YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

I think an interesting point is that science is limited to levels of technological advances, and so there is an inherent flaw within science to assess certain questions, at least until advances are made.Most of the Christians I know believe the Bible is true primarily due to a subjective experience and relationship with God. There is an objective component, but it's within a subjective context. Specifically, a person has to have his or her doubts answered and that usually involves some analysis based on objective facts. In other words, they test their beliefs with their lives.And there are those that even come to faith in the Bible and Christ as a result of a more objective analysis, such as McDowell or CS Lewis (I believe), but on the whole, it is difficult to test the things of the Bible and God without involving faith, and that's hard for the evo side to see.The question then, to me, is it reasonable for people to wait for science to tell them whether something is true or not?My answer is no, because science is pretty much in a primitive state. Think of where it will be 200 years from now.So whether one accepts the Bible as valid evidence depends on presuppositions, and it is not unreasonable for people to become confident on thier own, that the Bible is true and thus weight their thinking accordingly.Likewise, evos have their presuppositions. Almost all data analysis is done, for example, with the belief of a static time-line in the past, which may be incorrect.

I think most YECers disagree with that statement and think science alone can verify their theory. I would say they are open to all, but of necessity require faith. Think of this way. Someone says there is something in this place where you can go and visit, but you can't bring cameras, physical things, etc,...there. All you can do is, say, yea, we went there and tried it, and it is true. The only way for another person to know for sure is to take someone's word for it and check it out.Now, it's a little more than that because you can wind up going there without taking someone's word for it as well, except maybe God's communications to you in some fashion.

I think that's completely wrong and totally unfounded. It is true that Bible-believing Christians believe the Bible is true regardless of worldly criticisms, but they do not, as a whole, wish to impose it by force on others. No, your description is highly subjective.

That's in and of itself a presupposition. Science and scientific theories all have presuppositions. That should not be challenged.The only question is if the presuppositions are reasonable and if they are correct.

Faith, I would be careful not to assume that your group is the only faithful to God's word. I, for one, believe I am fully placing my faith in God's word.At the same time, I am unsure the Bible says some of the same things you think it says. I believe in Noah's flood for example, but am doubtful the "days" of creation were meant to be taken as man's days.Keep in mind that centuries before science claimed evolution and an old earth, this intepretation enjoyed some prominence among fervent believers, both Christian and Jewish.I have even noticed at times that parts of Genesis sound exactly like evolution. For example, God speaks for the earth to bring forth, which when you break it down, suggests that the earth evolves life out of it.As you know, I don't accept evolution because of a number of things, one of them is that I don't believe the data supports evolutionary models, but at the same time, there is a certain level of vagueness in some parts of the Bible.For example, whereas I think the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not vague, I would say some eschatology is not, and that we should not fall out with our brethren that believe a little differently in areas that are not quite as clear-cut in the Word.This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 06:18 PM

Just want to correct one thing in that rant. The miracles did not die out with the Bible, but are on-going in the faith community walking in such things, and we see the same sorts of things Jesus saw his time, except maybe turning the water into wine and walking on water.But maybe that's happening somewhere too, for all I know.I know I've seen enough bona-fide miracles as to not doubt they occur anymore.

Yea, that kind of stuff. You got some money for a plane ticket and willing to travel for a bit to see for yourself?Or maybe you can look around where you live? If you involve yourself with a group of believers where this kind of thing happens, you will see such things occur, over time, among ordinary people.This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 07:01 PM

Ben, couple of points. First, I am saying it is reasonable to think the Bible is true if you have valid personal experiences to think that.I agree that you cannot necessarily prove beliefs founded on subjective experience in a scientific debate, but it is worth noting that science is limited by it's technology.Second, I think some aspects of science are indeed indicating that what was formerly called "spiritual" is a fundamental part of reality, but that's a different thread.Third, I don't really accept the rules of debate as you think in limiting them to "observables." I think to make a scientific claim, that since science is built on observables, it comes into play, but we debate more than science on the forum.Moreover, even in science, such as string theory, you see a lot of work and discussion way past "observables", based on math which can be loosely called a form of logic, and so I would argue that what is often excluded as philosophical and what is included as real science can at times be a subjective call, and that some open-mindedness is necessary if we are to obtain truth.Just because something cannot yet be proven does not mean it isn't likely.

Gravity and science are not the same thing. Any form of testing involves some presuppositions. Robinrohan is correct in stating that the validity of the scientific method is a presupposition, and incidentally a flawed one.The scientific method is dependant on technology which gives us the abilty to test for things. So the scientific method is less than valid when there is a lack of technology.That doesn't mean it is not a good tool, but it does mean science should not form the entirety for the basis of one's beliefs since science is so limited.Getting back to gravity, I don't think we have been able to test gravity directly in the sense of observing gravity waves or whatever causes gravity.On the subject of presuppositions, there are always a lot of them involved in analysis. For example, most data is analyzed with the belief that the past is non-changing, but that may or may not be true.

Direct observation? We know mass is related to gravity, and maybe gravity waves have been discovered. I have heard it both ways, but we don't know how, presumably, mass causes gravity, do we?What's the mechanism involved?Edit to add, Crash, on second thought, this is really off-topic, have to correct myself here.This message has been edited by AdminRandman, 11-21-2005 09:02 PM

Well, discussing gravity waves or some other mechanism is off-topic.

Jar, what's the purpose of the thread? To defend the claim the Bible is true, or discuss the underlying beliefs that make up the evo/creo debate?I think Faith and Iblis brought up a fruitful area for exploration, one of where there is a belief something occurred and then going to find evidence for it. So the scientific evidence is whatever they find, in this case the factual claims of YECers and whether they are right or wrong.Iblis brought up a good point that he thinks there is more scientific and educated way to do this and a less educated way. But the basic premise is valid. There is nothing wrong with considering a historical account and seeing if the evidence fits.But if you are asking Faith to defend her view of the Bible, isn't that a new thread? I would just say it is a subjective belief with an objective component but not necessarily well-suited for scientific verification all the time, at least the parts that God did this or that.You agree or disagree?

It would be discussing that belief, but not how that belief interacts with the debate, nor evo assumptions, and that's what the thread is about.The starting point here are there are givens Faith's view on YECism and the evo view.

I haven't followed the thread today, but this is false and absurd on the face of it. People accept the Bible for subjective reasons but not arbitrary reasons. You ought to recognize that and correct your post, imo, if you want to try to make a valid point.

But where would all the evos go?