Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 123 of 300 (262419)
11-22-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
11-22-2005 7:49 AM


The Moose statement
My comments are pretty much based on what I read in this message. Hard for me to compile what was said elsewhere
All this thread is aimed at is DEFINING the premises, not ARGUING for or against them.
The YEC premise is that God's word is above science. The EvC/Evolutionist premise is Science, or the idea that scientific evidence is above God's word.
I think you are going a bit too far in equating your views of the YEC premises, with those of YEC's in general. I would state the above as "My premise is that God's word is above science". BUT you have an even more fundamental premise, which is that the Bible is truly the word of God. Thus the above can be stated as "My premise is that the content of the Bible is above science". But many, Christians included, would argue that significant portions of the Bible ARE NOT truly the record of the words and actions of God, or at least ARE NOT adequate records of the words and actions of God.
Also, it seems that at least some YEC's expect that ultimately science will confirm what is said in the Bible.
The Christian scientific premise (call it the creation by evolution viewpoint), as I see it, is that the evidence of process contained within the creation (the universe, and everything of the universe) trumps the content of the Bible.
The choice is between -
1) Accepting the limited scope descriptions of a printed volume which, regardless of what God's original input was, has passed through thousands of years of man's influences. How do you support the premise that the Bible is indeed the accurate (and sufficiently detailed) recording of God's word?
or
2) Accepting what can be learned by studying the creation (universe et all) itself.
Automobile analogy - If you wanted to learn in detail what an automobile is made up of, how it was constructed, and how it works, would you read and truly believe a 1 page pamphlet, or would you study the automobile itself?
The direction to go from here is not into debating the merits of these premises, but into trying to understand why the scientific debates at EvC go the way they do, why they are so frustrating, why they make real debate impossible here if they do (and I think they do), understanding what kinds of thinking follow from these premises, what different things we are trying to accomplish, etc. etc. etc.
Debating creationism vs. evolution does not make sense, if the fundamental creationist premise is that their understanding of the content of the Bible is "the ultimate truth", and anything that disagrees with that understanding is, by definition, wrong. And that is what I understand to be your debate position.
Well, I don't know if this was on topic or not. It will probably be my only posting in this topic.
Moose
Note by edit - This topic was at message 109 when I started preparing this message.
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-22-2005 12:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 7:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 1:05 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 128 of 300 (262443)
11-22-2005 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Faith
11-22-2005 1:05 PM


Re: The Moose statement
That is, the YEC position derives directly from a literal reading of these accounts, and why? It seems unarguable that this is because YECers regard the Bible as God's word, and God's authority above any science that disputes God's word.
I agree. And you are welcome to having any PERSONAL faith you like. Just don't claim that the scientific study of worldly reality supports that faith.
Believe away, that the Earth is 5 to 10 thousand years old, and that the Noahic happened. But the study of the created indicates otherwise.
. merely want it recognized that it IS the premise and it IS hopelessly at odds with the scientific view that is willing to subject the Bible to scientific objections.
Fully agree. But in return, don't you use the Bible as a science reference. As long as Bible belief and scientific study are kept absolutely separate, I think most everyone can be happy.
Christians who do not operate from this premise are not YECs, isn't that so? Please show me where Young Earth Creationists, who defend the literal Genesis accounts of the Creation and the Flood, have a different premise from this.
I agree that all literal Genesis YEC's share that premise. Some (all?) recognize that there is a clash between their YEC beliefs and what science thinks is worldly reality. Some are determined to show that science supports that literal Genesis. They think that ultimately science will fall in line with Genesis.
You (and other members here) might find it interesting if you took part in "Terry's Talk Origins" creationism vs. evolution debate site. Terry is very much a YEC. He also makes it very difficult for evo's to participate there.
Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online. (home page)
Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online. (page 1 of the "all topic" listing.
I'm still a member there, but have quit posting for various reasons, including that Microsoft seems to have gotten way too intrusive in regards to what personal information they want from you.
Also, the site functionality/format there(independent of what is being debated) is badly inferior to that of .
Moose
{Edit - changed an "is" to an "are", and a "to" to a "too".}
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-22-2005 02:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 1:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 2:25 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 135 of 300 (262464)
11-22-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
11-22-2005 2:25 PM


Back to the semi-serious "Great Debate" proposal
Back in the previous topic, I proposed a "your God" vs. "my God" "Great Debate".
The essence of that was that you consider the study of the Bible to be the ultimate authority on how the creation happened, and I consider the study of the creation itself to be the ultimate authority on how the creation happened.
Focusing in on geology - Being a quasi-geologist, I essentially think that the story of the creation of the Earth's geology is "written in the rocks". You think it is written in the Bible. I think that you must either think that geologists are incapable of properly "reading the rocks" or that God has presented some grand deception in what he "wrote in the rocks".
Why should what has been written in a book, the Bible, trump what has been written in the rocks?
You need not respond to this message, other than to consider it as a rough draft for a proposed new topic. A "Great Debate" has the advantage of being much more coherent.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 2:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 3:03 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 138 of 300 (262472)
11-22-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
11-22-2005 3:03 PM


Will put together a "Great Debate" proposed new topic
It will take a while - Maybe it will make it to the PNT forum tommorrow.
No reply required. Moose ends his participation in this topic.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 3:03 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2005 3:15 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024