Having recently returned from holiday I am now able to address the
matters raised in your 12 July posting.
1) I had suggested that your view of 'cognitive dissonance' (CD) fell
short of its true meaning. You responded:
> That is what I thought when I was a YEC also. I was wrong. It is the
> refusal to acknowledge contradictory information and incorporate it
> into one's world view. It is displayed as a insistence that one is
> correct even if the entire world is against him.
Whilst I would regard what you describe as a consequence of CD, it does
not get to the heart of the phenomenon. May I suggest you take a look
at http://www.jencom.com/2001 for further insight.
2) I then commented on your understanding of God's faithfulness in
respect of the 'natural laws', and the problem of incorporating
'miracle' into that understanding. You responded:
> I didn't say God couldn't overcome his own laws. I will rephrase my
> statement. God will, under non-miraculous circumstances honor the
> laws he set in motion.
You are evading the issue. How can we know the nature of these
'circumstances' at any point in time? Doesn't He do what pleases Him? As
believers, should that affect our trust in Him? Doesn't He know best?
3) Knowing you to be an avid student of empirical data (from whatever
source - as I naturally assumed!), I again attempted to draw your
attention to the standing miracle of Genesis 1:1. You responded:
> I see no numerical miracle in Genesis 1:1. I see a bit of
> self-delusion because numeralogy brings out numerous surprises. As I
> told you long ago about the passage in Moby Dick which predicted an
> assassination through numeralogy. Coincidences happen.
Whilst I would agree that numbers represent an exceedingly flexible
medium for the exercise of 'self-delusion', I am surprised you should
level that charge in respect of the geometrical and symbolic
implications of the Genesis 1:1 data as presented at the URLs given
below. Your reference to Moby Dick (involving the technique of ELS -
Equidistant Letter Sequences - described by Drosnin in 'The Bible Code')
is completely irrelevant - as you would know if you had studied the
facts! To label these matters 'numerology' is to imply that they are not
fit for consumption by 'serious' scientists! In my book, that is a
convenient 'cop out' - and, incidentally, a fine example of CD!
4) To test your selectivity further, I presume you are already aware of
the recent article 'Is nothing sacred' by John Barrow - professor of
mathematical sciences, Cambridge, UK. The sub-title explains: 'Call it
heresy, but all the big cosmological problems will simply melt away, if
you break one rule...the rule that says the speed of light never
varies'. It can be found at
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990724/isnothings.html.
It really is very convincing, and suggests that you and others may well
be directing your anti-YEC attacks from atop a 'house of cards'!
Regards,
Vernon
Vernon Jenkins MSc
[musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm