|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
All you are doing, Modulous, is reiterating and reinforcing the Science Premise as if there were no other. If creationists want to criticize ToE they can either do it by showing that it is not good science (and must therefore accept the scientific premise to do so), creationism is better science (and therefore must accept the scientific premise), it is contradictory to their faith (which thus belongs in the faith fora and the scientific premise can be ignored or 'played with' at will), or that it is philosophically unsound (for which there isn't a good forum just yet, but Is It Science seems to work).
That is, your analysis of the problem is completely from the Science Premise without the slightest awareness of the Biblical Creationist Premise I am very much aware of both premises, but that doesn't change my post at all. Can you think of another way to view the EvC debate? If you want to discuss a thread in the science forum and say "I believe that the Bible is the word of God, and what is written in the Bible has priority over anything man says today,", that's fine - but if you are attempting to show how radiological dating is inadequate you are going to either have to accept the scientific premise and demonstrate that radiological dating has flaws in it, that there is a better explanation for radiological decay, that radiological dating is built on dodgy philosophical grounds (Is It Science?)or that radiological dating HAS to be wrong because the Bible says so. If you want to discuss the latter position you are clearly wanting to discuss things from a Faith point of view, right?
This thread is trying to discuss the YEC Premise in comparison to it. Yes indeed, this particular sub thread was discussing the bipolar nature of the two philosophies, and what affect that has in practice vis this website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: Why? Just like the scientific method is subject to being challenged, any other premise is subject to challenge. To say some premise should be accepted without challenge is simply admiting that it is incapable of being supported. That's why the IDists and Biblical Creationists demand their premise be accepted. They know that both are so weak that they will not stand up to even passing scrutiny. 1. Why? Whenever the ID creationist premise would be introduced in the science fora, it becomes an alternative science method, or better put as per topic, a creationist premise for interpretation of scientific observation. The terminology of your statement somewhat obfuscates the debate here. The topic is more about evo/creo premises and suppositions than it is about scientific method, as I understand the OP. 2. Who is advocating that any premise should be accepted without challenge? The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Modulous writes: Evolutionists should accept the ID/creationism premise if they are arguing on the territory of ID/creationism (ie., faith or ID fora) in order to show it is somehow contradictory or inconsistent or leads to intolerable theological consequences. They don't have to accept the creationist premise in the science fora, that is point of the debate. But you are implying that there is no ID creationism premise allowed in the science fora. It appears that you are agreeing with Faith. I'm saying there is ID creationism science and that when it's scientific applications are being debated and discussed, it's premise becomes a scientific premise to be debated in the science fora. After all, secularist universities are allowing Institute for Creationism's scientists to debate their premises and suppositions in their science fora. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Faith writes:
I never suggested that "all individual interpretations are equal." Rather, I suggested that it is up to believers to decide for themselves what is the proper interpretation. And perhaps you also read such terms as "priesthood of believers" and "soul competency" and "liberty in Christ" differently, consistent with your idea that individual judgments of scripture are acceptable, as if this could mean that all individual interpretations are equal? Here are some quotes from http://www.baptisthistory.org/priesthood.htm (the emphasis is added by me)
quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But you are implying that there is no ID creationism premise allowed in the science fora. Not at all. My very first post in this thread made this explicit:
quote: I'm saying there is ID creationism science and that when it's scientific applications are being debated and discussed, it's premise becomes a scientific premise to be debated in the science fora. I agree. If creationists or IDers want to discuss the scientific merit of their ideas, they should take them to the science fora, this would fall under ToE criticism number 2:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
2. Who is advocating that any premise should be accepted without challenge? Faith is. That is her whole point. She says that the Biblical Creationist position should be accepted without challenge. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
From Message 181
A premise is not open to discussion, dispute and "having to be shown first." A premise is a nonnegotiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pit40 Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
You have posted essentially this same message here at the "Noah's Ark" topic. My impression is that it much more belongs there than here.
