demarcation line

[rmwilliamsll]

this is the posting that prompted this thread

science is only absolute when it remains true to its calling, whenever it goes beyond the empirical and observational form and into a speculative and conjecture based form where our own desires are incorporated it becomes something entirely different and foreign to what it claims to be and can no longer be called science.

the problem is how to define and demarcate this boundary. YECists say that the boundary is time itself. That is anything back more than a handful of millenniums is illegitimate, that radioactive dating is completely erronous. The problem is that there is no real difference between yesterday, 1 hundred years ago, a millennium or 10 millennium ago. There is certainly no clear demarcation like the YECists propose either at the universal/global Noahic flood nor at a creation event of 6kya that was a omphalos creation with apparent age.

I agree completely, it’s when we go beyond human history(which is itself only a few thousand years old) that we run into problems and turn to pure speculation.


what is it about written history that makes it more valuable than artifacts or radioactive dating? why can't it be part of your creation with apparent age? in fact we have chinese inscriptions and egyptian possible mesopotamian older than 6kya. what makes writing more reliable than other items?

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26537622&postcount=195

the bolded lines are from:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26536018&postcount=192


In the philosophy of science, the demarcation problem refers to how to distinguish science from pseudoscience and as such is often referred to when people demonstrate that YECism or creation science or even ID is not science but a form of pseudoscience. That particular problem is NOT what i have in mind here.


It is the reverse issue. Looking with the POV of a YECist at modern science. And saying something like: origins science like the TofE or the physics of radioactive dating exceeds the grasp of science because it delves too far into the past. This idea stems from the common distinction YECism makes between an legitimate experimental science and an illegitimate historical science, the only difference being how far into the past can you look without getting hit upside the head with the problem of extrapolation or relying on a false uniformatarianism that extends past the boundaries of either the universal Noahic flood or the recent Adamic creation week.


The issue is an interesting one that i don't believe we have talked about directly, at least not for awhile. To the YECists i would propose showing how scientifically you can establish this time based boundary. We have no evidence for a global flood and lots of evidence against it. You can postulate a recent Adamic creation with apparent age but that doesn't form a boundary, all it does it makes science add a cavet, we are looking at the apparent age of the earth as God created it. Since the creation event itself is not scientifically detectable if it is an omphalos creation this does not establish a boundary.

so what is this boundary? and how does the mere accumlation of time form it? that is what makes 6kya qualitatively different that yesterday or 15kya? so that science can not legitimately talk about one(15kya) but can about the others?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

here is the same YECist idea posted today:

Great, let's just not call theories which are not observable science.
...

Here you see a logical pattern and then take some big liberties with the facts and present a theory that projects out into a very distant past and wish to call it science. Why not call it what it is, a calculated theory base on scientific principles. I don't want to give it the same credibility as other sciences which are fully supported by direct evidence.

...

Again, I don't have a problem with sciences that measure information that can be observed and repeated. However that isn't molecules to man.


...
I don't know how you can claim science to be emprical and observational when it speaks of things before the arrival of man. If something happened before man existed, how can it possibly be observed?

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26550494&postcount=202


a nice example of this type of argument.


exactly why is science just the observable and empirical and not the historical and distant past?

the present is fleeding, all is the past, somethings are minutes as when i started this posting, some are years, others millennium. what is the magic associated with the presence of writing that makes that time since predictable?

 

[Calminian]

I think the premise of the question obfuscates the real issue. The problem I see is, I don't think science is sufficient, in and of itself, to inform us about origins. Origin science depends on the presupposition that the processes we observe today (the general way things work and form) were not in any way interrupted or added to in the past (especially supernaturally). The problem is, the Bible testifies of great vast extensive miracles that would have indeed interrupted and bypassed many of the theoretical processes involved in BB cosmology. Therefore, many of the effects of these normal processes, I would expect, would be missing.

At least the atheist is being consistent. He rejects miracles outright. Now he can't do so through scientific reasoning, but he can at least attack the concept of miracles through philosophical arguments like those offered by Hume and Flew.

But I see no excuse for the christian starting with these false naturalistic presuppositions. They already accept that miracles can happen. They believe the Creator came to earth in human flesh and performed scientifically impossible miracles, even ex nihilo creative miracles. We read first hand how God interacts supernaturally in the natural realm, how He bypassed the normal slow natural healing processes, and healed men instantaneously.

The approach of Answers in Genesis seems epistemologically superior to me. They start with the testimony of Genesis and the miracles of Genesis—the six day creation, the Fall and post creation modifications of the Curse, the supernaturally caused, sustained and ended Flood, and the supernatural intervention at Babel. As Norm Geisler (not a YEC) rightly pointed out, miracles cannot be verified through scientific extrapolations. They can only be verified historically, through testimony. Science has no way to find out if there have been any supernatural bypassing of natural processes in the past. In fact, it must assume there have been none for methodological reasons.

