YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

I don't think this is really a fair statement, let us try:

quote:

---

Science is used to address issues of a scientific nature

---

Science isn't given authority. Science isn't given rights, science doesn't judge. Science doesn't judge the Bible. One can apply scientific principles to the Bible if one so chooses to do so. If one wants to say that a part of the Bible could have happened within the realms of science (so called creation science), then those ideas can (and probably will) be scientifically examined.If one wants to say "The Flood happened, it was a miracle and defies the laws of science", then there is no argument. If one wants to say that "The Flood happened, the sorting of the fossil record can be explained using scientific principles, the dating errors can be explained with science...etc", then there is debate.

quote:

---

I think most YECers disagree with that statement and think science alone can verify their theory.

---

I disagree.The statement of faith of the two largest YEC organizations, Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research, clearly state that the Bible is inerrant and in any case where science seems to contradict the Bible, science is considered wrong.

quote:

---

First, I am saying it is reasonable to think the Bible is true if you have valid personal experiences to think that.

---

Then you must believe that any belief is valid if a person had a valid personal experience.Do you believe that it is reasonable to believe that one has been abducted by aliens and probed in one's nether regions if one believes one has had a "valid personal experience?"

Yes, and this is what EvC promotes in the science fora and this is what I'm talking about. Please let's not get bogged down in mere terminological hassles. When I say science judges the Bible I mean that it is affirmed at EvC that the Bible may be subjected to scientific inquiry and falsified on scientific principles. This thread is not talking about the particulars of the usual EvC debates, it is about the presuppositions from which those debates occur. The YEC presupposition is that God's word judges all things, it is authoritative over all things including all science. And the opposing Evo presupposition is that science may judge, be applied to, the Bible and everything else.It's a simple simple statement, so simple that people complain that I keep repeating it, because they think it is obvious, but then they go on to show that they aren't getting it. But as long as it is being misrepresented there is nothing else I can do but repeat it.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 02:07 PM

Yes, very reasonable, if one has in fact been abducted.

Ah a ray of brilliance transects the murk. How true.

What's wrong with that? As long as it is done in the appropriate fora. If you are discussing faith, then it would be a silly thing to do. That isn't the Evo presupposition at all. Science can only be applied to matters of scientific enquiry. If one wants to explore the science of the Bible (eg, creation science), then one has to examine Biblical things scientifically. If one wants to explore the Bible from a faith point of view, then science cannot be involved. That is why we have the seperate fora, it doesn't always end up working perfectly, but there you go. And what I am saying is also perfectly simple. If somebody wants to discuss the science behind the Bible one is free to do so in the science fora, if one wants to discuss any philosophy and how the Bible fits with it one is free to do so, and science is irrelevant to the discussion. If one wants to discuss theology, then science is irrelevant to the discussion.The Bible can be used to 'judge' science and its merits from the point of view from theology.Science can be used to 'judge' biblical events and theology from the point of view of science.One philosophy can be used to 'judge' the statements of another philosophy.What is the problem with that?

Nobody said there was anything wrong with that. This thread is about showing that there is that position and that it is diametrically opposed to the YEC position and that there is as a result no way to have a real debate, as the YEC will NOT yield the principle that God may judge science even in the science fora, and the EVO will NOT yield the principle that science may judge the Bible on science issues, even in the religion fora. I don't know why this simple thing is so hard to get across. The point is that at EvC the Bible is treated as subject to scientific inquiry. What IS so hard about this? And the word "faith" is not part of this thread, it confuses the point. I am opposing the OBJECTIVE positions of science versus God's word, not the subjective positions faith in God versus commitment to science. But totally off topic and irrelevant. See above. PLEASE see above. The problem is that it has nothing whatever to do with what I'm saying. It is a completely other subject.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 02:34 PM

