YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

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."

quote:

---

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.

---

On the contrary, I have read the entirety of this thread. I noted your "hammering away". What I felt was missing was a basic description of each premise, and considering that this thread is all about those premises I thought it a significant oversight on both sides that they were not provided.

quote:

---

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.

---

Unfortuntely, I feel this is not the case. So much of science overlaps or is interconnected - for example, the entire field of biological research is involved in evolution. To preclude evolution is to render it mostly descriptive and generally useless. Equally, the entire field of geology is based on the evidence of an old earth - take that away, and we are left again with a purely descriptive discipline.But they are not the only scientific areas to be affected. Much of modern physics is called into question by the Flood, which would have a knock on effect of disrupting many practical applications - for example, space exploration.There are more far-reaching effects as a result of this. Let's just take geology. The field of mineral exploration is hamstrung, because there is no geological field study predictions to base its efforts on. Palaeontology and anthropology become a waste of time. With the death of plate tectonics, earthquake and volcano prediction becomes an even more shaky affair.I think there is a strong case to be made for a domino-style effect, where to remove or discount a portion of science is to disrupt or invalidate a much larger portion.

quote:

---

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.

---

I do not think I missed any crucial points. In fact, I think there has been a slight disconnect on this point in particular.I do not think anyone asks for the bible itself to be subjected to the scientific method. It's a book; what exactly are scientists supposed to do with it? No, I think there is a different matter on hand here - that of faulty science based on the bible.You see, many creationists do not have your strength of faith, and resort to using shaky and inaccurate studies dressed up as science as a means to shore up their belief. They present it as the real deal, hence evolutionists demand that they conform to the same standard as any other scientific endeavour.EvCForum would not exist if creationists did not try to back up the bible with science. But to play in the stadium of science is to play by its rules, and this necessarily means suffering the criticism of other scientists. Creationists may not like this, but they are the ones who want to do this kind of research to support their claims.

quote:

---

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.

---

Like I said, I think there may be a domino effect...Evolutionary theory is science. It was produced using scientific methodology and is still tested every day using the same methodology. You may call it what you will, but this does not change the fact that if it isn't science (based on how it was produced and still tested), then neither is the theory of gravity, or any other modern advance you can think of.(As an aside: Again, this is something in the realm of science, unless you state that it is merely your personal opinion. We have agreed on the premise of science - to show that evolutionary theory isn't, you would have to show how it does not begin with that premise or it does not follow scientific methodology. In other words, if you want to argue for something within the realm of science, you must play by the rules of science.)While we're talking about all this, could you provide a quick description of the methodology of creationism? I think the scientific methodology is well known by now.

---

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

So we've established the two different premises. Excellent, the debate is moving forward.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, I am speculating on the implications of the YEC premise. Are we including these implications in the debate? It seems those of the scientific premise are already being discussed, i.e. that your god is automatically excluded from scientific study.

quote:

---

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.

---

I do not make such a claim, as I am not a YEC. As far as I'm concerned, evolution is simply a theory like any other. But this is essentially off topic, so let's leave it alone.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I do not think I missed any crucial points. In fact, I think there has been a slight disconnect on this point in particular.
I do not think anyone asks for the bible itself to be subjected to the scientific method. It's a book; what exactly are scientists supposed to do with it? No, I think there is a different matter on hand here - that of faulty science based on the bible.

---

​

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.

---

An overview? Really.I provided the start of such an overview by offering the basic definitions of both premises. I was trying to explain here that it is not the bible that is under attack; merely the faulty science developed in a sorry attempt to support it. I am not debating anything, just trying to clarify what exactly you mean when you say "the bible is under attack".

quote:

---

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.

---

My only presupposition, and that of other scientists like me, is that there is a knowable explanation for everything. How exactly does this prevent me from seeing it in the overall context? Please explain this assertation. It seems obvious to me; we are discussing the fundamental clash between this presupposition and the presupposition of YEC (that the bible cannot be wrong even if science declares it is).

quote:

---

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.

---

I described your premise in my own words, and you agreed that I was correct in my description. And now, all of a sudden, I can't "see" your premise? What exactly are you suggesting here? You are not making yourself clear in this respect.Alright, let's take a look at this idea, of the bible being subjected to science. You were not being clear as to what exactly you meant by your statement, so I was left to draw my own conclusions. You seem to suggest that it's somehow a personal vendetta of scientists and evolutionists in particular to dispute the bible, and this is what I felt I needed to correct.Now, if by your statement you actually meant that the bible is subjected to science because:a) faulty science produced based on the bible is being challenged here, or
b) the scientific implications of the bible are challenged, thus essentially disproving the bible,well then, we can agree on that statement because it is simply a difference in interpretations. If this is actually what you meant, then I will admit clearly that yes, the bible is under attack here.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, you are trying to boil down the fundamental difference between these two premises. I have already provided a statement to that effect - that science assumes a knowable "good-enough" explanation someday, and YECism assumes an indisputable perfect explanation right now.Is this a correct summary of the differences or not? Please elaborate on how you would personally describe the differences.

quote:

---

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.

