Re: [asa] Proof of the YEC position

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sun Jul 06 2008 - 02:11:20 EDT

I suspect part of the problem is that there is an advantage to those that hold objective evidence and draw subjective conclussions, compared to the opposite case, since subjective evidence is less substantive; objective evidence†offers a much greater foundation.† For instance, astrology is on the very short end of the stick because it†holds only subjective evidence.† Once the tidal effects of the Sun and Moon were defined, no repeatable objective evidence of any merit has been seen from astrology -- at least none that I can think of --†for any influence from†celestial objects upon mankind.†† For the astrology opponents to assume this same defeat can be applied to religion becomes a leap of faith on their part, ironically.† Once atheistic scientists elect to jump into the sea of subjectivity by claiming,†for instance,†there is no god, they often fail to realize they have left the island of science and have no footing upon which to stand.†† The battle ground is the estuary, not the sea. 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. Agreed on the basis that we define reality to include more than just the physical universe, though†many don't and understandably so.† In their battle with YEC, the atheist scientists,†however, have the advantage because they offer reasonable and plausible evidence to falsify the YEC claims.†† The YEC subjective claims are no longer reasonable and plausible, in most cases.† This disconnect creates a requirement for blind faith, which is unhealthy.†† [It is noteworthy, that blind faith was not required of the Church in Galileo's day†regarding the heliocentric model.† It was reasonable and plausible that Copernicus was wrong since†no parallax was†found, and the Tychonic model worked fine, which is why the Jesuits quickly adopted it after Venus was seen with all its phases.† Of course, the Copernican model was more elegant in explaining certain things like retrograde,†but elegance is not a requirement to model reality.] Coope ----- Original Message ---- From: Edward J. Hassertt J.D. <ehassertt@gmail.com> To: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2008 5:01:55 PM Subject: RE: [asa] Proof of the YEC position † 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 atheistís 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; itís 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 realityís doorstep. I donít really know, but Iím pretty certain we wonít 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 Ė which also suggests that you understand what color differences exist for you Ė 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 bacteriaís 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" † [TheGreen Rulesare: 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 recipientís 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 Sun Jul 6 02:12:11 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jul 06 2008 - 02:12:11 EDT