YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

She's reasonable, lucid, and clear. She's at least as smart as I am. It's actually a pleasure to discuss with her, so long as one has the proper expectations about what arguments she's willing to be a part of. I think she generates a lot of frustration among my peers because she's very good at refusing to get into the arguments she doesn't want to get into, and so she's hard to draw into battle.If you're willing to meet her on her subject, though, she's actually fun to discuss with. Seriously. I don't think she'll ever fit in, here, or ever cease to be frustrated that EvC is specifically and openly formulated to disallow her premises, but I can't deny that it's pleasant to talk to her, at least.

I don't have time to moderate this thread today, nor even read it, but the little bit I have read thus far suggests it has strayed off-topic, and has gotten overly personal.So here is a reminder of the OP topic. This is in Faith and Belief, not a Science forum. It's already conceded by Faith and the whole point of the OP that she and YECers include some different presuppositions and standards than evolutionists or "Science" does.So let's don't beat a dead horse in the ground. If you think Faith's position is unreasonable, then discuss that. Are the presuppositions reasonable or not?Insisting her position is unreasonable because it does not conform to the same presuppositions, in other words, the same scientific standards, is not going to fly here.This is the Faith and Belief forum. You got a problem with faith because it's not always as scientific as science theories, fine. We all know who of you have that problem, but the basis here has to be whether something is reasonable or not, not whether it is scientific.My own suggestion (the comments above are not suggestions) is that the forum may want to consider that even if a faith position is reasonable for an individual, how should that position be discussed via a vis science when the ideas cross, such as with aspects of YECism.I also think's it worth noting, as some have, that not all YECers claim they need to resort to the Bible to make their stance, but at the same time, both Faith and the evos here have made arguments that their faith is always a component of their thinking.So it's the OP, or the thread goes nowhere.

My comments are pretty much based on what I read in this message. Hard for me to compile what was said elsewhere I think you are going a bit too far in equating your views of the YEC premises, with those of YEC's in general. I would state the above as "My premise is that God's word is above science". BUT you have an even more fundamental premise, which is that the Bible is truly the word of God. Thus the above can be stated as "My premise is that the content of the Bible is above science". But many, Christians included, would argue that significant portions of the Bible ARE NOT truly the record of the words and actions of God, or at least ARE NOT adequate records of the words and actions of God.Also, it seems that at least some YEC's expect that ultimately science will confirm what is said in the Bible.The Christian scientific premise (call it the creation by evolution viewpoint), as I see it, is that the evidence of process contained within the creation (the universe, and everything of the universe) trumps the content of the Bible.The choice is between -1) Accepting the limited scope descriptions of a printed volume which, regardless of what God's original input was, has passed through thousands of years of man's influences. How do you support the premise that the Bible is indeed the accurate (and sufficiently detailed) recording of God's word?or2) Accepting what can be learned by studying the creation (universe et all) itself.Automobile analogy - If you wanted to learn in detail what an automobile is made up of, how it was constructed, and how it works, would you read and truly believe a 1 page pamphlet, or would you study the automobile itself? Debating creationism vs. evolution does not make sense, if the fundamental creationist premise is that their understanding of the content of the Bible is "the ultimate truth", and anything that disagrees with that understanding is, by definition, wrong. And that is what I understand to be your debate position.Well, I don't know if this was on topic or not. It will probably be my only posting in this topic.MooseNote by edit - This topic was at message 109 when I started preparing this message.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-22-2005 12:51 PM

Honestly AdminRandman I don't think this is the place to discuss the REASONABLENESS of anybody's premises either. I hoped simply to STATE the premises in a recognizable way in order to demonstrate what I believe to be the inherent conflict that makes debate lopsided at best and impossible at worst. Getting them stated recognizably is already hard work. Over and over the evolutionist side has demonstrated their problem with even getting the point, merely arguing as usual FROM their presupposition rather than standing back and seeing the big picture. But it has been getting better on this thread nevertheless.Also "resorting to the Bible" in scientific argument is not part of my argument here. I don't resort to the Bible in science discussions, I've pretty consistently avoided it. I don't mention God or any of that. That is not what we are discussing here.This is about PREMISES and PREMISES only. Even the premises may never be mentioned, but they nevertheless rule how YECs think, and any creationists who take the Bible as authoritative on these issues.Some have questioned that God's authority IS the premise for ALL YECs. This is NOT about whether it is ever STATED, but only about whether it is in fact the premise from which all debate proceeds. I'm saying it is. If I'm wrong I'd like to be corrected but I don't see how I can be wrong about this.Whoever defends the Flood does so because the Bible says it happened. That's the premise that God's authority trumps science's authority. Show me anyone who defends the Flood who is not operating from this premise. Whoever defends the original creation as depicted in Genesis is also operating from this premise -- it's in God's word, He said it, therefore it is authoritative over any contradictions that science may come up with.So please don't get us into questions of reasonableness. That is already where this thread has gone off track a few times. If there is a defensible argument that not all YECs operate from the premise that God's authority trumps science, THAT's relevant, but it's probably mostly a matter of being clear about what we mean rather than a real dispute.

