On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:30:55 +0000 glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
writes:
>Be my guest. I asked this privately because I didn't want to put you on
the
>spot about his. I respect you too much to do that in this case.
I asked Glenn if I might repost his question and respond to the list
because I think this cuts to the heart of the YEC/OEC schism. I still
get distressed when I see the "liar" label applied to YECs (I haven't
seen this from Glenn), and when I see the generally stressed interchanges
between YECs/OECs. With Glenn's permission, here are his questions.
***************
Bill, a personal question. Why do you look for data to support your
model?
Your methodology seems to be, find data to support the YEC model and
ignore
data that contradicts it. As you said on the ASA "I guess the main
difference between the two of us is the way we react to contrary data. I
tend to shrug my shoulders and ignore it. "
Given this, isn't what you have the perfect epistemological method for
self-deception?
Given this, why is it then not ok for others to shrug their shoulders and
ignore your data? AFterall how can you require of others (paying
attention
to your data) when you won't offer your opponents the same courtesy? Or
do
you expect people to pay attention to your data without your having to
pay
attention to theirs?
******************
My gut feeling is that we all look for data to support what we believe,
whether conciously or unconciously. And I believe that we often
subconciously skew the assumptions which control the data. Rather than
spend my time trying to understand why something "proves" the OEC
position, I would rather look for something which may have been
overlooked up to this point that might turn the argument around. This is
essentially what Phil Johnson, William Demski, Michael Behe and others
are doing with ID - reviving the design argument which went out of
fashion with the introduction of Darwin's _Origin of the Species_.
From my point of view, Glenn's question, "Given this, isn't what you have
the perfect epistemological method for self-deception?", assumes that I
will disconnect from a rational view of the data and lose touch with
reality. I value these discussions for exactly that reason; I want to
put my ideas out to be refined or shreaded, as the case may be. I am
fully aware of my own limitations and blind spots. I feel that God may
have given us each other (OECs/YECs) for exactly that reason - so that we
might together move closer to Him in truth.
Having said that, Glenn's last question condems me. I should be more
attentive to others' opposing ideas and offer my critique. Practically
speaking, though, I hardly have time to pursue my own narrow interests,
much less get involved in topics that I know very little about. When I
see something I do have a working knowledge of, I may post a comment or
engage a limited discussion, but for the bulk of these discussions I will
probably just continue to "shrug my shoulders and ignore it."
Is that fair for me to ask others to consider my ideas while I ignore
theirs? I would certainly say what's good for the goose is good for the
gander. Again, though, my primary reason for posting my ideas is to
discover their weaknesses and merit, if any. I will be happy to return
the favor if others' ideas are in an area in which I have a working
knowledge.
In summary, I think that the geologic record contains data with which we
must grapple. Do I think perhaps the geologic record contains a record
of events which cannot be explained except by resorting to miracles?
Perhaps, and I have no problem with using miracles to resolve certain
questions. For instance, I can see no way for sexual reproduction to
evolve randomly from asexual organisms. Male and female humans are
radically different. The sperm and egg delivery systems are a good
example, in my opiinion, of irreducible complexity. Therefore, I believe
God "created them male and female."
Just as Jesus bypassed all naturalistic processes when He created wine at
the wedding feast in Cana (John 2), so also I think He may have created
the cosmos in a short period of time with the appearance of age. Am I
saying that we should give up on science and just believe? No, not at
all; but I do think we should be willing to accept the miraculous if it
is consistent with the Scripture and perhaps suggested by what we
understand of nature.
I'm afraid I may have raised more objections than I've answered, but
maybe something in this will be helpful.
Thank you, Glenn, for your questions.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 00:28:56 EST