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

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Mar 31 2009 - 10:42:29 EDT

I think this is right. The YEC's just try to give God every benefit of the doubt and leave the door open for their mistaken assumption that God had to intervene in creation in order to get any credit for it. They don't see that its the wrong war, wrong place and wrong time. Plus they counter what they see as deceptive science with even more deceptive science of their own

Likewise I agree that ID at least attempts to be more honest with science, primarily capitulating on the age of the earth, but digging their heels in short of accepting evolution for their same mistaken assumptions of their own on how God should be revealed in creation. They both boil down to exalting cherished theological convictions over objective reality which is very unfortunate but alas, human nature.

Remember Jesus expressing lament over the disciples lack of faith when he said "how long must I be with you?". I can only imagine how He feels about this. I know it doesn't impact His love for humanity but I bet He really wants to see the church figure it out. I hope we can help see that come to pass.

Thanks

John

>
> --- On Tue, 3/31/09, George Cooper
> <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
> > Subject: RE: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 9:05 AM
> > The impression I have is that YEC is knowingly taking
> > advantage of the fact
> > that science has not found the final absolutes, thus
> they
> > cast alternative
> > views in an effort to placate the flock, yet not
> > necessarily in an act of
> > subterfuge. Thus, YEC seems active in disengaging
> > science with their own
> > version of science, whereas ID seems to attempt to
> engage
> > it, though in ways
> > it was not meant to go.
> >
> >
> >
> > Coope
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:21 PM
> > To: George Murphy
> > Cc: George Cooper; asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> <mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > To: George Cooper
> <mailto: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 Tue Mar 31 10:42:59 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 31 2009 - 10:43:00 EDT