Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:So much to reply to . . . ah well, here goes!

[...] 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.

Just in this topic alone are replies pointing out case #1 examples:
jlay does.
canuckster1127 mentions that some YEC that do.
zoegirl mentions examples from experience.
Anonymiss mentions Kent Hovind.

Then there's the numerous YEC websites.

Jac3510 wrote: 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 non sequitur that a large chunk of your posts repeats. Where did I say that I care here why anyone believes in scripture, or whether science influences their religious beliefs?

Using science to promote a young Earth, or doubt an old Earth, makes for an example of case #1. Perhaps you think I'm smarter than I am, such that I must be making some deeper statement.

Jac3510 wrote: 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.

My original concise topic question already covers your new "better" questions. Of course, if anyone ignores science, they're in case #2, and the original question is moot. But otherwise, understanding why scientists are so sure means understanding what science says and the corresponding methodology.

Jac3510 wrote: 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.

More non sequitur. Where did I imply that I could, or even want to, use science to turn YECs away from their scriptural position?

In fact, a long time ago, in my only(?) significant interaction with a case #1 YEC, the YEC eventually admitted that his science argument was inadequate. Did he change his scriptural view? Of course not, and I would have had a stroke if he had. But I did respect the YEC when he readily admitted that he then realized he was really a case #2 YEC.

IgoFan wrote:Just in this topic alone are replies pointing out case #1 examples:
jlay does.
canuckster1127 mentions that some YEC that do.
zoegirl mentions examples from experience.
Anonymiss mentions Kent Hovind.

Then there's the numerous YEC websites.

No, they don't. Look at your own words. None of the people you reference fall into that category:

You wrote: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.

Notice the part I put in bold in case one. NO ONE DOES THIS. No YEC considers Scripture NOT to supersede science. EVERY YEC who bothers trying to answer the scientific question, even if they do misuse science, consider Scripture to supersede Science, contrary to your case. Going back, again, to your words:

Again, you wrote:For example, do you understand the reasoning in your Age_of_the_Earth reference?
And if so, do you have any doubt?

My guess is that YECs do not understand those dating methods, but I'd like to be shown wrong.

The entire point of your post was to find out why YECs believe in a young earth in the face of modern science. Your assumption, clearly stated here, is that, as clarified even further by case #1, that many misunderstand science. That is simply incorrect. It may be true that many do misunderstand science. What I am telling you is that is NOT the reason that they hold to YEC. Put differently, if every single YEC who misunderstood science were to magically have a perfect understanding of science, they would STILL be YEC. Why? Because their misunderstanding of science is NOT their motivation for belief, as your case #1 states.

jlay doesn't fit case #1; the people Canuckster is talking about don't; the people zoegirl is talking about don't. Granted, jlay, Canuckster's friends, and zoegirl's students all may misunderstand science. But that doesn't mean they fit into case #1.

Again, NO ONE holds to that position. You can deny that if you like, but as someone who is extremely close to YEC beliefs and YEC advocates, I can tell you that, if you think that they got their beliefs from science, you are wrong. They don't. They get their beliefs from their interpretation of the Bible ONLY. If they can get science to back their views, then good for them, they say. You may disagree with their science, but that doesn't mean that science doesn't supersede Scripture in their view.

A non sequitur that a large chunk of your posts repeats. Where did I say that I care here why anyone believes in scripture, or whether science influences their religious beliefs?

Using science to promote a young Earth, or doubt an old Earth, makes for an example of case #1. Perhaps you think I'm smarter than I am, such that I must be making some deeper statement.

Your case #1 states explicitly that you care whether science influences their religious belief. Again: "Scripture doesn't supersede their view of science, scripture agrees with it" is taken to be a motivation for believing in a young earth.

Secondly, using science to promote a young earth, or to doubt an old earth, does NOT make an example of case #1. It simply means that people are trying to find evidence to fit their person beliefs (just like Darwinists do).

Now,. if you could show me a YEC who puts the Bible and Science on the same footing, as case #1 states, and then said they believed in a young earth based on science and not based on Scripture, you THEN would have an example of case #1. I'm telling that they don't exist, because that isn't how the view is developed.