---

My response was a description of the two premises of science and YECism. I may personally take the scientific premise for granted, but I have been here long enough to know that creationists do not, so I took the time to spell both out in as clear terms as possible. So again, I'm not entirely sure how you think my post, describing the scientific premise, is an example of someone not recognising the scientific premise.Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, or we're using different definitions.

quote:

---

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.

---

Quoted for truth.

quote:

---

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.

---

Your assertation that evolution is not science was off-topic, if we are discussing the premises of science and creationism. But as a simple exercise, let's take it as an example of both premises.In the scientific premise, the onus is on you to defend the statement "evolution is false science" because evolution is an accepted part of science. This naturally requires use of the scientific methodology.In the creationist premise, the statement "evolution is false science" is immediately defended by the idea that no true science can contradict the bible. So there are only two options - modify evolution or discard it as erroneous.

quote:

---

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.

---

I think I am beginning to understand what exactly you are trying to say, although I don't think you've been exactly clear about how to say it. I apologise for my aside in my previous post, disregard it for the moment.We have these two premises, the scientific one and the creationist one. We have established that there is a fundamental clash between them.If you are trying to say that the evolutionists here are arguing from the scientific premise, you are correct. I myself have been arguing from that same premise.Creationists are arguing from the creationist premise, which you have been all along. The massive clash occurs where evolutionists demand something relevent or related to the scientific premise, and creationists respond with something relevent or related to the creationist premise. Naturally, neither side accepts the offerings of their opponents because they are diametrically opposed in this basic context - hence the results we see on EvCForum.So, let's examine this more closely. We accept that due to this clash, there is not likely to be a common ground on which to base a debate. So why debate here at all? Where do we go from here?Let me think on this, I'll post later.{edited to fix quote box}This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 11-23-2005 02:26 PM

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

How would you feel about describing it in a step-wise manner? As in describing each consecutive step in the methodology, and what happens to a hypothesis or idea during the course of the methodology.The clarification is important, in my opinion. I will of course do the same for the scientific methodology if needed.

---

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

An evolutionist parody of supposed creationist methodology is not what I was looking for.How many times has this been done to death and then some? Just leave it alone here. I would like Faith to describe what she, as a creationist, would use as a methodology - not what an evolutionist thinks she would use.

quote:

---

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.

---

What I essentially mean is that if we are to include tectonic and volcanic activity in the Flood scenario, plate tectonics would have to be changed to such an extent that it would necessitate an entirely new definition.It's a mild misunderstanding, I think. I fully accept that the Flood scenario be definition must include tectonic and volcanic activity of some description.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was trying to explain here that it is not the bible that is under attack; merely the faulty science developed in a sorry attempt to support it. I am not debating anything, just trying to clarify what exactly you mean when you say "the bible is under attack".

---

​

But you missed the point, as the Bible IS under attack by the very theory of evolution itself.

---

That would be included in case (b) in my previous post, as it is a branch of science that directly contradicts the scientific implications of the bible.

quote:

---

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.

---

I simply mean that the explanation can be fully understood by humans, as opposed to a divine explanation that is partly unknown and unknowable. The presupposition to judge the bible on scientific grounds is there, in same sense that science can judge anything on scientific grounds.

quote:

---

Yes, but I don't see a point to this statement.

---

You stated "You are so convinced of your presuppositions you have a problem standing back from them and seeing them in the overall context here." I didn't understand what exactly you were trying to say, so I clarified my own idea of what we were discussing here.

quote:

---

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.

---

Thank you for the clarification. If we can both agree to step aside from the presuppositions for a moment, we might actually have an interesting topic here.I'm game if you are.

quote:

---

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.

---

I find this particular dualism interesting. Observe:The evo says: "the scientific implications of the bible are challenged, thus essentially disproving the bible".The creo says: "science opposes God by proposing a theory that contradicts His word".It's approaching the same area - the bible under attack - from completely different directions. Fascinating.

quote:

---

YECism is NOT assuming an indisputable perfect explanation of anything. I did think I answered this idea.

