On Date: Sat Jan 06 2001 - 14:43:56 EST
Glenn Morton (glenn.morton@btinternet.com) wrote:
>1/6/00
>Allen,
>You wrote;
... header deleted ...
>>YEC's, beginning with Price, have recognized the
>>fallacy of allowing naturalism any part in scientific
>>interpretation of the geologic sciences. This is where
>>the true difference between Evolutionists and
>>Creationists lies.
>>Naturalism leads to Evolutionism. Creation leads to
>>Creationism.
This reminds me of Jerry Fawells' statement that
allowing tenure for faculty in private colleges
leads to theistic evolution.
From what I have read there are a considerable number
of people who accept evolution but also believe in
Creation. Of course there are different types of
creationism of which some accept evolution and some
do not. Thus, unless the type of creationism referred
is defined, the statement is not always true.
>But creationists use naturalism when it suits them. They
>almost always come up with some naturalistic mechanism
>for a global flood--i.e. a vapor canopy, continents
>sinking, runaway continental drift, meteor impact, the
>collapse of an ice canopy. They never, ever simply
>say, "God produced a miraculous flood".
To some cases, I sense that the use of "naturalism"
is not really meant to explain anything. Rather, it
is an attempt by some people as being "scientific"
and believers in a literal Young Earth interpretation
of Genesis.
The real YE creationists are not embarrassed to simply
declaring that they believe the Flood to be a miracle
and naturalistic explanations, like those examples given
above are not necessary to explain this miracle. As far
as they are concerned, events like the Noachian Flood are
miracles. If the Bible says something happened, it
happened, and God made events like the Flood happen.
These people do not need "naturalism" to justify their
beliefs and I have found could care less about it and
scientific creation.
However, there are other YE creationists who are
uncomfortable with this position. They are often in either
technical professions or have advanced degrees. When
they take the above position of believing in the Noachian
Flood as simple matter of faith that is Bible states it
and it happened and God did it, their friends and colleagues
sometimes rudely treat them as if they are backwoods
hicks. Others are uncomfortable because their religious
beliefs are not verified by the 21st century coin of the
realm, "science," which everybody else uses to justify
their own beliefs. It is to these YE creationists that
YE scientific creationism appeals most because these
people need it to either feel "scientific" in what they
consider a scientific community / world; defend themselves
against disparaging people; or a combination of both. By
invoking a little "naturalism," they no longer feel old
fashion in their ideas and can claim to be "scientific"
in advocating a literal interpretation of Genesis. Also,
they need no longer feel embarrassed about believing in
something as a matter of faith because they have
"science" that justifies their beliefs. Besides, when
someone rudely accuses them of being backwood hicks,
they can politely shove a copy of Creation Ex Nihilio
under the nose of the person harassing them and tell
him or her, "Look here, you are wrong. The articles
by PhDs in this journal show that I and my beliefs
are just as scientific as you claim you and your
beliefs are."
The use of uniformitarianism in Young Earth proofs is just
as interesting as their use of naturalism. It is
unremarkable that Young Earth creationists disagree with
if Lyell and uniformitarianism as he defined it. Some
good examples of this are:
Is Catastrophism Extinct?
http://www.csama.org/199307NL.HTM
Geologic Features of Southern Ontario
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/geolont1.html
http://x61.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=637013274.7
What is remarkable is when they advocate proofs of
a Young Earth, they invoke a type of uniformitarianism
that postulates the same constancy of rate and process
that Lyell advocated. Such Young Earth proofs, among
many, included:
1. erosion of the continents into the ocean
For example, this proof assumes constant rates of uplift
and erosion that would embarrass even the most fanatical
follower of uniformitarianism. Significant changes in the
rates of either of these processes would negate this proof.
Other proofs requiring an uniformity of rate and process are:
2. decay of earth's magnetic field
3. slowing of earth's rotation by tide activity
4. increasing size of moon orbit(the moon is getting farther away)
To believe that many such proofs are valid, a person would have to
conclude that the various catastrophes described in the Bible never
happened. For example, it is impossible to use the influx of salt
into the oceans to date the age of the Earth and claim that a
Noachian Flood, in which waters issued in great quantities from
the deep to flood the Earth to create the flood occurred. Had the
Noachian Flood occurred, the assumption of constant rate of
influx which this proof assumes would be violated. At best, the
salt content would date the age of the Noachian Flood, not the age
of the Earth using the assumptions made by YE creationists.
Young Earth creationists, in the above Young Earth "proofs,"
are extreme proponents of the uniformitarianism which
they claim to despise. They claim to be catastrophists, yet
the above Young Earth proofs assume hyper-uniformitarism
that current conventional geologists would find embarrassing
to support.
Yours,
Keith Littleton
litteljo@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
.."You misunderstand me, Prime Minister. I was merely
being specific. In my experience, if you can not say
what you mean, you can never mean what you say. The
details are everything."
-- Drano to Londo, Babylon 5 episode "Into the Fire"
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/master/guide/072.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 08 2001 - 23:15:30 EST