Allen, why is it not possible that I was faced with the false
interpretations of the religous philosophy of YECism? Have you ever
considered that YEC acts like a cult, not wanting their members to read
dissenting opinions--like scientific journals?
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
-----Original Message-----
From: Allen Roy [mailto:allenroy@peoplepc.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:12 PM
To: Glenn Morton
Subject: Re: Unwillingness to listen
Glenn Morton wrote:
"Having jumped back onto the list today, I am jumping into the middle of
this, but that won't stop me. As a former young-earth creationist of some
infamy, I can tell you why I didn't listen. I placed my interpretation of
the Bible as the utmost metaphysical truth. By doing that, all contradictory
data simply had to be wrong. Thus when faced with clear evidence and logic
that my viewpoint was wrong, I did the only reasonable thing--I ignored the
data or assumed that there was some way to discount and ignore it. There was
also an emotional reason not to listen to contradictory arguments. They
challenged my world view and made me extremely uncomfortable. Since I could
not doubt my ultimate metaphysical truth--the YEC paradigm without thinking
I would become an atheist which I didn't want to do--I would flee from the
truth."
No, you were not faced with clear evidence, you were faced with
interpretations of data from within the religious philosophy of Naturalism.
You had not been educated in the pervasiveness of the underlying assumptions
within which all standard geologic interpretations are being done. You had
not been shown the religious nature of Naturalism and its corollaries of
Abiogenesis and Actualism (i.e. non-uniform Uniformitarianism) within which
geologic science usually functions. You had been taught the falsehood that
Science stands alone without philosophical assumptions.
In geology, interpretation of sedimentary rock according to the
actualistic assumption that there are ONLY 3 allowable depositional
environments -- marine, non-marine and transitional -- automatically
precludes interpretation within a global flood catastrophe environment.
Thus all those "facts" of geology demand that there could not be a global
flood catastrophe.
Creationists START with the assumptions that God's natural laws are not
violated and that there was a global catastrophic event as told us by God.
Within these assumptions, Creationary geological science studies and
interprets nature's facts.
Yes, the Bible is the utmost metaphysical truth because we know we can
trust the God of the Bible to tell us the truth. Naturalism is a
metaphysical belief based on blind faith in the rationality of human
imagination. Abiogensis and Actualism must be true because according to
Naturalism, nature -- matter, energy, etc. -- is all there is. There is no
God. There is no Creator. There is no one but us to tell us about the
past.
We have the choice to believe God and the Bible and interpret nature
within it's assumptions, or we can choose to believe in Naturalism and
interpret nature within it's assumptions. You were not fleeing from the
"Truth," you were fleeing from false religious teachings.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 08 2001 - 17:38:19 EST