YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

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.

Sure, set up the GD.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 05:30 PM

That might be better but Moose seems to want to argue it just between him and me so I can't very well tell him to do it a different way. But maybe he'd be open to the idea. Really, I'd rather limit the participants myself but not necessarily just to two of us. Maybe we could get together a small chosen group -- maybe even on a GB thread?In any case I HAVE to leave for a while.

You are questioning the reasonableness of the premise, Paul, which this thread is not about.Brief answers:1) I pick commentators who are Bible literalists. It's foolish to expect to understand the Bible without help. I not only read commentaries, I listen to Bible-based sermons of all kinds all week long, I read books that are full of Biblical interpretation. Prayer for guidance is crucial as one needs the assistance of the Holy Spirit to understand it correctly, and there is an overall consensus among Bible believers which confirms the literal reading as well, and there will always be differences on many minor or secondary points.2) For purposes of this thread the Biblical authority concerns specifically the two main points of importance in the EvC debate, the Creation and the Flood. These are read literally by the commentators who matter to me and they are hardly ambiguous in any way whatever. You have picked a particularly difficult passage to decipher, a brief prophetic passage that is tucked into a contemporary report, which is nowhere near as obvious as the passages that pertain to this thread -- [ABE: But let me hasten to assure you that the prophetic understanding of that passage is affirmed by all the commentators that matter to me also. The prophecy of the virgin is fundamental in literalist Biblical interpretation]This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 04:41 PM

I've said it many times, but perhaps it hasn't been clearly enough headlined or something. I've been keeping it to the most minimal statement that pinpoints the fatal conflict at EvC, that is: The YEC puts the authority of God in His word above anything science has to say or thinks it has proved, while science according to Evos puts the authority of science above God and His word. That's it. That's the two premises, inevitably in conflict to the death. Yes that is the evo view. The YEC view is that everything that is done in the service of evolution that is observable, replicable, measurable, is valid science, and that's all the data itself, all the actual phenomena, but we know that evolution is false. Yes this too is the evo view. The YEC view says the Flood occurred and all of the supposed science that says it couldn't have is simply wrong. It's simply a matter of finding the right scientific view of it as we know it happened and the evo view is therefore wrong. All of it is speculative because it is in the distant past anyway, and utterly without the possibility of proof one way or the other. It's not as if anyone KNOWS exactly what would have happened. You postulate and assume it WOULD be a certain way -- based on very little information. You guess at volumes and temperatures, and who knows what other factors are involved that never occur to anyone. Nobody is questioning physics, merely the guesses as to what the situation was during the Flood as if any of us knew. Notions about what goes on in the present where data is abundant need adjusting all the time, how much more anything that went on in the distant past. So what? If the Flood occurred, it occurred, period, and since God's word said it did, it did. But I'm surprised to see you claim it would involve "the death of" plate tectonics and volcanic action as these are usually considered to have been inaugurated by the Flood catastrophe and discussed as part of the YEC speculations about it. But the Flood happened. That puts you in the odd position of claiming that false science does a better job of stimulating scientific work than true science. I suppose it might be true. Perhaps some benefits could be credited to the false theory of evolution that otherwise would not have occurred. Stranger things have happened, but it is not much of an argument for holding on to a false theory. All you are doing is simply stating once again the evo premise (Science trumps the word of God) and continuing the debate instead of appreciating the overview we are looking for on this thread. You are so convinced of your presuppositions you have a problem standing back from them and seeing them in the overall context here. Science is your premise and science trumps the Bible. Mine is that God's word is inviolable, God has spoken, we may not contradict Him. You can't see my premise at all. The Bible most certainly IS subjected to Science here. If you read this thread, IRH, you did not grasp much on it, which I find rather astonishing since I do think I was very clear. Yes, well my aim is to see if the FUNDAMENTAL processes that are involved in this can be illuminated and spelled out. Certainly there is bad scientific thinking on the YEC side (and no doubt the evo side as well). Certainly on both sides there is every degree of scientific understanding, of faith and lack of it and theological difficulties galore to be taken into account if we are thinking about individuals. But I'm trying to boil this down to the pithiest statement of the most basic conflict between YEC and evolutionism. I am sticking to YEC too because all the other versions of creationism only muddy the picture for this purpose. Between YEC and Evolutionism I think the conflict is most neatly stated as between the Evo premise that the word of God is to be subject to science and the YEC premise that science is to be subject to the word of God.What I have been running into, and your response is a good example of it, is that the scientific premise is so taken for granted that it isn't even recognized as a premise. This is part of the picture this thread aims to spell out as it explains why YECs can't breathe in this environment at times. Yes, I'm sure that some of the problem comes down to Creationists thinking this game can be played on scientific principles alone, not having recognized the effect of the fundamental conflict between the basic presuppositions on both sides. I started out quite sure that all the scientific questions can be argued without reference to the Biblical premise, and in fact that is true, but what happens is that I think through the scientific questions on the basis of that premise, as all YECs do (and I'm not claiming to have any scientific ability in this regard, only the YEC methodology itself) and since this is not how evolutionist science is conducted it turns out that the conflicting premises make the debate impossible, and this needs to be recognized, which is what this thread is about. What I decided earlier in the thread is that the model that best describes the YEC approach to science is an archaeological dig. We are engaged in coming up with scenarios to discover the equivalent of a long-buried city or sunken ship, while evolutionists are engaged in a completely different kind of science. It IS science, but it's a different procedure and it's based on believing God's word, and Evos can't abide it. And like I said, if it's false science I can't really care a lot about a possible domino effect. You can test the theory of gravity, you cannot test evolutionism, all you can do is feed it data, very little of which actually supports the theory but is merely absorbed into the theory as if it did. It may be science in the sense that it derived from scientific thinking, certainly, but it is false science because evolution did not happen and the Flood did. And again you merely state the evo premise which is that science trumps God. God says if you want to argue for something upon which He has spoken, you must play by His rules. No, I DON'T have to play by science rules if they contradict God. As I've said, I suggest that it has most in common with the archaeological model, discovering the evidence of something you know on excellent authority occurred in the past -- and our authority is better than most archaeology works with.

