Amazing Testimony of a former leading Creation Scientist

[adam149]

No, I decided that I was not being honest when I was a YEC. I knew the data didn't support my position, yet I argued for YEC for 20+ years. I finally had to acknowledge that God wouldn't approve of me doing that.

The issue is not over data, but the presuppositions through which the data is interpreted. Presuppositions are a necessary part of logic, philosophy, and mathematics. There is no indication from your testamony that you ever acknowledged this, which means that you were trying to prove YEC through evolutionary assumptions (brute factuality, facts speak for themselves, etc). The fact that you could not reconcile data and YEC is because you brought the presuppositions of the secularist to the position. It was more a failure of evidentialism than the YEC paradigm.

They can say it all they want, but it is no more true than saying "pigs can fly" over and over. While it isn't 100% true over the world, there are extremely widespread lithosomes which are found in a consistent order. These lithosomes contain the same or similar fossils around the world. Ager writes:

[box]"Perhaps all that it is safe to say in this context is that very commonly around the world one finds an unfossiliferous quartzite conformably below fossiliferous lower cambrian and unconformably above a great variety of precambrian rocks. This is true wherever one sees the base of the Cambrian in Britain, it is true in east Greenland, it is true in the Canadian Rockies and it is true in South Australia. In fact, it is even more remarkable than this, in that it is not only the quartzite, but the whole of the deepening succession that tends to turn up almost everywhere; i.e. a basal conglomerate, followed by the orthoquartzite, followed by glauconitic sandstones, followed by marine shales and thin limestones." ~ Derek Ager, The Nature on the Stratigraphical Record, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1981), p. 11.[/box]

I understand geology, thank you. No one was arguing that there isn't something of a general pattern to the rocks. But that hardly proves that we have to use the Column.

I should point out that you, a non-YEC, do not determine what is and is not a part of the creation/diluvial paradigm. Please see the following papers on the Column in relation to YEC:

-Reed and Frode, Jr., "The Uniformatarian Stratigraphic Column - Shortcut or Pitfall to Creation Geology?" CRSQ, 40(2):90-98, 2003, http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_2/ucolumn.htm
-Oard, 1996, "Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the rock record?" CENTJ 10(2):258-278
-Frode, 1997, "The global stratigraphic record," CENTJ 11(1):40-43
-Frode and Reed, 1999, "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico," CRSQ, 39(2):51-60 http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_2/cfjrgulf.htm
-Reed, J.K., and C.R. Froede, Jr, 2000, "Bible-based Flood geology: Two different approaches to resolving Earth history–A reply to Tyler and Garner," CRSQ 37:61-66

This won't be consistent with what YECs always say about fossilization only occurring during the rapid deposition of the flood.

Only uninformed creationists argue this. AiG has long affimed the position I outlined, which either means you ignored them to score some easy points or you aren't reading the latest creationist literature.

In fact, you would have known this had you remembered my previous responses to you where I repeatedly pointed this out (and which you ignored). I also address this in my book (History of the Ancient World: Noah's Ark and the Flood, manuscript in preparation):

No creationist, however, would argue that all such formations date from the flood exclusively. This goes for fossil preservation as well. The creationist accounts for local catastrophes and flooding events which would alter the post-flood sedimentary landscape which can in local and rare circumstance result in such formations as ephemeral markings and fossilized human and animal trackways, or even animal fossil preservation (the majority of these being the result of the flood, however).

I could dig up the papers in which they say these things, but I don't feel like going through all that work for nothing.

Fossils exist in abundance both above and below these Jurassic (indeed within the Jurassic) beds. And the beds can be traced for very long distances which means that these widespread beds can be used to mark the same place in the depositional record. (it is time to start repeating "pigs can fly" over and over). This is from an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly

No one is denying large beds of sedimentary rock (nor igneous batholiths, while we're at it), and I challenge you to find me doing so. You have ignored everything I have said to this point and repeatedly misrepresented or misunderstood every word, which I have continously and graciously pointed out heretofore but it is as if my words are merely bouncing off of you. How is it that you somehow understood me to be denying that either 1) fossils or 2) depositional beds do not exist in abundance? How? From what statement of mine? If I wasn't clear enough or mistyped, I'll be happy to elaborate; I readily acknowledge that I can form poor sentences at times.

