Re: [asa] Proof of the YEC position

From: PvM <>
Date: Sat Jul 05 2008 - 18:05:53 EDT

We have to be careful here in defining design before discussing the
possible scenarios. If by design we mean supernatural first cause
designer(s) then we can pursue the various scenarios in more detail

What would evidence for design look like? "Made in Heaven" inscribed
in our genome? It would provide evidence for a designer but a
supernatural designer?

Science is not about finding the 'truth' but rather providing the best
explanation of the given data using a variety of methods. Science
always remains tentative so we can never be 100% certain that science
is right, time and experience shall tell. However, as long as it
works, it serves its purpose.

Science does not rule out the existence of a designer a priori, on the
contrary, various forms of 'designers' can and have been tested in a
scientific manner. As far as the issue of a scientific foundation for
the supernatural, the problem is that we lack a way to constrain the
supernatural and thus it can explain anything and thus explains
nothing. Can science disprove a designer? Again, even if science can
show that natural processes were sufficient for explaining the origin
of our universe and the evolution thereof, it still cannot exclude the
possibility that supernatural designer(s) were involved.

Of course, the question becomes that if science were able to show that
natural processes were at least in principle sufficient, what would
adding a designer add to our reality in the sense of accuracy?
Just because science may be unable to describe the supernatural, does
not mean that science fails to describe the natural with sufficient
accuracy for any and all practical purpose.

Edward writes

>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.

I propose that a likely answer to this is selection bias on your part
and perhaps a lack of understanding of what the atheist scientist does
and does not claim. Even Dawkins stops short of stating that science
is able to disprove a God although he quite creatively (ab)uses the ID
argument to argue that a God may be highly improbable.

Could you provide us with some examples to support your claims. Yes,
whether it be Christians who claim that science proves the existence
of God or atheists who claim that science disproves the existence of
God, they are both abusing science for their own purpose.

On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Edward J. Hassertt J.D.
<> wrote:
> 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 18:06:02 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 05 2008 - 18:06:02 EDT