Re: [asa] Proof of the YEC position

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sat Jul 05 2008 - 15:59:29 EDT

Option 1 is incomplete. If the meaning is "will eventually be found by
science" it's wrong, as least if "design" is meant in the way IDers intend
it. If it means "will be found if one studies the scriptural witness to
God's revelation" &/or "will be found eschatologically" it would be OK.

Distinctions need to be made within Option 2 below. If stated as "While
science discovers truth about reality, it cannot discover the whole truth"
then it's OK.

3 is not acceptable unless one wants to get technical about what is meant by
God's "existence" a la Tillich.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward J. Hassertt J.D." <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Proof of the YEC position

> Evidence for design as yet does not exist, but as Christians we must
> either
> assume
> 1) Evidence for design will eventually be found
> 2) Science is inadequate at discovering the true nature of reality, or_
> 3) There is no designer and Christians are wrong about the existence of
> God
> Which of these would you agree to be true?
> If science rules out the possibility of design a priori, it is no longer
> science, but dogma.
> If on the other hand science rules out the possibility of not finding a
> designer, it too is no longer science by dogma.
> Both sides of this issue seem to be setting aside science for dogma.
> If science is accurate, capable, and working under the right assumptions,
> then it will eventually discover evidence of a designer if one exists.
> If a designer exists and science cannot discover that, then science is
> incapable of truly discovering an accurate telling of reality. It ends up
> being pragmatic instead of truth-discovering.
> If science if incapable of discovering a designer when one does exist,
> then
> why should we trust the other pronouncements of science as true? If it is
> incapable of discovering the true nature of reality, which all we as
> Christians know to be true, then what makes us layman able to trust its
> other claims about the nature of reality?
> If I look at a claim of truth in which the underlying assumptions are that
> the method used to discover that truth cannot find the truth of the system
> it studies, then there is no reason to trust that claim of truth.
> If I were to tell you the cube inside the box on my table is purple
> because
> I put a purple cube in the box. Then I tell you I am color blind. Do you
> trust my claim about the color of the cube? Likewise if science tells us
> there is no evidence of design and then tells us it is incapable of
> discovering evidence of design because of its nature, why would I trust
> that
> pronouncement.
> So that brings me back to my three options above. If there is a different
> option I am missing please let me know.
> Edward J. Hassertt, J.D.
> President
> H & H Insurance & Financial Services
> Corporate Headquarters
> Bellevue, Washington
> (425) 330-5673
> While the information in this e mail has been prepared in good faith, no
> representation or warranty, express or implied, is or will be made and no
> responsibility or liability is or will be accepted by H & H Insurance and
> Financial Services, or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates or by any of
> their respective officers, employees or agents in relation to the
> accuracy,
> suitability or completeness of this email and any attachments thereto and
> any such liability is expressly disclaimed.
> This e mail does not have regard to the specific investment objectives,
> financial circumstances or particular needs of any recipient and it should
> not be regarded as a substitute for the exercise of the recipient's own
> judgment. Recipients of this e mail should seek financial advice regarding
> the appropriateness or otherwise of investing in any securities or
> investment strategies discussed or recommended in this e mail and should
> understand that past performance is not necessarily a guide to future
> performance and the value of any investments may fall as well as rise.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:14 AM
> To: gordon brown
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [asa] Proof of the YEC position
> But ID is taking the damage of YEC into the mainstream by providing
> the faithful with an impression that real scientific evidence for
> design exists. One need but look around the country and see the
> foolishness extend from Dover, to Louisiana to the inevitable Texas
> department of education's undermining of science.
> ID has brought the destructive powers of YEC to the mainstream,
> dragging down science education as well as religious faith while
> looking foolish throughout the process.
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 8:22 AM, gordon brown <>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008, PvM wrote:
>>> ID and YEC are doing quite a bit of damage to Christian credibility,
>>> something some atheists could only dream about doing themselves.
>> How much damage to Christian credibility has ID done that YEC hadn't
> already
>> done?
>> Maybe since so many people don't know the difference between ID and YEC,
> ID
>> in the news may reinforce the negative impact of YEC. Also ID may raise
>> false expectations for Christians who want it to stamp out evolutionism.
>> However these effects pale in comparison with the damage that YEC has
> done.
>> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 5 16:03:01 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 05 2008 - 16:03:01 EDT