Hi Buz,
OK, in keeping with the theme of this thread, what interests me is whether my statement of the YEC vs Evo premises holds up for your IDC position, that is, whether you object to the idea that science may determine what in the Bible is to be taken seriously, and can affirm the YEC premise that God's word always has precedence. It has been my impression from your posts in general that you would agree with this despite disagreeing with YEC interpretations as you have just outlined.Since you say you are a creationist I guess you oppose the idea of the evolution of species from other species? And you would refer to Genesis as your authority?How do you think of the age of the geological column with its layers of different sediments and different classes of fossilized life forms?Thanks.
FaithThis message has been edited by Faith, 11-23-2005 01:50 AM

Glad you finally noticed. [ABE: But this is not intended to be a debate but to delineate an overview of The Debate]. But IRH, are we communicating at all? If the Flood scenario includes tectonic and volcanic activity your notion of the implications of YECism is wrong. But you missed the point, as the Bible IS under attack by the very theory of evolution itself. Sorry if I misconstrued the idea of a "knowable explanation" in scientific terms. This would include the presupposition that science judges the Bible. If this is not what you meant, please explain. Yes, but I don't see a point to this statement. You argued from the science presupposition against the YEC presupposition along the usual lines which is engaging the debate instead of standing back from it. I've done this too, particularly in answer to statements from the Evo perspective. Maybe it confuses things. I was speaking from the YEC point of view, which I should no doubt avoid as I'm asking you to avoid simply speaking from the evo point of view, but from the YEC point of view, science's willingness to embrace a theory that contradicts God's word is a direct dispute with God. Not a vendetta, just the usual expression of fallen human nature that fights with God all the time, here in scientific form. But it's not part of the overview I'm after so let's drop it. No, such scientific concerns are merely rationalizations. It starts with human hubris in the willingness to oppose God by proposing a theory that contradicts His word, period. It is the willingness to subject the word of God to such scientific criticisms that is the evo premise in operation. YECism is NOT assuming an indisputable perfect explanation of anything. I did think I answered this idea. If it isn't clear to you I don't see any point in continuing to argue it. Let's just drop it. Very possibly. The YEC premise answers you that the onus is on you to defend the hubris of science in daring to contradict God's word and subordinate it to merely human speculation. Yes. Perhaps we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel now. Which I was trying to get across is out of bounds in this thread since the thread is looking to specify the premises that are always argued from here. Yes. You're getting it. And I'd add that arguing from this premise is also out of bounds on this thread, but I do it for the symmetry of showing my own premise in answer to my opponent's argument from his. Yes, well stated, and this clash is ALWAYS happening here. Exactly. I've proposed that the debate is a complete sham because of this clash [ABE: and especially the aggressive enforcement of the premise of the evo side of it.]Looking forward to your view of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-23-2005 12:01 PM

I will ponder trying to describe the method in a step-wise manner as you ask, but at the moment I'm more interested in sticking to the delineation of the irreconcilable premises that seems finally to be getting some recognition, as I would really like to see this clearly established in people's minds by the end of this thread if possible.I'd comment, however, that since creationism is on the defensive, always in the position of trying to answer something evolutionism has come up with, a step-wise methodology is possibly not describable at this time.But maybe it is. I will think about it.

