Sophisticated YECers can do science. Sophisticated YEC is not science.
So you're telling me (with a straight face I presume) sophisticated YECers are going to do their own kind of science and find it 'interesting' even though they have to suspend their own beliefs (ie. as in a movie.) and know that it's false? This 'plan' of your creates far more problems than it solves.
No, they are going to do the same kind of science as everyone else.
You know Star Wars is false. Does that stop you from enjoying it and trying to fill in the parts of the story that are not explicitly shown?
Besides being interesting, sophisticated YECers understand that evolutionary theory is useful. It unifies biology and gives us direction when we examine important questions about the world as it is today.
A sophisticated YECer does not feel that he is doing something 'evil' or 'false' when he participates in evolutionary science. He feels that we are supposed to discover evolution and a 13,000,000,000 year history of the universe because of the unity they give to our understanding of the world. A sophisticated YECer feels that the miraculous creation of the Earth 6,000 years ago is veiled because we, fallen, must find God by faith and must not find God as sceptics (which is what a scientist necessarily is). The 'movie' is God's gift to help us unify science, which helps us survive in this world of woe into which we were cast as a consequence of the original sin.
Of course a YECer can participate in all the received science of today. He can do it easily. He can do it with a clear conscience. He can do it with joy. He can have an IQ of 180 and do it.
No, they are going to do the same kind of science as everyone else.
So um... how can they do science when, and I quote, ... 'sophisticated YEC cannot by definition be science'?
You know Star Wars is false. Does that stop you from enjoying it and trying to fill in the parts of the story that are not explicitly shown?
Watching a film and thinking you're part of that film's universe are two very different things. You are expecting YECers to pretend that they live in the movie's universe.
Besides being interesting, sophisticated YECers understand that evolutionary theory is useful. It unifies biology and gives us direction when we examine important questions about the world as it is today.
A sophisticated YECer does not feel that he is doing something 'evil' or 'false' when he participates in evolutionary science. He feels that we are supposed to discover evolution and a 13,000,000,000 year history of the universe because of the unity they give to our understanding of the world. A sophisticated YECer feels that the miraculous creation of the Earth 6,000 years ago is veiled because we, fallen, must find God by faith and must not find God as sceptics (which is what a scientist necessarily is). The 'movie' is God's gift to help us unify science, which helps us survive in this world of woe into which we were cast as a consequence of the original sin.
Of course a YECer can participate in all the received science of today. He can do it easily. He can do it with a clear conscience. He can do it with joy. He can have an IQ of 180 and do it.
You actually expect them to engage in this cognitive dissonance on such a massive scale? You expect them to live in la-la land? Seriously you clearly have no idea how condescending that is. Have you gone over to the Creationism subforum and tried this out? You'll get laughed out of town, and quite rightly so.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
Last edited by theFijian; 5th November 2009 at 05:08 AM.
It is quite possible to be a young Earth creationist and fully respect the Theory of Evolution at the same time.
However, I wouldn't call what most YEC's do, "respecting" the theory of evolution.
You see, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific model
And that is where I need to step in and point out that this is not so, for your average YEC. In fact, most of them treat it like a plague of Satan more than a possible method God our Creator used to Create us with. When I first came to CF, I was a very passionate YEC. It was emotional, not scientific, for me.
My science teacher, in private southern baptist school, taught me how evil and untrue it was! So that is all I knew before I came here.
(and it is the only one that fits the data and that fits with other branches of science as well), whereas what the truth is about the Earth and how it was created is something that, logically speaking, does not have to correspond with what science discovers at all.
Science is about what it looks like, about the appearance of things. What reality actually is doesn't have to correspond with what it looks like at all. It is logically possible that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago and that it and the rest of the universe were created to look like it all began with a the Big Bang over thirteen billion years ago, and that the species evolved slowly over hundreds of millions of years.
I can even think of reasons why God might make the appearance different than the reality.
No, it is not stupid to believe that the universe was created in 6 days in 4004 BC, as calculated by James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, around 1650. It is stupid, and it is harmful to the reputation of Christianity, to attack the science that is the theory of evolution.
Remember, science is about what things looks like, not about what the fundamental underlying truth actually is. That is beyond science.