This is not any sort of judgement of the quality of your message, but please do not post the same message at multiple topics. That could be considered a variety of spamming. Again, welcome to . Adminnemooseus Added by edit: Well, the previous message seems to have vaporized, without leaving so much as an "edited by" message. This is very much outside of normal operations - In discussion with Admin (elsewhere) it has been decided that it is some sort of computer glitch, which hopefully won't be reoccurring. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-26-2005 02:08 PM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I never suggested that "all individual interpretations are equal." Rather, I suggested that it is up to believers to decide for themselves what is the proper interpretation. But since this discussion is about your disagreeing with me that there is a coherent theology shared by a significant group of Protestants, this still appears to imply that no matter what interpretation they arrive at, it must be accepted by the church body as valid as any other. Is this how you read it?
Here are some quotes from http://www.baptisthistory.org/priesthood.htm (the emphasis is added by me) Because Jesus came, died, and was resurrected, priesthood changed. Believers no longer need to have a priest; they are priests themselves. Hierarchy no longer exists. All are equal. Each believer as a responsible priest is the New Testament way. I get the impression that you probably misunderstand this concept to imply that their interpretations are equal in the sense that they are not answerable to the official doctrine of the church. The fact that this is a Confession of Faith implies that there IS an official doctrine of the church, in other words this very coherent body of theology I've been talking about, to which its members must subscribe.
Being a priest involves individual and community responsibilities. First, I am a priest as an individual. I am my own priest. I have direct access to God. I can go to God directly in prayer. I can read the Scripture for myself and ask God’s guidance in understanding it. I must seek the wisdom and teaching of others, but I can also search for the meaning with the Spirit’s guidance by myself. I am responsible before God for my behavior and my beliefs. I cannot make someone else responsible for my relationship or lack of relationship with God. The priesthood of all believers is a core principle of Baptist doctrine. We insist that each person can interpret Scripture as an individual; that only believers should be baptized; that each church can govern itself; that all of our connections to local, regional, state, and national bodies are voluntary; and that every person has a right to religious liberty. All of these basic beliefs of Baptists underscore our belief that each person is competent in religious matters and that each believer is a priest. Again, on the basis of the context of our discussion, you seem to read this to mean that there is no coherent theology as I have been maintaining, by which the individual's interpretation must be judged, so that for instance you would believe this to mean that a member of this body could be a YEC, another a follower of ID, and another a theistic evolutionist, and all would be welcome. This is not the case. This only means that the individual has the Holy Spirit who will guide him/her in the gospel doctrines personally, but his understanding does have to conform to the doctrines of the church or he will be judged not to have the Holy Spirit. Certainly an individual may be given more insight into the scriptures than another, bringing out new implications, as individuals are gifted differently by the Holy Spirit, but their insight must nevertheless be consistent with the doctrines of the church or this body of coherent theology I am talking about. You'd have to show me that these statements are understood by the holders of this Confession of Faith specifically to support significantly different viewpoints within this body of believers, such as the YEC position versus theistic evolutionism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Faith writes:
No, that is not the disagreement. I should have changed the subtitle to clarify that.
But since this discussion is about your disagreeing with me that there is a coherent theology ... I get the impression that you probably misunderstand this concept to imply that their interpretations are equal in the sense that they are not answerable to the official doctrine of the church.
Not at all. I haven't suggested that all are equal. I am saying that the Church does not impose an interpretation, but requires each member to read the scriptures himself, no doubt with appropriate guidance.
The fact that this is a Confession of Faith implies that there IS an official doctrine of the church, in other words this very coherent body of theology I've been talking about, to which its members must subscribe.
Don't you find it interesting (and significant) that they call it a Confession of Faith, and not a Doctrine? What I am objecting to, is the way you are describing your YEC premises. If you were to point to some list of YEC articles of faith, and declare those to be the YEC premises, that might be reasonable. But instead, you are using terms such as "word of God" to describe these premises. You are, in effect, dictating to God what his words are. Most conservative churches are very careful to avoid doing that, and for good reason. What is the proper interpretation of scripture (what is the word of God) is vigorously debated in evangelical churches. It might be reasonable for you to say that YEC articles of faith are not up for debate. But to assert your own interpretation, declare that to be the word of God and to say that is not up for debate -- that is to violate the basic principles of evangelical protestantism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I get the impression that you probably misunderstand this concept to imply that their interpretations are equal in the sense that they are not answerable to the official doctrine of the church.
