I was having a nice conversation with Bill Payne almost a month ago -- the
nicest I've had on this list with a YEC in memory, and I mean that very much
as a compliment to him, to his reasoning ability and his courtesy -- but I
never heard back from him on my last message to him.
One of the issues I pursued unsuccessfully (i.e., no reply) was that of the
degree of theological involvement in YEC science -- just this issue you
brought up. I'd like to re-raise these matters with Bill, if he'd permit.
Our discussion was getting fairly conceptually detailed, but I think that's
necessary for real progress.
To restate the issue: we weren't -directly- discussing the -truth- of YEC in
this section, but whether or not the many -miraculous- elements YEC requires
are properly part of science. (Science is not the same as reason or
rationality, after all. Something can be true and rationally compelling
without being justified scientifically [take the intellectual foundations of
science, e.g.].)
I was arguing that YEC practically -requires- a very strong traditional
fundamentalist theological commitment as a presupposition. Bill seemed to
think that wasn't true, that YEC is the best scientific theory -period-,
based on the way science is generally done, without needing a prior
commitment to YEC's being true.
I'll just quote from our prior discussion, and see if Bill is willing to
pick up where we left off:
Relevant, unresolved part of prior discussion from 8/2/98:
> > (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