Won't work. The burrows I showed you on one of my pages (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrows.htm) are from oil wells and were never exposed. Please explain that.

Before I do, I would like to say that some of those burrows are beautiful, particularly the one in your personal fossil collection.

Note that this is my immediate reaction since I don't have the time nor access at the moment (four-day break) to do the necessary research. Now, you make one huge, fundemental error. You assume that these had to have been made during the flood (at least in the depositional stages). Why? Because if true, it would refute YEC. But the large-scale tectonic processes (such as continent-shifting) active during the flood would likely not preserve such features, rather they would more likely have been destroyed in short order in the water-logged sediments as they were compacted, compressed, and jostled until the continents came to rest where they are at present. Thus, these are a post-flood feature caused by worms burrowing in the soft sediments in the early post-flood enviroment which solidified thereafter, preserving such features. Such worms (and I am assuming they are worms given your other discussion in this thread) could have easily survived the flood for a year, either having been covered, floating the water, or transported in the roots of plants at sea. Woodmorappe discusses this on pg. 171-172 of Noah's Ark as well.

No they haven't. You have acknowledged that you don't know when the flood started and when it ended. Thus you don't know how much sediment is deposited by the flood.

Again you don't understand me. I challenge you to show me where I acknowledged any such thing. If you cannot do so, as you will find, you should retract the claim. Where there was sedimentary rock, there was the flood. After the flood there were regional and local catastrophes which reshaped the flood rocks, and sometimes eroded and redeposited said sediments. Its not that difficult.

By trying to account for everything during the flood, you are saying that nothing has effected the rocks exposed to the surface for 4400 years in my case and millions or billions in yours. Surely you see how ludicrous that is?

And if you are thinking of Woodmorappe's 200 mile thick geologic column, no one thinks that is what the column is--never did. That 200 mile figure is merely adding up the thickest layers from each age from anywhere in the world. To claim that this is the true geologic column is similar to saying that the total yearly snowfall is calculated by adding up the thickest snowfalls from all over the world i.e. adding the thickest snow on Dec 1, from Kansas to the thickest snowfall in Siberia from Dec. 2 etc. That number is meaningless.

Well, actually, now you mention it, no I wasn't thinking of that.

You know, I used to be on the list Walt had on the internet. When I posted

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/othrust.htm

he shut the list down. He has claimed that overthrusts dont' exist and can't be formed. They can. He is wrong.

Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. It really is perfectly irrelevent to his flood model. I have already told you I don't accept everything he says.

My point is: "How deep do you think the animal could burrow with 8.5 feet per hour of sediment falling on your head?"

And mine is that they didn't.

The source Woodmorappe got this crazy idea from says that! If you find it crazy that the lights would brighten and dim, wouldn't that make you a bit suspicious of citing a guy who claimed that and thus giving credence to what the guy says?

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to keep repeating myself to you before you understand. von Wellnitz is reporting on the apocryphal traditions about the flood. If the tradition says that there were jewels that brightened and dimmed, the historian must report that! Were we to follow your argument logically, we could accuse a historian of racism for pointing out that there has been great racism against blacks in the past! Or perhaps you would like to accuse the historians who report that people believed in faeries of believing in them himself? I hardly think so! So I now ask you: will you retract the claim?

Woodmorappe cited von Wellnitz approviingly. I didn't. If he thinks the ideas von Wellnitz is relating are horsehockey, then he shouldn't cite the ideas.