All Young Earth Creationists should come to grips with the simple fact that it really does look like the Earth is billions of years old and that the species have evolved from common ancestors over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
Nor should Young Earth Creationists attempt to force scientists or science teachers to speak of their models in a hypothetical way. Any serious scientist will speak as though the current best model is the truth, but he will also acknowledge that it is a model which, if necessary, will be thrown out to be replaced by another - that it is just a model. It is just the way we use language naturally. At the same time, expecting an evolutionary scientist to acknowledge this to someone who is clearly a Young Earther may be asking a bit much. Evolutionary scientists feel every bit as much under attack from Young Earth Creationists as Young Earth Creationists feel they are under attack from Evolutionary scientists. You might get an acknowledgement, or you might get a scientist with his hackles up.
Do I think the Earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago?
Could be. I don't presume to know. It doesn't matter. What matters is that I have faith that Christ is our Saviour. I also understand that the theory of evolution is very good science and that it is very interesting science.
I am all for an end to the war between science and religion.
that was a very nice summary, thank you.
__________________ If winning is not important, than why keep score?
ST:TNG, Lt. Worf
Last edited by Pats; 5th November 2009 at 08:13 AM.
Reason: typo
So um... how can they do science when, and I quote, ... 'sophisticated YEC cannot by definition be science'?
Just, um ... the way you can do science even though you're a bicycle rider and bicycle riding is not science. It's called compartmentalizing.
Originally Posted by theFijian
You are expecting YECers to pretend that they live in the movie's universe.
Nope. I expect YECers to believe they are discovering what God wants them to discover. I expect that, when they do science, they will think and behave exactly as if they believed it to be the fundamental truth. If asked, of course, they will say, "I believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago." Otherwise, when doing science, they will be as unconscious of this belief as you are when you work out plot details of a movie or a book.
Human beings are very good at this kind of thing. It is part of what we call 'abstraction'. What is abstract, with a little practise, the mind treats as concrete. Zero, negative numbers, complex numbers, for example - things that people once had a difficult time thinking about, things that caused huge intellectual strife - well, now we deal with them as if they were real, existing, concrete things.
Originally Posted by theFijian
You actually expect them to engage in this cognitive dissonance on such a massive scale? You expect them to live in la-la land? Seriously you clearly have no idea how condescending that is. Have you gone over to the Creationism subforum and tried this out? You'll get laughed out of town, and quite rightly so.
Naturally, those who have invested a lot into creation "science" will resist the idea that their "science" is bogus, just as negative numbers were resisted. I saw yesterday where some creationist was talking about how things were created 'aged', so some are already trying out ideas like this. Most people want a leader they trust. These people will not be able to handle this idea until someone they are willing to follow presents it to them. Fundamentally, they are being asked to give up a fake "science", not their faith, so, in the end, many should be able to learn that creation "science" is an abomination and they can choose to give up bible literalism or they can become sophisticated YECers.
I agree that it is ugly. Call it 'sophistical' if you want. But it's not something the human mind can't handle. Right now, YECers minds are engaged in ignoring every shred of evidence that real science is beyond dispute ... and yet they live and breathe and lead otherwise normal lives. It doesn't cause them to fall over dead or be unable to balance their chequebooks. In fact, some of them are scientists doing science in fields where their beliefs have no relevance.
I'd say sophisticated YEC is, by comparison, a relatively easy mental feat.
Last edited by Tom Cohoe; 5th November 2009 at 11:46 AM.
Reason: posted too soon, correct spelling
I saw yesterday where some creationist was talking about how things were created 'aged', so some are already trying out ideas like this.
I haven't followed this thread at all for quite awhile. I also don't know exactly where the conversation is, but I just want to point out that this is the exact definition of the Omphalos Hypothesis.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
Human beings are very good at this kind of thing. It is part of what we call 'abstraction'. What is abstract, with a little practise, the mind treats as concrete.
I can imagine sophisticated YECers working on the theory of evolution, speaking, in metaphysical terms, of two pasts. The real past or revealed past would be the past revealed by God in the Bible. The abstract past or unifying past would be the past that God wants us to learn of through science.
This would be an abomination in the minds of many, just as the idea that there are two kinds of numbers - positive numbers and negative numbers ("how could there be a quantity less than zero! It's insane!") - once gave people the heebie jeebies. Yet, today, every elementary school kid learns about negative numbers with ease.
