John E. Rylander wrote:
> (1) Suppose archaeologists were to assuredly discover the remains of
> Joshua's marker: in your view, that discovery would be "scientific evidence
> which we can study to verify the supernatural"?
Assuming the veracity of the text, yes. Just as today we use survey
monuments to establish land corners (which are concrete evidence of a
legal description recorded in the county courthouse), so in OT times
monuments were erected to commemorate significant events, one of which,
in this case, was recorded in the Bible.
> (2) Why would any matter created ex nihilo necessarily have the appearance
> of age?
Suppose a shiny new copper penny with the date 1998 suddenly appeared on
the desk right before your eyes. If you were watching the spot and
actually saw it appear, and then picked it up, would you not wonder
where it came from? We assume cause and effect, which, in our
naturalistic mindset, requires us to consider that a newly created penny
came from pre-existing matter. Therefore, it would have the "appearance
of age."
> (3) In defending the YEC position, you agree that the defense is more
> theological than scientific, right? that no one who came to science lacking
> a commitment to YEC would ever derive such from science? I.e. (roughly)
> that YEC is derived from what YEC's take to be the revelation of God's word
> and world combined in some high ratio, rather than from God's world alone?
It would be easy to agree with you here, John, but I'll resist the
temptation to take the easy way out for the following reasons:
1) Our mindset (as in the new penny example) is to always assume
naturalistic cause and effect since that is the way our world seems to
work on a day-to-day basis. I believe miracles demonstrate the
inadequacy of this position. IOW, science based upon naturalistic
cause-and-effect principles is flawed to begin with.
2) Science, especially for the last 150 years, has been interpreted
through this naturalistic cause-and-effect filter, resulting in an
incredible bias toward naturalism and evolution woven throughout the
fabric of science. To say "that no one who came to science lacking a
commitment to YEC would ever derive such from science" is to assume that
science is unaffected by the various biases of scientists. I think most
of us would agree that biases do creep into science. A case in point is
the conventional interpretation in geology that coal seams are ancient
swamp deposits. As a geologist, I have studied numerous coal seams and
can state unequivocally that the evidence does not support the
conventional conclusion. If, as I contend, this same bias is present
throughout science, and if scientists are biased by their core
philosophy and the training recieved in secular universities, then your
statement becomes a bit of a tautology, IMHO.
Bill