Evidence for God from Science

My friend, then your position is self defeating. That's tantamount to saying that I am absolutely sure that I cannot be absolutely sure, and because I can't be absolutely sure, I am right that I can't be absolutely sure.

If you can be objective enough to declare that you can't be objective, then you can, by definition, be objective. But if you can't be objective, then you can never declare that you can't be objective, for that declaration is itself an objective declaration.



edit: and I can remove myself from my epistemological and hermeneutic restraints and declare objectively that we have gone far from the OP . . . laffo

Jac3510 wrote:If you can be objective enough to declare that you can't be objective, then you can, by definition, be objective. But if you can't be objective, then you can never declare that you can't be objective, for that declaration is itself an objective declaration.

To add my two cents and I don't know whether this sides with anyone in particular here...

I don't believe "being" objective necessarily leads to truth. I think it is a myth perpetrated by modernist notions that one must always be objective. One can still be objective and dead wrong. On the other hand, ones intuition may very well be correct. I believe God just as much designed our intuitions as well as rationality to be truth-conducive if properly honed and functioning.

Thus, whether one can be objective when coming to Scripture, has no bearing on whether what they understand in an objective manner is in fact absolutely true.

jac wrote:Such arguments aren't constructive.

zoe wrote: I know many of the students I teach who come from YEC households do so without examining evidence and will often accept the idea that the universe is young simply by default. They are perplexed when I show them other creation models.

The adults that I have spoken to about this fall into much the same category. I think for many Christians to even suggest that it could be old is such an anathema to them that they don't bother to study the science, because it is so comforting to simply accept that there is science out there to back up what they think is the best view out there. Let's face it, it's far easier to simply click on the ICR webpages and others and read about how fossil dating is incorrect and accept it on face value instead of reading through the methods (that often would take up more time and energy). I think the vast majority *do* fall into that category....why bother investigating it, the sources I like tell me what I want or what I think has to be true.
And it doesn't do much good to have the Atheists contribute to the cause by perpetuating the idea that the age of the earth and the evidence for microevolution has established the reason for rejecting God, as if they get to lay claim on truth.

I agree about the importance of #2, but many don't think through the possibiliyt that an OE framework does fit within scripture.

I think you are contradicting yourself, zoe, if not explicitly then perhaps you're just crossing your wires a bit.

1. You make a consistent case, as pretty much everyone does, that the OEC reading of the Bible is perfectly natural and literal. I suspect to bolster that case, you would point to the many testimonies of people who just naturally understood the Bible that way (Ross comes to mind). Thus, we should be able to reject the YEC claim that their position is th emost natural, if not the only natural way to read the text. This, of course, simultaneously reduces the prima facie exegetical appeal of YEC while raising the same for OEC.

2. But here, you make a big deal about the number of people who are "perplexed" at the OEC model. Not just perplexed, but your students didn't even know it existed! For them, the "natural" way to read the text is YEC. But that falls into the argument the YECs make that you flatly deny in (1).

Actually, I think you read too much into what I wrote and then conclude that the two cases must be related. There can be instances of different backgrounds. I said that they were perplexed and just accept it. But that acceptance hinges upon ignorance of the original language and instead relies upon the "natural" way to read in English. THose students may simply be surprised when I expose them to other models and readings.

No, I wouldn't bring up people who just naturally understood it to be that way, not in some of the CHristian circles we have now. If people only examine the English, then they would "naturally" read days. I'm not one to quibble about that. Considering that most of the childhood storybooks about creation blatantly teach YEC, why are we surprised that most grow up iwth the "natural" way to read it?


Other students and adults rely upon what their pastors, websites, other teachers, or parents tell them. That that *is* the only way to read the creation account and to do so otherwise is essentially tantamount to cutting holes in the errancy of scripture. THe claim that we cannot investigate and honestly be puzzled about a section of the BIble without risking its power and might is the bedrock foundation upon which most of the YEC camps rest their arguments and that, to me, is cowardly.

So some student simply takes the English at face value. Others have been blatantly told there is only one way to interpret Genesis and both acheive the same end, the student who, perhaps fearful of examination of the scripture, is willing to accept that there is support for a YEC model without even examning it. ANd to be honest, that frightens me more. If a student, after rigorous examination of the data out there, still believes the data says YE, then you know, I may disagree , but yay, he/she was willing to examine. I get upset over the ones who just willingly accept without examining it.

igo wrote: 1 Misunderstands/misrepresents science while promoting a young Earth.
2 Interprets scripture to supersede science.

jac wrote: It seems to me that you can't have it both ways.