No, he cited von Wellnitz, but not approvingly. His tone from the context is neutral. If you were to write, "Some people believe that unicorns exist. Interestingly enough, there are many legends of these mysterious animals recorded throughout history (Leibniz, 1994, pg. 49)," could we then accuse you of agreeing that unicorns exist? NO! Btw, the reference is fictional.

I cited Woodmorappe. He cited nonsense and now you want him to avoid the consequences of his poor judgment.

Not at all. Woodmorappe cited von Wellnitz. You misrepresented Woodmorappe.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The issue is not over data, but the presuppositions through which the data is interpreted. Presuppositions are a necessary part of logic, philosophy, and mathematics. There is no indication from your testamony that you ever acknowledged this, which means that you were trying to prove YEC through evolutionary assumptions (brute factuality, facts speak for themselves, etc). The fact that you could not reconcile data and YEC is because you brought the presuppositions of the secularist to the position. It was more a failure of evidentialism than the YEC paradigm.

what are these presuppositions, specifically?

 

[adam149]

what are these presuppositions, specifically?

Primarily man's autonomous reasoning capabilities. All other secular assumptions lead from this road.

 

[artybloke]

Primarily man's autonomous reasoning capabilities. All other secular assumptions lead from this road.

Which of course makes the incredibly arrogant implication that somehow you have managed to live without having any presuppositions whatsover.

But you do have presuppositions.

1) That truth = fact and only fact. But this is only true if you presuppose a 19th Century positivist view of truth.

2) That God can only speak in facts or "he must be lying". But if Jesus can tell parables, and he's supposed to the Son of God, then God can inspire fables, myths, legends, symbolism etc...

3) That you and your kind have some kind of exclusive direct access to the so-called "plain meaning" of scripture and everyone else doesn't. Not true. Not even close to being true.

 

[grmorton]

The issue is not over data, but the presuppositions through which the data is interpreted. ...

First, this shows that you have never actually read one of my YEC articles. My presupposition at that time was that the earth was 6000 years old, the flood did the work of laying down the geologic column.

Secondly, you need to show exactly how your presuppositons lead to a cogent explanation of these burrows. I, and everyone else here notices the fact that you are not answering the issue. You prefer to talk about anything (including presuppositions) rather than actually explaining how worms can burrow, and reburrow and reburrow and area when their burrowing rate is too slow.

Use your presuppositions to explain how a 2 cm/minute burrower can get back to the surface in a global flood. Let's see these presuppositions in action.

The fact that you could not reconcile data and YEC is because you brought the presuppositions of the secularist to the position. It was more a failure of evidentialism than the YEC paradigm.

No, I bought into mathematics. Tell me what is wrong with the presupposition that mathematics works? Tell me why it is wrong to take the 75,000 foot thickness of the sedimentary column at the Louisiana coast line and divide it by 371 days and we find an average rate of deposition of 202 feet per day of dirt. What is the different, supposedly biblical, presupposition you would use?

I understand geology, thank you.

Pardon me but I strongly disagree with the above statement. I see nothing in your statements that actually make be think you understand the field.

No one was arguing that there isn't something of a general pattern to the rocks. But that hardly proves that we have to use the Column.

Then use your presuppositions to explain why there are burrows, how the burrows formed, what time it took, Present a cogent internally consistent explanation of the pictures I have shown.

I should point out that you, a non-YEC, do not determine what is and is not a part of the creation/diluvial paradigm. Please see the following papers on the Column in relation to YEC:

-Reed and Frode, Jr., "The Uniformatarian Stratigraphic Column - Shortcut or Pitfall to Creation Geology?" CRSQ, 40(2):90-98, 2003,

I have read it. I like the statement they make which is little different than what they argue in their gulf of mexico paper from 1999.