---

It assumes an indisputable perfect explanation of the Flood, no? Whereas science says the explanation of the Flood is... {insert whatever argument against the Flood you like best here}.Anything in the bible cannot be disputed, yes? Therefore there are explanations of how things happened in the past that cannot be disputed. They are what I am referring to in this respect. (I understand that there are some areas of science not in conflict, but they are essentially unimportant here - they operate under normal scientific methdology.)In any case - describe the differences yourself, as you see them. Remember I can only describe them from a scientist's point of view.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your assertation that evolution is not science was off-topic, if we are discussing the premises of science and creationism. But as a simple exercise, let's take it as an example of both premises.

​

In the scientific premise, the onus is on you to defend the statement "evolution is false science" because evolution is an accepted part of science. This naturally requires use of the scientific methodology.

---

​

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.

​

quote:

---

In the creationist premise, the statement "evolution is false science" is immediately defended by the idea that no true science can contradict the bible. So there are only two options - modify evolution or discard it as erroneous.

---

​

Yes.

---

I wasn't intending this as something you had to answer - I'm merely illustrating the difference between the scientific and YEC premises. However I suspect your answer is closer to the YEC premise than my description.

quote:

---

The massive clash occurs where evolutionists demand something relevent or related to the scientific premise, and creationists respond with something relevent or related to the creationist premise.

​

Naturally, neither side accepts the offerings of their opponents because they are diametrically opposed in this basic context - hence the results we see on EvCForum.

---

From my previous post. I think we agree that this is the crucial disconnect between the two premises. We can continue the discussion from this.

quote:

---

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.]

---

The problem here is that EvCForum is a science forum at heart.People here, including myself, have pointed out that many creationists produce faulty science based on the bible (with the implication that they are operating from the scientific premise as a result). EvCForum is supposed to be a board where this science is discussed, hence the enforcement of the scientific premise.That said, I'm getting tired of this constant pile-on of evolutionists. I happen to think that there is more to EvCForum than arguing science. From the homepage - "Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue, the EvC Forum plays host to the ongoing debate". We can't exactly do this if no debate is allowed within the creationist perspective. Remember the previous thread I started solely for the purpose of allowing you to develop your ideas, that got swamped in a matter of microseconds by every evolutionist here? My personal opinion is that creationism is wrong - but this is no excuse not to allow the other side of the debate to at least develop their ideas!Again, most creationists do not have your strength of faith. They do actually think that science alone will vindicate the bible, operating from the scientific premise. Because this type of creationist exists, I think the debate is essentially worthwhile.{edited to correct spelling and quote boxes}This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 11-23-2005 07:53 PM

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Flood was an act of the Christian god. Seeing as I'm told the nature of this god is unknowable, it seems a reasonable conclusion that part of the explanation - the part that says "god did this" - is unknowable and can never be known or even understood by mere humans. Hence my conclusion about the YEC explanation, which by definition will include some parts that say "god did this".

quote:

---

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.

---

Where exactly? And how is this different from your statements regarding the bible?

quote:

---

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.

---

But I was not making a comparison. I was merely showing how two sides approach the same idea from vastly different directions.You say I am still labouring under the presupposition that science trumps the bible. However, from your tone it is clear you are still labouring under the presupposition that the bible trumps science. So, I have done my best to move away from my presupposition in order to move this discussion forward - and you have agreed that I am in some way succeeding - I only ask that you do the same.Would you like me to present specific quotes from your posts to demonstrate that this is indeed the case? Example:"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."You presuppose that the Flood happened. You presuppose that the Bible cannot be disputed.

quote:

---

Um, seems to me I'd been doing a pretty good job of this very thing well before you joined the thread.

---

I believe you have not. I am, of course, prepared to spend several hours reading back over the thread to support my opinion, if you require it.

quote:

---

But sometime, just as a mental exercise, stop and consider the incredible hubris of mere humanity telling God He is wrong.

---

You presuppose that your god is more worthy than humanity.

quote:

---

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.

---

In EvCForum, yes. Like I said, I think there is room for more here than that.

quote:

---

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.

---

How exactly am I not "getting it"? If a creationist holds to your premise - that science cannot ever trump the bible - then I am well aware that no debate can occur. I recognise that the scientific and creationist premises are diametrially opposed. What else is there? What exactly am I missing here?The onus is on you here to explain what exactly you feel I am missing, seeing as you have made a positive statement to that effect.

quote:

---

Why? They have a faulty idea. What's the value in defeating somebody who is simply misguided? What do you prove that way?