Sure you can!! Some willfully manipulate data and misrepresent science, absolutely. And they do so BECAUSE they feel that the scripture does not match iwth science, nor should we even persist in seeing a harmony between the two

IN this case 1 is true and 2 is also true. I think some do see the science and twist it and then use the arguemnt that scripture always trumps it. Some do see the contradiction between their interpretation of a young earth and the science out there and therefore that drives them to seek the answers that will support what they believe scripture is telling them.

I can only provide the evidence in my own life. The YEC people that I most deal with are

a) students (who are mainly simply ignorant of the science and willing to "drink the kool-aid" that there is science out there that supports YE,but also under the impression that they cannot believe otherwise). They come with typical teenage acceptance of what they feel *should * be accepted. Evolution is rejected not becuase of the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary but "because it's stupid". YEC is accepted because, let's face it, all of the cute sunday school material, every storybook from childhood says so and rarely have they gone beyond it. And sadly, some adults haven't. Reading on a website that "CArbon-dating is inaccurate and there were researchers who tested the same object three times and guess what, they found three different dates!!!" is enough for them to dismiss the process altogether without bothering to examine whether this claim is even true (it actually is) and if it is, is it accurate (it definitely isn't). THis is sad because these are the children that are then most liekly to be seduced away from their teaching because they haven't built a solid foundation.

b) adults who are ignorant or willing to accept the YEC claims as true as well, scared because they don't want their children to fall away ffrom the faith and this see any change as threatening the inerrancy of scripture. The classic example is the mom who wrote the e-mail "you *do* only teach the 6 day literal creation model....right?" Because heaven forbid we actually challenge their children to examine the scripture. They accept the 6-day account because of the mistaken idea that it *is* the only natural way to read it and are threatened by the idea of reading it any other way. They accept the YEC science because it is comforting and non-threatening and don't bother to examine the actual evidence out there. TO them, our school is merely a shelter. They are ignorant of the science and fearful of the philosophy that has stolen the science. To them, the science=atheism. They may know the YEC science but don't examine it (and may or may not understand it, they just know that those sicnetists said that carbon dating is unreliable)

c) adults who may o rmay not understand the science but want to place their faith in the YEC because they do want to simply trust in the word. I'm actually ok with this, although I wish they were more interested. but that is purely because I think science is cool . I think these people are just not interested in science in general. "Eh, science is ok, I just don't want to bother with it"....and if presented with evidence that shows old age, a shrug of the shoulders and dismissal of the evidence... "eh, we don't know everything, we can't know everything, I will rest on the word [English words, of course]". And you know, that;s okay. Disappointing from a teaching perspective but no problem. Many of our teachers of other subjects fall into this category, eh, why bother?

d) adults who are rabidly YEC who will blatantly use the classicly bad examples of data manipulation and poor science . They regard anything else as an assault on the scriptures. They have enough knowledge to seek out *why* these ideas and data are being manipulated but don't and so are deliberately deceptive. THese are the ones that I dislike the most because they *are* the ones who promote bad arguments such as the "they found three different dates!!" and encourage poor thinking and blind acceptance.

To me, a) is totally unacceptable...b) is cowardly, based on fear or willingness to accept....c) okay d) totally unacceptable

I'm sure that it will be pointed out the they are very earnest people who create another category, ones who earnestly believe that the data *does* say that. That may be the case, but I am just saying that those are the ones I encounter the most frequently.

I always get that too.... But the Bible says "days" forgetting that the Bible was translated from Hebrew or Greek to English. Of course if you read it in the English version it says literally "days". I guess I'm perplexed why others won't examine it in the Hebrew.. Maybe it's taboo or something or maybe just downright fear...

Gman wrote:I always get that too.... But the Bible says "days" forgetting that the Bible was translated from Hebrew or Greek to English. Of course if you read it in the English version it says literally "days". I guess I'm perplexed why others won't examine it in the Hebrew.. Maybe it's taboo or something or maybe just downright fear...

Even in English there are contexts where "day" or "days" are used in a manner where the meaning is idiomatic or understood to mean a period of time longer than 24 hours. That only has value in this discussion as an example to demonstrate that that is similar in Hebrew.