In any case, your objection here begs the question anyway. In your first post, you ask "Why are scientists so sure that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old? ("I don't know" is an acceptable answer.)" You then clarify that you are not asking for YEC scientific arguments for a young earth. You are asking about YECs understanding of science. But here, you say that to use science to support YEC is, by definition, case #1, because it shows a misunderstanding of science. Surely you can see the question begging here, for you assume that YEC science cannot properly support a young earth, or put differently, you assume that YEC science is pseudoscience. You may as well define God right out of existence and say that Hugh Ross and advocates of ID are just as ignorant as YECs and "don't understand science" because they haven't adopted a philosophical naturalistic viewpoint.

In short, you assume, from the beginning, the invalidity of YEC claims, and use that as evidence that they don't understand science. Isn't it possible that they understand science perfectly well and simply interpret differently? You can scream about consensus, but that hardly has any weight on truth. Just because everyone agrees with something, no matter how qualified it is, doesn't make it true. That would be called an ad populum fallacy. I'm sure you're familiar with it . . .

My original concise topic question already covers your new "better" questions. Of course, if anyone ignores science, they're in case #2, and the original question is moot. But otherwise, understanding why scientists are so sure means understanding what science says and the corresponding methodology.

No, your question does not address the points my questions addressed, because they assume a false dichotomy while not recognizing the relationship between science and Scripture from a YEC perspective. Spend some more time with YECs if you want to understand their mentality, but don't think you can force your own framework on that particular question on them and expect to get a proper understanding of the position.

More non sequitur. Where did I imply that I could, or even want to, use science to turn YECs away from their scriptural position?

It follows perfectly. In your statement of case #1. If people reject an old earth, not because of Scripture supersedes science and they are thus bound to it, but rather because they really believe that science teaches a young earth based on their misunderstanding of science, then the clear implication is that if people come to a proper understanding of science, then their argument against an old earth and in favor of YEC goes out the window. They would then be forced to case #2 or to change their position.

In fact, a long time ago, in my only(?) significant interaction with a case #1 YEC, the YEC eventually admitted that his science argument was inadequate. Did he change his scriptural view? Of course not, and I would have had a stroke if he had. But I did respect the YEC when he readily admitted that he then realized he was really a case #2 YEC.

I submit this as evidence that he was never put in your hypothetical case #1. He was in case #2 the entire time. He held that Scripture (rightly) that Scripture supersedes science. He then had secondly arguments from science he thought supported (not were on the same footing as) his beliefs which were rooted in Scripture. When you shot down his secondary arguments, his primary argument (Scripture) stood, and he therefore remained unconvinced.

Why did he remain unconvinced? Because he, like ALL YECs, held to YEC for religious, NOT SCIENTIFIC, reasons. Perhaps he thought he had scientific reasons, but those reasons were never primary. They were never even on the same footing as his Scriptural arguments. His position was biblical first and totally. Science was irrelevant to him. He had those arguments for the benefit of people who don't take Scripture as superseding science.

Now, Igo . . .

I understand that you've only had one serious encounter with YEC, so I don't expect you to have a complete understanding of their positions or their relationship with science. So I am simply trying to inform you of that relationship: case #1 doesn't exist. People do NOT hold to YEC because they misunderstand science. They hold to YEC for other reasons, whatever their relationship to science may be. All YECs, then, fall into case #2. Each may have different reasons for using science; some may understand it (which I think you would disagree with, based on you question begging earlier), and some may not. But ALL YECs consider the scientific evidence strictly and totally secondary, unnecessary, and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Jac3510 wrote: [... reply text omitted ...]

Fascinating.
Continued complete misunderstanding, in spite of the start and the end of the reply being far apart.

Yogi Berra: "Half the things I said, I never said them."
W. C. Fields: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. There's no use in being a damn fool about it."

I disagree, Jac... My sister definitely falls into case 2,, but
i can't speak the same for all YECers.

I haven't read all the posts here but the YEC position is perfectly sound if you can take your time to understand the difference between facts, assumptions, and speculations. As for so many believing the OEC position I would say that it is our culture's chronological snobbery and not science at all.

