Then provoke you I shall!
I don't happen to be particularly upset or offended by disagreement or even your repeated personal attacks. On the other hand, I think it is terribly unhealthy for me, for you (Audie), and for the board as a whole if we have to pretend like we can't talk openly about our perceptions of arguments and counter-arguments. There's certainly a line at which conversations become too toxic to be helpful. My own opinion is that we aren't anywhere near that yet. I hope you agree.
Anyway, as for the substance of your position, of course I do not deny that I hold to a YEC interpretation of Genesis 1-12. I defend that view pretty vigorously here, and over the next several weeks (months?) I'll be offering more substantive reasons for that in the thread K started on hermeneutics. If you want intellectual honesty, here it is: I do
not come to my beliefs on these matters by looking at anything scientists have to say. More honesty: there are plenty of people who are
highly trained in scientific matters--far more than you--who defend their YEC views on scientific grounds, and I pretty much ignore them. In the lingo of my field, I don't engage in creation apologetics.
I'll go further. I don't particularly like ID styled arguments, either. I've been blasted for that on this and other sites, before, but I just disagree with the approach. This, by the way, is something I have been saying for many years. Here is a review I wrote back in 2009 of a book titled
The Cell's Design (which, for whatever it is worth,
26 of 29 found helpful on Amazon):
- Fazale Rana's The Cell's Design is absolutely worth having, especially if you are an ID proponent. It certainly is the most comprehensive book to date (of which I'm aware) that gives a popular level overview of the cell's structure and how that relates to the ID argument. Much of the arguments put forward by Behe, Wells, Meyer, and others benefit from this book's support precisely because of that.
Unfortunately, that also turns out to be its biggest weakness on two fronts. First, in my view, Rana's book as a whole hardly constitutes an argument in and of itself, regardless of his opening statements. He believes that he is putting forward a positive case for ID based on what science does know rather than what it does not. Yet his entire approach of analogical pattern finding only works if naturalistic science turns out not to be able to find naturalistic causes for each of the issues he describes. On that count, the book doesn't make any major advances over others as he hopes.
In the second place, due to its very nature, The Cell's Design is a cumbersome read. The majority of the book reads like a college biology textbook with a concluding paragraph for each chapter offering thoughts toward design. Those without a background in biology will find the material itself difficult to follow.
So I give the book three stars. The very nature of the material doesn't lend itself well to popular argument and explanation (that is, the internal working of a cell), but it is material that every person who wants to truly grasp what ID is about needs to understand. It's no page turner, but if you want a great background to better understand other major ID proponents (and you don't already have a biology degree), I can't really think of a better investment.
Hardly a visceral attack, but I hope you can see that I don't think "God of the gaps" arguments are especially helpful, which I, for one, tend to think that most, if not all, ID arguments essentially boil down to. And, again, here is a quote I use to conclude
a presentation I do on the Kalam Cosmological Argument--one that I'm sure you will be in complete agreement with:
- As tempting as it may often be, it is a mistake to consider the failure of science to explain something as a proof of God's work. Such failures are nothing more or less than a demonstration of how far science has progressed, and a pointer to where some progress still needs to be made. Believing in a great creator means not doubting the quality of His creation. It is ironic that we often try to prove the existence of God by claims that essentially say He isn't such a great creator.
I could go on and on and on. My point, in the interest of intellectual honesty, is to put openly and plainly on the table that I do not get my YEC beliefs from science. I don't get my beliefs about God from science. I don't think very highly of positions that
do attempt to take that approach, and that is because I think that such arguments fundamentally misunderstand what science is, what religion is, what philosophy is, what kind of question God's existence is, and, above all, embraces a set of philosophical ideas that are fundamentally not true. (For more on the details of that position, I recommend to you Edward Feser's
The Last Superstition--and I am under the impression that Feser, by the way, accepts the scientific consensus on evolution, the universe being 13.9byo, etc).
In the interest of nuance, I am NOT saying that I am not intrigued by the implications of some cosmological theories or by difficulties in our current understanding of evolutionary biology. It seems more than fair to me to ask what caused the Big Bang. I think the chicken-and-egg problem of DNA (or RNA) replication is a serious one. I am skeptical that we can so blithely dismiss the serious instances of convergence we have . . . I mean, the independent evolution of DNA replication multiple times?
Really? And, of course, the problems with abiogenesis are well documented. Those types of problems certainly warrant the suggestion that something more is going on, and they don't surprise the one who is already a theist. But, and again I say this for emphasis,
such problems do not themselves justify theism nor do I think they should be used as our primary warrants for the claim that God exists. And if I don't use such arguments in support of God, I certainly don't use them in support of YEC. On the contrary, if you look at the thread that prompted K's very long hermeneutics thread, you'll see that I have blasted the progressive creationists on this board for attempting to use modern science to bolster their interpretation of Genesis 1-12!