Not at all. I haven't suggested that all are equal. I am saying that the Church does not impose an interpretation, but requires each member to read the scriptures himself, no doubt with appropriate guidance. This is merely a semantic distinction. In fact our whole discussion is largely semantic. My phrase "equal in the sense that they are not answerable to the official doctrine of the church" is equivalent in meaning to your phrase "the Church does not impose an interpretation but requires each member to read the scriptures himself, no doubt with appropriate guidance." Even your phrase "appropriate guidance" IMPLIES a doctrine to which the interpretation must adhere. What other kind of "appropriate guidance" could there be? Somebody else's completely idiosyncratic interpretation? Of course not. There is a body of doctrine and the individual's reading of scripture must be consistent with it.
The fact that this is a Confession of Faith implies that there IS an official doctrine of the church, in other words this very coherent body of theology I've been talking about, to which its members must subscribe.
Don't you find it interesting (and significant) that they call it a Confession of Faith, and not a Doctrine? No, I find the terms equivalent for purposes of this discussion. A Confession of Faith is a statement of the doctrines to which the members of a church body subscribe. Did you read this particular Confession of Faith? I read it and that's what it's doing and the doctrines are traditional conservative Christian doctrines. I don't know a lot about the Southern Baptist confession and I'd probably disagree with some facets of their views if I really studied it, but on the face of it the Confession is typically conservative Christian doctrine and in fact it includes a clear statement that they are affirming doctrines that are under attack in today's world.
What I am objecting to, is the way you are describing your YEC premises. If you were to point to some list of YEC articles of faith, and declare those to be the YEC premises, that might be reasonable. But instead, you are using terms such as "word of God" to describe these premises. You are, in effect, dictating to God what his words are. Most conservative churches are very careful to avoid doing that, and for good reason. I have never seen a conservative church avoid declaring its doctrines to represent the word of God. That's the whole point of all creeds, confessions and catechisms, to eludicate the doctrines derived from the scriptures. If you read through the Confession of Faith in question you will see that they regard it as elucidating what the scripture, the Bible, that is, the word of God, is saying.
What is the proper interpretation of scripture (what is the word of God) is vigorously debated in evangelical churches. You will have to demonstrate this to me. The differences in doctrine in evangelical circles concern minor points, and these are not debated within the churches proper, as each denomination simply affirms its own reading on these points.
It might be reasonable for you to say that YEC articles of faith are not up for debate. But to assert your own interpretation, declare that to be the word of God and to say that is not up for debate -- that is to violate the basic principles of evangelical protestantism. You have an entirely wrong interpretation of the "basic principles of evangelical protestantism" and I have no idea where you get your dogmatic authority to pronounce on this as you do. I have shown you that I read the Baptist Confession of Faith entirely differently than you do. The burden of proof is on you as the challenger to demonstrate that your interpretation is in fact held by anyone in that body or in fact anywhere in Protestantism. AbE: I mean of course conservative Protestantism. Liberal Protestantism is something else. This message has been edited by Faith, 11-25-2005 02:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4749 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: Philip writes: that the evo-paradigm may do a 'Hitler', and kill itself one day (without any YEC help). quote: ... In other words, *unsportsmanlike grammar* (or something) may become invoked, here, by some governmental entity or internet culture (if there be such a thing) ?? Now, if Admin wants to declare this thread over and/or that I lost the debate, very well. ... Yet, I'll try to think of a few "replacement-analogies" that might fit (for your perusal and refutation): "Evolutionism like disco is a dead fad" (speaking as a musician/artist)"Evolutionism is for wacko scientists" (speaking as a phlegmatic) "Evolutionism has no place in medicine" (Speaking as a physician) “Evolutionism is just not worth the time or money; i.e., to neither teach nor financially support” “Evolutionism degrades human compassion while being anything but science” "Evolutionism has no place in any science at any level" (including geology and genetics) “Mega-evolutionism is merely a disguised form of atheism” (speaking as a 'believer') "Evolutionary (macro or micro) presuppositions and methodologies” are certainly no cornerstone of any science. “All evolutionary ”insights’ of origin are simple lies” “Evolutionism . just vain hype” On a more positive note: Any of the following presuppositions and methodologies may become more prevalent (whenever): Quarks are 99% metaphysical entities that cannot be defined by science.The Universe is 99% a metaphysical entity that cannot be defined by science. Time is 99% a metaphysical entity that cannot be defined by science. Light is 99% a metaphysical entity that cannot be defined by science. Time is 99% a metaphysical entity that cannot be defined by science. Human beings are 99% metaphysical entities, and, as such, cannot be described nor defined by current (evolutionary) science presuppositions and methodologies. This message has been edited by Philip, 11-25-2005 02:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Faith writes:
As an educator, I try to provide appropriate guidance to my students. I do not impose on them any doctrine to which they are to adhere. Even your phrase "appropriate guidance" IMPLIES a doctrine to which the interpretation must adhere. What other kind of "appropriate guidance" could there be? In the setting of a church, appropriate guidance would be to explain common understandings of the scripture. It would not be to require adherence to those understandings.
