RE: [asa] Proof of the YEC position

From: Edward J. Hassertt J.D. <ehassertt@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Jul 05 2008 - 18:01:55 EDT

 

George, thank you for consistently pointing out the values and limitations
of science.

 

The problem I have is when scientists use objective evidence as subjective
proof.

 

Every atheistic scientist I have read claims that science proves there is no
creator.

 

Many members of this group have shown much more grace and understanding to
the atheist scientist who makes such insupportable truth claims based on
science than they are with Christians who are attempting, although quite
inadequately, to marry science and faith.

 

One uses subjective evidence to shape their objective conclusions, the other
uses objective evidence to shape their subjective conclusions. Both are
just as damaging to the quest for truth, yet all I see on this list is
support for the atheist's science and contempt for that segment of
Christianity.

 

The atheist scientists is just as wrong about science and the universe as
the YECer is because reality is bound u in both the objective and
subjective, an the atheist scientist wrongly proclaims knowledge of the
latter merely from observations of the former.

 

 

 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:49 PM
To: ASA
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?

 

For 1), it has already been found, but in subjective form. Just tweak the
force ratios and see what happens to the universe; it's finely tuned, right?
Our universe had a beginning per Big Bang/Inflation Theory. What caused
that? The problem is these are not objective, but subjective. These are
hints and inferences, not litmus tests. We will never be able to drag our
Creator into the objective realm of science, otherwise, faith becomes void
for it will be superseded by knowledge.

 

Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope [faith]: but hope [faith] that is seen is
not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? (KJV)

 

But we can build models of His physical works and processes.

 

2) Science only models reality as best it can. It seems that only when we
have full knowledge of the unknowable, certain of that which was uncertain,
will we finally reach reality's doorstep. I don't really know, but I'm
pretty certain we won't ever fully arrive there.

 

3) Science can only impact objective arguments within a subjective claims of
religion. It can not falsify subjective-only arguments. [I still like the
"green rules" (see bottom).]

 

If science is accurate, capable, and working under the right assumptions,
then it will eventually discover evidence of a designer if one exists.
Not if the Designer has elected otherwise. There is no ultimate objective
test. I believe this is a worthy design element in itself due to the
importance of the role of faith. [However, I oppose blind faith as a
legitimate course.]

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 reality operates independent of the Designers hand, then accurate reality
models are possible, and some already exist. [I just read this morning of
another test for GR (binary neutron stars) and it has passed with flying
colors, no surprise.]

 

If science is incapable of discovering a designer when one does exist, then
why should we trust the other pronouncements of science as true?

Because all the scientific models demonstrate no need for supernatural
intervention, thus the Designer can not be scrutinized by science within the
models, though His works can.

 

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?
Science has defined reality in objective terms. The reality you describe
embodies far more, which is beyond scientific scrutiny, and should not be
used otherwise, though some try.

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.
That depends on the nature of the claim. Consider subjective claims that
involve love, beauty, music, art, etc., are there not truthful claims that
can be made that allows one to trust such claims as being truthful even if
objective tests are not available to qualify them? It is hard to define what
is meant by "no reason to trust" when we are compelled to trust others when
little or no evidence exists to help our reasoning. Sometimes we trust
without good reason and are justified, sometimes not.

 

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?

Since you were honest enough to tell me you were color blind - which also
suggests that you understand what color differences exist for you - then you
might be honest enough in telling me that purple is the correct color. [I
would want to know if it appeared purple to you or purple to me, assuming
purple is a color blind issue.] So, I would give greater odds that the cube
is purple.

 

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?

Agreed, it is contradictory. Science can never say there is no evidence of
design if the evidence is subjective in nature and, thus, beyond the purview
of science. There may someday be some objective evidence for design,
hopefully, not in the wiggle of a bacteria's tail, but it seems more likely
no testable evidence will be found. I believe this is critical to the value
and spiritual importance of faith.

 

"Coope"

 

[The Green Rules are:

1) The objective elements of any subjective claim are open to scientific
scrutiny.

2) The subjective claim is also affected by the manner in which the
subjective claim uses the objective claim for basis/support/justification.

3) Science has influence upon subjective claims in proportion to the weight
science can bear upon the objective elements within them. This "weight" is a
product of the strength that science has in its respective area of knowledge
and the amount of exposure provided by the objective elements within the
subjective claim.

4) Subjective claims have no direct influence on science.

 

These are tools I use personally and should noto be considered to be
advocated by any scholar...yet. :) ]

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message ----
From: Edward J. Hassertt J.D. <ehassertt@gmail.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 2:29:51 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: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:14 AM
To: gordon brown
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
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 <Gordon.Brown@colorado.edu>
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 majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 5 18:00:32 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 05 2008 - 18:00:32 EDT