Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

From: Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
Date: Sun Jun 21 2009 - 18:46:57 EDT
Cameron Wybrow wrote:


You have to make up your mind whether the charge against YEC is that it is a *false* description of what happened in the past or an *unscientific* description of what happened in the past.  The methodological/metaphysical split will allow you to say the latter, but not the former.  But if you say the latter to a YEC, the YEC will say:  "*Of course* our explanation is not
scientific.  Who ever said there should be a scientific explanation for the origin of man?"  So you cannot win. 
Cameron
That's not quite what I mean by methodological naturalism.  Of course metaphysical naturalism can say YEC is false simply by definition of naturalism.  To my mind under methodological naturalism(MN) science can still say that something is false (or true).  Science  still speaks to reality but explanations must not involve God's activity.  About things that science can't explain without the God hypothesis , science should be silent or say "We don't know". 

Consider a very hypothetical case where some literalist reading of the Bible implied to someone that water boiled at 110 degrees C at sea level.  In such a case I would have no problem saying to the individual that they are wrong, would you?   Of course science can always be shown to be incorrect, but that is a different topic. 

When it comes to the development of life I have no theological problem with an entirely natural explanation, however, I think that many of the proponents of evolution claim more for science than they can deliver.  At least to me, some of their theorizing is not proven although it could be true. 

Dave W


To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Sun Jun 21 19:23:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 21 2009 - 19:24:03 EDT