From: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
> I'm going to jump in here, reluctantly, because I'm not sure I have time
> for a sustained discussion, but I think that the either/or that you've
> painted is part of the problem. What do you do with those of us
> "evolutionary creationists"? Indeed, some evolutionists and some
> creationists are guilty of assuming the conclusion. No doubt, if you start
> with Philosophical Naturalism, you're going to end up there. Also, if you
> start with Young Earth Creationism, you're going to end up there.
>
> But, what if, oh and it seems a big what if in the contemporary
discussion,
> what if, you are a theist and a creationist (i.e. you believe that God
> created), but you also believe that God could have created however he
> pleased (including using evolutionary processes) and that you are willing
> to let the evidence tell you how he did it (not your interpretation of
> Genesis)??????
The key here is; What is the evidence for evolution? We all acknowledge
genetic variation, which might be called, in one sense, evolution. However,
the evolution we are discussing here is the application of genetic variation
over a long period of time resulting in the varieties of life forms that now
exist. The evidence for this is interpreted from the fossil record and the
interpretation of vast ages of the rocks. If the rocks are old then the
fossils would represent a record of life over vast ages. Are the
sedimentary rocks old? The results of radiometric dating are offered as
evidence of the vast ages of the rocks.
However, one of the axioms (or presuppositions) for radiometric dating is
that the rocks are old enough to be dated. Thus one must first asume that
the rocks are old before you can date them. Consequently, radiometric dates
cannot provide evidence of the old age of the rocks because old age is
already assumed in the dating method. You cannot prove what you assume.
All other methods of estimating the age of sedimentary rock are based on
Actualism -- the present is the key to the past. Sedimentary rocks are
classified according to the idea that things have gone on the same as today
with the possible exception of occational minor catastrophic events.
So, the old age of the rocks is based on interpretations of the evidence
based on the assumption of old age. Thus the fossils represent the record
of life over assumed vast ages, not on established evidence of old age.
Therefore, the concept of evolution (over vast ages) is based on the
assumption of vast ages. So all you are left with it the fact that there is
genetic variation, but no evidence of evolution over vast ages.
To accept evolution over vast ages as the method which God used to create,
the Christain must find more solid evidence than that found in Evolutionism.
They must find it clearly stated in God's word, that genetic change over
vast ages is how God created. Is that what we find? Some may attempt to
make Genesis into mythology, or symbolic language, or sweet, cute tales of
origins, but based on what? The religion of Evolutionism; based on the
assumption of old ages without real evidence?
What an Evolutionary Creationist is doing is trying to interpret the Bible
within the religion of Evolutionism and all it's axioms. Why? Evolutionsim
is based not on emperical evidence but upon philosophical assumptions.
Creationary Catastrophism is based on God's Word by which Christains have
found their salvation by faith in the trustworthiness of God. It's axioms
are just as valid and philosophical as those of Evolutionism. There is no
need to reinterpret the plain texts to fit another religious philosophy.
> I'd suggest that these people turn into old earth evolutionists. It is
this
> class of people, in my opinion, that gives the greatest credibility to
> evolution because their commitment to evolution is not rooted in
> Philosophical Naturalism but in empiricism. (To be honest, that is my
> reading of most scientists, even non-Christian scientists--philosophical
> commitments play much less a role in their conclusions that you might
> think, although there is an outspoken minority around who are an
exception.)
I have no trouble with empiricism so long as scientists can recognize
evidence that is really empirical and that which is actually intepreted
within Evolutionism. Just because we see genetic variation around us does
not automatically mean that that is the means for all the variety of life
forms existant.
> It is the young earth creationists who are blatantly and unapologetically
> non-empirical (as your post indicates). Your commitment to young earth
> catastrophism has NOTHING to do with empirical evidence but EVERYTHING to
> do with your commitment to a particular interpretation of Genesis. Sure
> it's possible to interpret the world within the confines of your axioms,
> but there are certain questions that you simply cannot ask of the
evidence:
> age of the earth, origin of species, etc. because your Biblical
> interpretation has already answered those questions decisively.
I say that Evolutionists are blatantly non-emperical because they either are
unaware of the real foundations of their beliefs or deliberately hide or
ignore those foundations. (I expect that the former is the nominal case).
You seem to think that emperical evidence solely supports Evolutionism. I
say that most of what is considered emperical evidence is really
interpretation of the evidence and most people don't seem to know the
difference. A rock is emperical evidence. The interpretive classification
of that rock defining its depositional environment (as the primary
petrographical classifications do) is not emperical evidence. The
classification of a rock as an evaporite assumes its depositions
environment -- this is not emperical evidence. This is interpretive
evidence. A limestone is classified as deposition within a shallow sea
environment. This is not emperical evidence, but interpretive. All rocks
are classified according to their presumed depositional environment and
therefore these classifications are not emperical evidence. These
interpretive classifications are based on the philosophy of Actualism. I
believe that that which is called emperical evidece which seems to support
Evolutionsim is really interpreted evidence.
The questions that a Creationist would ask about the natural world would, of
course, be different from those asked by Evolutionists. "The age of the
earth" does become a relatively unimportant question though the Bible does
not say just exactly when the Creation week was, just as it does not say
exactly when Jesus was born. However, the study of how the universe
functions continues to be fascinating. "The Origin of species" continues to
be of interest as one studies the posibilities of genetic variation -- it's
limits, it capabilities and the identification of the divisions between the
"kinds" (baramin) of plants and animals. Geology would be fasciniating as
one peels back the evidence, event by event, of the Flood Catastrophe. And,
as one develops a better understanding of the much wider varieties of life
forms of the Antecatastrophe world than today. And, just what kinds of
environments actually did exist previously? Were they the same as now or
much different? What can we do to preserve the environments of today based
on what we have learned? These, and millions of other questions can keep
Creationary ccientists busy and fulfilled for ceaseless ages to come.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 22 2000 - 23:58:33 EST