I saw the thread, Ian, but I'm not up to taking that one on at this time. I think I agree that it's mostly cultural about headcovering but the argument to that point can be tedious, and what KIND of speaking is the question in the other. If the thread is still there when I have more time to give to it, I'll see if I have anything to contribute then.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-23-2005 12:19 PM

It is impossible to guess what WOULD be the case if creationism were the reigning paradigm instead of evolutionism, but it doesn't seem to me that anything about tectonics would necessarily be different. The Flood description doesn't in itself hint at it so it would probably have been discovered just the way it was discovered, quite recently, only explained differently, without the old earth concepts at least, and in terms of whatever physics Flood geology had come up with. OK Well I didn't recognize it in the post when I read it, but now the post isn't in front of me to see how I did read it, so I can't comment. Well, this IS definitely from the Evo Science frame of reference, but I have to question this idea that there is anything inherently "unknown or unknowable" about the Flood or the Creation accounts in the Bible. They are spare with the facts but there is enough to generate quite a bit of scientific thought. And what makes it a "divine explanation" exactly? Nothing about its content, merely the fact that it is part of God's revealed word to us. As to content they are presented as simple physical facts, not at all beyond the realm of knowledge or science in any way, but in fact solid grounding for the pursuit of knowledge in biology and geology -- because the revealer is eminently trustworthy. You reject it because you reject its authorship by God, but there's nothing IN PRINCIPLE about it that makes it different from any other kind of information given by someone who is in a position to know. *** Cough cough *** Um, seems to me I'd been doing a pretty good job of this very thing well before you joined the thread. Nice to see you are beginning to appreciate the fearful symmetry of my formulation of the opposing premises but you aren't quite there yet. Still too much of the evo presupposition hanging around I'm afraid. It does make a beautiful parallel in fact, when stated properly: For the Evo it's Science rules and the Bible is subject to science. For the YEC it's God's word rules and Science is subject to God's word. In other words, your comparison fails to take into account that science is no less challenged by God's word than God's word is by Science -- shades of your abiding assumption that science IS more authoritative than God I would imagine. The physical details given in the Bible are scant enough that the idea of a "perfect explanation" in connection with the Flood just hits me as very odd. It is merely a given around which information about the earth can be collected, and it is a solid anchor point of fact that can't be falsified, but there's nothing "perfect" about it. It's the barest hint of a beginning.As for what science says in return ... the YEC may just have managed to get half a thought about the implications of the Flood put into words when a dogpile of the science-minded begin accumulating supposed objections to it from any number of scientific arenas, all speculative of course since NOBODY KNOWS MUCH about what happened. These objections may involve depth of water, height of mountains, velocity and mass of meteors, temperature, or anything else, ALL SPECULATIVE with nary an actual KNOWN FACT in the mix. But despite its highly speculative nature, it will all be followed by demands that they be answered with the same degree of scientific understanding, followed by accusations of all kinds of miscreancy for both real and imagined failure to do so. I couldn't possibly find a favorite in the crowd. Why are you using the term "explanations?" The Flood isn't an "explanation," it's an event. Same with the Creation. But yes, the Bible cannot be disputed. Different interpretations of meaning may be relevant, but the Flood account is pretty unambiguous for that to apply. Yes, the points of conflict are all we are talking about. But sometime, just as a mental exercise, stop and consider the incredible hubris of mere humanity telling God He is wrong. Just as a mental exercise. Not sure what exactly you have in mind here. I think I've been doing this all along. Well, of course, that is what I'm trying to get codified in my formulation of the Evo Premise, that is, that Science Rules, and Science trumps God's word, and this is the reason they cannot make room for the YEC point of view here or any version of creationism that has the opposing Presmise that puts God's word above evolutionism. God Rules and God's word trumps Science. The point that I am trying to make in this thread, IRH, is that the enforcement of the scientific premise a priori disqualifies the creationist premise, and makes debate impossible. As long as God's revelation is considered to be subject to Science there is no debate, merely the assertion over and over again of the Evo Premise. I'm WAY less interested in developing the creationist point of view than in REALLY getting someone to see these premises in diametric conflict and see them as the reason the debate can't really happen. You are sort of getting it but sort of not getting it. It is hard to break free of such a long-established habit of thinking that you believe with such dedication and step back from it long enough to see it against its opposing premise. Why? They have a faulty idea. What's the value in defeating somebody who is simply misguided? What do you prove that way?

