Cameron Wybrow wrote:
You have to make up your mind whether the charge against YEC is that it
is a *false* description of what happened in the past or an
*unscientific* description of what happened in the past. The
methodological/metaphysical split will allow you to say the latter, but
not the former. But if you say the latter to a YEC, the YEC will say:
"*Of course* our explanation is not
scientific. Who ever said there should be a scientific explanation for
the origin of man?" So you cannot win.
Cameron
That's not quite what I mean by methodological naturalism. Of course
metaphysical naturalism can say YEC is false simply by definition of
naturalism. To my mind under methodological naturalism(MN) science can
still say that something is false (or true). Science still speaks to
reality but explanations must not involve God's activity. About things
that science can't explain without the God hypothesis , science should
be silent or say "We don't know".
Consider a very hypothetical case where some literalist reading of the
Bible implied to someone that water boiled at 110 degrees C at sea
level. In such a case I would have no problem saying to the individual
that they are wrong, would you? Of course science can always be shown
to be incorrect, but that is a different topic.
When it comes to the development of life I have no theological problem
with an entirely natural explanation, however, I think that many of the
proponents of evolution claim more for science than they can deliver.
At least to me, some of their theorizing is not proven although it
could be true.
Dave W
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 21 19:23:55 2009