“

The incompatibility of conventional stratigraphy with any Flood scenario and the necessary distinction between the rock record and the geologic column illustrate the extent to which modern stratigraphy requires reevaluation.” John K. Reed and Carl Froede. “The Uniformitarian Stratigraphic Column— Shortcut or Pitfall for Creation Geology?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 40(2)Sept 2003, p. 90-98 http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_2/ucolumn.htm

They acknowledge, like I was forced to, that the geologic column we see doesn't support in any way the concept of a global flood. So, these guys, in their weird ways, deny that the geologic column exists--problem solved!!!!

I can solve any problem away in that fashion. To cure my cancer last year, maybe I should have just declaired that it didn't exist and saved myself the surgery and two hosptitalizations! sounds like a reasonable approach, don't you agree?


I also love this statement

“So, as we argued earlier (Reed et al., 1996), time is not even an appropriate integrating factor in Flood stratigraphy at all. Consider; the mass of the rock record was deposited rapidly and probably at varying rates in different locations. How then can strata be considered globally correlative in a time-stratigraphic sense?” John K. Reed and Carl Froede. “The Uniformitarian Stratigraphic Column— Shortcut or Pitfall for Creation Geology?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 40(2)Sept 2003, p. 90-98

What are we to do with similar deposits, thousands of feet in thickness found in the same order over vast areas and in different basins? I will not use a single fossil in the following.

Silurian/Lower Devonian redbeds and evaporites are found in Virginia, maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, Manitoba North Dakota, Saskatchewan, Montana, Alberta. but they are also found in the Baltic region and Australia.

Above these are the black shales of the U. Devonian and Lowermost Mississippian. These black shales are found in the Appalachians from Georgia to New York, in Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, Saskatchewan, Montana, Alberta, Yukon, north slope Alaska, Oklahoma, Texas, in the 4 corners area of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona, California. They are found in other parts of the world as well, in Britain, Ireland, Turkey, Pamir Plateau in China

Overlying this is the crinoidal shales. They are found in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Alberta, north slope, Alaska. They are found in Britain, Belgium, Kashmir,The Urals, European russia, Central Asia, Egypt, Australia, Libya, Kashmir.

At the top of this limestone succession the rocks are eroded with caves, sinkholes etc. They are over lain by red beds of the PermoTriassic. This is the case from Alaska, to Arizona, and in Belgium these crinoid beds had a karst which contained 24 iguanodon skeletons. The Belgium example is also overlain by redbeds.

This is why people think there is a geologic column.

-Oard, 1996, "Where is the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the rock record?" CENTJ 10(2):258-278

I love the what the critics say about Oard's view. These critics are his fellow YECs



Garner, in CEN the next year after Oards paper criticises him as follows:

"A second nesting site in Teton County has yielded ten ornithopod nests containing the hatched remains of up to 24 eggs per clutch. Each nest is approximately one metre in diameter, and they are separated horizontally from one another by about two metres. The important point here is that these nests were found on at least three sedimentary horizons within a three-metre vertical section. Thus nest construction, egg-laying, and nurture of juveniles occurred at this locality three times. If one cycle of this sort is difficult to fit into the Flood year, the establishment of three successive nesting colonies one after the other surely strains the imagination, notwithstanding that the growth rate of baby dinosaurs was rapid." ~ Paul Garner, "Where is the Flood/post-Flood Boundary? Implications of the Dinosaur Nests in the Mesozoic," CEN Technical Journal, 10(1996):1, p. 103

I would strongly recommend reading Garner's paper before you blindly follow the blind Oard.

-Frode, 1997, "The global stratigraphic record," CENTJ 11(1):40-43

-Frode and Reed, 1999, "Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico," CRSQ, 39(2):51-60

-Reed, J.K., and C.R. Froede, Jr, 2000, "Bible-based Flood geology: Two different approaches to resolving Earth history–A reply to Tyler and Garner," CRSQ 37:61-66

Reed and Froede have made a habit of explaining why the geologic column doesn't exist but they never explain how the rocks have the appearance they do.

Only uninformed creationists argue this. AiG has long affimed the position I outlined, which either means you ignored them to score some easy points or you aren't reading the latest creationist literature.