Unless someone, in general, purposely and with intent and supporting training seeks to look directly at the text while suspending as best they can their prior conclusions, prior conditioning and cultural influences to examine questions such as this, there are usually very few people who will move past those layers of influence. That's especially true too if they are fellowshiping in a church or religious community where to ask those questions or to adopt a view contrary to the community will result in informal (or even formal) negative consequences.

As a YEC I don't have any problem reconciling a young earth and evidence for billions of years.

I think the earth is thought to be old because of the evidence. The evidence in and of itself is not flawed. Evidence is evidence. It doens't have a theology or opinion. It just is. However, interpreting evidence is a very human undertaking, even when "science" is used. The dating of anything requires something. Knowledge. Any time we write the date on a piece paper we are merely conveying a KNOWN point in time. And we reference this point to tell us where we are today. When dating the earth man has to infer his thinking onto the science. To say that the earth is X numbers of years old based on the info we have today assumes that info has always been the same throughout time. Without going into the science, it requires assumptions. People have assumptions. People are people no matter how noble their cause. Sure those assumptions can be rooted in science, but at the end of the day people are people.

Using the dating methods we have today we learn that there are variables that can affect the results. Why can living things be dated thousands of years old? Variables. And to make a claim that the earth is x numbers of years old means they KNOW each and every variable over those billions of years, which of course they do not. Sure we can measure the decay of radioactivity today, but was it always constant? For example. When scientist went to the islands where Atomic testing was performed they were surprised by the results. Areas where they expected to find poisonous radiation had none? Other areas were still hot. Something had affected the decay. Variables that had not been considered. Fortunately those variables could be observed and the results understood. Not so with dating the earth.

If God created Adam just like the bible says, then Adam was created fully developed. Grown. If the birth of this earth was instant then why would it surprise anyone that it would appear full grown?? If God created a mature man, He can create a mature earth.


If the earth is billions of years old, then it would be a miracle for even the simplest life form to have resulted from purposeless, random events, much less self-aware life. It would definately speak to an orchastrater, another point that science as a whole is unwilling to allow into a textbook.

Most YEC make a very literal dating of the earth by the ages provided in the Chronogly. However there could also be unknown variables. Such as, how long did adam dwell in the garden? Could his age be only recorded post fall?? Did A&E procreate before the fall? There is a lot not mentioned in the text. It is not meant to convey a scientific point.

The frustrating part is that many in the evolution arena have a very condescending attitude towards creationism. And many in creationism reflect that right back. Why? At the end of the day this is a "God" discussion, which gets back to morality, the truth of the Bible, etc. There are those in the name of science who want to eliminate God from the discussion. They are biased, opiniated people who want to force their own ideology on the evidence. And yes, I know this goes both ways.

For me, I found the opposite of the above post. I found myself having to dig out my YEC views from a mountain of misinformation and so called "science" that I had been spoon fed since a toddler. Books that would make claims like "millions of years ago," this, "millions of years ago," that without the slightest proof. I found that the secular culture had done far more to predispose my mind, than did sitting in a church for 2 hours a week.

Welcome Jlay.

Glad you're here and I understand most of the points you're making, having made them myself in the past when I espoused a YEC position.

What all of your points assume is that the text of Scripture requires a YEC position and therefore science is to be disregarded if it indicates or argues otherwise. I would agree with you, if I accepted that Scripture presents or requires a YEC position.

May I ask what examination you've done of the texts involved to come to the conclusion that YEC is a scriptural position?

Bart

Jac3510 wrote:

IgoFan wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Do you think that any self-respecting YEC would bother submitting themselves to your little test? The premise is downright offensive, as if the only reason a person would hold the position is due to ignorance of the prevailing model's reasoning. That's the kind of attitude that keeps the divide far and wide.

The premise above isn't my position. A YEC could fall into one of at least two distinct categories:

• 1 Misunderstands/misrepresents science while promoting a young Earth.
• 2 Interprets scripture to supersede science.

(I'm tentatively leaving out the possibility that YECs are scientifically correct.)

I almost never meet YECs, hence the reason for my topic question.

I don't have any issue with case #2, which is a logically consistent position. In fact, I have more respect for those in case #2, than for a Dawkins or Hitchens, who should know better than to misuse science to make untenable statements about God.

I'm concerned (as some others seem to be) about how many fall into case #1.

First, people can fall into both categories. They aren't mutually excusive. [...]

No, my intent is mutual exclusivity.

Case #1 argues using science incorrectly (either knowingly or unknowingly). Scripture doesn't supersede their view of science, scripture agrees with it.

Case #2 either is ignorant and/or uncaring about science, or correctly understands but disregards science in light of a superseding higher truth.