You have an entirely wrong interpretation of the "basic principles of evangelical protestantism" and I have no idea where you get your dogmatic authority to pronounce on this as you do.
What dogmatic authority? I have not asserted that I am an authority on this. As far as I know, Jimmy Carter is a southern Baptist. I suspect that his understanding of the scriptures might be quite a bit different from what you are reading into the southern Baptist documents.
I have shown you that I read the Baptist Confession of Faith entirely differently than you do.
Indeed you do. I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas.
The burden of proof is on you as the challenger to demonstrate that your interpretation is in fact held by anyone in that body or in fact anywhere in Protestantism.
I would say that you are the challenger here. You appear to be challenging the conventional wisdom. I have posted quotations and links to support my position. In typical YEC fashion you simply dismiss the evidence without argument. You are right, that debate with YECs is impossible. But it has nothing to do differing premises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: Even your phrase "appropriate guidance" IMPLIES a doctrine to which the interpretation must adhere. What other kind of "appropriate guidance" could there be? As an educator, I try to provide appropriate guidance to my students. I do not impose on them any doctrine to which they are to adhere. What this means is perhaps not as obvious as you hope, so I may be wrong about your intention, but I'm not in favor of any kind of education that does not aim to teach truth to students. Teaching them to think does not preclude teaching them clear doctrines in any discipline and teaching the doctrines does not hamper them from thinking for themselves. However, you are not a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that involves a very high responsibility to be sure your congregation above all things clearly understand the salvation message and the Christian life as given in scripture.
In the setting of a church, appropriate guidance would be to explain common understandings of the scripture. It would not be to require adherence to those understandings. IN the setting of a church appropriate guidance is to be sure the doctrines of salvation and sanctification are clearly preached and explained for the wellbeing of the congregation. Any interpretations of the scripture the responsible leaders consider to be inimical to this purpose are taught only as what to avoid. You are simply suggesting a methodology that is contrary to Christian aims and methods. These are different frames of reference. The churches are teaching the meaning of God's supernatural revelation and they have a responsibility to their congregations to be sure they understand exactly what they need to be saved. You can't impose your utterly different model on the churches.
You have an entirely wrong interpretation of the "basic principles of evangelical protestantism" and I have no idea where you get your dogmatic authority to pronounce on this as you do. What dogmatic authority? I have not asserted that I am an authority on this. No, you haven't asserted it but you talk like it.
As far as I know, Jimmy Carter is a southern Baptist. I suspect that his understanding of the scriptures might be quite a bit different from what you are reading into the southern Baptist documents. As I said, show me that they mean what you interpret them to mean.
I have shown you that I read the Baptist Confession of Faith entirely differently than you do.
Indeed you do. I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas. From hundreds upon hundreds of books and sermons and tapes of sermons and commentaries by well established leaders of Protestant Christianity.
The burden of proof is on you as the challenger to demonstrate that your interpretation is in fact held by anyone in that body or in fact anywhere in Protestantism.
I would say that you are the challenger here. You appear to be challenging the conventional wisdom. I am presenting the conventional orthodox understanding of Protestant tradition.
I have posted quotations and links to support my position. In typical YEC fashion you simply dismiss the evidence without argument. I gave my orthodox traditional reading as argument.
You are right, that debate with YECs is impossible. But it has nothing to do differing premises. It absolutely does. You are simply bringing in this completely false point of view from I have no idea where. Actually I'm going to consider this off topic from now on as it is not helping to clarify the point of this thread. If you feel like starting a new thread for these questions, please do. This message has been edited by Faith, 11-25-2005 03:53 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024