Can you believe in YEC and still be a scientist?

[rusmeister]

If you're not doing research you're not a scientist. sorry if that upsets anyone, but that's how it is. a DDS is a doctor of dental surgery. that does not qualify a person to be an expert on evolution.

Without true philosophical and theological understandings NO one can be an expert on evolution, no matter how many degrees in the natural sciences they hold. If they have learned something based on fundamentally wrong understandings then they must unlearn it.

 

[Kristos]

I wonder what he would make of wisdom teeth - if not a vestige, then what? God created us with a third molar that doesn't fit in our mouth because he loves oral surgeons too? Or the human mouth instantaneously shrank at the fall, 6000 years ago, and having them removed is just another curse that wasn't mentioned in Genesis?

 

[gzt]

I don't have and never had wisdom teeth. I am the next stage of human evolution.

 

[Cappadocious]

Is there any way to coherently, and scientifically fold this all into YEC?

By this I take you to mean: Can one be a scientist while holding to the scientific hypothesis of YEC (which is different from YEC as such)?

Yeah, you can, and you'd be a garbage one. What is all too common, as well, is when people specialize in some science and then use it as a platform to endorse quackery outside of their specialization. For example, a few years ago an award-winning pianist wrote a pseudoarcheological text about how Nazareth didn't exist until the 3rd century AD.

 

[rusmeister]

Whereas I say is that the problem of education that teaches only specialization without generalization produces specialists that cannot see the connectedness of knowledge, that concepts outside of their field extend into their field and affect it - and they have become too specialized to see or understand this. The expert, then, is too narrow. (This, ironically, even affects the person of modern philosophical education, worst of all.)

Generalization is important. In armies we have generals for a reason, and this is no pun, but a serious observation - that the general is supposed to be able to generalize, to see the larger view, and guide his army based on a larger understanding than what the perfectly useful and necessary men on the ground see and understand. Cosmology, then, is essential, for the understanding of all temporal knowledge.

Jaki's book is a real zinger - for scientists as well as Chesterton fans.

Oh, and this article, provided by another ex-TAWer, is of mild interest, as well:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

 

[GregConstantine]

And always remember, you are not a scientist if you're not doing research.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and always remember, that someone who is a surgeon by trade can do scientific medical or biological research, even though that might not be their specialized field

 

[gzt]

Oh, and this article, provided by another ex-TAWer, is of mild interest, as well:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/

That is an interesting article, but it comes from a position that I would have no trouble accepting in the context of this discussion because it's addressing a question that comes well after the conflict here - ie how does one cope with the idea that the pile of observations we have of the world are very consistently described as indicating the world is billions of years old and animal life has been dying for hundreds of millions while humans themselves are not hundreds of millions of years old.

 

[Cappadocious]

and always remember, that someone who is a surgeon by trade can do scientific medical or biological research, even though that might not be their specialized field

And yet they would at least have such research as an area of competency.

 

[ArmyMatt]

no denyin' that Capp

 

[Cappadocious]

Another example: Achyra S. aka Murdoch, who started modern Jesus Mythicism, is a well-known expert quilter or some such.

 

[GregConstantine]

"and always remember, that someone who is a surgeon by trade can do scientific medical or biological research, even though that might not be their specialized field"

If they received the appropriate training while in medical school, yes. But, if they didn't choose a path to become a medical researcher, then no. They might have to go back and take classes they didn't take the first time around. Otherwise, they are practitioners of medicine, not researchers, therefore, not scientists.

I live in an area of the country where a huge portion of medical and other scientific research is taking place (DC/Baltimore Area, Johns Hopkins, JH's applied physic lab, NIH, UMAB, etc) I know many actual scientists, doctors, and dentists, some who are faithful Orthodox, who would disagree with the approach rumeister and Jesse are taking, and I myself have been trained in scientific research. So I kinda know what I'm talking about.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If they received the appropriate training while in medical school, yes. But, if they didn't choose a path to become a medical researcher, then no. They might have to go back and take classes they didn't take the first time around. Otherwise, they are practitioners of medicine, not researchers, therefore, not scientists.

and I have no issue with that statement. I did not mention either way concerning the monk that I know. you hammering home how science is defined and the need for research is fine, but no one is disputing that (especially not me).

