|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YECism: sect or cult? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
First I will point out that if Faith's objections were truly scientific then starting off with different assumptions would not necessarily matter (and they often do not seem to) - and if they did then explaining them and their relevance - and their justification should be an important part of her arguments - and that is not the case.
So I think we can dismiss that as very likely a rationalisation for the failure of her arguments. The CARM article is little better. Even aside from their ideas about materialism (which they don't get quite right) it would be more true to say that their philosophical commitments are a problem than those of the scientists. Assuming that materialism is false does nothing to dispel the evidence for evolution. And, of course, there is no rule saying that scientists must restrict themselves to science - and I don't really think they understand the scientists they are criticising. (And somebody who doesn't understand what a theory is in science really shouldn't be writing a FAQ relating to science)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think the fundamental point of Materialism was always the refusal to recognise Mind as a separate Substance, leaving minds dependant on physical reality. That doesn't necessarily rule out the supernatural but does impose some limits.
Personally I hold that the supernatural (in general) cannot be adequately tested to the point where it could be science and it is very hard to come up with a case where supernatural causes could be rigorously demonstrated. I'd add that much of the claimed evidence for the supernatural does not get to the level where I would consider it even to be a reasonable possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
But there is a problem. Subjective experiences in themselves - and even worse, the memories of subjective experiences aren't exactly good evidence, even for those that have them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You and people like you spend a lot of time complaining about Islam, for one counter example. Perhaps you mean that people living in a society where Christianity (in a very broad sense) is the main religion, often raised as Christians, arguing with Christians (in a very broad sense) spend a lot of time criticising Christianity (in a very broad sense). But that isn't odd at all. That is exactly what you should expect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
i would quibble and say that the question is not whether there is contrary evidence, but how well the contrary evidence can be answered. Arbitrarily calling contrary evidence an illusion, for instance is a very bad answer (indeed, without a good justification, such an answer should be rejected out of hand. There is always an answer to any contrary evidence, but there isn't always a good one.
Most YEC answers to the order of the fossil record fail to account for the observed order, as discussed previously. Thus they are not good. When the contrary evidence is strong and has no good answers and the evidence for the "alternative interpretation" is weak - and even the theological arguments for YEC are not good - then the "alternative interpretation" mat be possible but it certainly isn't reasonable. Which is why only those who insist on Young Earth dogma believe it. It is not a rationally defensible view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Maybe it would be better to discuss the theology than the science ? I'm sure that even talking about "Biblical Creationism" - let alone Christianity - Old Earth Creationists would disagree with Ham's "proofs"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It might be easier to come to an answer which can be strongly supported by the empirical evidence - but we already know that answer. An old Earth, no global Flood, evolution.
YEC is simply not viable as science. To a sincere YEC the theology is primary - and if they don't have a solid case there, then their whole position becomes far less tenable. We can keep it to a (broad) Christian context - I don't see any point in arguing about the Incarnation for the purpose of the topic. The position of YEC within Christianity is far more important.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: If we're very generous that might start with Judges, but even that includes legends. But in fact, YEC is mostly based in parts of the Bible that are myth, not history. Indeed, even the "creation" of "creationism" refers to a miraculous creation. Taking myth literally seems to be pretty religious to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You're forgetting about the creation of the various "kinds" of life.
quote: And the basis of that claim is ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: In other words your belief in the historicity of those sections is just a religious belief (and one founded in dubious theology) You really ought to learn to think things through instead of these knee jerk objections.
quote: Or to be more accurate the falsehood of those myths - when taken literally - is the reason for the anti-scientific thinking of YEC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Perhaps for the record you could quote the actual argument and give a link to the post. Then we can see what you are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Certainly I do not try to deceive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think that this point is telling:
quote: If the evidence really is powerful and clear you don't need Scripture to tell you that it is - you could just point to the evidence. However the evidence is not "powerful and clear" - science would never have rejected a recent creation and global Flood if that were the case. So, according to the ICR scripture is making a claim that is clearly false. How do they handle that when they cannot admit to that falsehood ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'm not sure what you are referring to, however Faith often acts like a deceiver.
quote: For the first I have already said this Message 24 For the second I don't assume that anyone is going to be dishonest, but experience tells me to never trust creationist claims. I've been bitten more than once, for instance by trusting Faith to accurately represent her sources. For the third, this is a debate site. People who repeatedly run from addressing important points - and who claim victory despite that - are not debating in good faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Creation Ministries International is the former Australian branch of Answers in Genesis and you might want to look at the split and what occurred then if you want to consider the question of Ken Ham's integrity.
That aside, there is a huge leap from the existence of references to the literal truth of the text referred to. Matthew finds meanings in OT passages which simply aren't there in the original text, read in context. Paul's view of the Fall does not agree with a literal reading of the story in Genesis. In the first instance the literal truth is unimportant, in the second it is contrary to the point. The inerrantists, in insisting that a (mostly) literal reading of the Bible should be taken as being infallibly true are not - in my view - being truly Biblical.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024