But there IS a real way to have a debate, and its perfectly simple. Debate arises when creationists attempt to 'disprove' evolution or justify creationism using science.As I said back in Message 211, if a creationist argues that evolution is not scientific, then there is a way to have a debate. First we establish what scientific means, then show how evolution does or doesn't fit in. This leads to a real debate.If a creationist wants to say that creationism has a better explanation for the evidence than evolution, then real debate ensues as it is established whether or not stated evidence explanation is better.If a creationist wants to argue science as a philosophy is lacking, that leads to real debate, first about what science is, and then as to why and where science is lacking.If a creationist wants to say "Evolution is wrong because it contradicts my religion", then there is no debate with science, and the only debate that remains is theological.There are three avenues of real science debate and one of theological debate. I don't do this, though some do. People ignore the division, simply ignore them, or get them moderated. Yes, any claim IS subject to scientific enquiry, as it is equally subject to theological enquiry - not just at EvC but in real life. Why is this hard to understand? More importantly, why is this a problem? You are talking about the fact that real debate is impossible because the two philosophies don't agree with one another. I am saying that there is more than enough opportunity for debate if someone wants to try to.Edit: If you want to argue that since you are of the opinion that God's word contradicts what science says then there is no room for debate that is fine. Not all YECs approach the debate in that manner, and try to use the scientific method to 'prove' themselves right (See ICR, RATE, AiG, Hovind, Gish...etc etc), and that is what is generally debated here at EvC. The kind of debate you are looking for is at evolutionfairytale.com maybe?This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 26-November-2005 07:58 PM

You keep reducing the topic to something else than what it is. I give up. I'll try again later.

That's fine. May I be so bold as to suggest if everyone seems to be missing your point it is because you aren't making yourself clear? It is something you might have to entertain this possibility. It might be an idea to break it down into stages, followed by a conclusion to clarify.Incidentally, I added an edit to the above post.

Nice use of the word "transect."

seem this debate proves one intelligent being exsist in the universe lol.

Creationist attempts to argue scientifically are not going to stop. Creationists believe that true science will ultimately conform to God's word literally read, and they are rightly engaged in pursuing that goal.But I am not "urging" anything. I am not looking for a kind of debate. This ought to have been clear way back on this thread. I am ANALYZING the situation and that is all.The fact that there are two presuppositions in absolute mutual negation engaged in the debate merely means that whichever is held by the debate host will always win the debate, that's all. At EvC that's the evo-science people. At a creationist site it will be the creationists. This is what I mean by a REAL debate not really being possible as the deck is ALWAYS stacked. There is no getting around this that I can see.Of COURSE the debate will continue nevertheless, people aren't going to stop, and there are many forms it takes and all that it will inevitably solve absolutely nothing as the winner will always be the side whose assumptions are held by the host site. I believe I've explained this in more detail earlier in the thread.(There are other reasons for this too besides the clash of presuppositions, which I've brought up on earlier threads, most notably the fact that the evo-creo debate is not about anything testable, but about unfalsifiable interpretation of past events. Consider the thread that just made a reappearance on the board, about the supposed five extinctions in evolutionary history. There is no way to test that. It's all based on interpretation of the minerals and the lack of fossils in certain locations, the old earth/ evolutionist interpretation of the geo column of course being assumed, and none of that is testable. Other interpretations are in principle admissible but in practice none is provable, testable or falsifiable. It is all a matter of persuasion of the most plausible or best argued scenario by subjective criteria. It may appear to be objective because the scenarios are constructed on scientific principles, but in fact none of this is testable or provable and remains speculative.It isn't hard to see that no matter what scenario a YEC might come up with it will not be heard as there is no reason to consider it seriously since nothing is provable anyway, and it is not at all difficult to dream up contrary scenarios to answer it with if you have a lot of scientific possibilities to conjure with. So, no matter how good anybody's speculative inference on any given point may be, the other side can always come up with another speculative inference, backed by more math maybe or some possibility from physics or anywhere else, and there will be no way to decide between the two OBJECTIVELY. It will however be decided by the loudest and most numerous voices and that's what happens a lot here. Yep I've said this many times before and yep I always get shouted down.)

Closing time.Adminnemooseus