Re: [asa] Proof of the YEC position

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Sat Jul 05 2008 - 17:24:32 EDT

Your first partial sentence is inadequate. What you are presumably
claiming is that evidence for design by superhuman entities does not yet
exist, for there is abundant evidence of human design that goes back for
thousands of years. If you do not want to acknowledge that the search is
for superhuman entities, then one may substitute nonhuman nonterrestrial
entities. However, even this modification is inadequate, for the argument
involves scientific evidence for superhuman or external design. There are
plenty of theological and philosophical arguments for a Designer, but
they are not scientific. As a consequence, they do not meet the
requirements set out by proponents of Intelligent Design. They only
indicate intelligent design, which fits the notion of a Creator, who is
not discoverable within science. Put bluntly, you can't put God in a test

The second alternative, "Science is inadequate at discovering the true
nature of reality," is clearly true. Science discovers the empirical
relationships, but philosophy tackles reality insofar as human beings can
understand it. However, philosophers do not have the straightforward test
of science available to them. As a consequence, materialism and theism
are both possible metaphysically, though they contradict each other. They
can't both be true, but neither can be proved.

Your argument reminded me of one I encountered many years ago.
All men are sinners.
All sinners go to hell.
Therefore, all men go to hell.
It's valid, but you expect to go to heaven. Why?
Dave (ASA)

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:29:51 -0700 "Edward J. Hassertt J.D."
<> writes:
> 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
> iscovering 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.
Play it loud with a new car stereo! Click here!

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 5 17:27:35 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 05 2008 - 17:27:35 EDT