In a recent thread, I made the following statement.
The important part for this thread is highlighted. If we assume for a moment that the YEC version of origins is correct, then there is no way that an evolutionists can come to an understanding of the Creator God through 'science'.
When getting knowledge through science the evolutionist assumes the following:
1. Science can only investigate the natural.
2. Only natural phenomena can be admitted in the study of origins.
3. Science cannot prove God exists.
4. Man's observations and reason are the supreme authority.
When getting knowledge through science the YEC makes his own assumptions:
1. There is no conflict on the matter of origins between science and the inspired word of God.
2. While science is primarily limited to investigating and interpreting the natural, if can verify what God says about Creation and demonstrate attributes of the Creator.
3. The inspired word of God is the supreme authority on Creation.
4. The YEC approaches the topic of origins assuming he will discover God. "Thinking God's thoughts after Him" is the way it has been described.
Given that the YEC method of getting knowledge on the subject is much broader than the naturalists, and draws from special revelation as well as science, I believe it is superior.
A typical response from the evolutionist is to claim the approach is unscientific.
The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.
The second claim made by evolutionists is that the axioms accepted by YEC's regarding Creation precludes them making worthwhile scientific contributions to scientific discussion on origins. YEC's argue that if properly interpreted, the empirical evidence confirms the truth of God's word. The advantage of this approach is that allows us to examine the claims of Scripture on Creation scientifically. The axioms of the evolutionist prevents him being able to come to learn this truth through scientific enquiry.
The important part for this thread is highlighted. If we assume for a moment that the YEC version of origins is correct, then there is no way that an evolutionists can come to an understanding of the Creator God through 'science'.
When getting knowledge through science the evolutionist assumes the following:
1. Science can only investigate the natural.
2. Only natural phenomena can be admitted in the study of origins.
3. Science cannot prove God exists.
4. Man's observations and reason are the supreme authority.
When getting knowledge through science the YEC makes his own assumptions:
1. There is no conflict on the matter of origins between science and the inspired word of God.
2. While science is primarily limited to investigating and interpreting the natural, if can verify what God says about Creation and demonstrate attributes of the Creator.
3. The inspired word of God is the supreme authority on Creation.
4. The YEC approaches the topic of origins assuming he will discover God. "Thinking God's thoughts after Him" is the way it has been described.
Given that the YEC method of getting knowledge on the subject is much broader than the naturalists, and draws from special revelation as well as science, I believe it is superior.
A typical response from the evolutionist is to claim the approach is unscientific.
The challenge here to the evolutionist is to recognise that if special creation is true, what he calls science cannot help him come to a proper scientific understanding of origins. In fact given the way he defines science it prevents him from coming to that understanding.