto in the absence of specific
> contradictory knowledge, as a general rule in most fields. This is probably
> only natural, since we wouldn't go into an unknown field of knowledge
> assuming everything to be chaotic and unpredictable.

I don't think that faulty uniformitarian assumptions in YEC apologetics
trip up anyone who isn't already tripped up. I am thinking of YEC
arguments such as those based on assuming that comets' periods never
change and earth's magnetic field is decaying exponentially. It is pretty
easy to recognize these as false assumptions.

Perhaps, though, you have in mind examples such as Newton's laws, where a
uniformitarian interpretation had to be refined slightly to give something
else that is still uniformitarian.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 21 20:20:41 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 21 2007 - 20:20:42 EDT