RE: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

If the age of the earth cannot be determined scientifically because of God's
"deception", then how can anyone scientifically prove it is 6000 years old
as opposed to 4.5 billion? By definition, if God created the universe to
deceive investigators, then all scientific investigation is disallowed on
this subject. Yet, this doesn't stop YEC scientists from presenting what
they claim is valid science "proving" a young earth. This is logically
inconsistent.

If the real "proof" of 6000 years is strictly Biblical and not scientific,
then it is theology and not science, and should not be part of science
curriculum. For that matter, if the results of scientific investigation are
not reliable, then nothing should be allowed in science curriculum which
remotely touches on the subject of origins, whether young or old earth. If
YEC's want to include the smattering of scientific observations into science
curricula which they believe give evidence to a young earth, then it is
dishonest to disallow other scientific observations with differing
conclusions. Perhaps the same statement should be turned around on the
evolutionists, that legitimate contrary evidence to evolutionary ideas
should be allowed a place in teaching science. This is claimed as a goal by
some advocating that creationism be allowed in the science classroom, not to
"replace" evolution but to show its scientific fallacies and provide
evidence from the other point of view.

Not that this would ever happen, but what if science textbooks were allowed
to honestly present conflicting evidence on earth/universe age issues, along
with rebutting evidence from the other side(s)? If this method were pursued
honestly by both sides (YEC and evolutionism), both philosophies would
probably suffer loss of esteem among the students, but it would probably be
YEC which would suffer more because the evidence is in favor of an old
earth. If YEC proponents were really honest, I think they would have to
admit that they are not willing to allow a head-to-head, comprehensive
treatment of all the evidence on the subject.

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 1:15 PM
To: lhaarsma@calvin.edu
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Psychology and Free Will

On Tue, 2 May 2006 13:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@calvin.edu>
writes:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2006, Ted Davis wrote:
>
> > I certainly agree, however, that this very common
> > charge (that TE's do not challenge evolutionism), promoted by
> Denyse O'Leary
> > and others, is just flatly untrue. I've called attention to this
> many times
> > here and elsewhere, naming names of appropriate examples, yet I
> keep hearing
> > it repeated. I'm almost ready to start identifying this as one of
> the
> > "great myths" about science and religion.
>
> Maybe we'd get a little more attention if we started calling it
> "bearing false witness against Christian brothers and sisters."
>
>
How can it be wrong when they are emulating their deity who deliberately
constructs the universe to mislead honest investigators? The current rocks
are a little more than 4 Ky but look like My and Gy. There is no physical
way to get fine material deposited under massive chunks, but they declare
that the Flood did it. It must have been divine intervention to look
different than it really is. The oldest rocks are 6ky but measure 4.5 Gy.
Why would you expect better from the followers than from their ultimate
leader? Dave
Received on Tue May 2 14:56:19 2006