YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

First off, while I have read all the previous posts, I really have not seen this aspect discussed yet, so let me add my perspective to this discussion, if you will.To begin with, I don't think it is possible in the slightest for two people to have exactly the same set of beliefs and knowledge, we are all a little different from anyone else and sometimes a lot different from some others. We are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.What I see so far is that Faith has started from the premise that there are two opposing camps, each with set presuppositions that exclude the other camp. The complaint is that Evos say their science "trumps" faith and insist on using dogmatic application of the rules of science (repeatability, evidence, substantiation, etc), while disallowing the {Creos\YECs} to use their dogmatic application of the rules of faith (the flood happened, the bible says, etc.). Thus you have a picture something like this:
Where the area of overlap is the area of agreement and the areas outside the overlap are the areas of contention. Each contends that their whole "idea of reality" is contained within their respective areas and rejects things outside their boundaries.You have Creos in general, and YECs in particular (seeing as Faith is arguing from a YEC standard), claiming that their evidence for the biblical flood is just as valid as the scientific evidence (the overlap area) they accept in their worldview, while Science types (Scios?) in general, and Evos in particular (seeing as this is the Evo vs Creo forum), claiming that their evidence for an old earth and a geology with no temporal universally occurring flood is just as valid as the scientific evidence that the YECs accept (the overlap area) they accept in their worldview.This seems pretty cut and dried, and that there really is no way for either to find a bridge to the parts of the others worldview that is outside the overlap area.The problem as I see it is that this view is due to the narrow definition of the problem as YEC vs Science. One that I don't really think represents either group very well.Let me open up the discussion a bit by first considering the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, first in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com: sci·ence (click)phi·los·o·phy (click)faith (click)
Science (as a whole) is limited to the study of natural objects and processes. It depends on studies that can be reproduced by others with similar results, and skepticism about results and the validity of theories that explain and predict results is healthy and valid within science.Science sometimes reaches the limits of what it can substantiate with evidence, places where theory has gone beyond the evidence to what might be true, but the testing, the evidence has not occurred or been found, and here it reaches into philosophy: making logical conclusions based on what is known and accepted as true from the evidence that is available. This is where we get dark matter and a {big-bang\inflation} beginning in physics, and similar untested hypothesis in other sciences.Philosophy (as a whole) expands on science by using logic and rational thought processes, using inductive and deductive methods and "reasonable" assumptions. It depends on the premises being true for the conclusions to be true, and thus discussion of those premises and assumptions is valid in the discerning of the truth of the conclusions.Philosophy sometimes reaches the limits of what it can develop by logical and rational means, going beyond "reasonable" assumptions into metaphysics and fantasy, and {stories\thought experiments} of "what if" -- where some starting point is taken on a "leap of faith" or by the "suspension of disbelief" required by fiction (especially science fiction).Faith (as a whole) expands on philosophy, by absolutely accepting on faith certain things to be true without proof or material evidence being needed or necessary.If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:
Where the boundaries should be fuzzy and the actual shapes, locations, and their relative sizes should be mostly unimportant, but that the basic relationship is that science is within and encompassed by philosophy, while philosophy itself is within and encompassed by faith-- taking each group as the sum total of all sciences, all philosophies and all faiths known to man.IE - there is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in some philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in some faith or other.But "science" is not a {worldview} on its own, it is too narrow for that. There is uncertainty, there are unknowns, and different people have different ways to deal with that.Each person makes their own boundary. Within that overall picture each person on the earth at any time and place can draw an amoebic shape as they see fit to include all their personal beliefs and forms of knowledge, and then normalize that to make a somewhat "rounded" representation of their worldview, with overlaps into science, philosophy and faith as they personally see fit.An atheist will always stay somewhere within the philosophy envelope, and the theist will always include some portion of the outer envelope, each including and excluding as much of the inner areas as they also see fit.Science cannot get to faith directly without going through philosophy; it needs a logical step, rungs on a ladder, a path of stepping stones, a stairway to heaven, and thus the plea for substantiation, of a point to stand on, a rock, a crumb (particularly from those without a worldview that includes much in the way of faith). It is not so much that science "trumps" faith as that it just cannot get there, it can't walk on water.I have said before that it is not about what you accept that is the problem so much as it is about what you deny or reject that cause these conflicts to arise, and each person has different things that they {deny\reject}, some conscious and some not so conscious.Now, YEC is not {faith in general}, but a very specific subset, an very intentionally narrowed definition of faith that excludes many other christian as well as all non-christian sects and beliefs. There are many other {specific\narrow} {subsets\definitions} of faith, such as the extreme old earth age hindu creationists (where the scientific age of the universe is way too young to be true), as Yaro introduced at one point. In fact faiths are generally not too inclusive of other faiths -- {rejection\denial} comes into play here too.And we are discussing YEC here and not other faiths, so we can consider that the {core\consistent\formalized} worldview of {all YEC believers} is a bounded area inside the faith envelope and give it a fuzzy edge too, and if we include this in the picture we had before, we would now have something like this:
Here we have the same overlapping shapes sizes and amount of overlap that we had in the first picture, but we also see some other things.Science is stopped by the moat of philosophy from getting into faith, even the most ardent atheist includes a wide swath of philosophy within their {worldview}, and can get quite close to the fuzzy boundary to faith. Possibly just {rejecting\denying} the existence of god figures without necessarily {rejecting\denying} a spiritual essence, the edge of faith. But they won't cross that last boundary.The YEC believer views their world as homogeneous, that everything within their area has equal validity. The points that their sees valid that are based on their faith, such as a world wide flood, are the same as the points their sees as valid from the science area, and their cannot see why the evidence of one is more important than the evidence for the other. With this picture we can see why some faith evidence cannot be the same as scientific evidence, because it is fundamentally different in nature.And yet, your YEC person is also not restricted to just the envelope of the YEC {core\consistent\formalized} beliefs, for they also have their own personal doubts and uncertainties, and their {beliefs\views\understandings} can extend freely out from this core area so long as they don't conflict with that core.There is nothing that prevents their personal beliefs from extending into the other areas of faith, philosophy and science than the boundary drawn around their personal beliefs. The differences between the YEC person and other christian {sects\beliefs} people lies in where the boundaries are drawn, with the "switches" (if you will) between what is {literally true} and what is {allegorical\metaphorical}.So you also have people like Jar and Phat that have a worldview that includes a lot of science and a lot of christian belief and that don't have a problem with a lot of {faith evidence}, just with some of the particular {literal truth} claims of YECs. And you have people like buzsaw and randman that are somewhere in between.In fact I can say with some assurance that I have not seen two people on this forum with close to the same set of beliefs, Creo OR Evo. Every person has a different worldview. How much they personally exclude defines how {strict\narrow\restrictive} their worldview is, whether atheist, or YEC, or OEC, or HinduOE, or Deist, or whatever.I would also say that the appearance of the overall pattern of beliefs as being divided into two camps is an artificial pattern generated by the discussion topics: it draws people from one side that want to argue against people on another side, but doesn't draw people where there is no real disagreement -- we are missing the middle from the distribution.Enjoy.Sorry about the length. Perhaps it should be a PNT ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I saw it. Cute. They certainly fall within the general faith envelope, along with all the other et-ists (von Daniken etc). Denial is like that? One person's faith is another's delusion. Doesn't matter how many believe - that is the logical fallacy of the popularity of the argument. Do you deny that the 'deluded' person believes his delusions are true? Isn't that the definition of faith? Just like I said, within the envelope of logic and reason ... philosophy.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not to be antagonistic, but there realy is no parallel and there really is no classical argument. That is a artifact of the framing of the question within a very narrow focus. The argument is different between different people. Repeated focus on a relatively irrelevant narrowed down to a single point result does not contribute to discussion or resolution. Looking at the broader picture does. Open the door, there is more outside than inside. Look inward, there is more inside than outside. They are connected. How can the premise be authoritative if it does not have validity within that worldview? To be authoritative it has to have absolute unquestioned validity ... a point that I don't think you have made re science in general and evolution in particular (seeing as they are all subject to change at any moment) - unless you mean something like "the scientific method yields valuable results" - and that isn't very {{{AUTHORITATIVE}}} imh(ysa)o.I also don't find the claim that "this particular verse here in the bible means this exactly" is very {{{AUTHORITATIVE}}} as long as I can find other bible believers that think differently. They are accepted as valid by certain people to fit within their worldviews, that is all. It is the personal {validity\validation} that gives the premises authority within the worldview. Because it just can't go there and still be science, as is made clear by the larger picture. It's not about refusal it's about inability. It can't pick up the object if it can't walk to where the object is located. but ... Just the bible believers that insist on a literal fundamental interpretation based on their narrow focus that won't allow them to go into the surrounding moat of {allegory\metaphor} within the christian faith envelope. Don't lump others together that don't belong ... that list of clergy? Didn't they all claim belief in the bible?And this is the same kind of fence that doesn't allow the believer to walk over to where the {scientific} object is.It is not about the reality of the objects but about the ability of the people to get to where they are located, based on their individual worldviews. Actually I have been thinking about this topic for some time (and have another essay on this as well, that looks at the perceptions of reality from another set of information than the {YEC\Evo} set here), and have contemplated asking you and Ben to help contribute with {assembling\making\writing} a co-authored column that really looks into what is going on from different viewpoints and where the roadblocks everyone has are located.I'll be interested in your further thoughts.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*26*2005 08:35 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Those other definitions are coloquial usages. I know of no college that teaches the art of packing a suitcase. The one used within the fields of science is the first one.From wikipedia.com: I don't see anything there about suitcases ... or some undefined inarticulated "christian science" or any other science based on experiences alone.This is like the definitions of {theory} where they can be anything from a solid evidence backed formulated scientific theory that makes testable predictions, to hackneyed pie-in-the-sky concepts best left to b-grade hollywood movies and bad dreams.You need to distinguish between the usages and the definitions for the applications of the definitions.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.