Evidence for God from Science

anita wrote:
Yes I agree that words are important.

You left off the rest of that paragraph:

Yes I agree that words are important. Off hand did you know that the Hebrew language is a "conceptual" language? Meaning that there can be many meanings pertaining to one word.

yeah! So may we dispense with all future exasperated comments about "words words words and technicalities!?!?

What I meant, and I guess I really didnt specify it clearly enough, but I was refering to G-ds word (as in Hebrew language).

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.

Anita wrote:

anita wrote:
Yes I agree that words are important.

yeah! So may we dispense with all future exasperated comments about "words words words and technicalities!?!?

What I meant, and I guess I really didnt specify it clearly enough, but I was refering to G-ds word (as in Hebrew language).

But I didn't, my statemnt was that OUR words are important. Our arguments are important. As Jac vary ably illustrated, he pointed out a weakness in my argument. I haev no problem with that. My words, our words, are important.

Technicalities are important.

Zoe wrote: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.

This is a very good point. I don't think I've ever considered that, but it seems to me that you are right. I would have to let someone from the Creation Science camp try to refute that. But, yes, I do think you are quite right here, with reference, anyway, to creation research. I would strongly disagree that a YEC proponent, even of the Creation Science type, cannot use obervational science to understand how the world works today. But I think that's the context of your own statement, so I suspect you would agree with that as well.

Whew, I was waiting with baited breath

and yes, I would agree that no matter the idea about the origin,we can study the creation now.

Can a YEC jump in here? I know I'll suffer the slings and arrows from the OECs. There are just a couple of points I'd like to consider. First, essentials are what really matter with regard to Christian faith and certainly YEC vs OEC is far from an essential. We ought really to be more concerned with embracing the authenticity, authority, and accuracy of scripture. In fact, in my mind, the entire debate might most properly be considered esoteric, but for that which brings me to my second point: ideas matter.
Believers who are mature in faith will likely find little of substance to quibble with in the first instance. If you doubt the second, consider National Socialism, communism, hedonism, materialism, ad infinitum. Your world view indelibly imprints your belief system and I hold that belief comprises the largest component of faith.
Allow me to digress and offer my personal testimony here. I am the black sheep of my family, as it were. My father was a literal rocket scientist engineer and my brother is also an engineer. I defected to biology and the medical sciences. So, I am conversant in the scientific piece of the issue. In fact, my decades of futile pursuit of an intellectually honest and comprehensive reconciliation of the plain meaning of Genesis 1 and my neo-Darwinist “scientific “ OEC perspective, confounded and stagnated my faith from an early age. I stand now a chastened and converted YEC, freed to revel in awe in revealed scripture.
My struggle with that cognitive dissonance from a foundation of pre-existing Christian faith gives me great pause in contemplating the potential impact of not merely neo-Darwinism, but also OEC on unbelievers. In my humble opinion that potential alone provides sufficient rationale to warrant abandoning OEC in favor of proper hermeneutical exegesis from the literary context and the plain meaning of the Word, lest someone be caused to stumble. But, there is actually more cogent reasoning I would be willing to share in a future post, if any are interested.

RWortman wrote:In my humble opinion that potential alone provides sufficient rationale to warrant abandoning OEC in favor of proper hermeneutical exegesis from the literary context and the plain meaning of the Word, lest someone be caused to stumble. But, there is actually more cogent reasoning I would be willing to share in a future post, if any are interested.

Please do share more on what makes your hermeneutical exegesis from the literary context and the plain meaning of the Word more plain than an OECer's exegesis. Tell us why you have exclusivity on that style.

RWortman wrote:there is actually more cogent reasoning I would be willing to share in a future post, if any are interested

I am also interested. Post away.

FL

Same here. Being undecided, I have no dog in this fight-post onward!

I hold to the OEC. Here's why, when God created man, key word being man, He created him in his prime. God did not create a child or boy, but man. So why would it be hard for me to believe that God created the Earth in its prime also? I have gone round and round with people who hold true to darwinian theories that they believe in two creation stories not one.

obsolete wrote:I hold to the OEC. Here's why, when God created man, key word being man, He created him in his prime. God did not create a child or boy, but man. So why would it be hard for me to believe that God created the Earth in its prime also? I have gone round and round with people who hold true to darwinian theories that they believe in two creation stories not one.

Just for the record, theistic evolutionists hold to one creation theory.

Byblos wrote:

obsolete wrote:I hold to the OEC. Here's why, when God created man, key word being man, He created him in his prime. God did not create a child or boy, but man. So why would it be hard for me to believe that God created the Earth in its prime also? I have gone round and round with people who hold true to darwinian theories that they believe in two creation stories not one.

Just for the record, theistic evolutionists hold to one creation theory.

I honestly yet have to meat a theistic evolutionist. 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'.

obsolete wrote:I honestly yet have to meat a theistic evolutionist. 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'.

The late Pope John Paul II was one.

The late Pope John Paul II was one.

Never met him, so I hold true to what I said before.

I do believe that evolution occurs on a smaller scale than people think. I fell that God has alowed evolution in certain species as time progressed since the flood to adapt to changes in the global atmospheric changes. To better adapt themselves if you will. But evolution on a grander scale? I doubt it.

obsolete wrote:

The late Pope John Paul II was one.

Never met him, so I hold true to what I said before.

I do believe that evolution occurs on a smaller scale than people think. I fell that God has alowed evolution in certain species as time progressed since the flood to adapt to changes in the global atmospheric changes. To better adapt themselves if you will. But evolution on a grander scale? I doubt it.

C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionist. The head of the DNA project too, Collins, is a theistic evolutionist and committed Christian. They are out there and you've probably met several but just not known it.