How about the dinosaur nests spoken of by Garner. How do dinos build nests in the middle of a raging flood?

No one is denying large beds of sedimentary rock (nor igneous batholiths, while we're at it), and I challenge you to find me doing so. You have ignored everything I have said to this point and repeatedly misrepresented or misunderstood every word, which I have continously and graciously pointed out heretofore but it is as if my words are merely bouncing off of you. How is it that you somehow understood me to be denying that either 1) fossils or 2) depositional beds do not exist in abundance? How? From what statement of mine? If I wasn't clear enough or mistyped, I'll be happy to elaborate; I readily acknowledge that I can form poor sentences at times.

Talk about misunderstanding the argument. You said that the geologic column doesn't exist. I pointed out that the beds are widespread. There are those YECs who believe that fossilization only occurs during the flood. I wanted to close off that escape.

Note that this is my immediate reaction since I don't have the time nor access at the moment (four-day break) to do the necessary research. Now, you make one huge, fundemental error. You assume that these had to have been made during the flood (at least in the depositional stages). Why? Because if true, it would refute YEC. But the large-scale tectonic processes (such as continent-shifting) active during the flood would likely not preserve such features, rather they would more likely have been destroyed in short order in the water-logged sediments as they were compacted, compressed, and jostled until the continents came to rest where they are at present. Thus, these are a post-flood feature caused by worms burrowing in the soft sediments in the early post-flood enviroment which solidified thereafter, preserving such features.

Fine. All burrows are post flood. That leaves you no place in the geologic column to place the flood. Burrows can be found continuously in sediments back to the Precambrian 1 billion years ago. If all this sediment is post flood, then that means that ty 75,000 feet of sediment which resides at the mouth of the Mississippi River is all post flood and thus it raises a question. How long ago was the flood? At post flood depositional rates, the sediment would require millions of years to accumulate.

Such worms (and I am assuming they are worms given your other discussion in this thread) could have easily survived the flood for a year, either having been covered, floating the water, or transported in the roots of plants at sea. Woodmorappe discusses this on pg. 171-172 of Noah's Ark as well.

Once again, if you place all burrows post flood, WHERE IS THE FLOOD SEDIMENT? How many millions of years ago was the flood?

You asked me to find where you had acknowledged you didn't know where the flood started and finished. I will retract the charge until I have time to look for it and see if I confused you with Micaiah. But tell me when in the geologic column does the flood appear and when does it end? Tell me how you explain the sandwich like sedimentation I described above or the equally but more astounding sandwich of multilithological sediments of the Karroo sequence.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to keep repeating myself to you before you understand. von Wellnitz is reporting on the apocryphal traditions about the flood. If the tradition says that there were jewels that brightened and dimmed, the historian must report that! Were we to follow your argument logically, we could accuse a historian of racism for pointing out that there has been great racism against blacks in the past! Or perhaps you would like to accuse the historians who report that people believed in faeries of believing in them himself? I hardly think so! So I now ask you: will you retract the claim?
No, he cited von Wellnitz, but not approvingly. His tone from the context is neutral. If you were to write, "Some people believe that unicorns exist. Interestingly enough, there are many legends of these mysterious animals recorded throughout history (Leibniz, 1994, pg. 49)," could we then accuse you of agreeing that unicorns exist? NO! Btw, the reference is fictional.

This is a laughable sophistry. I wouldn't put in a scientific book a neutral reference to someone who believes in magical jewels, leprechauns or crystal/pyramid power. But, you have pointed out enough that you don't see a problem with magical jewels being cited in a supposedly serious discussion of the flood. So be it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Primarily man's autonomous reasoning capabilities. All other secular assumptions lead from this road.

lets's take a minute to break this down.

autonomous means self. you apparently are using it to mean human centered as versus God centered.

reasoning means what? logic, rationality, science. as opposed to, say faith? or to emotion?

no Christian asserts autonomy. For we consistent assert that we are slaves of God, that Christ Jesus is our Lord and Savior. Therefore no Christian asserts an autonomy from God.

