Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

Don't worry Randy, I'm not miffed!!!

The false argument that Christians were literalist until at least 1800 (or
until Darwin upset Christens in 1859!) is used both by YECs to try to claim
that that is the true Christian doctrine, and by atheists and some liberal
Christians as a rod to beat those Christians who argue that literalism is
not part of orthodox Christianity.

Some years ago a speaker at my diocesan conference for clergy tried to claim
that Darwin was challenged by the church , especially Anglican clergy,
because he undermined the belief of creation in 6 days. Afterwards I asked
him "Which Anglican clergy believed in a 6-day creation when Darwin
published in 1859?" He tried to claim that all did but I pushed and pushed
him to come out with a name. When he couldn't I pointed out to him that
there were none! Another geologist clergy challenged him on his nonsense on
Galileo so he had a rough time.
The clergyman actually belonged to the Sea of Faith group and follow Don
Cupitt by denying that God exists but remain Christian clergy!
My liberal bishop was not happy that a specially invited speaker should be
so challenged!

My point is that inaccurate history of science is used for polemical
purposes by three groups - YECs and IDers, atheists and liberal Christians
all of whom want to undermine "classic orthodox Christianity" which has no
problem with deep time.

Michael

---- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

> Thanks for the correction, Michael. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?
>
>
>>I am the first to argue that we should question deeply many/all aspects of
>>science, and have a generally critical and questioning approach to many
>>things. I hoped Gregory would see that if he wished to apply this to
>>geological times we must also apply it to everything else. we soon get a
>>point of absurdity.
>>
>> Perhaps one could say that there is a possibility that it is a young
>> earth in principle but there have never been any arguments for it - all
>> supposed ones are plain wrong, or arguments against an old earth. If
>> anyone wants to hold such a possibility then they must give some
>> arguments, otherwise it is just playing games. We can apply that to all
>> scientific disciplines - and it is interesting that there is no
>> questioning of the basis of most sciences.
>>
>> Surely in science there are degrees of certainty? As I tried to give on
>> snowball earth.
>>
>> One little point Randy! I did not say " In the case of the age of the
>> earth, Michael pointed out how a young earth
>>> was the assumed perspective until the latter part of the 18th century. "
>>> but "They began with a
>> young earth - in an open way - as there was no evidence against it and
>> by
>> 1680 because of open minds many realised that the earth was older than
>> young
>> i.e 6000 years. The evidence convinced them.
>>
>> During the 18th century more evidence convinced these open minded
>> geologists
>> Christian or not and so by 1800 it was seen to be either 100000 yrs or so
>> or
>> even millions. By the 1820s when geology was dominated by devout clergy
>> millions or "trillions" was the order of the day. (trillions from
>> Conybeare
>> an evangelical) In 1905 radioactivity was applied to dating coming up
>> first
>> with 2 billion and since 1946 the age has remained constant at 4.6
>> billion."
>>
>> What I was stressing is that a YE perspective has never been the assumed
>> perspective. There were questions from 30ADS to 1500AD with some YE and
>> Some OE and some instantaneous. It was only in the 16th century that YE
>> became common but not unanimous but by 1620 that was dropped in favour of
>> imprecision on age. in the 18th century few were committed to YE despite
>> what most of today's writers say.As Rudwick argues in the latter part of
>> the 18th century the argument was whether the earth was millions or
>> possibly eternal or simply middle aged i.e 50-100000years old.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?
>>
>>
>>> Christine, you've already received several good responses such as Dave
>>> on the philosophical side and George on the scientific side. The issue
>>> is so important I'd like to add a few more comments.
>>>
>>> One of the issues here is communication and education. Too often
>>> scientists are viewed as arrogant and unreceptive by a non-scientific
>>> audience when making claims about what we know. We can learn a lot about
>>> better ways to communicate what we mean.
>>>
>>> There's also a danger in saying that we need to keep open the
>>> possibility, however small, of a concept such as a young earth. This is
>>> necessary presumably to convey openness to new ideas. But this idea of
>>> gradations of certainty must be handled with care.
>>>
>>> The IPCC approach is a classic in cautious statistical probability
>>> branding. This is necessary, at least to some degree, when the issue is
>>> a theory that is inherently statistical in nature and we're predicting
>>> the future path of a complex system with uncertain statistically random
>>> forcing. Many other physical aspects are not statistical in nature and
>>> we can't so easily apply a probability to them.
>>>
>>> I recently gave a short talk on "how to be a skeptic in science". Yes,
>>> healthy skepticism is a vital part of the scientific process. However,
>>> that skepticism itself must be validated through scientific methodology.
>>> Furthermore, the more mature and robust the concept, the higher the
>>> hurdle that the skepticism must clear.
>>>
>>> In the case of the age of the earth, Michael pointed out how a young
>>> earth was the assumed perspective until the latter part of the 18th
>>> century. When tested against data, this hypothesis was questioned and
>>> eventually the weight of evidence from so many different angles made it
>>> clear that the young-earth hypothesis was not an accurate interpretation
>>> of the data. Today, the remaining uncertainty in the age of the earth is
>>> the precision. The value of 4.5Billion years is more appropriate than
>>> 4.500Billion years. The uncertainty is on the order of a hundred million
>>> years. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. But the uncertainty is
>>> not a factor of 2, let alone six orders of magnitude. To assert there is
>>> a possibility that it is wrong by this amount requires the assertion
>>> that a very very large number of oft-validated scientific principles and
>>> myriad diverse data sets are wrong. Citing this as an open possibility
>>> is not a reflection of healthy skepticism.
>>>
>>> By the way, in my talk I ended up claiming that, as far as I could tell,
>>> there has been no case where a scientific theory which has been
>>> validated by data from many independent sources and which is accepted as
>>> consensus by the mainstream community, has been later invalidated. I'd
>>> love to hear of any examples that any of you might think of.
>>>
>>> Randy
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Christine Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
>>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 6:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>> I obviously can't speak for Gregory, but I think I
>>>> know where he's coming from on this particular point.
>>>> I totally agree with you that science has gradations
>>>> of certainty, and that there are many things which are
>>>> so well-attested to through experimentation and
>>>> observation that we assume them to be true. However,
>>>> to say that there is "no possibility" or "total
>>>> certainty" seems to imply that not only are you taking
>>>> a given theory, law, etc. to be a true representation
>>>> of reality, but that you are not open to objectively
>>>> evaluating any new evidence that would challenge the
>>>> scientific "truth". I have always thought (in
>>>> principle at least) that as scientists we have an
>>>> obligation to leave open the possibility, however
>>>> extremely unlikely it is, that something we hold to be
>>>> true is wrong, or needs adjustment. Thus, I stated
>>>> that although I don't believe YEC will ever be
>>>> supported by science (and likewise, I hold evolution
>>>> to be largely "true" in a practical sense), that I
>>>> nevertheless remain open to evaluating any new
>>>> evidence that would say otherwise. Isn't this the very
>>>> essence of scientific inquiry?
>>>>
>>>> Christine
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 4 07:16:15 2007