I live in an area of the country where a huge portion of medical and other scientific research is taking place (DC/Baltimore Area, Johns Hopkins, JH's applied physic lab, NIH, UMAB, etc) I know many actual scientists, doctors, and dentists, some who are faithful Orthodox, who would disagree with the approach rumeister and Jesse are taking, and I myself have been trained in scientific research. So I kinda know what I'm talking about.

I know, no one is disputing this point of yours that you brought up long after I said I agree. and I am sure that rus and jckstraw know more than one scientist who agree with their approach. that is not what is being discussed between you and me, so there is no need to bring up a non-issue. the thread is if someone can believe in YEC and be a scientist. nothing of this thread has anything to do with your last paragraph, unless your Orthodox friends think you cannot believe in YEC and be a scientist.

 

[GregConstantine]

This isn't just a conversation between you and I but between all participating on this forum. And again, I will say that Rus and Jesse do object to what I and others have said here about the false dichotomy between faith and science, and what science actually is.

 

[GregConstantine]

" Orthodox friends think you cannot believe in YEC and be a scientist."

They actually believe you can't be a real scientist and believe in YEC, so yeah.

 

[Tallguy88]

On a similar line of thought, how do YEC explain the fact that we can see stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away? If the universe was created roughly six thousand years ago, then we should only see celestial objects that are roughly six thousand light years away, and no farther.

 

[~Anastasia~]

On a similar line of thought, how do YEC explain the fact that we can see stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away? If the universe was created roughly six thousand years ago, then we should only see celestial objects that are roughly six thousand light years away, and no farther.

That's interesting.

First let me say - I don't have a dog in this fight. I DO believe in Creation, but am very disinclined against the necessity of a "young universe" (I'll expand and say not just a young earth.).

But that question seems to imply some kind of necessary restriction on God, both in a sense of time, and in a sense of how He creates. He COULD create a universe that was already "in progress" as it were, with visible light from far-away places? Or perhaps time does not constrain the process of creation? And the argument I most often hear against that, is that God is essentially "lying" to us in that case, creating things that are "untrue" from the point of us examining them and reaching "wrong" conclusions in that case. But that is a weak argument too, imo ... the Scriptures do warn us that we can be confounded in our "wisdom" by trying to apply our own thought processes as the determination of truth apart from (or in some cases in opposition to) what might be revealed by God.

But as I said, I'm not very inclined to the necessity or even likelihood of a young universe, so this is not "my argument". There may very well be other opinions to answer your question out there.

I'm obviously a little bored though, peeking into a discussion that I normally would not become involved in.

 

[rusmeister]

That is an interesting article, but it comes from a position that I would have no trouble accepting in the context of this discussion because it's addressing a question that comes well after the conflict here - ie how does one cope with the idea that the pile of observations we have of the world are very consistently described as indicating the world is billions of years old and animal life has been dying for hundreds of millions while humans themselves are not hundreds of millions of years old.

I cope with it pretty easily - the observations are not in fact observed (the observer would have to, uh, observe, for hundreds of millions of years*), but calculated based on assumptions. I grant that if there are no unknown variables ever at any point the calculation may actually reflect reality; what actually happened. But I believe very much in the possibility of unknown variables and in the non-omniscience of the scientists making the assumptions and calculations.

*I think there are such beings described in comic books...

 

[rusmeister]

On a similar line of thought, how do YEC explain the fact that we can see stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away? If the universe was created roughly six thousand years ago, then we should only see celestial objects that are roughly six thousand light years away, and no farther.

I'm not YEC, though I may be YMC (regarding the length of man on this earth).
That said, I addressed assumptions, calculations and variables in my last post. I appreciate that we WANT to know, and that the narrative of a very old universe provides a satisfactory explanation. I speak there only against dogmatic affirmation on a level with Church dogma. It's a reasonable question, and interesting as a matter of general speculation, but it does nothing to challenge the teaching of how death entered the world, so is of limited interest here.

 

[GregConstantine]

"On a similar line of thought, how do YEC explain the fact that we can see stars and galaxies that are millions of light years away? If the universe was created roughly six thousand years ago, then we should only see celestial objects that are roughly six thousand light years away, and no farther."

Not only that, but, it takes the light from a star the number of light years away it is to travel to your eyes. For example, when you look at Alpha Centauri, which is 4 light years away, you are literally seeing the star 4 years ago. 4 earth years is how long it took the light from Alpha Centauri to reach your eyes. So if a star is say, 10 million light years away, you are seeing that star, 10 million years ago! Which means it existed 10 million years ago!