Most Christian Scholars who concede to an OEC or Day Age theory rarely argue for it with the exception of Hugh Ross. I would recommend this documentary to anyone who thinks this is some solved mystery and the only people who believe in YEC are those that probably believe a geocentric Universe and a flat Earth.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8326627&hl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24FhuOs38YU

If Christians aren't convinced that Old earth geology and evolution don't fit hand in glove regarding the pseudo-science created by secular humanism and philosophical naturalism then one just needs to remember what book Charles Darwin was reading that skewed his perspective while on the Beagle to help him formulate the faulty hypothesis that we are inundated with as a culture.

The YEC position can be validly held, I would concede but internal validity while important, is not the measure of truth. The YEC position in my experience both as someone who has held it and was brought up conditioned to accept it, is usually held more on the basis of one's hermeneutical approach to scripture which is literal, tends to be more rigid and uncompromising in that regard and which disregards natural revelation as a valid basis upon which to evaluate those elements of Scripture and a person's hermeneutic where there is a cross-section of data or information upon which to make that evaluation.

As for OEC's being snobs and your assumptions that acceptance of science appropriately separated from a materialistic philosophy, I'm at a little bit of a loss as to how to respond appropriately.

I'm tempted to resort in the same spirit to something along the lines of "neener, neener, I know you are, but what am I ...."

Is that what you were looking for or were you wanting to discuss the issues without the name calling and stereotypes?

Canuckster1127 wrote:The YEC position can be validly held, I would concede but internal validity while important, is not the measure of truth. The YEC position in my experience both as someone who has held it and was brought up conditioned to accept it, is usually held more on the basis of one's hermeneutical approach to scripture which is literal, tends to be more rigid and uncompromising in that regard and which disregards natural revelation as a valid basis upon which to evaluate those elements of Scripture and a person's hermeneutic where there is a cross-section of data or information upon which to make that evaluation.

None of this applies to me. I was quite content squeezing old earth ideas and portions of evolution into my Christianity for the first 10 years of my Christian walk. It was the evidence and the arguments that converted me.

Canuckster1127 wrote:As for OEC's being snobs and your assumptions that acceptance of science appropriately separated from a materialistic philosophy, I'm at a little bit of a loss as to how to respond appropriately.

I'm tempted to resort in the same spirit to something along the lines of "neener, neener, I know you are, but what am I ...."

Is that what you were looking for or were you wanting to discuss the issues without the name calling and stereotypes?

I think you misunderstood. Chronological Snobbery is a valid logical argument that was constructed by C.S. Lewis when trying to discern popular notions and modern ideas that are widely accepted. Here... look at the argument yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

Ah, I appreciate the correction.

So, am I to understand then that as an YEC proponent that it's your contention that it was not on the basis of your scriptural hermeneutic, but rather an objective examination of the scientific evidence that you have changed your mind?

Just trying to understand what you're saying here.

C.S. Lewis was actually OEC and is considered by many to have actually been a theistic evolutionist, so I appreciate the appeal to the concept of chronological snobbery, but that not withstanding as a general concept, the source you're appealing to still concluded otherwise in terms of the YEC/OEC divide.

Thanks again for the correction. I did misunderstand the term as you were using it.

Many of my favorite scholars and evangelists are OEC. I'm not offended one bit by their position. I just strongly believe that they are mislead and likewise I'm sure they would feel the same way.

Walter Martin, a scholar I revere as one of my favorite hermeneutical teachers of all time, held a lose OEC position but he constantly reminded the students that our job was to scrutinize what he believed because he could be mistaken. I believe in this area he was and as a lover of the truth I'm sure he would consider the current evidence and arguments because of this love for the truth. I will graciously entertain OEC arguments but I find that all of the evidence given to me has fallen short hermeneutically and scientifically.

The reason I feel the way I do is because I see absolutely no disconnect between God's Word as proclaiming a young earth and the science as confirming this. Yes, my primary axiom is that God's special revelation, as contained in scripture, gives us the right universals to interpret the particulars around us. I hope you consider watching that video I posted. It seems dated but there is a very cool experiment about half way through that dismantles current ideas about how geological layers form.

If I were to answer the question, "What is the best argument against your position?" I would say that I've let the concept of events like Nova Explosions having happened as long ago as the light perceived takes to travel to us is a head scratcher. However, this isn't a show stopper because there are so many markers that confirm a recent creation that I'm willing to say that the solution to this dilemma is based on something that we don't understand about light or how God performed His creative work in the beginning.

OK. I accept your position as stated while disagreeing both with your evaluations of the hermeneutical and the scientific supports for OEC.

