jac wrote:We, then, can look at the current state of the world and recotgnize a few things:
1. We can know things, because it works according to standard laws unless God intervenes;
2. Those laws may or may not have been the same prior to the Fall (let the theologians decide that one, I'm just talking possibilities);
3. The creation event could well have been miraculous, and miraculous events, by definition, do not submit to the laws of nature;
4. Therefore, we may or may not be able to know anything about the creation event, and we can still know plenty of things about the current state of the world.
I'm ok with this....
For me, the issue comes down to Anita using science for her convenience. If # 2 and #3 are true (and I'm not saying they aren't) then we can't use science (observations) at all for origin research because everything comes down the idea that it can't be observed. Then stop using YEC science. In fact, let's forget about it.
See, OEC'ers do start with the assumption that the world is pretty reliable and therefore can trust the observations. Although I concede that #2 and #3 are quite plausible, I don't see a reason in scripture to negate studying the universe for answers about the origins. Although ytou are quite correct in reminding me about my assumptions.
YEC do not assume this and therefore cannot trust in the observations and really shouldn;t even use observational science. Using your statements, if it is a mircale, it is beyond natural laws and methodological science.
The question, then, is whether or not there is any reason to believe that the current state of the world isn't reflective of the past state of the world, say, at its creation or at least before the Fall. And I argue that you CANNOT use the creation itself to answer that question. To answer that, we have to go to God. If He tells us that creation was a miracle, then there is no reason trying to figure out how it happened (that would be a category mistake). If He tells us that the world operated differently before the Fall, then we obviously can't use the present laws to figure out what the past laws looked like. But does that mean that the present laws are not applicable to the present day? Of course not!
But is there any reason to think that it operated differently? Sure, God could have created the universe with the appearance of age, inwhich case there will be no way in the world to tell because all of observations would tell us its old. But I happen to think that there isn't a reason why we couldn't assume the observations are true. Scripture is tremendously vague about this God's methods or pre-fall conditions.
It's one thing to say that things happened miraculously and that one is going to believe that we have a young earth because they want to trust what they believe the Bible says. What I object to is when poeple try to make a case for young earth from observationsl, and using bad arguments for it.
My apologies if I overstated the case.
The tl;dr to all of this is as follows:
YECers need to properly understand not only scientific theories, but scientific assumptions, and make their case accordingly. OECers need to admit that their view of science is as much philosophical and theological as anything else, and thus, must first be subjected to Scripture and then philosophy before they proclaim their conclusions.
To the extent that, yes, we are making an assumtion about the pre-fall world and the conditions of the creation, yes I agree.
Not saying they do not exist, just haven't met one yet. Most of the evolutionist's I've met are very hard core athiests'.
