From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 16:32:38 EST
Allen wrote many words; among them were: "YECs typically start with the
stated Biblical points of a creation of the Biosphere within a week of 7
planet rotations some 6000 +/- years ago and a global cataclysm (typically
called Creationism)."
At least one YEC I have read claims that only the last three days were
earth-rotations and the first three someting else.
Allen also wrote: "The typical Evolutionist starts with Ontological
Naturalism (or its heir Methodological Naturalism)."
That can be taken as a simple definition of the word "evolutionist," I
suppose. But in its more useful meaning, one who accepts the evolutionary
concepts as a useful scientific paradigm, it is not true at all.
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: allenroy <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
>To: pruest@mysunrise.ch, "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: Re: YEC and interpretations (was: Re: asa-digest V1 #3214)
>Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:00:51 -0700
>
>
>
>Peter Ruest wrote:
>
>>I am in the middle of such a discussion with a young-earth creationist
>>(who has published a book-long theological defense of the young-earth
>>creationist postulate).
>>
>>The crucial point he doesn't seem to check is that there is a close
>>parallel between the theological treatment of the Bible and the
>>scientific treatment of nature (or creation). We have two "books" of
>>God, his Word (in the Bible), and his work (in creation). The biblical
>>text (originals) is data, and the creation is data. But theology is
>>interpretation, and science is interpretation. Data are given - they
>>are, in a sense, God's truth, which is absolutely reliable (although we
>>are not able to see all of it directly, both with the biblical originals
>>and with the realities of creation). We cannot change the data, we can
>>at most falsify or obscure it. But any interpretation, be it of biblical
>>texts or of observations in nature, are the work of fallible humans. Its
>>reliability has certain probabilities, which range from 0 to somewhere
>>below 100%. Any interpretations must be subject to revision if
>>necessary. Any pitting of "the Bible" against "science" is therefore a
>>confusion of categories, and therefore mistaken.
>>
>I and most YECs that I know would pretty much agree with this. Except that
>we have supernatural help in understanding (or interpreting) the Bible in
>the form of the promised "Comforter" who Jesus sent to"lead us into all
>truth." As long as we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us, then we can
>arrive at what God means for us to understand from the Bible. With that in
>mind, that is why one should never open the Bible unless we first ask God
>the Spirit to guide and lead our thoughts.
>
>As for interpreting the data from the natural world, the difference between
>the typical YEC and Evolutionists of all types, is the foundational
>assumptions within which scientific study is done. YECs typically start
>with the stated Biblical points of a creation of the Biosphere within a
>week of 7 planet rotations some 6000 +/- years ago and a global cataclysm
>(typically called Creationism). The typical Evolutionist starts with
>Ontological Naturalism (or its heir Methodological Naturalism). The
>scientific method can be done equally well within either viewpoint. When
>dealing with the here and now, both philosophies provide equivalent
>results. It is when dealing with the past that the interpretations of
>scientific data within the paradigms diverge. The real issue is not that
>one or the other side does not understand science or is unable to do proper
>science. Rather, the real issue, the real conflict, is found in the
>foundational assumptions. Can Creationism and Ontological Naturalism be
>harmonized or are they incompatible. Can Creationism and Methodological
>Naturalism be harmonized or are they also incompatible. The typical YEC
>believe that the philosophical differences between Creationism and
>Naturalism (of either form) are completely incompatible. I believe that
>the typical Theistic Evolutionists (and others of similar beliefs) believe
>that Creationism and Natrualism can be harmonized. One can read about such
>attempts at harmonizing on many web pages provided by many members of this
>group. The YECs point out however, that ALL such harmonizing involves
>starting with Naturalism (either form) and interpreting the Bible within
>it. Some might argue that Methodological Naturalism is an attempt to
>harmonize Ontological Naturalism through Biblical eyes. However, most YECs
>will argue that it modifing Ontological Naturalism inot Methodological
>Naturlaism doesn't go far enough and besides that, it is completely
>unnecessary to use any form of Naturalism. All the necessary assumptions
>requried to conduct the scientific method are found within Creationism.
>
>>There is no "literal interpretation" of the Bible which would be immune
>>from human fallibility. I believe we have to take the (original)
>>biblical text "literally", in the sense of respecting the way the divine
>>Author led the human authors to formulate and later copyists to transmit
>>it: we must not change any of it. But we cannot evade interpreting it -
>>any reading of it automatically is an interpretation, which has to be
>>evaluated. So I would not discuss whether Gen.1-11 has to be taken
>>"literally" or not. The question is how these words are meant to be
>>interpreted. And this cannot be other than "theory-laden", just as with
>>scientific interpretations. There is no priority of the interpretations
>>of one type of data (biblical text) over those of another type of data
>>(creation). There only is priority of God's data (in the Bible and in
>>creation) over its interpretation (in both domains).
>>
>In the discussion on "literal" inerpretation of the Bible, many YECs find
>that the term "literal" has been interpreted by critics and skeptic to mean
>that every single word of the Bible is to be taken absolutly literal. This
>is not how most YECs use the term "literal." (but I'm sure you can find
>some who do.) Because the inaccurate definition used by the critics is so
>pervasive in society now, many YECs are now beginning to use the term
>"straight forward reading" rather than "literal reading," to describe the
>common sense method they use to read the Bible. Just as we all have
>learned to communicate, read and write using an assortmen of obvious
>literary methods, the same approach is applied to the Bible. It is
>recognized that the Bible is written in obvious literary structures such as
>prose, poety, prophetic symbolisms, metaphores, idoms, etc. It doesn't
>take a rocket scientist or theologian with advanced degrees to get the
>obvious messages from the Bible.
>
>I have found that when reading Genesis 1:11 nearly everyone agrees that if
>it is read in a straight forward manner then the interpretation of the
>texts would likely be very similar to the typical YEC interpretation.
>However, when faced with the interpretation of natural world through
>Ontological or Methodological Naturalism which simply does not fit the
>straight forward interpretation of Genesis, that one must make some
>difficult choices. Can one "intellectually" throw out the "Science" of
>Methodological Naturalism? Does one have to make "Faith" decision and
>shut your eyes to 'science?' I believe that there is another option, do
>you science within the philosophical foundation of Creationism rather than
>any form of Naturalism.
>
>Allen
>
>>
>--
>"I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing.
>Relics found
>in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many
>respects from the
>present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these
>things have been in
>the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent
>to conjecture
>beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found
>in the sacred
>Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of
>creation, and
>seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are
>upon a
>boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of
>creation in six
>literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just
>as
>incomprehensible as his existence." Ellen Gould Harmon White, 1864
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 19 2003 - 16:33:14 EST