Now what does this have to do with:
understanding that life forms a consistent nested hierarchical tree.
or that a major explanatory element for this is that natural selection favors the genes of the survive to bred creatures.

evolution is not autonomous from God, that is why i consistently describe myself as a providential evolutionist see: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

additionally i am a strong determinist who contends that all the universe is under the care of God's Providence. all matings, all recombination events etc etc. However these thing, God'
s control, are invisible to the physical eye and can be seen only by the eye of faith informed by Scripture. science has no way to, nor ought it involve itself in these matters.

beside, autonomous reasoning appears to be a conclusion not a simple presupposition. but that is the topic of many books.

....

 

[adam149]

Which of course makes the incredibly arrogant implication that somehow you have managed to live without having any presuppositions whatsover.

Where you got that idea I haven't the foggiest.

But you do have presuppositions.

No argument there.

1) That truth = fact and only fact. But this is only true if you presuppose a 19th Century positivist view of truth.

Again, I have no idea where you came up with that. I was arguing in the opposite direction to what you have just said. My contention is that man can know nothing truly unless he uses Scripture as his interpreting guide and all other forms of thought will result only in the death of knowledge and meaning. Evolution's origins are in pagan mythology, which resulted in pagan (Greek) philosophy, which those who formulated the scientific theory of evolution used. Anyone who tries to combine Biblical truth with this philosophy of life will utterly fail in the long run.

2) That God can only speak in facts or "he must be lying". But if Jesus can tell parables, and he's supposed to the Son of God, then God can inspire fables, myths, legends, symbolism etc...

Also not true. You are accusing me of being a "literalist fundie," which I most certainly am not and which you should have known per the several other times I have had to point this out to people on this forum. I have never argued that God "can only speak in facts." Rather it has always been my position that history be interpreted as history, allegory as allegory, parables as parables, etc. I would also agree with the second part of your statement. God did use parables and symbolism (I strongly disagree with the rest of the words there, fables, myths, and legends). However, just because Jesus used these does not make that applicable to Genesis. Furthermore, Jesus always identified them as parables, either before or after the telling. There is no such qualifier in Genesis or anywhere else in Scripture.

3) That you and your kind have some kind of exclusive direct access to the so-called "plain meaning" of scripture and everyone else doesn't. Not true. Not even close to being true.

Again you put words in my mouth. I ask you where I have claimed that I "have some kind of exclusive direct access" to the plain meaning of Scripture and "everyone else doesn't."? WHen you determine that I have not said any such thing, you should retract the claim.

I have rejected the nonsense that "we can all be right" or that there can be more than one legitimate interpretation of Genesis, because that is relativism.

 

[grmorton]

My contention is that man can know nothing truly unless he uses Scripture as his interpreting guide and all other forms of thought will result only in the death of knowledge and meaning.

I am reminded of an apocryphal story about the medieval scholastics.

Show me how the Scripture can led us to a correct understanding of the number of teeth in a horse's mouth.

Failing that, show me how the Scripture, properly guiding us of course, can tell us about the nature of the atom.

 

[adam149]

lets's take a minute to break this down.

autonomous means self. you apparently are using it to mean human centered as versus God centered.

Man as independent from God, determining good, evil, morality, and his own interpretation of the world apart from God.

reasoning means what? logic, rationality, science. as opposed to, say faith? or to emotion?

By reasoning, I mean using logic, rationality, science, mathematics, etc to interpret the world apart from ackowledging the pre-determined interpretation of God, who created the universe and everything in it with His own interpretation (namely, that interpretation as laid down in Scripture).

no Christian asserts autonomy. For we consistent assert that we are slaves of God, that Christ Jesus is our Lord and Savior. Therefore no Christian asserts an autonomy from God.

