YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

It's not a parody. It's even generous in that I could honestly describe the creationist argument style as actually being worse.Even Faith says that creationists will not change their minds no matter what the physical evidence is. e

If Faith's description of the situation is correct the following resolution should solve the problem.On scientific fora all conclusions should be assumed to be no more the best that current science can come up with. The question of the authority of science over religion or vice versa should not arise.On faith-related fora we should respect the authority of God over science in the following way. If it can be shown that God did say something and that it is interpreted correctly (that is that the meaning of the statement is God's intended meaning) it should be accepted no matter what the scientific evidence states.I will publically state that I am willing to accept these conditions.I will also predict that Faith will not accept these as adequate even though they resolve the clash which she identifies as the problem.

That's not what I said. I said it is necessary to show that GOD said it. I don't accept that the Bible is or even claims to be the direct word of God. Or that if it is somehow the word of God the creationist interpetation is correct.So all those would have to be shown first.If the issue really is one of God's authority then Faith should be happy with that. I predict that she will not be because God's authority is not the real issue at all.

I don't see a problem with my proposals IF your description of the situation is correct.Added in edit: Since my proposals accept the authority of God over science and do not assert the authority of science over God they could be seen as capitulation to your worldview IF that were the real clash. If it is not, then the real clash still needs to be brought into the open.

quote:

---

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.

---

You are claiming here that we cannot know what God said. In that case the question of God's authority cannot arise.

quote:

---

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.

---

You described that premise as God having authority over science. And that issue I addressed. What you are saying here is that the question is not about the authority of God, but the closed minds of creationists.

quote:

---

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.

---

Except of course that the current rules do permit fair debate and that is preciesly what you object to. Your only case for any "slant" is the fact that the rules are not completely rigged in your favour.The debate is not "slanted" because you are not granted special privileges.This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-24-2005 11:31 AM

Of course premises are open for discussion. If anything most debate is about premises.Your second claim is even worse. If you want to privilege your position by placing some of your beliefs beyond question you are trying to dictate the terms of debate. Refusing to accpet your premsies as unquestionable truth is not dictating which premises you must use - it simply means that you must be able to defend them. I refuse to accept your dictates as to what is and is not the word of God - and because of that you insist that I am trying to dictate what you will or will not accept as the word of God.This is another reason why debate is difficult - creationists prefer to make false accusations rather than admit that they could be wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

My proposal addesses this problem, so we already know that that is not the real issue.This is another problem of debatign creationists - they often repeat statements that have been shown to be false.It seems as if you are the one who needs to take a step back and examine the real problems.

No, it is only your side that is insisting on "ironclad and immovable premises"You go on to claim that there can't be a discussion on the science side because you are not allowed to bring in unscientific ideas.And again you equate my refusal to accept bare assertions on our part with an attempt to dictate your beliefs.

quote:

---

This is absolutely absurd. You reserve to yourself the right to tell me what is and is not the word of God before you will accept my premise.

---

This is a gross misrepresentation. I have made no such claim.This is the third time you have repeated this grundless flasehood and I request an apology.

quote:

---

Your god's word capitulates to science in the science fora.

---

Not even that - all I want is that the question is not raised there and the science fora are restricted to dealing with science. That is that the science fora are devoted to dealing with what the scientific evidence shows not to reaching final conclusions. Whether or not those conclusions should be preferred to those of religion is an issue to be dealt with elsewhere.

quote:

---

IIRC Faith has stated that literalness can be determined from context in the bible. Therefore your god's intended meaning can be determined.

---

This is not quite correct either. I am proposing a lesser concession but one that still accepts the authority of God. That is I require that it be established that God actually said what it is claimed that he said. If the issue were solely God's authority this should be sufficient. In fact it does not meet Faith's demands because she wants to dictate that God DID say certain things - in other words she demands that we accept her authority to speak for God.

quote:

---

The problem apparently is that at EvC there are MANY notions of the nature of God and God's will, and many different interpretations of the Bible, which obscures the fact that outside EvC there is a coherent theology of the Bible that is orthodox and representative of a solid family of Protestants.

---

Well I have my own opinions on the coherence of the theology I have seen form creationists. But regardless, the existence of many interpretations is not a problem so far as resolving the issue that you claim is the problem.

quote:

---

If you get into allowing individuals to debate and define God's will, you get into a morass that will only lead to confusion, but if you appeal to this body of theology, which is what I am doing as consistently as I am able, with God's help, you will begin to understand that this is a solid Biblical worldview that is NOT subject to any further establishing of what God said at EvC because it IS established in this Protestant frame of reference. (I'm not saying there is perfect consistency within this theology but on all the important points there is).

---

Firstly Protestantism includes a range of views which is not restricted to your theology - many Protestants are not YECs. Secondly even if it were true that all Protestants agreed that would still not establish that it was correct.

quote:

---

So it is not open to EvC-ers to determine "that God actually said what it is claimed that he said." This HAS been established.

---

Since it clearly has not been established the issue remains.

Modulous was not restatign a scientifi premise - he was showing that the claimed confliuct was less relevant than you claim.As I see it now the real problem ahs become clearer.First Faith demands that we should accept the beliefs of literalist inerrantist Protestant theologians as reliable sources on the history and nature of the physical world.I can see no valid reason for accepting this demand unless this claimed authority could be demonstrated rather than taken as an a priori presupposition. It is even unacceptable in the Faith-based fora because it would seriously prejudice matters where other branches of Christianity or other religions are involved.Second Faith wishes to introduce these bveliefs in the science fora. Modulous has already addressed this point - as have I in earlier posts - and there seems to be no valid reaon for doing so. We are talking about non-scientific beliefs and thus they are neither valid as scientific evidence nor as dictates as to what science should find.

Well if oyu are not suggestign including creationism in the science fora then why do you disagree with Modulous' post which gives reasons why it is unnecessary ?And when you talk about including creationist premises in the science forra are you not in fact asking that creationist beliefs (e.g. that Noah's Flood happened) should be accepted as unquestionable facts in the science fora ? Which is exactly what Modulous and I argue is unnecessaryAs for your claim that there is no solution it seems to me that the solution is clear. You can stop making unreaonable demands which serve only to give your side an undeserved advantage.

quote:

---

All I've "proposed" is that the science-minded would do well to learn to appreciate the YEC premise as the coherent worldview it is,

---

But YEC does not offer a coherent worldview and the YEC methodology I have observed is opposed to even attempting to build a coherent worldview. Even if YEC offered a coherent worldview it would not deserve resepct on that score - solipsisim offers a coherent worldview. And even if it deserved respect it would not necessarily follow that it deserved to have its premises treated as scientifically valid.There is nothing preventing YECs from making scientific arguments - just as you attempted to do so with your argument against evolution based on genetic diversity. Your problem there was ignorance of the facts, not an inability to introduce creationist premises. Unless you concede that the evidence is strongly against creationism there is no reason I can see why creationists could not acquaint themselves with the facts and make valid arguments. Creationists should only avoid the science fora if they lack the capabilities to argue well there - not because creationist premises should be included.i

From Message 181