IOW, this isn’t so much a scientific issue as it is an epistemological one (which may include but not be limited to science). Miracles are a real problem in this age of science worship. They are the main method by which our God authenticated Himself and his prophets and their writings. And it is the one thing that science dismisses a priori. How ironic is that?!

I personally don’t think young earth creation belongs in the science class as it is not a scientific theory. On that I bet we agree. But I also don’t think origins in general should be in the science class, as science has no rational naturalistic answer for what caused the universe. Many scientists espouse such theories as acausality and infinite regression which have no basis in sane thinking. Origins is a philosophical epistemological issue, and should be taught in schools as such. Kids need to learn about the aristotelian cosmological argument and other philosophical theories of origins. We need to get back to rationality so we can rightly discern where science is appropriate and useful and where it is not. And as true as this is for our public schools, it’s even truer for christian theology! Our line of demarcation must be the Bible!

 

[shernren]

I have very little that is new to say in response to Calminian:

What is AiG's epistemological approach?

AiG's main activity is the amassing of what they call "scientific evidence for a young creation". Presuppositionalism or not, this is what they actually do for a living.

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
​

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’​

from Creation: Where's the Proof? http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

Now, if miracles cannot be verified through scientific extrapolations,
and AiG wishes to verify creation and the Flood through scientific extrapolations,
the conclusion is of course that AiG does not believe that creation and the Flood were miracles.

I think you should inform them of this.

... this is the little that is new which I have to say in response. However, his ideas have been answered in detail four months ago:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141

 

[shernren]

or Why I'm Quite Sure The Real World is Real

An episode of Numb3rs (the TV serial, not the Bible book) begins with a hapless citizen being watched through the telescopic sight of a sniper rifle. The sniper, sitting some distance away, carefully takes aim at the person's abdomen, and one shot dispatches the victim. On the streets below, people begin to scream and run in panic, while the sniper sneaks away unnoticed. Nobody sees where he stood or what he wore or what his face looked like or even if the person was a he. Nobody can bear witness to the fact that he was there. And yet, if I later tell anyone in panic on the streets below that "You can't prove that there was a sniper who shot her", I would be considered insane.

Why? Because facts have consequences. And that is why I'm quite sure the real world is real.

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

There is an interesting creationist argument which I term "the unknowability of origins". It roughly goes like this: "Evolution claims that some events happened in the distant past. Now, no matter how good the reasoning behind their explanations, they can never prove that it actually happened this way, therefore their proofs are inconclusive. Therefore, no matter how convincing their arguments are, there is always a chance that they are wrong, and therefore science should not be a criterion for determining how the world began. The Bible should be."

Now, I think this argument is actually pretty good as creationist arguments go. But I think it can be a bit too efficient. If creationists want to cut the distant past out of observability, that's their prerogative. They should just be careful and watch closely lest they nick the entire universe with the same philosophical razor.

As such I see two main difficulties with this approach. The first is the dangerous assumption of relativism. This (as utilized in the above argument) basically states that to me the whole universe can be partitioned into two: the stuff with which I interact here and now, and everything else, and my knowledge of the latter is unreliable. One immediately asks "so something can be less real just because you've never seen it firsthand?" but the deeper problem is that when it comes to actually making the partition, there is very little in the first box and practially everything there is in the second box.

To begin with, anything off the surface of the Earth is suspect. There is no way I'm ever going to touch the ISS or Hubble Telescope or the Moon or the Sun or Andromeda or the Big Bang or any of those other crazy things that astronomers tell me exist. But imagine telling the chief engineer of the ISS that once all his parts have lifted off, he has to suspect that his beloved creation doesn't exist! "Why, that's ridiculous. I went over its production detail by detail and I saw it launch myself." In other words, events remembered in the past have bearings on the present, an important theme we'll return to later. Similarly, anything about 2km or more below the Earth's surface just might not exist.

If I can never observe anything in the past, then I can't prove that I am a product of sexual reproduction, since I've never seen my parents' act of sexual intercourse that led to me (and I don't want to, thank you very much). But more fundamentally, I can never observe anything, because any observation must take place in the past. Right now there's rain falling outside my window. But I can't trust that information to be current. Sound travels at a finite speed and so does light; therefore any information that reaches me is at least a few nanoseconds late. I may be typing on a computer, but Pauli's Exclusion Principle tells me that electron repulsion actually keeps my fingers femtometers away from the keyboard: I can't even touch anything now. And even if you squeezed my hand, that wouldn't be happening in the present: it takes the nerve impulses nanoseconds to reach my brain, and who knows if in those nanoseconds you may actually turn into an alien out to harvest my genes while my brain still thinks you're just being extraordinarily friendly?