But merely acknowledging those things does not make you unautonomous. If, for example, you are using the interpretation of autonomous man for something, merely acknowledging Christ does not elliminate the fact that you are still using autonomous reasoning. Evolution was developed apart from God and from Scripture by pagans, athiests, agnostics, and deists. Hence they were using autonomy. To use evolution as a part of the christian paradigm is to apply autonomy in application but deny it in principle.

Now what does this have to do with:
understanding that life forms a consistent nested hierarchical tree.
or that a major explanatory element for this is that natural selection favors the genes of the survive to bred creatures.

Let me ask you: why do you accept this "consistent nested hierarchical tree"? (no one disagrees with the second).

evolution is not autonomous from God, that is why i consistently describe myself as a providential evolutionist see: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/index_ced.html

additionally i am a strong determinist who contends that all the universe is under the care of God's Providence. all matings, all recombination events etc etc. However these thing, God'
s control, are invisible to the physical eye and can be seen only by the eye of faith informed by Scripture. science has no way to, nor ought it involve itself in these matters.

And I'm a strong predestinationalist (I feel there is a significant difference between determinism in the philosophical sense and predestination) and I agree completely that the universe is under God's Providence and that all matings, recombinations etc are known and willed by God. However, I feel that we likely apply this concept in radically different ways.

The implications of your position is that you accept evolutionary assumptions and explanations and simply say "evolution happened as posited by secularists, but God was behind it all, even though we can only believe this without evidece." Your God's activites become invisible to both the Christian and the unregenerate. But a primary reason God created the universe was to demonstrate His glorious power over creation thus admirably demonstrating His right to authority over it. God creating invisibly through creation in a progressive sense destroys God's authority over the creation since He used what could have happened naturally in any case. It also elevates nature to the height of God because God worked through the natural processes of nature. This God, rather than asserting his authority and power over nature, has asserted it through nature, resulting in nature's own elevation to the position of God's creative method or God's de-elevation from beyond nature to the level of nature. A God who worked through the natural processes of nature is no better than having no God at all. Thus there is a very problematic theological issue for those who posit God's use of evolution.

Furthermore, there is no reason for the unregenerate to convert to Christianity if the Christian's God used a natural method exactly the same as they affirm occured naturally without God. God's authority over the universe is the "great offense" of Christianity according to the thinking of the unregenerate. Hence, by believing that God used nature to create nature, the Christian has given up any reason for the unregenerate to convert.

beside, autonomous reasoning appears to be a conclusion not a simple presupposition. but that is the topic of many books.

....

Autonomous reasoning is the presupposition and the conclusion of the natural man. He presupposes that he can have complete, or even true knowledge without God or the Bible, examines the world according to this presupposition, and reaches the startling conclusion that he can have autonomous reasoning.

I'm always interested in reading more however. WHich books?

Anyway, the point I'm making is that a Christian can (and most do) use autonomous reasoning in application, even if they bother denying it in principle and that using secular thought (evolution) is applying autonomous man's reasoning to the Bible and God's creative method, resulting in not having a true or even complete interpretation of the natural world.

 

[adam149]

I am reminded of an apocryphal story about the medieval scholastics.

Show me how the Scripture can led us to a correct understanding of the number of teeth in a horse's mouth.

Failing that, show me how the Scripture, properly guiding us of course, can tell us about the nature of the atom.

I am reminded of a wonderful quote by a Godly apologist who wrote:

"The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.
This view of Scripture, therefore, involves the idea that there is nothing in this universe on which human beings can have full and true information unless they take the Bible into account. We do not mean, of course, that one must go to the Bible rather than to the laboratory if one wishes to study the anatomy of the snake. But if one goes only to the laboratory and not also to the Bible one will not have a full or even true interpretation of the snake."--Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, pg. 19-20

Because evolutionists do not go to Scripture as well as the lab, they do not have a true or complete interpretation of what they are discussing, which the theistic evolutionist merely adopts into his interpretation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I am reminded of a wonderful quote by a Godly apologist who wrote:


Because evolutionists do not go to Scripture as well as the lab, they do not have a true or complete interpretation of what they are discussing, which the theistic evolutionist merely adopts into his interpretation.

