Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Mar 30 2009 - 23:21:03 EDT

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 6:15 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> Clarification: Science can't prove that there is an objective reality
> because some sort of objective reality - critical, nuanced &c but
> neverteheless objective reality - is a presupposition of doing science. t
>

That's what I was trying to say - science is based on an a priori
assumption of objective reality. The YEC view may possibly reject
notions objective reality. This may explain why YECers are so at odds with
other theological viewpoints that are more aligned with concepts of
objective reality - and science. It may explain why some YEC advocates
will never accept any form of naturalism, not even Christian naturalism.

However, I am not totally convinced the YEC viewpoint really wants to
reject objective reality. It may be that this was merely a convenient
escape that looked attractive, but isn't panning out.

I would like to point out that the ID movement, by contrast, is a strong
advocate of objectivity. People who use the term
intelligent-design-creationist are conflating ID concepts with YEC
concepts. They don't know what they are talking about. Imagine if they
coined a phrase theistic-evolution-creationism and conflated TE's with
YEC's. Would TE's then be upset? TE currently isn't the movement being
bashed and banned. Its turn will come.

> As John Barrow put it, "Almost every working scientist is a realist - at
> least during working hours.@
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> *To:* George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2009 3:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning
>
>
> *George* is correct that we can not prove YEC wrong because there is the
>> possibility that the universe was made very recently.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, I must object. When George said it he could have meant he was
> describing a philosophical position that is contrary to objective reality.
> Describing the position doesn't necessarily mean he believes that
> position. The position, as far as I know, is entirely counter to all of
> science. Science assumes physical phenomena extend in both directions
> in time in a continuous differentiable fashion. A major discontinuity
> in physical laws is outside of and contrary to physics. It is an
> absurd metaphysics that is more bizarre than all the nutty ideas
> physicists have dreamed up about the origin of the universe and grand
> unified theories and the multiverse and all that jazz. Next we will be
> told that if Taoist monks can write down the nine billion names of God then
> the universe will dissolve.
>
> Philosophers of science Laudin and Quinn wrote in Mike Ruse's collection
> why creationism is science...they argue it is because creationism can be
> proven wrong and the theory evolves with tentative conclusions, etc, etc. So
> George is correct that YEC is not by definition wrong. But the reason isn't
> because the universe could have been created a millisecond ago. This latter
> idea is insane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
=========================
I often suffer from nostalgia, that fondness for something that never was.
Pleasant memories have a tendency to expand.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 30 23:22:14 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 30 2009 - 23:22:14 EDT