From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 15:12:07 EDT
Walter,
Why does science trump YEC? The answer is something that I've
experienced. I was taught recent creationism as something consonant with
science. In grad school I first read journal articles on dating. I
learned that the dating based on radioactive disintegration might be off
by a factor of 2 or 3, but could not be off by more orders of magnitude.
In other words, whether intentional or inadvertent, I was lied to. In the
years since, quantum computations have reinforced the particle counts
that gave the original half-lives, so that we have both theoretical and
empirical foundations for dating. Indeed, to be consistent in discounting
radio-dating, one has to deny atomic bombs and nuclear reactors.
Additional lines of evidence have come in from cosmology. The fossil
record has many more intermediate forms, appearing at the correct times
according to the geological clock. Sequencing the genomes of various
creatures indicates their connection by descent. Evidence keeps piling
up.
Outside of the sciences, there is clear evidence from exegesis. The
"firmament" was solid and had water above it. But the canopy theory has
been shown impossible, linguistically and scientifically. The list of
elements that fit ancient cosmologies can be extended.
I have read a large number of articles and books by YEC authors. I have
not found them making sense. Michael and Glenn have noted that almost
every non-YEC quoted has been misquoted. Given what I know (others can
add extensively to my list), you cannot justify taking YEC seriously to
me. Further, since I recognize the effect of their teaching, the number
of young people who have abandoned and excluded faith in Christ, I have
to condemn YEC teachings.
Dave
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:13:05 -0400 Walter Hicks
<wallyshoes@mindspring.com> writes:
> My question was not whether or not those speaking felt that their
> opinion mattered
> because of their education -- but rather why should anyone else who
> disagrees with
> them?
>
> I don't see many lawyers. politicians, mill workers, etc. attacking
> the religious
> notions of those supporting YEC, OEC, etc. It is only the
> scientists. And I must
> say that those who whine loudest about a "dialogue" seem to be most
> least
> interested in suggesting that those on the "other side" have
> anything sensible to
> offer.
>
> So why is there something about science that trumps all other fields
> in religious
> interpretation? If I want some information about quantum mechanics,
> I'll seek out
> Professor friend at Boston University. If I want advice on spiritual
> issues, I'll
> go to the Pastor of my church.
>
> I can see ASA presenting a forum to discuss the interrelationship of
> science and
> religious issues. I really like that, myself. But I think that
> constant attacks on
> YECs is unbecoming and out of place.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> gordon brown wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Walter Hicks wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that Henry Morris and the ilk are scientific charlatans
> but that does
> > > not excuse the polarizing attitude of many on this list. Many
> act as though
> > > science is the only honourable profession in the world. Why
> should a lawyer,
> > > mill worker, or anyone else respect the arrogant opinions of
> this list just
> > > because "PhD" can be tacked on after most our names --- pray
> tell?
> >
> > I haven't had the sense that most people on this list think that
> their
> > opinions should be accepted as truth just because they have Ph.D.
> after
> > their names. It is perfectly all right for anyone to withhold
> judgment
> > until he has done the necessary study to understand the issues and
> form a
> > well reasoned opinion for himself.
> >
> > Many YECs apparently think that their opinions are more credible if
> they
> > have a Ph.D. after their names. I know of at least a couple who
> have done
> > so by getting degrees from diploma mills. Others don't say what
> their
> > field is just in case there might be someone out there who might
> question
> > whether a degree in civil engineering or pharmacology qualifies
> one to be
> > an authority on geology.
> >
> > Most of the scientific discussions on this list are in fields
> different
> > from my own, and I try to leave those for those who are qualified
> in those
> > areas, but as a Christian who studies the Bible regularly, I do
> sometimes
> > weigh in on theological questions, and I think that all believers
> should
> > feel free to discuss such issues.
> >
> > Gordon Brown
> > Department of Mathematics
> > University of Colorado
> > Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 15:17:49 EDT