I think your answer however, does indicate that your position however is primarily hermeneutical with science as secondary. I hold to OEC actually on the same basis, although I believe many proponents of OEC do come to the position initially from the other direction, namely assuming that science is correct in this regard and therefore if scripture is to be accepted it is expected it will be in agreement with natural revelation.

I've never heard, although conceivably such a person could exist I suppose, of anyone, contemporary anyway, who having examined the scientific evidence determined on the basis of that evidence that the earth was young and then on that presumption constructed their scriptural hermeneutic. That speaks to me then that it is a scriptural hermeneutic that establishes the expectation and it is that expectation that in turn interprets or challenges the evidence to be understood in light of that understanding.

I've seen it argued that an OEC position does that same thing, but frankly I see that as a very weak argument. There is not a covert conspiracy in science on the basis of some form of philosophy or religion to skew the evidence in this regard. Further the OEC position is not a new position nor was it developed in response to the development of Modern Science. It has a clear presence from the Early Church fathers and many of their writings and has at times in Church History been the primary position even well before the advent of Darwin, Lamark or others that could be mentioned.

Respectfully, I find your comment telling that you find "absolutely no disconnect between God's Word proclaiming a young earth and the science as confiriming it." (emphasis mine) Your choice of words betrays the presumption you carry. Frankly, while I accept the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, I am more cautious in my attribution of absolute terms particularly to issues such as this where there clearly is an element of interpretation and hermeneutic and believers in good faith have disagreed on these types of elements from the very earliest days of the church and they are not cardinal. What your choice of word betrays to me is that there is an apparent determination to resist any suggestion to the contrary, or any evidence to the contrary. My experience (and my practice earlier in my life too) as a former YEC is that it's somewhat disingenuous to enter a discussion on the basis of evidence where there no committment to accept evidence when it is set against you. What I find in YEC camps in general is an unwillingness to accept or admit any element that weighs against the argument or to immediately discount it and move on to the remaining laundry list of arguments, many of which have been addressed and are addressed on the main board of this site and many of the existing threads.

Why argue evidence when any such evidence has no bearing on the foundation upon which most YEC's proponents base their beliefs anyway?

Anyway, I'm glad you're here and I'm willing to discuss things as you wish. I'm not quite as passionate as I have been in the past to grind through a lot of this, simply because it's becoming more of a settled issue for me and also because God is dealing with me in different areas of focus, but I don't mind going through some of it, if it will be helpful. My question back however would be, what the value of that would be given that you're already establishing things in absolute terms and it would appear that no amount of evidence would really make a difference.

Given that, respectfully, why bother?

Long geological ages and evolution are so closely related that I encourage any listening Christian to strongly consider the specific reasons why they feel these long ages must be read into scripture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2o

Many great Christian philosophers who don't focus on physical sciences can be excused for being compelled by things like the construction of the geologic column and radiometric dating but we who enjoy the philosophy of science should be eager to see where the facts are and where the speculation takes over. Even a YEC speculates and can't definitively prove concepts but the evidence is there and our position is that evolution's attempt to erase the line between facts and interpretations has left us with an unnecessary and weakened theology that accepts long ages uncritically.

I bother because the evidence is in favor of a literal reading of Genesis. The evidence for an Old Earth is rooted in the same sorts of misconceptions that lead Darwin to his evolutionary speculation. I believe Ken Ham has the right perspective for Christians:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum ... st&p=25407

I firmly believe that we have to seek diligently for the truth and be willing to examine ourselves. I'm sure there are things that I'm wrong about but just like you I have gone to great lengths to study both sides and am overwhelmingly convinced that the Church has compromised with a hostile philosophy unwittingly.

Like I said, I was converted from the OEC view by the evidence and I'm so thankful to know that people are out there working hard to share this evidence. I'm obliged to join them.

I'm not interested in splitting the Church. I'm interested in getting Christians engaged in a dialogue that has Truth as the primary focus.

As for trying to nail down how I got to where I am, hermeneutics first or physical evidence first, is a bit of an odd effort. I haven't lived life in a test tube nor have you. At the end of the day my primary guide is the Word of God and my conclusions are based on the evidence and arguments. My life was not this way always, I received Jesus like anyone by grace through faith. When I was transformed, justified and now being sanctified, I rest knowing that God knows more about His creation than we do and we can trust Him without embarrassment.