#1 argues using science, #2 doesn't. Yes, I could add pages of clarifications and split hairs by adding more cases, but polemics would distract from my point.

For people in case #2, I'll buy them beer and do something constructive, like argue sports with them, all afternoon if necessary.

People in case #1 have jumped over the fence that I (and many others, religious or otherwise) have erected separating science and religion, and they're trampling on the flowers.

Jac3510 wrote:I'm telling you, whether you intended it or not, your question was so phrased as to imply that the only reason you could possibly see that someone would hold to YEC is if they simply didn't understand science and/or were misusing it. As you didn't intend that, I'm sure you can see the obvious offence in it, just as much as if someone were to say that the only reason you could possibly hold to OEC/evolution (whatever your position) was because you just didn't understand the Bible. Such arguments aren't constructive.

I would hardly find such a comment offensive or unconstructive. I'm wrong so often, that I'm eager to know how I might correct my understanding.

Some people would find offensive a poster, whose replies tell other posters that they cannot write clearly, that they don't understand what they've written, or that they contradict themselves.

Again, not me. I would find such a person amusing.

Jac,

Canuckster and Zoegirl are correct that it is a matter of what God did, not what is possible. For 2,000 years the christian church has taught that God gave us two revelations, not just one. The orthodox position on the supremacy of scripture deals with faith and practice, not on the age of the earth. In fact the Bible has no clear statement on its age, but Hebrews 4:1-11 show us that its more than six to ten thousand years old.

The Belgic Confession (1566 A.D.)

Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God
We know him by two means:
First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.
All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.
Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

Or this
John Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.)

In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the heavens and the earth present us with innumerable proofs not only those more recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural sciences, are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them. It is true, indeed, that those who are more or less intimately acquainted with those liberal studies are thereby assisted and enabled to obtain a deeper insight into the secret workings of divine wisdom. No man, however, though he be ignorant of these, is incapacitated for discerning such proofs of creative wisdom as may well cause him to break forth in admiration of the Creator. To investigate the motions of the heavenly bodies, to determine their positions, measure their distances, and ascertain their properties, demands skill, and a more careful examination; and where these are so employed, as the Providence of God is thereby more fully unfolded, so it is reasonable to suppose that the mind takes a loftier flight, and obtains brighter views of his glory. Still, none who have the use of their eyes can be ignorant of the divine skill manifested so conspicuously in the endless variety, yet distinct and well ordered array, of the heavenly host; and, therefore, it is plain that the Lord has furnished every man with abundant proofs of his wisdom. The same is true in regard to the structure of the human frame. To determine the connection of its parts, its symmetry and beauty, with the skill of a Galen, (Lib. De Usu Partium,) requires singular acuteness; and yet all men acknowledge that the human body bears on its face such proofs of ingenious contrivance as are sufficient to proclaim the admirable wisdom of its Maker.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk. 1, ch. 5, sect. 2)

I have quotes going back to the second century A.D.

There are two revelations which God gave us. We must interpret both, they are complimentary and if interpreted correctly they will not contradict.

Galileo and Copernicus showed us through science that many church leaders were using the wrong frame of reference when interpreting some scriptures. Therefore, many thought that the Bible was teaching that the sun went around the earth.

What all of your points assume is that the text of Scripture requires a YEC position and therefore science is to be disregarded if it indicates or argues otherwise.

Absolutely not. I am not a banner waving 6,000 year old creationist. But, I would careful on what to classify as science. (testable and observable). I know there are plenty who are examing evidence with a dispostion towards billions of years, and therefore influencing the so called science. The billions of years has to always be understood in the mystery of time and space. Are time and space constant? Have they been over these so called billions of years? Can the expansion of space effect these readings? How does this affect the whole understanding? Could God have had space and time wound up so tight that unwinding it during His creation produced the results we now see? I think a great reason that God made the expanse of the universe so great was to humble us. But so many in science make bold professions in the face of what is unknowable. It is somehow a fact that the earth/universe is X numbers of years old. When the reality is that there is no observable way to ever know. We can look at dating methods, but those will always require an element of faith in the methods themselves. And, to some degree that everything has been constant without variables over that time.

Some of the influences that have caused me doubt in a literal billions of years, are directly from secular sources. To deep to list the years of articles that have influenced my thinking. But it has been the so called science community that has pushed me towards a YEC view, instead of vice versa. I've seen a great deal of recklessness and outright chacanery in publications like Science Today. Some that just completely ignore reason.