It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.

i appreciate C.Vantil, J.Frame was my favorite prof at Westminster, but is C.Vantil contradicting H.Van Till as they both talk about the relationship of Scripture to the universe when H. Van Till says:

"It is my contention that neither the scriptural nor the scientific view of the cosmos is complete in itself, despite the fact that each view contributes an essential perspective on the complete reality. Through the spectacles of scriptual exegesis, we Christians see the cosmos as Creation: we see where it stands in relationship to God the Creator,who is its Originator, Preserver, Governor, and Provider. Through the lens of scientific investigation, natural scientists are able to observe the internal affairs of the material world--its coherent properties, its lawful behavior, and its authentic history. Both views are integral parts of what I call the 'creationomic perspective,' the view of the cosmos that is gained when natural science is place in the framework of the biblical doctrine of creation."

preface pg ix
quoted from my review of _The Fourth Day_ at:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/10038.html

no, i don't believe so. Both godly and wise men are telling us that God has much to do with science. What is different is how Scripture speaks to us concerning the universe. H. Van Till carefully speaks of the packaging of the Scriptural message, those things bound in time and space to culture, to history, to the science of those times. These things are not teaching us, for instance the value of pi in 1 Kings 7:23, but rather are the means to communicate to us. As Calvin so well phrases it, God lisps to us as a nursemaid speaks babytalk, is the lisp what God desires as the take home message? Is this accommodation of God to the ways of mankind, his language, his culture, his history, what God wishes to be authoritative in our lives? No, it is the packaging of the message, not the message itself.

Is the take home message in Genesis 1 the order of physical historical creation? or something far more important merely in the accommodated form of a human 7 day week?

the YECist are straining at the gnats of historical order asked in a typically 17thC manner, while missing the great camels of anti-polytheism and Providential concern.

C. Vantil, just like H. Van Till desire a godly worldview shaped by Scripture, not a math with pi=3, anymore than a geology forced into a 6K false framework, or an astronomy where the earth was created before the primary stars, or where human beings are not physically continuous with the rest of the organic world.

Do ungodly unbelievers shape their worldview falsely with respect to a scientism based on a view of evolutionism? yes. But many Christians have and will continue to contribute to evolutionary biology, are they all under the spell of darkness because Dawkins uses EB to support his worldview. No this is the fallacy of composition, the pieces do not necessarily share in the problems of the whole, because Dawkins misuses EB doesn't mean EB is wrong any more than R. Dabney's defense of slavery invalidates his Systematic Theology, or J.Calvin's participation in the execution of M.Servetus destroys Institutes.

Is there a world and life view, a scientism, a human centered metaphysics built on evolution that relies on it (EB) to support its claims? yes, but the claims of EB are not the same claims as the metaphysics that uses it. EB must be judged on it's own grounds, not Dawkins, nor Dennett's use of it. Just like Dabney, or Calvin, criticize the issues of EB for what they are---science, not for their misuse at the hands of scientism.


.......

 

[grmorton]

I am reminded of a wonderful quote by a Godly apologist who wrote:


Because evolutionists do not go to Scripture as well as the lab, they do not have a true or complete interpretation of what they are discussing, which the theistic evolutionist merely adopts into his interpretation.

I notice that you didn't even try to answer the question. You stated:

My contention is that man can know nothing truly unless he uses Scripture as his interpreting guide and all other forms of thought will result only in the death of knowledge and meaning.

Please tell me how that helps us know the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse? How does beleiving the Bible cause us to come to a better answer to that question? You are the one who said that man can know nothing unless he uses Scripture. I think I can know the number of teeth in a horses mouth without scripture. Please tell me why that isn't true. And please stay on topic.