Check out my Message 124 to see if that makes these things any clearer. Yes, and I am saying this is the debate position, that is, the PREMISE, or PRESUPPOSITION, of all who defend the Biblical accounts against the scientific arguments against them. I believe ALL YECs operate from this premise whether they ever state it or not.That is, the YEC position derives directly from a literal reading of these accounts, and why? It seems unarguable that this is because YECers regard the Bible as God's word, and God's authority above any science that disputes God's word.I really hope to avoid debating the VALIDITY or REASONABLENESS of this premise, merely want it recognized that it IS the premise and it IS hopelessly at odds with the scientific view that is willing to subject the Bible to scientific objections.Christians who do not operate from this premise are not YECs, isn't that so? Please show me where Young Earth Creationists, who defend the literal Genesis accounts of the Creation and the Flood, have a different premise from this.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 01:08 PM

fair enough. i doubt it.

---

אָרַח

Fair enough, in one sense, but I think reasonableness is OK, but maybe another mod can intervene. My point is that if someone wants to attack the premises here in stating they don't belong, that they cannot on the Faith and Belief Forum just insist that scientific standards are the only correct standard.In one sense, you and the evos agree. Both say the Bible is a large part of why YECers believe what they believe, and argue what they argue. The difference is that evos say this is wrong, and you say it is acceptable and reasonable.So I was trying to help clarify the debate and allow the disagreement factor to be discussed within the parameters of this forum.

I agree. And you are welcome to having any PERSONAL faith you like. Just don't claim that the scientific study of worldly reality supports that faith.Believe away, that the Earth is 5 to 10 thousand years old, and that the Noahic happened. But the study of the created indicates otherwise. Fully agree. But in return, don't you use the Bible as a science reference. As long as Bible belief and scientific study are kept absolutely separate, I think most everyone can be happy. I agree that all literal Genesis YEC's share that premise. Some (all?) recognize that there is a clash between their YEC beliefs and what science thinks is worldly reality. Some are determined to show that science supports that literal Genesis. They think that ultimately science will fall in line with Genesis.You (and other members here) might find it interesting if you took part in "Terry's Talk Origins" creationism vs. evolution debate site. Terry is very much a YEC. He also makes it very difficult for evo's to participate there.Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online. (home page)
Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online. (page 1 of the "all topic" listing.I'm still a member there, but have quit posting for various reasons, including that Microsoft seems to have gotten way too intrusive in regards to what personal information they want from you.Also, the site functionality/format there(independent of what is being debated) is badly inferior to that of .Moose {Edit - changed an "is" to an "are", and a "to" to a "too".}This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-22-2005 02:00 PM

Hello Faith - I'd like to aid the discussion here, if I may. Let's discuss the premise of science and creationism in what I hope is a useful manner.The premise of science is that there is an explanation for everything, that we are capable of understanding.The premise of literal creationism, as I understand it, is that the Bible is the final and ultimate word of God. Anything that contradicts it is wrong or simply not fully understood.I assume this is your premise, correct? At least as I understand it, I hope I am not wrong.Well, I think you will find that there is a fundamental difference between these two premises. Science works from the assumption that there is an explanation for everything we can experience, even if we don't know it yet, and someday we will have it and we'll be able to understand it. It's iterative in the sense that if we find a bit of our explanation that contradicts what we experience, that bit is immediately altered or discarded. So our explanation is constantly being modified based on our experiences, and constantly being corrected.Literal creationism works from the assumption that there is a single, cut-and-dried explanation for everything, and this explanation cannot ever be changed regardless of our experiences. The explanation can never be tested (because nothing can contradict it), so we will never know if it is accurate. It can never be improved. But why would we, if it is the ultimate truth of everything?The difference is obvious - that science assumes we will have the right explanation someday if we work at it really hard, and literal creationism assumes we have the right explanation now and we shouldn't be questioning it.Discuss, if you will.

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

I beleive that the answer is a clear "no"Faiths worldview does not permit debate of these issues as she keeps telling us. Therefore it cannot be adopted if we want a fair debate.If Faith's beliefs were true then the evidence should support them regardless of which of the two worldviews were adopted. If the evidence is against her then she should lose a fair debate. If it is not then she has no need to appeal to a clash of worldviews. Here too we see no evidence of real unfairness.If it is really a clash of worldviews then Faith should be argung for her worldview. She refuses to do so. This too is not a sign of unfairness in the debate.So how can Faith claim that the debate is "tilted" against her unfairly ? (Because if it is not unfair - if the debate is tilted against her because of the weakness of her case - she can have no valid complaint).t

