> > ... created recently with the appearance of great age....
> Some thoughts:
> 1) Your implied moral argument: That it is dishonest for God to create
> something that so many people can potentially misinterpret. (Of all the
> people living on the earth today, how many have misinterpreted the
> mission and work of Jesus Christ?)
Yes, this is a good point. But I think we can agree that if God created
something which might be misinterpretted, it should serve some purpose
BEYOND being something which can be misinterpretted. (E.g. the cross was
not added to the gospel in order to be a stumbling block; the cross is a
stumbling block because it is essential to the gospel.) When you look at
the detailed scientific data and images flowing in from supernovas which
occurred millions of light years away --- data which is only detectable
with sophisticated instruments and which closely matches predictions based
upon laboratory studies of atomic and nuclear processes --- one wonders
what purpose such an illusion could play beyond deception. If someone has
an answer, I'd be interested.
> 3) Assumption: That because the majority of people agree on a certain
> observational fact, their facilities for investigation are worthless if
> they are wrong. (The majority of people in America believe that truth
> is relative, and they are wrong. Yet I don't attribute their lack of
> understanding to worthlessness.)
>
> What about the relationship between presuppositions, data and
> conclusions? For example, you could sic Henry Morris and Stephen J. Gould
> on the same fossil dig for one hundred years. Henry Morris would find
> only evidence for creation ex Nihilo and a global flood. Stephen J. Gould
> would find evidence for long periods of time and creation via descent.
This is another good point. But I will also assert, without
exquivocation, that the vast majority of scientists are not so
ideologically committed to their pariticular interpretations of the facts
as Henry Morris and Stephen J. Gould.
Yes, religious and philosophical presuppositions color the "data." But we
must also _realistically_ assess to how great an extent this is true for
MOST scientists (not just the extremes).
I can't rule out the possibility that 99.99% of the scientists are wrong
about the multiple independent measurements of the age of creation. But
if this is really the case, it says something very serious and disturbing
about our collective God-given gifts, something which cannot easily be
mitigated by pointing to "presuppositions."
-----------------
> > We're happy to wrestle with these questions, but remember that most of the
> > TEs on this discussion group are profession scientists and engineers ---
> > we're only amateur theologians. We study enough theology to satisfy
> > ourselves with the answers, but that may not be detailed enough for
> > someone more deeply into theology.
> It may simply not be detailed enough.
You may be right.
My point is that one cannot thoroughly judge this matter solely by the
content of this discussion group. More detailed answers do exist, and are
found in books written by theologians.
-------------
Excellent discussion. I'd like to join Bill, Paul, and you in celebrating
its friendly tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... Another casualty of applied metaphysics." | Loren Haarsma
--Hobbes (_Calvin_and_Hobbes_) | lhaarsma@opal.tufts.edu