DT>> Steven's use of natural mechanisms to explain his observations is
>> not controversial - there is nothing to suggest that there is
>> other than a natural cause for his calcite veins.
>
SS> But if the veins were formed, let's say, at 5 km of depth during
> the development of a fold-thrust belt it becomes controversial since
> this doesn't fit well into a flood model of sedimentary rock origin.
The logical connection between the premiss and the inference escapes
me. Taking Genesis as strict history, there is nothing in the Flood
narrative which prohibits the development of fold-thrust belts at 5
km depth, nor the accompanying formation of calcite veins.
I am aware that some diluvialists have models of geological history
which reject the concept of large-scale overthusting. Is this what
you are referring to? Although I can't speak for these people, you
may be right that they would find your field interpretations
inconsistent with their model. But models should not be equated with
Scripture!
> And if I further say that I'm trying to resolve the unanswered question
> of whether this fold-thrust belt formed during the late Devonian Acadian
> orogeny or the Pennsylvanian/Permian Alleghanian orogeny, then it doesn't
> fit well into an young-earth scenario.
I have to make the same point. I suggest the last sentence should
real: "it doesn't fit well with some of the proposed young-earth
scenarios".
> What if doing science using methodological naturalism doesn't support
> a literal reading of Genesis? Does that mean we need to trash MN in science?
> Does that mean MN can't arrive at the "Truth"? Or does that mean that some
> should rethink their interpretations of Scripture?
I think my post responding to Loren's article addressed these issues
in part. MN has no coherent approach to intelligent causation -
which is bad news for archaeologists (who would like to be considered
scientists). This is because MN is locked into the concept of
"unbroken law". However, intelligent causation breaks the chain of
natural causation and constrains mechanistic explanations.
Intelligent causation cannot be described in terms of natural law -
for the cause is linked to the mind/will of a person. This is why it
is important to make a distinction between empirical and historical
science. Is the history of our planet to be constrained by "unbroken
law" or are we to recognise intelligent causation by our Creator? If
"science" is described/defined in terms of empirical methodologies,
the issue of intelligent causation never gets addressed.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***