(no subject)

From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 14:18:34 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: My daughter is a YEC"

    Howard wrote:
    > 1. You cannot empirically distinguish between a) a universe with a real 14
    > billion year history from b) one that is 6000 years old (or 6 minutes old)
    > with a built-in appearance of having had a 14 billion year history.
    >
    > 2. You cannot empirically distinguish between a) a creation fully-gifted
    by
    > God with a robust formational economy (including the ability to evolve)
    and
    > b) the universe of materialism that just happens to exist and also happens
    > to have a robust formational economy (including the ability to evolve).

    Agreed.

    > Does that mean that there is no way to evaluate the relative merits of
    > propositions a) and b) in each example? No, it means that that evaluation
    > must be made on criteria other than empirical -- theological, biblical,
    > philosophical, aesthetic, ....

    But what to you mean by <evaluate the relative merits>? Do you mean their
    scientific or truth merits or rather what is extrapolated from those
    positions say by their psychological or societal merits, or their systematic
    elegance?

    Steve Petermann

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
    To: <ASA@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 7:41 AM
    Subject: Re: My daughter is a YEC

    > One comment on a portion of this discussion.
    >
    > I take both of the following to be true.
    >
    > 1. You cannot empirically distinguish between a) a universe with a real 14
    > billion year history from b) one that is 6000 years old (or 6 minutes old)
    > with a built-in appearance of having had a 14 billion year history.
    >
    > 2. You cannot empirically distinguish between a) a creation fully-gifted
    by
    > God with a robust formational economy (including the ability to evolve)
    and
    > b) the universe of materialism that just happens to exist and also happens
    > to have a robust formational economy (including the ability to evolve).
    >
    > Does that mean that there is no way to evaluate the relative merits of
    > propositions a) and b) in each example? No, it means that that evaluation
    > must be made on criteria other than empirical -- theological, biblical,
    > philosophical, aesthetic, ....
    >
    > Howard Van Till



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 14:22:45 EDT