But when it comes to scientific questions, nobody is trying to prove anything about God's nature, so His unknowability is irrelevant (However, a major purpose of the Bible is to reveal God's nature to us, so we're not talking absolute unknowability anyway.)I see absolutely NO point at which God's having brought about the Flood is of any relevance in discussions of the physical circumstances of the Flood. God causes every rainstorm, every snowstorm, every bit of weather we ever experience. God runs this entire universe. But it all nevertheless obeys physical laws He set in motion. If something doesn't obey those laws we call it a miracle and the Flood is not described as a miracle but a playing out of the existing physical conditions of the time.So EVERYTHING is an act of God, it's just that in the case of the Flood we are privileged to have a God-inspired report on it. If the Flood is in any way "unknowable" because God is unknowable, then EVERYTHING is unknowable in the same way. Why is it so fascinating to talk only about the Bible when you could also construct the parallel points for Science? OK,I have no idea why that is so interesting to you, since certainly the same thing can be done in relation to Science. Apparently it's just a side issue. Yes I do, I'm a YEC and those are my presuppositions, and in the above I was not making a comparison but explaining the Biblical point of view. I thought you on the other hand were trying to state the opposing premises but apparently you weren't. I'd rather drop it though from my point of view I had been keeping my objective in mind as well as I thought even possible under the circumstances. I reiterated the two premises quite clearly many times and I haven't seen that your contribution adds much. I'm merely glad that to some extent you seem to be open to what I'm trying to do and grasping what I'm doing, and while I appreciate your engaging in the discussion I don't see that you've done much with it. I DO have an objective here and I've been pursuing it quite consistently considering the various interlocutors who have wanted me to answer from various angles on it. Absolutely. He made humanity. This is my presupposition, absolutely. I am asking you to do the mental exercise of thinking like a YEC on this point. No big deal, drop it. As I've said, I'd be content to get just one concept pinned down and I'm not convinced that it is. I'd rather drop it, drop anything that creates contention and bickering. It is not worth it. You are the one who said they didn't have as much faith as I have. I consider that a fault.But again I'm tired of this for now, as it is becoming bickering.Maybe tomorrow we can resume this from a fresh angle.

I am unable to picture what this would look like in practice. My position on this subject has been all along that there IS no way to resolve the conflict of premises I'm trying to spell out.AbE: That is, we are talking about two mutually exclusive, absolutely contradictory, worldviews. The only way they can be resolved is for one to capitulate to the other. This won't work because you want the premises to meet some external criteria, to determine whether God did say something and whether according to you or whomever it is interpreted correctly. This would be an endless unresolvable process.My whole point has been that the YEC operates from a GIVEN, a nonnegotiable premise. You want it to be negotiated which denies this entirely. The premise is not open to negotiation about its correctness except on threads dedicated to those questions -- which are very common at EvC already. I myself don't have in mind resolving the clash, Paul. I believe the clash is built-in and unresolvable because the two sets of presuppositions are so mutually antagonistic. I'd be content to have it recognized that there is no way to have a debate that isn't slanted either to one side or the other.AbE: Meaning no way to have a debate about the particular science questions that directly relate to the Biblical Creation and Flood stories.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-24-2005 11:15 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 11-24-2005 11:20 AM

Which is an absolute denial of the entire point I've been making all along here. A premise is not open to discussion, dispute and "having to be shown first." A premise is a nonnegotiable. You predict correctly but on the wrong reasoning. You want to be able to control the terms of my argument. You want to decide my premise for me. You want to tell me what qualifies as the word of God and what doesn't.

Yes, NWR, my point is that debate IS pointless here once you see what is really going on:One premise here says that Science has the right to judge God.The other premise says that God has the right to judge Science.At EvC the first premise is enforced aggressively against the second. In another context the second could conceivably be enforced against the first. There is no way to resolve this conflict, one must yield to the other.I'm sure there are many things about these statements you'd like to correct in one way or another but please desist because they are simply an attempt to state the conflict in the pithiest way I can. I am trying to describe why the EvC debate is stacked against creationists and why there is no way for real debate to occur for that reason, why YECs don't stick around etc. Our premise is that God has spoken, the science premise is that science trumps God. Yes you debate the premise all the time here, that is the Science side "debates" the Biblical premise, meaning puts it through the science wringer and claims victory all the time based on what it considers to be proof of its erroneousness. But Bible believers know we're talking about the word of God and that it cannot fail.This is why the debate can't happen here.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-24-2005 11:54 AM

Not just here but at all. A YEC is not going to yield ever on the fundamental premise that God rules this universe and He's told us there was a worldwide Flood and described enough of Creation for us to know evolution didn't happen. The science side can argue and ridicule all it likes, this isn't going to go away.Meanwhile, creationists may enter the debate for the fun of trying to make a scientific case for the Biblical perspective or whatever creationist perspective they have, but since the science side routinely speaks in contemptuous tones to them the fun rapidly dissipates and they have no reason to stick around.