I may still not be getting what you're saying. Maybe I need a break. Yes, sort of anyway. I am surprised that it has been so hard to get across what seems to be only what the evos DO already think about YECs and say all the time, and even sometimes on this thread say in a belligerent tone as if they think it's an argument against what I'm saying. I'm not sure exactly what the problem is with this.I do say the YEC premise is acceptable and reasonable, but that's not so much the point as just trying to get across how the opposing viewpoints make the idea of debate between E's and C's absurd and impossible, which is where evos won't go with the idea as they don't want to chase the creos away. They'll berate us as idiots for believing what we believe and nevertheless act as if the debate were a reasonable enterprise. But of course this only demonstrates THEIR presupposition, and another objective is to get them to recognize that they HAVE a presupposition, and that they wield it like a sledgehammer against those who don't share it, which CERTAINLY makes debate impossible. That is, we MUST accept their belief in the absolute rationality of subjecting God to their scientific standards. The conniption fits they have at the Very Idea that one would take the Bible as the Truth, against anything science has supposedly established as true, are a pretty aggressive statement of bias. My problem with this is that getting into the particulars of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of believing the Bible to be God's word, and His word authoritative over all science, is only going to take us into all the usual EvC byways. What SHOULD be happening is that the evos should be stepping back from their own premises to take an objective look at them and how they wield them in a way that simply eliminates the YEC premises and how debate can't happen from there.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 02:13 PM

Faith, I think you make some interesting points and that if some did take a step back, they might see why they have an impression YECers are unreasonable and why YECers think they are being unreasonable.Unfortunately though, I have to call it day as far as Moderating activities and probably as randman too. Work beckons and family too.

You're still missing the point somewhere Moose. If the Bible IS our premise then it is our premise for scientific thinking, so you can't use my views as an argument against using it as a scientific reference. It is from it that we derive the premises from which we argue scientific questions. How is this not getting across?It is the fact that this premise is absolutely at odds with the evo premise that makes debate impossible. We refuse to keep our beliefs under a bushel which is what you are asking us to do. You can ask us not to come and debate here, certainly, but you can't ask us to lay our premise down at the door. In taking that position you are simply reiterating exactly what I'm saying the evo position is that makes debate impossible.The clash itself makes debate impossible enough, but the aggressive demand that we submit to YOUR premise is what makes it absolutely impossible. The evo premise that rules this site is that science may judge the Bible, and you may not reasonably demand that of us.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 02:27 PM

Yes. Yes. You appear to understand it. To say the least. I guess you haven't read much of this or the previous thread as I have been hammering away at the absolute irreconcilability between the fundamental premises on the evo vs YEC sides. Yes. Hardly. Not for "everything" by a long shot. There are basically TWO Biblical points of contention between conventional science and YEC science: the literal truth of the creation account which evolutionary biology contradicts, and the worldwide Flood which conventional geology contradicts. Apart from these, there is a world of science that does not contradict the Bible and is perfectly good science, and in most of geology and biology as well despite the overarching evolutionist framework in which they are cast.God gave us the revelation of Creation and the revelation of the Flood, and all this is given in the first fifth of the Book of Genesis. There are 65 and 4/5 more books to the Bible, but all the truly scientific contention is with that one small section. To reduce revelation from the wisdom of God to "cut and dried" hardly captures the meaning of it, but in any case it is only as science dares to contradict the revelation of how these PAST EVENTS occurred, with their PURELY SPECULATIVE EXPLANATORY SYSTEM, that there is a conflict between science and the Bible, and if the Bible is the Word of God then this is a conflict between science and God Himself. I think you missed some crucial posts on this thread where I already dealt with all this. That is correct, the Bible is not subject to scientific method and should not be required to be, but the evos insist that it must be and this is the major source of the conflict and the reason the debate is slanted here and the reason in fact it is impossible. Biblical truth is proven on an individual basis to those who live it, and those who live it share it with each other in a consensus that confirms the evidence for it. Yes, but you make it sound like this is about all science, but that is not the case. This only applies to Evolution, which is not even science but an artificial explanatory system under which science is done, and that artificial system specifically challenges the Creation account and the Flood account, and really nothing else (despite the general disdain toward anything supernatural among the science-minded). Even all the science that is true observable data, that is subsumed under the evolutionist premises is still real science and there is no biblical conflict with any of it.

Back in the previous topic, I proposed a "your God" vs. "my God" "Great Debate".The essence of that was that you consider the study of the Bible to be the ultimate authority on how the creation happened, and I consider the study of the creation itself to be the ultimate authority on how the creation happened.Focusing in on geology - Being a quasi-geologist, I essentially think that the story of the creation of the Earth's geology is "written in the rocks". You think it is written in the Bible. I think that you must either think that geologists are incapable of properly "reading the rocks" or that God has presented some grand deception in what he "wrote in the rocks".Why should what has been written in a book, the Bible, trump what has been written in the rocks?You need not respond to this message, other than to consider it as a rough draft for a proposed new topic. A "Great Debate" has the advantage of being much more coherent.Moose