Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6 & The End

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Thu Oct 11 2007 - 12:34:53 EDT

MessageWhat is to be criticized is not belief in miracles but the idea that you can appeal to miracles & then pretend that you've given a scientific explanation.

As to the last sentence: The popular presentations of RATE are all that the great majority of YEC laypeople & clergy will read. (& a lot of them will just rely on word of mouth that "Bible believing scientists" have shown that the earth is young.) The RATE people know that, & if they don't point out the scientific difficulties in the popular presentations then they are deliberately deceiving people.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jon Tandy
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:30 AM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6 & The End

  I think it's a bit precarious arguing against the invocation of "miracle" when presenting this to a popular Christian audience. "You're a Christian, and you don't believe in miracles?" they will ask.

  I believe we need to be clear in such discussions that as Christians, we believe in the possibility of God doing miracles which are beyond any human explanation. The point here, though, is truthfulness. It is disingenuous to say "science proves" Young-Earth Creation, when in the end it's not science that proves it, but rather some highly contrived and speculative miraculous events that are neither witnessed in the scriptural record nor by any observable evidence. If you want to believe that "God did it" in a certain way, and ignore the scientific evidence, then at least be honest and admit this is a purely theological conclusion. I don't believe God is going to condemn a person who is ignorant of the scientific facts and simply chooses to believe a theological assertion of God as Creator. However, lying about what science actually "proves" is not something a Christian should do. If one is going to claim a scientifically verifiable explanation (or even invoke an unproved hypothesis), then there needs to be a forthright acknowledgement of the scientific evidence or lack thereof.

  It seems that the popular presentations of RATE is where this really becomes a problem, even though the technical volumes admit the scientific difficulties.

  Jon Tandy

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
    Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:36 AM
    To: Randy Isaac; asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6 & The End

    Like others, I agree with Randy's evaluation. I would point out though that the reliance on "divine intervention" - i.e., miracle - has been clear in this most recent phase of YEC claims even before the RATE project began. In Starlight & Time Humphreys had to say that God somehow brought about an enormous expansion of space during the creation week. As I've said before, natural processes plus a miracle = a miracle as far as scientific explanation is concerned. Humphreys' cosmology and the RATE project (together or separately) are precisely, without remainder, in the category of the famous "Then a miracle occurs" cartoon - i.e., they are a joke as far as science is concerned.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Randy Isaac
      To: asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:19 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6 & The End

      Steve,
      ..........................
      Most of all, note the reliance on "divine interpretation." This is perhaps the clearest statement yet from ICR/CRS that known scientific concepts are not consistent with the young-earth position. In my article, I focused on the deception of those who claim RATE concluded that science has shown the young-earth position to be credible while the actual technical report states clearly that there are unresolved problems that cannot be solved by any known scientific process. I did circulate my article to the Creation Research Society board of directors prior to publication, with no response. It is now interesting that DeYoung essentially admits that the young-earth advocate cannot close the loop with science but needs to fall back on "divine intervention." In so doing, he has been truthful in reporting the failure of RATE to settle the issue of the age of the earth scientifically. If the audience left the conference thinking that RATE had demonstrated the scientific feasibility of a young earth, then that was merely what they wanted to hear--they were told factually that "divine intervention" must be invoked.

      Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 11 12:38:05 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 11 2007 - 12:38:05 EDT