Re: Re: [asa] Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules

I love it when anyone tries to get past /consequentia mirabilis/ by
calling up pseudo-epistemology or some other greenish product of a male
taurid.
Dave

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:50:12 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
The only difference I can see, is that you'd be spending your time,
energy and possibly a lot of other people's grant money investigating
what you believe is a completely fictional ancient world, which hardly
seems like the act of a good steward.

But what if his position were this: "I don't believe the world I
described in my dissertation is 'fictional.' However, I also believe in
the reality of the 10,000-year-old world I describe in other writing I've
done. My epistemology is such that I believe I can responsibly hold
these apparently conflicting positions at the same time. Essentially,
I'm a fideist and I think we hold the principle of non-contradiction too
strongly given our human limitations. If you disagree with my
epistemology, I respect that, but my dissertation isn't about
epistemology."

I don't know if this is his position, but I'm not sure I'd be so quick to
condemn it if it were. After all, whether we attribute certain things to
the "hiddenness of God," "miracle," "accomodation," "methodological
naturalism versus metaphysical naturalism," or something else, most of us
to some extent believe some things that aren't strictly accountable to
human reason and logic.

Maybe another way to phrase it is this: does the conferral of a Ph.D. in
the natural sciences signify that the recipient necessarily accepts a
thoroughly rationalist epistemology?

 
On 2/12/07, Freeman, Louise Margaret <lfreeman@mbc.edu> wrote:
Ted wrote:
List members may recall that I mentioned Ross some time back, in
connection with talking about Kurt Wise and Paul Nelson as YECs with a
new attitude--an attitude not appreciated in many YEC circles. I noted
his contribution to the DVD on the Cambrian explosion that he did with
Steve Meyer, esp the fact that he apparently accepted the earth's great
age for purposes of doing the DVD.

ted
<<
>>And though his dissertation repeatedly described events as occurring
tens of millions of years ago, Dr. Ross added, "I did not imply or deny
any endorsement of the dates."<<

I don't see how stating a date in a dissertation can *not* imply
endorsement of that date! Is the same true of his central conclusion?
Can you actually write a 197-page scientific thesis and *not* believe
what you've written to be true?

I can imagine Ross being a liability in a Dover-style trial, if he stated
in a thesis (or peer-reviewed publication) that mosasaurs went extinct 65
million years ago, but is forced to say under oath that he believes the
earth didn't exist then!

He'd probably counter that he said that it *appeared* from the evidence
that the mosasuars went extict 65 million years ago, (though I'd be
surprised if he made that qualification every time he stated a fact in
conflict with YEC in his thesis). But in a way, that "apparent age"
arguement frees you up to do science like any other researcher. After
all, what "appears" to you is what you "observe," putting you back in the
realm of methodological naturalism, i.e. basing your research only on
observable features of the natural world.

The only difference I can see, is that you'd be spending your time,
energy and possibly a lot of other people's grant money investigating
what you believe is a completely fictional ancient world, which hardly
seems like the act of a good steward. That and you might not get support
from ID types who want to overthrow methodological naturalism.
 
Louise
.
 

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:   http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.