|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
How is it possible to have a successful debate if creationists may not discuss science in the science fora from the creationist premise? As long as creationists accept the scientific premise at the same time, there is no problem. There are really only four avenues I can think of for criticizing the ToE: 1. It is not scientific In this scenario, the creationist must first accept the premise of science and then show how ToE fails to meet the rigorous standards of science. 2. Creationism explains the evidence equally well or better Once again the creationist has to accept sciences premises and show how the creationist position is scientifcally superior to ToE 3. I believe it to be false This is faith, so it doesn't belong in the science fora 4. Science itself is faulty/incomplete This is the area which the fora don't easily cover, though it could fit nicely into 'Is it science?':
quote: It might be better though, if there was a philosophy forum to discuss such meta issues. So what IRH says makes sense (even though he goes on to draw a harder line later on) - if you are discussing science, you have to play be the rules of science. If you are discussing creationism, you play by the rules of creationism. The two different philosophies will obviously never agree any more than Epicureanism and Stoicism. Challenging a conclusion of Epicureanism using Stoicism's premises will get you nowhere due to its inherent nonsensical nature. This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 24-November-2005 08:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
As long as evolutionists accept the ID creationism premise at the same time, there is no problem. 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. This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 25-November-2005 12:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The presupposition I'm talking about is that science is given the status, the authority, the right, to judge all science questions I don't think this is really a fair statement, let us try:
quote: Science isn't given authority. Science isn't given rights, science doesn't judge.
...and to judge the Bible too Science doesn't judge the Bible. One can apply scientific principles to the Bible if one so chooses to do so. If one wants to say that a part of the Bible could have happened within the realms of science (so called creation science), then those ideas can (and probably will) be scientifically examined. If one wants to say "The Flood happened, it was a miracle and defies the laws of science", then there is no argument. If one wants to say that "The Flood happened, the sorting of the fossil record can be explained using scientific principles, the dating errors can be explained with science...etc", then there is debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When I say science judges the Bible I mean that it is affirmed at EvC that the Bible may be subjected to scientific inquiry and falsified on scientific principles. What's wrong with that? As long as it is done in the appropriate fora. If you are discussing faith, then it would be a silly thing to do.
The YEC presupposition is that God's word judges all things, it is authoritative over all things including all science. And the opposing Evo presupposition is that science may judge, be applied to, the Bible and everything else. That isn't the Evo presupposition at all. Science can only be applied to matters of scientific enquiry. If one wants to explore the science of the Bible (eg, creation science), then one has to examine Biblical things scientifically. If one wants to explore the Bible from a faith point of view, then science cannot be involved. That is why we have the seperate fora, it doesn't always end up working perfectly, but there you go.
It's a simple simple statement, so simple people complain that I keep repeating it, but as long as it is being misrepresented there is nothing else I can do but repeat it. And what I am saying is also perfectly simple. If somebody wants to discuss the science behind the Bible one is free to do so in the science fora, if one wants to discuss any philosophy and how the Bible fits with it one is free to do so, and science is irrelevant to the discussion. If one wants to discuss theology, then science is irrelevant to the discussion. The Bible can be used to 'judge' science and its merits from the point of view from theology. Science can be used to 'judge' biblical events and theology from the point of view of science. One philosophy can be used to 'judge' the statements of another philosophy. What is the problem with that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Nobody said there was anything wrong with that. This thread is about showing that there is that position and that it is diametrically opposed to the YEC position and that there is as a result no way to have a real debate But there IS a real way to have a debate, and its perfectly simple. Debate arises when creationists attempt to 'disprove' evolution or justify creationism using science. As I said back in Message 211, if a creationist argues that evolution is not scientific, then there is a way to have a debate. First we establish what scientific means, then show how evolution does or doesn't fit in. This leads to a real debate. If a creationist wants to say that creationism has a better explanation for the evidence than evolution, then real debate ensues as it is established whether or not stated evidence explanation is better. If a creationist wants to argue science as a philosophy is lacking, that leads to real debate, first about what science is, and then as to why and where science is lacking. If a creationist wants to say "Evolution is wrong because it contradicts my religion", then there is no debate with science, and the only debate that remains is theological. There are three avenues of real science debate and one of theological debate.
the EVO will NOT yield the principle that science may judge the Bible on science issues, even in the religion fora. I don't do this, though some do. People ignore the division, simply ignore them, or get them moderated.
The point is that at EvC the Bible is treated as subject to scientific inquiry. What IS so hard about this? Yes, any claim IS subject to scientific enquiry, as it is equally subject to theological enquiry - not just at EvC but in real life. Why is this hard to understand? More importantly, why is this a problem?
The problem is that it has nothing whatever to do with what I'm saying. It is a completely other subject. You are talking about the fact that real debate is impossible because the two philosophies don't agree with one another. I am saying that there is more than enough opportunity for debate if someone wants to try to. Edit: If you want to argue that since you are of the opinion that God's word contradicts what science says then there is no room for debate that is fine. Not all YECs approach the debate in that manner, and try to use the scientific method to 'prove' themselves right (See ICR, RATE, AiG, Hovind, Gish...etc etc), and that is what is generally debated here at EvC. The kind of debate you are looking for is at evolutionfairytale.com maybe? This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 26-November-2005 07:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That's fine. May I be so bold as to suggest if everyone seems to be missing your point it is because you aren't making yourself clear? It is something you might have to entertain this possibility. It might be an idea to break it down into stages, followed by a conclusion to clarify.
Incidentally, I added an edit to the above post.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024