There are more coming. :^> And thanks a lot for your thoughtful reply,
Bill.
> John E. Rylander wrote:
>
> > (1) Suppose archaeologists were to assuredly discover the remains of
> > Joshua's marker: in your view, that discovery would be
> > "scientific evidence
> > which we can study to verify the supernatural"?
>
> Assuming the veracity of the text, yes. Just as today we use survey
> monuments to establish land corners (which are concrete evidence of a
> legal description recorded in the county courthouse), so in OT times
> monuments were erected to commemorate significant events, one of which,
> in this case, was recorded in the Bible.
I guess I don't see evidence like that as -verifying- the supernatural,
though it would clearly -confirm- or -corroborate- the biblical account,
which in turn would confirm or corroborate a supernatural event.
But -verify-? (And if we already assume the veracity of the text, there
isn't much need for empirical evidence, is there?)
> > (2) Why would any matter created ex nihilo necessarily have
> > the appearance
> > of age?
>
> Suppose a shiny new copper penny with the date 1998 suddenly appeared on
> the desk right before your eyes. If you were watching the spot and
> actually saw it appear, and then picked it up, would you not wonder
> where it came from? We assume cause and effect, which, in our
> naturalistic mindset, requires us to consider that a newly created penny
> came from pre-existing matter. Therefore, it would have the "appearance
> of age."
A question and comment:
(1) Would there be apparent age even with respect to non-functional aspects
of the penny? That is, not its appearance, its functioning in vending
machines, etc., but even its most subtle physical and chemical properties?
That is, would God be trying to fool those who didn't see the penny appear
out of nowhere into thinking that it's a regular penny (perhaps duplicating
a real penny at the quark level, e.g., including impurities, manufacturing
flaws, etc.), or would he just be creating a perfect penny so far as proper
functioning goes? (I realize this is a fine distinction, but I think it's
an important one for YECs to consider, to the extent the intend their views
to involve scientific confirmation or disconfirmation.)
(2) More of a comment: SFAIK, we have no way to measure the age of
individual atoms, leptons, etc. That's what I meant to be getting at with
my question, but it wasn't very precise, and your answer may lead to a more
fruitful topic.
> > (3) In defending the YEC position, you agree that the
> > defense is more
> > theological than scientific, right? that no one who came to
> > science lacking
> > a commitment to YEC would ever derive such from science? I.e. (roughly)
> > that YEC is derived from what YEC's take to be the revelation
> > of God's word
> > and world combined in some high ratio, rather than from God's
> > world alone?
>
> It would be easy to agree with you here, John, but I'll resist the
> temptation to take the easy way out for the following reasons:
>
> 1) Our mindset (as in the new penny example) is to always assume
> naturalistic cause and effect since that is the way our world seems to
> work on a day-to-day basis. I believe miracles demonstrate the
> inadequacy of this position. IOW, science based upon naturalistic
> cause-and-effect principles is flawed to begin with.
I think it's only flawed if one demands more from science than it can give
(as many do, including many or most atheists, I think), but in any event, I
think this comment confirms my point that YECs rely on theology to a high
degree in their science (i.e., you argue that Biblical miracles prove
naturalistic science is "flawed" [I'd almost agree, except I think
"incomplete" or "not theology" or "not the whole story" would be much better
words]).
> 2) Science, especially for the last 150 years, has been interpreted
> through this naturalistic cause-and-effect filter, resulting in an
> incredible bias toward naturalism and evolution woven throughout the
> fabric of science.
Do you think science is properly methodologically (not metaphysically)
naturalistic, i.e., referring only to natural objects and forces in its
explanations? Or should scientific explanations involve God's free actions
as well?
If so, how tightly woven should science and theology be? Should we still
call it "natural science", despite its also studying the supernatural?
Roughly, how would one mathematically model God's behavior for purposes of
theological-scientific explanation, or should the new science not demand
mathematical models/natural laws?
> To say "that no one who came to science lacking a
> commitment to YEC would ever derive such from science" is to assume that
> science is unaffected by the various biases of scientists.
How so? Suppose I assume science is affected by the various biases of
scientists (as I certainly do). Where's the inconsistency in my also
asserting that "no one who came to science lacking a commitment to YEC would
ever derive such from science"? So far as -I- can see (about 3 meters ;^>),
my assertion not only seems true on reflection, but on empirical
investigation as well.
Can you point to any recognized thought leaders in a given field who came
to YE views first, and only later became theological YECs? I'm sure this
happens with laymen evangelized with YEC, but I mean -leading
scientists- -in their fields-. Are any atheistic scientists YEs? (O YE of
little faith.... ;^> )
NB that I'm not arguing -this- makes YEC false, I'm here just trying to
clarify the (strong, I think) role of traditional fundamentalist theology in
determining YEC scientific theories.
> I think most
> of us would agree that biases do creep into science. A case in point is
> the conventional interpretation in geology that coal seams are ancient
> swamp deposits. As a geologist, I have studied numerous coal seams and
> can state unequivocally that the evidence does not support the
> conventional conclusion. If, as I contend, this same bias is present
> throughout science, and if scientists are biased by their core
> philosophy and the training recieved in secular universities, then your
> statement becomes a bit of a tautology, IMHO.
I'm certainly no geologist (my background is philosophy), but I do know that
when I've compared expert explanations, the non-YE explanations seem to me
much more rigorous and compelling. But then, once the comparisons are done,
I tend gradually to forget the details, so I'm rarely in a position to argue
the details of science. :^< (Now -Glenn-, on the other hand.... :^> )
In a nutshell, I think YEC stuff tends to have -theological- or -logical-
success when arguing that it's -conceivable-, or that God -had the power- to
do it this way, but seems to have no -scientific- success arguing that
God -in fact- did it that way, which is the big issue.
If YECs (or ID theorists, for that matter, mutatis mutandi), want to
persuade the YEC-unconverted out there (like me) that YEC is not only -true-
(because of prior knowledge that the Bible is inerrant and is to be
interpreted in a YEC way) but -scientific-, they'll need to come up with
theories that offer -better empirical predictions- than OE and evolutionary
theories. That and only that will move YEC from the realm of traditional
Biblical theology combined with very fringey bad science, which is where I
think you'd agree most scientists see it now, to the position of scientific
leadership.
The best, maybe the only, way to get these results is to find YEC empirical
predictions with the following characteristics: (1) The prediction P is
empirically fairly crisp and clear, (2) YECs and non-YECs agree that YEC
predicts P, (3) YECs and non-YECs agree that big-bang cosmology or
evolutionary theory or ... (choose your target) predicts non-P, and (4) YECs
and non-YECs agree that P is empirically undecided at present. Then find
out if P is true. If it is, then YEC stands confirmed, and non-YEC theories
stand disconfirmed.
If you can do this for P1, P2, P3, etc., as you should be able to if YEC is
both true and scientific, then YEC will prevail scientifically, regardless
of whether or not people like the theology. And there'll be more than
enough Nobel prizes to go around. :^>
But so far, and here's the rub, I see -no reason at all- to believe that's
happening.
--John