--- bivalve <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
wrote:
>
> I think that reaching the average YEC sympathizer in
> the pew will require a theological approach (rather
> than scientific). It's also important to examine a
> particular argument rather than a ssweeping "YEC is
> wrong", especially when it is not clear whether you
> mean all young earth views or the popular claims of
> creaiton science.
As I think I have said before, this is a good
strategy. The problem is theological, not scientific
for several reasons. A few include:
1. Making a scientific argument leaves one open to
counter-pseudo-scientific arguments by YEC proponents
as obviously occurs. In other words, the "scientific"
arguments for YEC are like roaches (I don't intend
this comparison metaphorically, only analogically),
you step on one, there will be ten more to take its
place... In other words, a losing battle.
2. Most people in the pew are not necessarily
equipped with the background to allow a
differentiation between good and bad scientific
arguments within certain parameters. I.e., if someone
says something that sounds plausible to support a YEC
view, it will be accepted as plausible, even if in
fact it is not at all plausible if you have a modicum
of scientific training.
3. I personally think the underlying mechanism here
is that evolution, OEC, etc. are sold as being
anti-christian. I.e., christianity must be false in
some important sense if those theories are true. This
is the theological error extraordinaire and where, as
has often been noted, the YECer and Richard Dawkins
apparently have total agreement.
> >> 2.) Many Christians have little background in
> science and depend upon a relatively literal reading
> of scripture. To them, evolution (as taught in the
> secular community) is abhorrent. It replaces God
> with a RANDOM process (and they are not about to,
> listen to a “song and dance” about how God controls
> the random process since that flies in the face of
> very meaning of the word).<<
>
> This is actually a good issue to use because it
> readily allows a contrast between Biblical claims
> and atheistic arguments. The audience can be left
> to realize that the atheistic arguments are being
> endorsed by antievolutionists as well.
Yes, indeed. Which should give any sensible person
pause given the vehemence (and venom) with which some
antievolutionists clearly hold their position. One
does not like to over caricature in the least, but if
Richard Dawkins is passionately against something
(other than religion) which I am also against, I am
going to look rather hard at my views and the data
regarding those views to determine if I have made a
mistake somewhere along the way. ;) (The opposite
does not necessarily hold, but I would probably
double-check to make sure.) :))
> Random has several senses. It can mean "described
> by the laws of probability", e.g., random mutations,
> quantum uncertainty, flipping a coin, or casting
> lots. It can mean "humanly unpredictable", like the
> long-term course of evolution or history or weather.
> It can mean "purposeless" or "unplanned", like
> random violence or the unaimed shot of an archer.
> All of these lists of examples include something
> that the Bible specifically credits God with the
> ability to control (lots, history, weather, and
> Ahab's killer). They also include things that we
> see happening all the time. Depending on the
> Arminian versus Calvinistic views of your audience,
> such everyday randomness is accepted as either
> things that God can change or work around or as
> things fully under His determination. Either way,
> randomness in evolution or any other scientific
> process does not exclude God.
>
> Ultimate purposelessness would eliminate God from
> the picture. However, purposelessness (and purpose)
> are not scientifically determinable, so the claim
> that scientific evidence of randomness rules out God
> is a logical error.
Yes, indeed. Just because science doesn't deal with
teleology in its epistemology does not mean that some
teleology of some sort does not exist in an
ontological sense.
> Even a gambler trusting in luck
> thinks that there is some supernatural influence on
> random events, and most religions hold that there
> can be supernatural influence (if not determination)
> of random events. Thus, to argue that randomness
> implies atheism is wrong. Randomness can pose a
> problem for god of the gap theologies (which are
> implied by the claim that random forces replace
> God), but those are not Biblical, much less
> inclusive of all theologies.
Yes, not only that, but used by most
antievolutionists, random is used deceptively. In
other words, it is a linguistic bait an switch.
Because random has several distinct definitions,
Dawkins, for example, uses the technical sense for
saying e.g., that mutation appears to be a stochastic
process, i.e., random, and then saying that random
things don't have meaning. Two different senses of
random are being conflated. And to borrow my favorite
Dawkins "meme" Dawkins by conflating the very distinct
meanings of random is either lying (he knows the
difference, knows the two meanings do not completely
encompass one another), ignorant (he doesn't know that
random in the two different definitions mean two
different things), or insane (he can't tell the
difference regarding any of the above).
> Note also that there are strong non-random, as well
> as random aspects, to evolution. It closely
> resembles human history. Biblically, we believe
> that God is working out His purposes through the
> course of history, yet a historian would not be able
> to determine those purposes simply by examining
> historical records.
>
> Purposelessness may require a bit of extra
> examination, because it depends on the level of
> consideration. E.g., if I flip a coin to make a
> decision, neither the coin nor the laws of physics
> have a purpose in view, but I do. > a Biblical
> viewpoint, the forces of nature are merely
> descriptions of how creation works, not deities.
> Therefore, scientific study of these forces will not
> detect purposes. If we read the Bible, we can find
> out about God's purpose for these forces
> (principally that He does have purposes for them
> rather than why E=mcc and not mc).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Received on Mon Dec 29 20:03:48 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 29 2003 - 20:03:49 EST