"Ok, ok, I see your point!" you'll reply. "But I'm sure you get my point: there are some things we simply can't observe, and there are some things we can." Now, my immediate response is why would something be any less real just because you can't observe it? After all, none of us can observe the resurrection and yet all of us here believe that it happened. "That's really going too far! The Apostles were eyewitnesses, and their testimony bears true!" In other words, you (living in the present) believe the Apostles (who lived at the time) when they say that they saw something.

Humans can be witnesses to past events, so that even though I didn't see a particular past event, I know someone who saw it. But why just humans? Anything can be a witness to a past event. A bullet track is a witness to the fact that somebody has been sniped dead. Any observation I make is a witness to the past event which caused the observation. The observation that I am alive today is sufficient witness to the past event of my parents having sex 19 years ago.

And because the causality of natural events is immutable, there is nothing that stops events which happened far before the evolution/creation of man having "witnesses" today. Basically, cause and effect have always happened in the universe. That's why we know it is a real universe - because real causes have real effects. As such, there is no reason to not believe that an event in the distant past may have had an effect a year later, which had an effect another year later, which ... has had an effect today. Such a chain would be able to prove that a particular event happened, as far back as you want to prove.

Disproof is also spectacularly easy. One merely needs to fill in the blanks:

A and B cannot occur simultaneously.
B has present-day consequences X, Y, Z, etc.
We see present-day consequences X, Y, Z, etc.
Therefore B occurred.
Therefore A cannot have occurred.

For example, suppose someone claims that Man never went to the Moon. And let's just say that he claims the creationist standard: "To prove that Man actually went to the Moon in 1969 you need to replicate Apollo's antiquated technology, wait until the orbital positions of the entire solar system are identical to what they were in 1969, clone Neil Armstrong, launch, and then successfully land on the Moon. Otherwise we won't believe that the technology of the day simply was enough." How do we go about disproving it? Simply:

If man landed on the moon,
this gives rise to the presence of moon rocks in Earth research facilities, pictures of men on the moon, presence of abandoned lunar bases, etc. ...
We observe these things today.
Therefore man really landed on the moon,
and the idea that he didn't is false.

Of course there are problems. But look carefully: the statements "Man did not land on the moon in 1969" and "Man landed on the moon in 1969" are diametrically opposite. If one happened, the other cannot. That is the key to the method: present evidence eliminates all other contenders which are diametrically incompatible to the final accepted explanation. This is no solid demonstration if a better explanation comes along. But look carefully: until a better explanation comes along this is a solid demonstration.

Facts have consequences and by looking at consequences we can determine facts, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I like my world real, thank you very much, snipers and all.

 

[Calminian]

I have very little that is new to say in response to Calminian:

No prob. If you could have responded to me you would have.

AiG's position is that science plays a role, but the Bible comes first and is a necessary presupposition. This is my position also. Nice try though.

 

[Calminian]

or Why I'm Quite Sure The Real World is Real

An episode of Numb3rs (the TV serial, not the Bible book) begins with a hapless citizen being watched through the telescopic sight of a sniper rifle. The sniper, sitting some distance away, carefully takes aim at the person's abdomen, and one shot dispatches the victim. On the streets below, people begin to scream and run in panic, while the sniper sneaks away unnoticed. Nobody sees where he stood or what he wore or what his face looked like or even if the person was a he. Nobody can bear witness to the fact that he was there. And yet, if I later tell anyone in panic on the streets below that "You can't prove that there was a sniper who shot her", I would be considered insane.

Why? Because facts have consequences. And that is why I'm quite sure the real world is real.

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

There is an interesting creationist argument which I term "the unknowability of origins". It roughly goes like this: "Evolution claims that some events happened in the distant past. Now, no matter how good the reasoning behind their explanations, they can never prove that it actually happened this way, therefore their proofs are inconclusive. Therefore, no matter how convincing their arguments are, there is always a chance that they are wrong, and therefore science should not be a criterion for determining how the world began. The Bible should be."

Now, I think this argument is actually pretty good as creationist arguments go. But I think it can be a bit too efficient. If creationists want to cut the distant past out of observability, that's their prerogative. They should just be careful and watch closely lest they nick the entire universe with the same philosophical razor.

As such I see two main difficulties with this approach. The first is the dangerous assumption of relativism. This (as utilized in the above argument) basically states that to me the whole universe can be partitioned into two: the stuff with which I interact here and now, and everything else, and my knowledge of the latter is unreliable. One immediately asks "so something can be less real just because you've never seen it firsthand?" but the deeper problem is that when it comes to actually making the partition, there is very little in the first box and practially everything there is in the second box.