I think there are plenty of scientific realities that demonstrate that the earth is not as old as some want to think. And yes vice versa. I think the answers are beyond knowing, unless time travel becomes a reality.

I know this is not directly topical, but new information is constantly reshaping the ideas that were once held as fact. When the foundation is crumbling, can the house be sold as solid? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -life.html


Some of the areas I get frustrated with the YEC crowd is holding on to literal 24 hour days. For example Gen. 1 makes it hard to reconcile a 24 hour day when the substances that constitute what we know as a day had not yet been set into motion. Can we even really fathom what the bible records as the "1st day?" No. Many YEC have boxed themselves in as you note above. I'm just not one of them.

Nobody is saying that the evidence can't change, that it the prime foundation of scientific observational methods. If tomorrow, 2 years, or 10 years from now we find different evidence, then we change the model.

And yes, it would probably take awhile for that to happen. Nobody claims that scientists are perfect. They are prone to favorite models and biases. It can take awhile for the paradigm to shift.

And I'm ok with the idea that information we don't have or could not measure could mean that time and space is different than what we observe, although I think that God's creation is much more trustworthy than that (I think this can be a favorite arguement for YEC, "we don't know about space and time")

But the standing is that the current evidence points to age. And until we see evidence to the contrary, the evidence points to age

So much to reply to . . . ah well, here goes!

K wrote:To add my two cents and I don't know whether this sides with anyone in particular here...

I don't believe "being" objective necessarily leads to truth. I think it is a myth perpetrated by modernist notions that one must always be objective. One can still be objective and dead wrong. On the other hand, ones intuition may very well be correct. I believe God just as much designed our intuitions as well as rationality to be truth-conducive if properly honed and functioning.

Thus, whether one can be objective when coming to Scripture, has no bearing on whether what they understand in an objective manner is in fact absolutely true.

This response relates fine insofar as anyone wants to take the discussion in the direction I was hinting at with Canuckster. The main point I was driving home with him (which I will comment more on below) was that the scientific evidence simply does not matter if one can discover the biblical position. Put differently, the scientific evidence for the age of the earth has no bearing on the biblical/theological framework provided to us by Moses et al. To argue that it does is to justify trying to take a scientific position and interpret the text in that light, which is as wrongheaded as one can possibly be in terms of exegesis.

Thus, the question of objectivity. Canuckster seems to shy away from the possibility that we can discover the biblical position with reference only to itself, and this on the basis that no exegesis is, or can be, objective. That is a statement I would strongly disagree with.

To respond directly, then, to your point: being objective will always lead to proper knowledge when we go no further than our observations lead us. Put differently, proper observations coupled with a rigorous application of the laws of logic must yield truth and cannot do otherwise.

Whether or not intuition can lead to proper knowledge is another debate. I would say that a person can believe true things based on intuition, but I would have a problem calling that knowledge (assuming that we are referring to the external world). I can, for instance, have direct, intuitive knowledge that I believe something, but my intuition that God exists is not a basis for saying I have knowledge of His existence. I may know so, and I may have an intuition of such, but the intuition doesn't necessarily lead to the knowledge.

In any case, in terms of Scripture, I have no doubt that we can be absolutely objective in our interpretation of Genesis 1. Whatever my intuition tells me doesn't matter. What does matter is what the Scripture objectively says and what it objectively means. I believe we have access to both of those, and thus, the scientific evidence is simply irrelevant to this point.

OK . .. Zoe . . .

zoe wrote:Actually, I think you read too much into what I wrote and then conclude that the two cases must be related. There can be instances of different backgrounds. I said that they were perplexed and just accept it. But that acceptance hinges upon ignorance of the original language and instead relies upon the "natural" way to read in English. THose students may simply be surprised when I expose them to other models and readings.

No, I wouldn't bring up people who just naturally understood it to be that way, not in some of the CHristian circles we have now. If people only examine the English, then they would "naturally" read days. I'm not one to quibble about that. Considering that most of the childhood storybooks about creation blatantly teach YEC, why are we surprised that most grow up iwth the "natural" way to read it?


Other students and adults rely upon what their pastors, websites, other teachers, or parents tell them. That that *is* the only way to read the creation account and to do so otherwise is essentially tantamount to cutting holes in the errancy of scripture. THe claim that we cannot investigate and honestly be puzzled about a section of the BIble without risking its power and might is the bedrock foundation upon which most of the YEC camps rest their arguments and that, to me, is cowardly.

