A Letter to AiG

[shernren]

Have posted a letter to AiG about "interpretations". Not sure if they'd google for it (since I told them I wouldn't "send" it anywhere else, which is strictly true ) but I'm taking no chances. So ... expect to see it once I get a reply

 

[Ave Maria]

How interesting. What exactly did the letter say?

 

[shernren]

-----Original Message-----
From: Shern Ren [mailto:desertcrocus@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:48 AM
To: Answers Department
Subject: Scientific Question

The author of this message has given permission for this message to be considered for publication on the website.

Published elsewhere : No

Personal information : Please do not publish my name if my feedback is selected for publication on the Internet. I understand that my initials and city may be used unless I have specifically requested in my message above that they be withheld.

Reply requested.

Name : Shern Ren
Address : 8, Jln SS2/107
City : Petaling Jaya
State : Selangor
Zip : 47300
Country : Malaysia
Email : desertcrocus@hotmail.com

One thing I'm unclear about is how the idea of "differing interpretations" should be applied. Do you all believe that the same facts can be consistent under different interpretations - that, say, common features can be explained equally well by common design or by common descent - or that it is possible to prove or disprove interpretations by citing facts?

Your website seems to be ambiguous as some articles advocate naming an evolutionist theory as an "interpretation" against which the creationist "interpretation" is equally viable. For example, here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp Ken Ham states: "That is, both of the above groups suffer from the same basic problem. They really dont understand that it is not a matter of their evidence vs ours. All evidence is actually interpreted, and all scientists actually have the same observationsthe same dataavailable to them in principle." This would seem to indicate that since the same data can be interpreted both by evolutionists and by creationists, data alone cannot decide between an evolutionist position and a creationist position.

On the other hand, many of your articles are purely factual intending to "provide evidence for creation". However, if evidence can always be interpreted in an evolutionary manner, is there any point to provide evidence? For example, the same article has an example as such: "Now this can be tested in the present. The scientific observations support the creationist interpretation that the changes we see are not creating new information. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind; sorting, shuffling or degrading it. The creationist account of history, based on the Bible, provides the correct basis to interpret the evidence of the presentand real science confirms the interpretation." But if we are talking about the same evidence, how can it support one interpretation over the other?



============





Dear Shern,

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Since the Bible is our true history book of the universe it provides a framework in which we view and interpret the world around us. Regardless of how anyone interprets evidence it will always be evidence of the Bible’s history, since that is the one true history. For those who do not believe the Bible and use naturalism or uniformitarianism as a framework they will tend to reinterpret the history to fit their beliefs. But both interpretations of the history can not be correct. Only through the biblical framework can the earth and universe’s history be logically and consistently interpreted. That’s not to say that creationists have all the details right, because we don’t have all the information. The Bible’s history is a “big picture” of what happened and so the details are left up to us. The big picture can and has been confirmed by operational science and sometimes the details can be confirmed as well biblically, logically and scientifically.

The main point of the article is to point out that data in the present says very little about the past. So the past has to be interpreted based on some sort of framework.

I pray this is helpful. Have a great day and God bless.

*Discount code: 10AD545OCT
If you use this discount code, you will receive a 10% discount. This offer expires at the end of September 2006 and cannot be used with any other offer or magazine subscriptions. For use in AiG-US bookstore only.

In His name and for His glory,


Matthew D'Orazio
Answers Representative
Answers in Genesis
P.O. Box 510
Hebron, KY 41048
http://www.answersingenesis.org

 

[shernren]

Am I the only person here who thinks that these two statements contradict each other?

The big picture can and has been confirmed by operational science and sometimes the details can be confirmed as well biblically, logically and scientifically.

The main point of the article is to point out that data in the present says very little about the past. So the past has to be interpreted based on some sort of framework.

 

[chaoschristian]

AiG: We interpret the universe through the framework of the Bible (but don't acknowledge that we interpret the Bible through a framework.)

So, what are you going to buy with your 10% discount?

 

[shernren]

Whoever wants the discount can have it, I don't even have a credit card or any way to pay them money. Which is not too bad either, buying from them is technically supporting their ministry which is technically equivalent to endorsing their position.