Re: [asa] YEC and ID arguments

*Many people on this list see the flaws in YEC and ID arguments within their
own scientific (or theological) specialty but are worried about or even
convinced by the YEC or ID arguments from fields outside of their expertise.
*

I think one of the things both Greg and I have been trying to get it is what
is meant by *"YEC or ID"* arguments. Take these examples:

Is an argument for theism / design based on the anthropic principle a *"YEC
or ID"* argument?

Is an argument for theism / design based on convergent evolution a "*YEC or
ID*" argument?

Is an argument for theism / design based on the innate moral sense a "*YEC
or ID*" argument?

In my field (law), I'm convinced that the innate moral sense supports a
theistic view of the source of law. This "natural law" view is rejected by
most legal academics, who tend to favor legal realism -- the view that law
has no inherent moral foundation and is only an instrumental tool in a
utilitarian context. And legal realism is based on a Darwinist-materialist
view of human nature.

So, based on my skepticism of YEC and (some) ID arguments in geology and
biology, should I also reject "design" arguments in law as "YEC or ID"
arguments? Should I admit that the concept of a moral basis for law is an
illusion? But if I do that, aren't I succumbing to the reductionist
scientism that everyone here seems to agree is an unwarranted extension of
Darwinism? And where does that reduction end?

It seems to me that calling something a "YEC or ID" argument too often
becomes a rhetorical device without any content. Can't someone reject the
idea of a 6,000 year old creation, reject a knee-jerk response against
common descent, and yet remain open to some design arguments, without
incurring the "YEC or ID" label?

On 10/20/06, Steven M Smith <smsmith@usgs.gov> wrote:
>
>
> Greg,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I have read vast amounts of YEC and ID literature of all sorts. As I
> unravelled any scientific argument in them (had to be geology as that is my
> field) I
> found that they were ALWAYS marked by inaccuracies..." - Michael Roberts <
>
> > 'They,' as the quote makes clear, refers only to YEC or ID arguments in
> geology (with absolutist language any argument, ALWAYS to boot!). Wouldn't
> it be nice if YEC or ID had to do only with geology...or with natural
> science only, for that matter? As if it/they had nothing to do information
> theory or psychology. <
>
> Just a side observation that came to me as I read your post that may or
> may not be relevant to your ideas ...
>
> When I was in High School, I became convinced by the YEC arguments given
> in the book "Scientific Creationism". When I went to college and began to
> study geology I soon saw that the YEC geology arguments were flawed. But I
> still found the YEC astronomy, biology, mathematical, and theological
> arguments fairly convincing. Then I read Howard Van Til's "The Fourth Day"
> and saw how the YEC astronomy arguments were flawed. Over the years as I've
> read, talked with, or listened to experts in each of these fields I've come
> to see flaws in YEC arguments for each discipline.
>
> I've also noted an interesting pattern on this list and in other forums.
> Many people on this list see the flaws in YEC and ID arguments within their
> own scientific (or theological) specialty but are worried about or even
> convinced by the YEC or ID arguments from fields outside of their expertise.
> How much more difficult is it for the average lay person, not intimately
> familiar with any of the different sciences, to judge the quality of these
> arguments?
>
> Steve
> [Disclaimer: Opinions herein are my own and are not to be attributed to my
> employer.]
> _____________
> Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
> Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
> Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
> Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
> -USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 20 13:46:13 2006