So some student simply takes the English at face value. Others have been blatantly told there is only one way to interpret Genesis and both acheive the same end, the student who, perhaps fearful of examination of the scripture, is willing to accept that there is support for a YEC model without even examning it. ANd to be honest, that frightens me more. If a student, after rigorous examination of the data out there, still believes the data says YE, then you know, I may disagree , but yay, he/she was willing to examine. I get upset over the ones who just willingly accept without examining it.

I have a problem with this line of defense (big shock!). Again, you seem to want to hold to the idea that OEC is a natural, literal way to read the text. That is, if a person were to have the ability to read the Hebrew (or a "right" translation, whatever you think that may be) and did so objectively, they could quite naturally come to OEC.

Against this, you appeal to people's backgrounds to explain why they don't come to such a position naturally. But suppose that a person's background included OEC assumptions instead of YEC assumptions. And let's say that person then reads the text and comes to OEC interpretations. We can hardly applaud them anymore than we can applaud the YEC who comes to his own view based on his personal background.

Now, perhaps you are ok saying that nothing is really a firm position until it has been examined, but that creates a serious problem, I think anyway, for one of the major assumptions about the whole OEC critique of YEC. That is, you assume that the text is objective enough that if a person just had the right framework--put negatively, if they weren't being dragged down by YEC ideas--then they would, or at least could, naturally see OEC. That, again, is the major appeal of YEC, that is can be seen naturally. But in your argument, such a natural position is not valid. You've taken away all natural readings and said they don't really matter until they are studied readings.

Now, I certainly agree that we should study and seek to confirm or modify our positions, but I think it goes entirely too far to say that natural readings are invalid, which seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument here. It seems to me that the much better position for an OEC to hold is to allow the YEC the argument that his is the natural reading of the text, but then go on to show that it isn't necessarly. You would then, of course, have to explain why the natural meaning isn't the intended meaning, but that can be done in several ways.

As far as your whole second section goes, you misread me somewhere. A major point I made with Igo, which I will be defending below, is that you CAN have it both ways. The quote your supplied was, I believe, in a different context.

OK, IgoFan . . .

IgoFan wrote:No, my intent is mutual exclusivity.

Case #1 argues using science incorrectly (either knowingly or unknowingly). Scripture doesn't supersede their view of science, scripture agrees with it.

Case #2 either is ignorant and/or uncaring about science, or correctly understands but disregards science in light of a superseding higher truth.

#1 argues using science, #2 doesn't. Yes, I could add pages of clarifications and split hairs by adding more cases, but polemics would distract from my point.

For people in case #2, I'll buy them beer and do something constructive, like argue sports with them, all afternoon if necessary.

People in case #1 have jumped over the fence that I (and many others, religious or otherwise) have erected separating science and religion, and they're trampling on the flowers.

No one holds to the first position. YECs, by the nature of their position, hold that Scripture preempts science. They get their position from the Bible, not from science. That they go to science and try explicitly to reconcile the two is understandable, whatever you may think of their methods. They may find things that they believe supports their Scriptural view, just as OECs do. In any case, YECs simply do NOT hold to their position because they studied science and came to the YEC position. They hold it because they believe the Bible teaches it, regardless of what science says.

A better question for you would have been to ask what most YECs do about what modern scientists are saying. Do they ignore them? Do they understand their methodology? If so, do they think that their methodology is wrong. But, again, NO ONE holds to YEC because science says so. They do because they believe the Bible says so. Thus, they do NOT hold to YEC based on an ignorance of science. Some, for sure, may be and are ignorant of science. Some, for sure, may and do misuse science to support their position (much as evolutionists do). But that is not the BASIS for their belief. To imply that if these people, if they only really understood science would therefore have a different view of Scripture misunderstands how they got to their Scriptural views in the first place.

OK . . . Dayage . . .

Dayage wrote:Jac,

Canuckster and Zoegirl are correct that it is a matter of what God did, not what is possible. For 2,000 years the christian church has taught that God gave us two revelations, not just one. The orthodox position on the supremacy of scripture deals with faith and practice, not on the age of the earth. In fact the Bible has no clear statement on its age, but Hebrews 4:1-11 show us that its more than six to ten thousand years old.

I'm not interested in a debate on what the Bible says. That's for another thread here--it isn't related to my point. We are talking about what YECs believe the Bible says and how they got to that position with reference to their understanding of science. That is what the OP was about, and that is what I've been replying to.

