SteveWhile a professor at my university, I have heard several talks on YEC.In each case, the speaker was a lay person without a formal education ina scientific field; a mechanical engineer; an educator (secondary), or-- most distressfully-- an impostor, i.e. falsified Ph.D. credentials.No doubt there are "real" scientist doing YEC in the sense of educationalbackground, but in all presentations or even printed arguments that I haveyet observed, real science -- i.e. inclusive data, hypothetical-deductive-empericalmethodologies-- is woefully lacking.ICR wins because they are "REAL" scientists whose interpretation ofscience
is consistent with the priority of Scripture (from a literal gramatical
historical interpretive view) not the other way around.
You want theI think your charge should be aimed at the YEC camp, for there it findsits mark. I believe most professional scientists hold to a criticalrealism that demands a real world out there that either empirically accords to scientific investigation and conjecture or doesn't; independentof Scripture.
scriptures to conform to your view of science. They want to seescience in
a way that is consitent with scripture. It is simply a questionof which
you place first in your world view. Most Christians choose thelatter view
and therefore you find them somewhat unreceptive to your perspective.
I agree that, an "interpretation of science that is consistent withthe priority of Scripture" would be mistaken since it falsely assumes thatScripture's intent is to communicate propositional truths about nature.Additionally, any non-contextual reading of verse is really detrimentalto revelation. All attempts to "read back" modern science -- YEC, OEC orTC-- is simply spurious. God spoke to Moses in the language of Mesopotamiancosmology which he well understood, e.g. Emuma elish.
George A.
-- George Andrews Jr.Assistant Professor of PhysicsLeTourneau Universityandrewsg@letu.edu