---

You presuppose that they are misguided, because they do not hold to the same premise as you.Nothing essentially is proved. The goal, as it were, is to defeat the faulty science.

---

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

quote:

---

Why is it so fascinating to talk only about the Bible when you could also construct the parallel points for Science?

---

But I didn't find just the bible fascinating.I found the apparent convergence of a scientific idea and a creationist idea fascinating, considering that the more typical event is that their respective ideas diverge significantly. (The idea in question was that the bible is under attack.)

quote:

---

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, it is just a side issue. Again, I find it interesting because it is a exception to the general rule that scientists and creationists will not agree with each other.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you ask me to step back from my own presuppositions, but I cannot expect you to do the same?If this is the case, this discussion is an exercise in futility.

quote:

---

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.

---

If your opinion is that my contribution is not worthwhile to this thread, then I am not interested in participating further. I contend that I have contributed a worthwhile level of discussion.Your "objective" here does not seem to be one you can explain with any degree of clarity. As far as I can see, it is actually to make me agree with you no matter what you say.I also don't appreciate your patronising attitude that I'm somehow not "getting it", despite the fact that you can't seem to explain what I'm not getting.

quote:

---

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.

---

But this is a big deal. You will not set aside your presuppositions - hence you will not do the mental exercise of thinking like an evolutionist. Why should you demand the reverse of me?

quote:

---

You are the one who said they didn't have as much faith as I have. I consider that a fault.

---

That it is a fault is your opinion. That they are misguided (presumeably because they do not follow your premise) is also your opinion. This does not change the reality that there are creationists of that caliber and they bring faulty science to be debated here, and this does not mean that they are misguided or at fault from the view of their own premise - simply that they are misguided from the view of yours.We have described the premises of science and literal creationism. We have described the fundamental clash between them. We have agreed that, because of the enforcement of the scientific premise here at EvCForum, much actual debate is simply not possible.You have stated that you do not wish to develop the ideas of literal creationism from its premise.As you have not and seemingly cannot communicate where exactly you want to go from here, the discussion is essentially over.From your original post:

quote:

---

But since the very fact that there IS a different YEC methodology was never really acknowledged except by Ben, and otherwise was just denigrated as irrational as usual, nor was anything I had to say about what it is acknowledged but merely argued with from the same old science assumptions, I don't see any other direction to go.

---

I asked for a step-wise YEC methodology, but you specified that you wanted to describe the premise and leave the methodology for now.

quote:

---

For some reason it is just about impossible to get anyone to stand back and recognize that we are talking about two completely opposed premises or presuppositions and that that is what slants the debate here.

---

I am that person. I have recognised the two opposed premises - indeed, I described them and the clash between them, and you agreed with my description. I agreed that the debate here is influenced by the scientific premise, and suggested why this is the case. I pointed out that I did not agree that ALL debate here should be slanted by the scientific premise.

quote:

---

This kind of objective distance is difficult to achieve of course, for all on both sides of the divide, but that was the aim of that thread and any continuation of it will have the same aim and probably the same problems, and I don't see how to focus it any more clearly myself.

---

You agreed that I was succeeding in stepping back from the scientific premise. I was discussing both premises objectively.So this discussion is over. You have what you asked for, unless you can clarify what else you want.

---

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

Point taken.But remember, according to Faith's premise, all that doesn't matter. There is a bible (which one, I have no idea, I can barely tell the different versions apart as it is) and that bible cannot be wrong in any way. The scientific premise is coming from the other direction, in that it assumes that that same bible could be wrong, and the debate is still conducted in that same context.But suggesting anything could be incorrect or "wrong" with the bible, whatever that bible may be, is futile and does not really make for a good debate with creationists. All that happens is the two sides butt heads for a few hundred posts.I'm hoping that if we allow even one or two creationists room to develop a methodology, perhaps a few hypotheses, from their own premise as opposed to ours, perhaps we can get the debate moving again. Faith has opted out of this but I'm hopeful that another might rise to the challenge if they know they won't be swamped by twenty evolutionists.Of course, I'm still an evolutionist and I'm pretty sure that I will not agree in any way with the results of such a discussion, but the point is that I want to encourage a good discussion in the first place.

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.

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.

Ok, seeing as I'm not in any way qualified to discuss the bible, I'm bowing out of this debate. I think I've stated my part to the best of my abilities.To my knowledge, the partitioning I suggested has not been tried here yet. If it were, I would expect that the admins would have to monitor the debate closely to make sure that those involved were not attempting to argue from the wrong premise.Have funThe Rock Hound

---

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