Second, I have no problem with the distinction in general and special revelation. I agree with it, but general revelation is subject to special revelation, not vice versa. Likewise, they are not on equal footing. We are free to interpret general revelation to the best of our abilities, but that interpretation must line up with special revelation first. In other words, we are to interpret general revelation in light of special revelation, and not vice versa.

Your argument has the same tone as those who consider general revelation the "67th book of the Bible." I don't agree with that at all, and, in fact, I think it is one of the fundamental mistakes OEC advocates make. If people wish to hold to OEC or YEC or anything in between, that is fine, but they should do so in an appropriate manner. There are right ways and wrong ways to come to conclusions. To put general revelation on the same footing as special revelation is simply a mistake.

Thirdly, I disagree with your charactariziation of special revelation as dealing with "faith and practice." It reminds me very much of Gould's NOMA principle (non-overlapping magesteria). It argues that faith and religion deals with subjective reality--faith and practice--and includes things like morality. Science deals with the mechanisms of the "real world"--things like physics. In this view, there can, by definition, be no conflict between the two because they are unrelated in subject matter.

I don't take that to be the proper view of special revelation. Certainly, some of s.r. deals with matters of faith and practice, but some of it deals with historical fact. Was there really a city called Jericho that a man named Joshua lead a nation called Israel around, and did those walls really fall as described in the Bible? Was their really a man named Jesus who was crucified and then appeared three days later to, alive again, to His disciples? Was their really a king named David over Israel, and did he do the things attributed to him in history? These questions are dealt with in special revelation (the Bible), but they have a direct bearing on the real world.

Likewise, the question on the age of the universe is dealt with by the Bible. Though no explicit age is given, there is a framework provided. That framework has to be discovered on its own, and THEN that framework is to be taken to the real world. If there is a conflict, one must decide if the framework or the real world is wrong (or one's interpretation of either, or both).

jac wrote:Again, you seem to want to hold to the idea that OEC is a natural, literal way to read the text. That is, if a person were to have the ability to read the Hebrew (or a "right" translation, whatever you think that may be) and did so objectively, they could quite naturally come to OEC.

I said that their position on YEC is one based on not knowing Hebrew. Again, this is from experience. Most people I takl to, when they bring up the "natural" way to read it, bring up the ENglish translation.

jac wrote: Against this, you appeal to people's backgrounds to explain why they don't come to such a position naturally.

To be honest, the whole "natural" thing is not as imporant. I am more interested in what we can interpret from the text, versus the immediate natural interpretation. Natural does not necessarily mean correct. We should come to the text with the intent to scrutinize and examine.

jac wrote: Now, perhaps you are ok saying that nothing is really a firm position until it has been examined, but that creates a serious problem, I think anyway, for one of the major assumptions about the whole OEC critique of YEC. That is, you assume that the text is objective enough that if a person just had the right framework--put negatively, if they weren't being dragged down by YEC ideas--then they would, or at least could, naturally see OEC.

Again with the natural. Get over it. From my experinece, most people who support YEC that I have encountered, in church, in school, in this forum, in others, are YEC because they feel it is the only way to view scripture and they will usually be quite happy with anybody out there who says that there is evidence for it. THey don't bother with examining it, not because they are happy about the natural interpretation, but because it is more in line with what they think is proper. If it is "natural" it is that they read it in the English or read sources that are in themselves dogmatic. This is not necessarily an issue with what is natural but of the fear people hold in approaching this particular passage of the Bible.

jac wrote: That, again, is the major appeal of YEC, that is can be seen naturally. But in your argument, such a natural position is not valid. You've taken away all natural readings and said they don't really matter until they are studied readings.

Well, yeah, plenty of scripture shouldn't be taken "naturally" or let's say at face glance.! THere are boatloads of scritpure verses that, taken "naturally", lead to the erroneuous meaning. Shoot, just look at plenty of atheist websites (or sometimes even CHristian websites) and they parade hundreds of verses that have been taken naturally (and incorreclty).

I mean, I can think of the verses about the four corners, the firmament, the different versions of the times of the crucifixion and prophecy. Pleanty of these verses, if taken naturally, lead to criticism of scripture. THe atheists love to trot these out, seemingly to point out how pathetic scritprue is. But we go to great pains, rightly so!!, to explain that all of these verses must be examined to take into account idioms, cultural backgrounds, figures of speech, etc. IE, their immediate and natural meanings are not correct.
The only difference is that it is seemingly ok and right for us to defend examination of these scripture passages and yet somehow it is IMPERATIVE for us to take ONLY the natural (whatever that is) or rather immediate position of Genesis 1 and 2.

