YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

Faith's resolution.

quote:

---

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.
  —Faith

---

Paulk's resolution.

quote:

---

On scientific fora all conclusions should be assumed to be no more the best that current science can come up with.
  —Paulk

---

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

quote:

---

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.
  —Paulk

---

IIRC Faith has stated that literalness can be determined from context in the bible. Therefore your god's intended meaning can be determined.Science capitulates to your god's word in the belief fora.And there is the solution. In the science fora, the scientific premise is assumed, and in the belief fora, the creationist premise is assumed. The debate can continue successfully.

Perhaps we are continuing to have a problem with the definition of words or something but I'm unable to understand what you are saying here.How is it possible to have a successful debate if creationists may not discuss science in the science fora from the creationist premise?

But in the Faith fora is it reasonable to debate who or what this assumed God is? For example, while I would describe myself as a Christian Creationist I doubt that the GOD I believe in has any relation or similarity to the God that Faith describes.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because if they want to discuss from the creationist premise, even if they are discussing science, they can do it in the belief fora instead.This is effectively partitioning the debate so that clashes between the two premises are avoided.

*shrugs* I can't help you there. What I know about the bible wouldn't fill a teacup.Ask Faith, I suppose.

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.

OK, I was having trouble reading it but if that's what it means, this is a solution that has been run by before and it doesn't work. The science side applies its criteria on the religion side too and some object strenuously to any attempt to exclude it, because EvC IS a science site after all.Science DOES rule at EvC, and there's nothing in principle wrong with this. They have a right to run the debate however they see fit, but it also helps if you have a clear sense of the consequences of the tacitly impregnable science presuppositions, which is what I'm trying to get at in this thread.There is this endless endless chiding and poking and upbraiding of creationists for not adhering to the science standard. They can't get why creationists repeat themselves, keep coming back to the same position they think they've answered, and so on. The admins are forever calling creationists on science criteria, either not grasping or refusing to respect that Biblical creationists, however scientifically knowledgeable or not, operate from the authority of God and not from the principles of humanistic science.So at the very least, in my opinion the science side needs to recognize and respect the Biblical creationist presuppositions, not give in to them but treat them as a valid opposing worldview instead of with the familiar ridicule and denigration that the debate here so frequently devolves into.So part of what I'm doing is emphasizing the coherence and nonnegotiable character of the YEC presuppositions, which I don't think is generally appreciated here, as the usual attitude is just that "religion" is this idiotic emotion-driven nebulous belief that ought to yield to a good dose of what is called Reason, when in fact Biblical Christianity is a complete, complex and lucid worldview unto itself.

Suggest an idea for constructive change, Faith.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-24-2005 01:29 PM

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.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).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. Other theologies may of course be considered and discussed, but this IS the historic Biblical theology that I represent here to the best of my ability. I guess you can ask me to identify it better but you can't ask me to accept a viewpoint that contradicts it.

If I had one I thought feasible I'd have done it already. And the purpose of this thread is to show the problems anyway.But I can propose for starters what I've been saying in the last few posts, that it would help if the presuppositions of the Biblical creationists were respected as a coherent worldview, no matter what their degree of scientific knowledge, and I'd add as well, one with an illustrious history in Western civilization.But I could also suggest that EvC go with their science view to the max and warn creationists that only the most advanced scientific thinking will be respected here and to avoid the science fora altogether, and then they should go to great lengths to recruit creationists who are also scientifically trained. Truly Bible-believing creationists will still not be able to make much headway in this humanist-science-dominated place but perhaps they can at least escape the most disrespectful treatment.

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.

I don't know what world you live in. In the world I live in (outside of EvC), there are many different interpretations of the Bible. Welcome to the real world. That confusion is why there are so many different religious denominations, including many different evangelical protestant denominations. I was raised under the principle of sola scriptura. My understanding of that principle, is that the pope is not an authority for my beliefs. But it equally says that my pastor is not an authority, and that a body of theology is not an authority. I can take what my pastor says, what Billy Graham preaches, what the body of theology says, as guides but I cannot take them as authoritative. Ultimately, scripture is the authority, and it is between me and God as to how I shall come to interpret that scripture. You are right. It has been established -- by the pope. But evangelical Christianity rejects that authority, and indeed it rejects all human authority. It seems to me that you are announcing your membership in a new YEC cult that has rejected evangelical protestant principles.

Oh, ok, having been gone I guess I missed this. So it's still that creos can't introduce ID interpretations of what is observed into the science forums? If that's still the case, I can now better understand Faith's points, that there's essentially no evo/creo sience debate here perse. Admittedly, I haven't read all the thread and didn't get this from the OP.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Yes there are many interpretations to be found, but there is ALSO this body of coherent established Protestant theology and since it is this theology that is pertinent to the creationist-evolutionist debate, which is what is under discussion here, those that don't adhere to a literal six-day creation and a literal worldwide flood don't need to be considered in this context. See above. The only theologies that are relevant to this discussion are the literalists, and I'm trying to point out that there is a body of Protestant literalist theology that is a consistent coherent worldview. No legitimate Protestant theology ever leaves it up to the individual to interpret scripture. It has a history and a coherent body of interpretation across many denominations and commentators and preachers. The pope is not a Bible literalist. It is clearly established by a consensus of many Protestant leaders. I'm basically a Calvinist, which is no new cult, and I also respect the views of many evangelical anti-Calvinists. The viewpoint I'm talking about is indeed coherent. I have a nose for it and can point out a great many of its representatives if you'd like a list.

1 The problem as per Faith = various interpretations of scripture.
2. The solution as per pwr = scriptural authority trumps.So given the problem, let scriptural reference be the premise for creo debate, allowing any given debate to proceed, making the best of interpretations. After all, it's not only creationists who have diversity of interpretations of what is observed. Our counterparts are divided, to some degree, on some interpretations of science as well.\

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw