From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Oct 02 2003 - 13:07:59 EDT
Walter Hicks wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A bit of an overstatement! Please note what I said here: "Simply saying 'decay
> > rates speeded up a lot during the creation week or the flood' is no theory at all. It's
> > just the "It's a miracle" claim again." I.e., whether or not one believes that
> > miracles have occurred, an appeal to miracle is not a scientific theory. (Yes, this is
> > simply a statement of MN.) & since a miracle, as usually understood in such
> > discussions, makes it possible for anything at all to happen, other aspects of a theory
> > which _requires_ a miracle become irrelevant: Natural processes + a miracle = a
> > miracle, just as X + infinity = infinity. (Again, this is one reason why Humphreys'
> > cosmological model was worthless.)
> >
> > What I've said here is the point of the well-know "Then a miracle occurs"
> > cartoon. The caption accurately reflects the attitude of the scientific community toward
> > such theories. "I think you should be more explicit here in step two."
> >
> > Furthermore:
> >
> > 1) Christians should, at a minimum, take seriously claims for miraculous
> > occurences if they are spoken of in scripture. But the Bible says nothing about speeded
> > up rates of radioactive decay.
> >
> > 2) I have never said that "miracles" don't occur." Please see my letter in the
> > Dec.'99 Perspectives in which I correct the notion that the resurrection is the only
> > miracle I will accept. What I _have_ said is:
> > a. Because scripture contains more than straight historical narrative, not all
> > stories of miraculous events need be read as accounts of historical phenomena, and
> > b. When unusual and amazing events _did_ occur, it is not necessarily the case
> > that they must be understood as having been beyond the capacity of creaturely agents.
> > I.e., the question is not simply "Can miracles occur?" but "How are miracles to be
> > understood?"
> >
> > 3) Granted that miracles have occurred, a tendency to multiply miracles is, for
> > several reasons, unhealthy. Again I quote C.S. Lewis' dictum from another context:
> > "One magician is better than two magicians."
> >
> >
>
> It seems to me that there are two competing viewpoints that can be examined without the
> usual rancor towards “YECs”.
>
> Viewpoint number 1:
>
> God revealed to us in the Bible the essential features of His creation. God would not lie
> and what the Bible says may be read in a straightforward fashion. Clearly it leads one to
> conclude that creation is very recent (few thousand years) and was formed as we see it
> today. (Omphalos is one option.)
>
> Now science – or I should say scientists, since science cannot talk – say things that
> conflict with this. Since God would not lie, then there must be some errors in science and
> we should search to find them.
>
> Some people put forth false scientific beliefs and we should censure them for making
> Christians look bad. However, it is indeed fair to put scientific theories to the
> falsifiability test. If there is data to disprove the universality of a scientific notion,
> then it must be taken seriously. A scientific theory must be right 100% of the time – not
> “most” of the time.
>
> Viewpoint number 2:
>
> God revealed to us in nature many details of His creation. God does not lie so what we see
> is real. Foo on Omphalos -- that makes God out to be liar. (Note that this is a
> philosophical statement, not a scientific one.)
>
> Rather than take a literal interpretation of the Bible, one should assume that science is
> correct and the Bible must be reinterpreted to conform to what science says.
>
> Some obvious things (IMO):
>
> 1.) Omphalos yields the correct answer for everybody. Even Glenn Morton’s oil is created in
> situ so that he has a job drilling for oil.
>
> 2.) Neither YEC leaders, nor the average ASA member will accept this compromise position.
> Consequently, the fight continues.
>
> 3.) It does not appear to me that either side is willing to reach out a hand to see if
> differences can be resolved. Rather there is just raving on both sides accusing the other of
> bad will. Perhaps both are right, since this is often the case in polarized situations – and
> scientists are no exception.
First, I - & I think most others on this list - have no "rancor" toward YECs.
I think that they're badly mistaken, often gullible, & in a few cases (e.g., Baugh)
outright dishonest.
I realize that your daughter is (from your description) what I would call a
"naive YEC" - which I don't mean pejoratively. The term designates someone who accepts
YEC ideas without giving a lot of attention to them simply because she/he thinks they're
part of the Christian package. But that isn't the type of YEC we're usually talking
about here. Our concern is folks like Ham, Humphreys, Morris &c who devote themselves
to arguing YEC views. In this context your appeals to treat the YEC phenomenon with kid
gloves are, I think, misguided.
Further points:
"Foo on Omphalos" is not sp much a "philosophical" as a "theological" position
because it is based on beliefs about the character of God. (But it also has something
to do with our understanding of science because that understanding makes it possible
today to argue against [I do not say "refute"] the claim that could plausibly be made in
Gosse's time, that creation necessarily entails apparent age.)
As far as "reaching out a hand is concerned" - well, scientifically. how do you
compromise between 6000 and 4.5 x 10^9? Average them and call it 2,250,003,000 years?
At the risk of being called a naive realist, this is is a case in which both can't be
right.
Theologically, I do not believe that a YEC is /ipsofacto/ non-Christian or
defectively Christian (& that without withdrawing my statement that I think they're
wrong). If one comes to church this Sunday I'll give him or her the Sacrament
without hesitation. Are YECs willing to say the same things about those who accept an
old earth?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 02 2003 - 13:10:31 EDT