Long geological ages and evolution are so closely related that I encourage any listening Christian to strongly consider the specific reasons why they feel these long ages must be read into scripture:

This begs the question as to why OEC existed before the formulation of the theory of evolution. As it did, this makes your position reactionary to evolution rather than one based upon an impartial examination of the evidence on its own merit.

Many great Christian philosophers who don't focus on physical sciences can be excused for being compelled by things like the construction of the geologic column and radiometric dating but we who enjoy the philosophy of science should be eager to see where the facts are and where the speculation takes over. Even a YEC speculates and can't definitively prove concepts but the evidence is there and our position is that evolution's attempt to erase the line between facts and interpretations has left us with an unnecessary and weakened theology that accepts long ages uncritically.

Again, you're arguing backwards against something on the basis of its possible implications rather than the independent strength of the evidence upon which it is built.

I bother because the evidence is in favor of a literal reading of Genesis. The evidence for an Old Earth is rooted in the same sorts of misconceptions that lead Darwin to his evolutionary speculation. I believe Ken Ham has the right perspective for Christians:

OEC's believe in a literal rendering of Genesis. The issue is the use of the word yom and context of the passage as to the lengths of time referenced.

Forgive me too for asking this (I can't resist) but if you're going to appeal to Ken Ham and periods of time, how long a period of time do you think it may be before he makes parole?

I firmly believe that we have to seek diligently for the truth and be willing to examine ourselves. I'm sure there are things that I'm wrong about but just like you I have gone to great lengths to study both sides and am overwhelmingly convinced that the Church has compromised with a hostile philosophy unwittingly.

I think there is certainly is an element of science and materialistic philosophy that can be accepted by those who don't carefully examine these things. I don't however believe that they are inseparable or that the potential misuse or application of a concept is a logical basis for rejecting that concept.

Like I said, I was converted from the OEC view by the evidence and I'm so thankful to know that people are out there working hard to share this evidence. I'm obliged to join them.

I hope that works out well for you. I've been in that camp and I'm not obliged to stand against them in that regard.

I'm not interested in splitting the Church. I'm interested in getting Christians engaged in a dialogue that has Truth as the primary focus.

As are most of us in this forum who are Christians.

As for trying to nail down how I got to where I am, hermeneutics first or physical evidence first, is a bit of an odd effort. I haven't lived life in a test tube nor have you. At the end of the day my primary guide is the Word of God and my conclusions are based on the evidence and arguments. My life was not this way always, I received Jesus like anyone by grace through faith. When I was transformed, justified and now being sanctified, I rest knowing that God knows more about His creation than we do and we can trust Him without embarrassment.

I don't disagree with you on that. I've simply come to differing conclusions in this area but I'm still working it through.

blessings,

bart

canuck wrote:Forgive me too for asking this (I can't resist) but if you're going to appeal to Ken Ham and periods of time, how long a period of time do you think it may be before he makes parole?

IgoFan wrote:I guess my question is mainly to YECs:

Why are scientists so sure that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old?

People are willingly ignorant just as the Bible says. Don't get mad at me those are God's words not mine:

2 Peter 3:3-6

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (uniformitarianism)

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, (long geological/cosmic ages) and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:(local flood myth)

I don't like the idea about being willingly ignorant but if I am, I surely hope God puts the right people in my path to guide me out of it.

Most scientists think that philosophical naturalism and the rejection of recognizing God's work is unscientific as well. Maybe we should just ditch the scriptures because of the contemporary fad belief that science has proven that God is undetectable but God's Word says the heaven's declare...

Well which one is it?

zoegirl wrote:

canuck wrote:Forgive me too for asking this (I can't resist) but if you're going to appeal to Ken Ham and periods of time, how long a period of time do you think it may be before he makes parole?

Do you have any information about Ham being in jail? This is news to me. I know Hovind is in jail but let me remind you that Ad Hominem attacks are weak and lack substance. Maybe we should reject the ministry of the Apostle Paul flippantly too... he was in jail a time or two.

Prov 18:13

13 He who answers a matter before he hears it,
It is folly and shame to him.

I think if you investigated the circumstances around the current laws you would pray for your brothers rather than laugh at them.