I haven't followed this thread at all for quite awhile. I also don't know exactly where the conversation is, but I just want to point out that this is the exact definition of the Omphalos Hypothesis.
That's very interesting Dark_Lite. I can understand supporters of the bogus creation "science" scorning these people, but insofar as it could be part of a trend away from creation "science", shouldn't the rest of us encourage this, or at the very least, leave off ridiculing it.
Creation "science" is no small problem. It is very, very damaging to Christianity.
Do you propose this? If you believed it, I would not try to convince you otherwise so long as you, in a way somehow motivated by Christianity, did not try to force consideration of it into schools and public policy.
Of course I don't believe my model. I'm not nuts.
We cannot disprove YEC, just as I cannot prove that photons are not changing on the way from the book to your eyes, exactly as you say.
Or rather, you can only disprove YEC under some range of assumptions. The problem you face is that almost everyone actually shares those assumptions.
YECers are not stupid (see the title of the thread).
Many YECs are stupid, as are many other people. A substantial majority of YECs, smart or stupid, are massively ignorant about science. These people are not really candidates for becoming "sophisticated YECs", since they're not sophisticated. So the market for Creation Science would not be reduced very much, even if you were successful in your campaign.
Returning to my original point, YECs are not in general stupid, but they are also not generally crazy. You're asking them to adopt a point of view that is basically nuts.
Rather than encourage YECs to adopt something close to epistemological nihilism, why not just encourage them to adopt a humble attitude of faith? "I don't really understand the science, but what scientists say disagrees with what I read in the Bible. I'll stick to the Bible, and not worry too much about why the two are inconsistent." That's an attitude I've heard quite a few people express, and it generally doesn't lead to too much conflict. It doesn't encourage good science education, but it doesn't usually lead to aggressive attacks on science either.
sfs, you say "based on considerable experience" that this approach seems not to work. What history is there of non YECers trying to show YECers that they can logically believe what they want about creation so long as they understand that science, by definition (rather than by the 'evil influence of atheists') cannot and will not ever support them. Has anyone ever tried to shove them off creation "science" while at the same time being completely tolerant of their interpretation of Genesis?
Why do you think YECs would be at all receptive to TEs, whom they think of as Satan-inspired liberal compromisers? And how could I be completely tolerant of their interpretation of Genesis, when I think that interpretation is illegitimate on literary and historical grounds (leaving aside the science issues)?
Again, in response to "seems not to work", ... so what has?
Education, discussion in as non-threatening a way as possible. Mostly, of course, nothing works. When in doubt, however, I think a good rule of thumb is to say what you think is true.
Or rather, you can only disprove YEC under some range of assumptions. The problem you face is that almost everyone actually shares those assumptions.
The common assumptions violated by your model of photons changing on the way to the eyes and the assumptions violated by a model with miraculous intervention in the unobservable past (the past prior to reliable cultural memory) are very different, although you have yet to admit it. Anyone who believes in the possibility of miraculous intervention by God (you know - the programmer pulls an interrupt and changes the state vector) should have no logical problem with a sudden start 6000 years ago (God didn't feel like waiting all those computer cycles before the interesting part got underway, so he started the program at BC 4004 with the state vector set as if it had run from a simple boundary 13,000,000,000 years earlier (with changes after 4004 BC which we have noted would have to occur to get to the present, as observed, from Genesis, as written, in order to get the game going a little more quickly)).
How do you, sfs, handle the violation of common assumptions in superposition of states and the various models of reality which stem from this extremely standard science, including "Many worlds"? Have you seen all the versions of reality that very serious physicists claim exist? Read Parallel Universes by Max Tegmark, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania, in Scientific American, May, 2003. If all the parallel universes (four different kinds of parallelism) exist, which Tegmark, a scientist, explicitly claims exist, then it is an extremely short deduction to: Bugs Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Frodo Baggins all really exist. Even universes where things don't operate logically exist (all you need is a meta-universe from which the illogical universe is controlled. The meta-controller changes things in the sub-universe in violation of its rules when he feels like it - sounds sort of like God doing miracles, eh).
I'll say right here that neither I nor John Polkinghorne accept Tegmark's idea of reality. The point is, it stems from an interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is every bit as weird as religion with miracles (I hope that by calling quantum mechanics and Christianity weird, it is not seen that I am denigrating them - they just both massively violate common sense).