So what is all that? Intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is this:
recognizing that the biblical picture of the origins of this world are different from and incompatible with the picture of the origins of this world as painted by the modern scientific consensus.
What is NOT intellectual honesty? Demanding that
in light of that inconsistency that I must therefore abandon the biblical picture in order to be intellectually honest. THAT is where you constantly misunderstand my position. It is where you "make things up" about me. There are a range of options here. Let's briefly consider them:
- 1. YEC could be right and it could simply be a matter of bias among scientists and media personalities that is suppressing that fact;
2. YEC could turn out in the future to be right after all. You've said it yourself that science doesn't prove its theories in the strict sense. So who knows what science will reveal in five or five hundred years?
3. YEC could be right, but we may not be able to find out. Perhaps the "appearance of age" arguments are right after all. Some claim that would make God a deceiver, but that's a distinctly theological argument that I'm not very impressed with. My point is that, strictly speaking, there is no contradiction between holding that scientists are warranted in holding to the belief that all of life shared a common ancestor (molecules-to-man evolution) and biblicists holding to a YEC interpretation of Scripture as being true.
4. YEC could be the correct interpretation mythologically, but perhaps Moses is making no claims on what actually happened.
5. The Bible could just be wrong in its YEC claims. So here, we just deny biblical inerrancy.
There are other views on the relationship between YEC and modern science, but as far as I can tell, they are variations of one of those four positions. So which do
I hold? None of them above. I don't make any claims
because I am not qualified to speak on the scientific evidence. And this is more intellectual honesty on my part. You need to take me very seriously here. I'm not being pious.
I do not make any claims on scientific matters, as that is not my training. I think that (4) and (5) are the least likely, but that's because my
theological beliefs on the nature of Scripture. Could I be wrong? Yes, of course. The arguments that I use to come to those conclusions are not philosophical demonstrations. That is an important distinction. I do not admit that I could be wrong on the existence of God (or that I could be wrong in your frequent irrational statements, especially on the nature of science and use of four-term fallacies). I can't be wrong there there anymore than I can be wrong that 2+2=4. Those types of questions are matters of demonstration, and to those who take the time to educate themselves, they are sufficiently demonstrated. Yet questions on the nature of Scripture are NOT matters of demonstration, and, in fact, it can be demonstrated that they CANNOT be matters of demonstration (because such a claim ultimately violates the fact that God is the First Cause). Rather, the arguments for the nature of Scripture are arguments from fittingness.
The upshot to all of this is that I see the massive evidence against YEC being true from a scientific perspective, I acknowledge the serious problem, and I therefore do not ask you to hold that it is true. I then see that there are some people who are highly scientifically trained who think that these problems are no problems at all. I recognize that I am not equipped to referee the debate, and so I base my beliefs on what I am qualified to referee. And I'm sorry if YOU feel like that's a grounded kite or intellectually dishonest. I regard it as epistemological humility. I say that I know is true what I know to be true. I say that I think to be true what I think to be true. I make no claims on that which I can neither think nor know to be true outside of appeals to authority, and at that point, all any of us do are appeal to those authorities that fit within our existing worldviews, anyway!
Unfortunately, your own arguments demonstrate a lack of perception of these and a host of related matters. And as such, you make a wide range of incorrect assumptions, wrong accusations, irrational and fallacious statements, and shameful personal attacks. All in all, it makes you come across as terribly arrogant, one who is more interested in preaching to and looking down your nose at those with whom you disagree.
But, unfortunately for you, that doesn't mean I don't like you, and fortunately for you, none of that makes you likeable overall. The arrogance is in your position and only sometimes in your presentation. You may not like me. I find you generally pleasant, and I do care about you. I wish you the best, and I pray for you--not simply for your conversion, and certainly not that you would come to see the world the way I do. That would be a boring world, wouldn't it? One in which we all see things
my way?!? I pray for your basic well being and that God would bless you. And so you don't think I'm being overly sappy, I pray that way for most everyone here. In general, I think this is a wonderful and supportive community of people who are free to share their agreements and disagreements on a wide variety of issues. And you are a member of that. Perhaps you can find it in yourself to return the same grace. But if not, that doesn't and won't change my assessment of and general feelings for you.
I'll only request, again, that in all this, you stop with the contemptuous comments and assumptions, particularly about me. You don't know me. You don't know my positions. You don't know what I know. You don't know enough to judge my positions. You don't have to interact with any of them, but I would at least appreciate it if you would respect yourself enough not to talk so authoritatively of that which you do not understand and have not studied. As I've said before, genetic fallacies are not only irrational, but they ought to be below someone of your intellectual capacity.
God bless
