Re: Kerkut

I have thought about this a little bit more, and I think I can clarify my
position a bit. I have no trouble with giving those with training and
expertise in an area more weight than those who dont. Quite the contrary, I
am not an expert in any of these fields, I am a physician. Specifically a
neurologist, and even more so, I am trained particularly in peripheral
nervous disorders. I am very comfortable with medicines' sub specialization
and defer to my colleagues in other fields daily.

I guess the difficulty I have with yours and Dick's response is that I feel
that you are attacking on of "our own". IMO, the primary issue here is the
age of the Earth. The reason for that is as follows: YEC claim that the
Earth is several thousand years old and that God created the entire universe
in 6 literal days, and they claim that the know this because The Bible tells
them that. They have reasonably sound arguments to support this view, and
can point to the The Bible and say
"see its right here, the Earth is young, there is no doubt." And anyone
with any reasonable scientific knowledge can hear this and say, how can this
be? The Earth is clearly old. And would have to either abandon the Bible's
inerrency, or choose to disagree with the YEC claim about what the Bible
says.

This is not the case with "how" God created the universe. No YEC'er can
point to The Bible and claim "see its right here, evolution is false"
because the Bible is silent on this issue. (They may claim that it is
incompatible with Christianity, but they are straying into philosophy, and
away from hermenutics, which is their strength.) Similarly, I think, the
evidence for evolution is not as compelling as the evidence for the age of
the universe and the Earth, so the scientist cannot be as dogmatic here, I
dont think, so there is no great dilemma regarding the mechanism of creation
as there is with the age of things.

For this reason, I think that we should be supporting any of the Old
earthers, and if Dick doesnt like Ross' view because Ross is a progessive
creationist, and Dick is an evolutionist, well so be it. But, at least Ross
is out there fighting with the YEC'ers trying to prove that both the Bible,
and science can agree on an old creation.

Now having said that, I would like to make one other point. Can you not see
George, that it is possible, that even if one is highly trained in a field,
that they cannot, in some instances, see the forest for the trees? Dont you
think that ones' training can introduce a "bias", and that perhaps one may
be so deeply entwined in the paradigm they have worked under for years, that
they cant see the shift as it ocurrs?

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Drsyme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Kerkut

> Drsyme wrote:
> >
> > I must admit some discomfort with the views of George and Dick. I am
> > sure varous experts in many different areas can go on Dick's website
> > and point out "obvious blunders". I have trouble with the idea that
> > Dick wants to discredit Ross' entire view because he is weak in the
> > biology area. And similarly, as you point out Gordon, even though
> > many would be quick to cricized Ross' exegesis, as George seems to do,
> > I am sure that experts could poke holes in his ideas as well.
>
> This is just the type of thing I had in mind. I have no notion that my
> theological or scientific views are beyond criticism, but what seems to be
suggested
> here is that anybody's views can be criticized so everybody's are of equal
value.
> Thay aren't. & recognizing what Gordon said (& what I agreed to) about
academic
> degrees - & I would add academic positions & publications - these things
are at least a
> first order indication of familiarity with the field and technical
competence. All
> other things being equal, you're better off listening to someone with a
Th.D. from an
> accredited seminary than to one with a mailorder diploma from Gee Whiz
Bible College
>
> > So, where do we draw the line between well intentioned christian
> > scientists looking for truth, and those who are using less than
> > rigorous science to support their biased view? For example:
> > personally, I have a lot of trouble with, and can see the weak science
> > in many of the AIG and ICR reports, but is Hugh Ross the same? How do
> > I know that Dick's ideas are not the ones that are filled with bias
> > and less than perfect scrutiny?
>
> How do you know? For 1 thing, do some reading in works by people with
some
> recognized expertise in the scientific field in question & in the broad
theological
> tradition.
>
> A couple of nights ago, flipping through channels, I came across & forced
myself
> to watch a 1/2 hour segment on the Trinity Broadcasting Network with "Dr."
Carl Baugh
> and a high school math teacher who was adjunct faculty at some college I'd
never heard
> of. (Baugh - whose doctorate is spurious - kept calling him "Professor.")
I had trouble
> keeping from retching as they presented "proofs" that evolution was fake,
that
> scientists were often wrong, that the Bible contained a lot of scientific
data that
> secular scientists had only recently discovered (including citation of
Is.40:22 as "God
> sits on the _sphere_ of the earth"!) &c straight out of Harry Rimmer.
> Few people on this list would have been taken in by any of this, but there
are
> millions of Americans who are both scientifically and theologically
illiterate & who
> undoubtedly lap that stuff up. This is just a restatement of a problem
that we've often
> talked about here, & I don't imagine that telling people to pay attention
to people with
> real credentials in the fields they're talking about will solve it. But
it wouldn't
> hurt.
> Shalom,
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 5 19:57:27 2004