Originally Posted by sfs
Many YECs are stupid, as are many other people.
Some are, but you may be confusing ignorance reinforced by fear, as well as the willingness to follow, with real stupidity (low IQ).
Originally Posted by sfs
A substantial majority of YECs, smart or stupid, are massively ignorant about science. These people are not really candidates for becoming "sophisticated YECs", since they're not sophisticated. So the market for Creation Science would not be reduced very much, even if you were successful in your campaign.
They are not candidates to be leaders, but they are candidates to follow leaders they trust. Most people just follow. Society wouldn't undergo the radical changes it does if this were not true.
Originally Posted by sfs
epistemological nihilism
Horsefeathers.
Originally Posted by sfs
why not just encourage them to adopt a humble attitude of faith? "I don't really understand the science, but what scientists say disagrees with what I read in the Bible. I'll stick to the Bible, and not worry too much about why the two are inconsistent." That's an attitude I've heard quite a few people express, and it generally doesn't lead to too much conflict. It doesn't encourage good science education, but it doesn't usually lead to aggressive attacks on science either.
Whatever works. I don't have a plan, just an idea.
Originally Posted by sfs
And how could I be completely tolerant of their interpretation of Genesis, when I think that interpretation is illegitimate on literary and historical grounds (leaving aside the science issues)?
You don't have to like it. When you see YECers talking about a model like this (as above noted, they already are, and I consider it to be big, big progress over creation "science" - as well as the subtler but equally bogus intelligent design "science"), at the least, tolerate it. Where they adapt a model like this, they are finished attacking science. That is the whole goal. That, and nothing else. If you ridicule a YECer expressing something like this, and a creation "science" believer decides that it is unsafe to follow as a result, there is a person who will continue to support the ongoing attack on science where he might have given it up.
Originally Posted by sfs
Education, discussion in as non-threatening a way as possible.
True, and with the pastor I discussed this with, I encouraged him to understand that evolution (of both life and the universe) are solid science, that there is no atheist conspiracy in science (even though there are lots of atheist scientists), and that the bible is chock full of metaphor, that we can't even communicate without metaphor, and that the very meanings of most of our words are metaphorical extensions of more constricted meanings, so seeing Genesis as a metaphor is not something God could expect us not to do in the light of science. I also, though, suggested that if he had to see Genesis literally, he could still do it in a way that did not require paranoid beliefs about science, and that way was what I have outlined here.
Originally Posted by sfs
When in doubt, however, I think a good rule of thumb is to say what you think is true.
All you have to do to tolerate, or even advance as a possibility, something like sophisticated YEC, is to realize that we have no real answer to all those sophomoric maybes. We abandon them because we realize that they are sterile. But, in this case, one of them could actually be fruitful, not as something you believe, but as something you cannot logically eliminate as a possibility.
As I said, look where the physicists are. You have to confront that, one way or another, this world we have been given violates common sense, like it or not.
Last edited by Tom Cohoe; 5th November 2009 at 07:41 PM.
Reason: posted when I wanted to edit - Oh why do I always do this?
I haven't followed this thread at all for quite awhile. I also don't know exactly where the conversation is, but I just want to point out that this is the exact definition of the Omphalos Hypothesis.
And yet he continually denies that this is the case! He wants to encourage them to pretend that they live in a movie, so that when YEC teaches them that the universe is 6k years old, then they look at modern cosmology which tells them is 13b years old, they should say to themselves hey it's ok, God made it look like that! Why would any YEC want to follow such a scheme when essentially any 'scientific discovery' they make is false and not a true reflection of physical reality? Perhaps it's acceptable to allow them to 'pretend' to be doing science to keep them quiet? Tom is correct in one thing, it is 'ugly', not just that it's dishonest and condescending.
To encourage someone to adopt an omphalos view is to encourage them to believe that God's creation is a veiled illusion, leading to massive theological problems which unsurprisingly Tom doesn't want to address, all for the sake of a (albeit well intended) pragmatic view of things. Pragmatism of course leads us to believing whatever 'works' rather than what is true, not a Christian principle by any means.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
Last edited by theFijian; 6th November 2009 at 07:39 AM.
Linear Mode