But heaven help us if we take this approach with Genesis one!

jac wrote: Now, I certainly agree that we should study and seek to confirm or modify our positions, but I think it goes entirely too far to say that natural readings are invalid, which seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument here.

NOt at all, my point is that we should always examine to see *what* the *correct* readings are, and to not assume that the immediate and natural (again, whatever that means) meaning is correct, unless you want to start establishing that we take everything at face value. Isn't it your favorite tag-line "clarity, not consesus?". Shouldn't we be *able* to examine without fear? And yet that is one of the favorite intimidation tactics of the dogmatic camps. YOu have Hovind and Hamm and countless others who cry heretic because of us examining the meanings.

jac wrote: It seems to me that the much better position for an OEC to hold is to allow the YEC the argument that his is the natural reading of the text, but then go on to show that it isn't necessarly. You would then, of course, have to explain why the natural meaning isn't the intended meaning, but that can be done in several ways.

The natural reading of the English translation that we currently use is, of course, the natural meaning. I would, of course, argue again that this means nothing in light of the Hebrew. And of course, we show that it isn't necessary, we show over and over again that the interpretation *isn't* necessary and we still get the arsenal of the typical dogmatic camps out there....that it *is* necessary. D**mned if you do and D**mned if you don't.

jac wrote: As far as your whole second section goes, you misread me somewhere. A major point I made with Igo, which I will be defending below, is that you CAN have it both ways. The quote your supplied was, I believe, in a different context.

No one holds to the first position. YECs, by the nature of their position, hold that Scripture preempts science. They get their position from the Bible, not from science. That they go to science and try explicitly to reconcile the two is understandable, whatever you may think of their methods. They may find things that they believe supports their Scriptural view, just as OECs do. In any case, YECs simply do NOT hold to their position because they studied science and came to the YEC position. They hold it because they believe the Bible teaches it, regardless of what science says.

A better question for you would have been to ask what most YECs do about what modern scientists are saying. Do they ignore them? Do they understand their methodology? If so, do they think that their methodology is wrong. But, again, NO ONE holds to YEC because science says so. They do because they believe the Bible says so. Thus, they do NOT hold to YEC based on an ignorance of science. Some, for sure, may be and are ignorant of science. Some, for sure, may and do misuse science to support their position (much as evolutionists do). But that is not the BASIS for their belief. To imply that if these people, if they only really understood science would therefore have a different view of Scripture misunderstands how they got to their Scriptural views in the first place.

Fair enough...Still hold that most do so because they erroneously hold to the position that it is the only view to hold and they MUST ignore mainstream science or believe YEC science in order to be upholding scripture. MAny hear from various sources that to do so otherwise would be to be a part of destroying scripture.

jac wrote: OK . . . Dayage . . .

Dayage wrote: Jac,

Canuckster and Zoegirl are correct that it is a matter of what God did, not what is possible. For 2,000 years the christian church has taught that God gave us two revelations, not just one. The orthodox position on the supremacy of scripture deals with faith and practice, not on the age of the earth. In fact the Bible has no clear statement on its age, but Hebrews 4:1-11 show us that its more than six to ten thousand years old.

I'm not interested in a debate on what the Bible says. That's for another thread here--it isn't related to my point. We are talking about what YECs believe the Bible says and how they got to that position with reference to their understanding of science. That is what the OP was about, and that is what I've been replying to.

Jac, both Canuckster and I were merely correcting an erroneous position that many YEC hold about us. Many YEC hold that we beleive what we believe because we somehow believe that God's power is limited....that He *had* to do what He did and most go to pains, like the poster that all of us reposnded to, to point out that "God can do anything" when that wasn't what we believe or usually even spoke about. We were merely responding to the poster's assumption into *why* we believe. We believe that God can do anything, we do not limit His power, majesty, omnipotence, or glory.

zoe,

The tone of your last response makes it pretty clear I have seriously offended you. For that, I apologize, and I'll let our part of the conversation drop.

Wow, not really, sometimes you annoy me , but I'm not that offended, my feelings weren't hurt. NOt that you necessarily need to drop it.

I'm certainly not innocent with regards to holding back my opinions and I think we both have a fair idea of where the other stands...

Actualyl, glad you elabotated on the YEC motivation, I would agree that I misunderstood that and agree with you there.