To begin with, anything off the surface of the Earth is suspect. There is no way I'm ever going to touch the ISS or Hubble Telescope or the Moon or the Sun or Andromeda or the Big Bang or any of those other crazy things that astronomers tell me exist. But imagine telling the chief engineer of the ISS that once all his parts have lifted off, he has to suspect that his beloved creation doesn't exist! "Why, that's ridiculous. I went over its production detail by detail and I saw it launch myself." In other words, events remembered in the past have bearings on the present, an important theme we'll return to later. Similarly, anything about 2km or more below the Earth's surface just might not exist.

If I can never observe anything in the past, then I can't prove that I am a product of sexual reproduction, since I've never seen my parents' act of sexual intercourse that led to me (and I don't want to, thank you very much). But more fundamentally, I can never observe anything, because any observation must take place in the past. Right now there's rain falling outside my window. But I can't trust that information to be current. Sound travels at a finite speed and so does light; therefore any information that reaches me is at least a few nanoseconds late. I may be typing on a computer, but Pauli's Exclusion Principle tells me that electron repulsion actually keeps my fingers femtometers away from the keyboard: I can't even touch anything now. And even if you squeezed my hand, that wouldn't be happening in the present: it takes the nerve impulses nanoseconds to reach my brain, and who knows if in those nanoseconds you may actually turn into an alien out to harvest my genes while my brain still thinks you're just being extraordinarily friendly?

"Ok, ok, I see your point!" you'll reply. "But I'm sure you get my point: there are some things we simply can't observe, and there are some things we can." Now, my immediate response is why would something be any less real just because you can't observe it? After all, none of us can observe the resurrection and yet all of us here believe that it happened. "That's really going too far! The Apostles were eyewitnesses, and their testimony bears true!" In other words, you (living in the present) believe the Apostles (who lived at the time) when they say that they saw something.

Humans can be witnesses to past events, so that even though I didn't see a particular past event, I know someone who saw it. But why just humans? Anything can be a witness to a past event. A bullet track is a witness to the fact that somebody has been sniped dead. Any observation I make is a witness to the past event which caused the observation. The observation that I am alive today is sufficient witness to the past event of my parents having sex 19 years ago.

And because the causality of natural events is immutable, there is nothing that stops events which happened far before the evolution/creation of man having "witnesses" today. Basically, cause and effect have always happened in the universe. That's why we know it is a real universe - because real causes have real effects. As such, there is no reason to not believe that an event in the distant past may have had an effect a year later, which had an effect another year later, which ... has had an effect today. Such a chain would be able to prove that a particular event happened, as far back as you want to prove.

Disproof is also spectacularly easy. One merely needs to fill in the blanks:

A and B cannot occur simultaneously.
B has present-day consequences X, Y, Z, etc.
We see present-day consequences X, Y, Z, etc.
Therefore B occurred.
Therefore A cannot have occurred.

For example, suppose someone claims that Man never went to the Moon. And let's just say that he claims the creationist standard: "To prove that Man actually went to the Moon in 1969 you need to replicate Apollo's antiquated technology, wait until the orbital positions of the entire solar system are identical to what they were in 1969, clone Neil Armstrong, launch, and then successfully land on the Moon. Otherwise we won't believe that the technology of the day simply was enough." How do we go about disproving it? Simply:

If man landed on the moon,
this gives rise to the presence of moon rocks in Earth research facilities, pictures of men on the moon, presence of abandoned lunar bases, etc. ...
We observe these things today.
Therefore man really landed on the moon,
and the idea that he didn't is false.

Of course there are problems. But look carefully: the statements "Man did not land on the moon in 1969" and "Man landed on the moon in 1969" are diametrically opposite. If one happened, the other cannot. That is the key to the method: present evidence eliminates all other contenders which are diametrically incompatible to the final accepted explanation. This is no solid demonstration if a better explanation comes along. But look carefully: until a better explanation comes along this is a solid demonstration.

Facts have consequences and by looking at consequences we can determine facts, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I like my world real, thank you very much, snipers and all.

Er, is this a response to the OP?

 

[shernren]

No prob. If you could have responded to me you would have.

AiG's position is that science plays a role, but the Bible comes first and is a necessary presupposition. This is my position also. Nice try though.

My response is 4 months old. YECism is heavily presuppositional, but these presuppositions really don't look very Scriptural.

Genesis 1 is a story about the creation of the world, and so every Christian who reads it reads it as a myth - the only question is, what kind of myth? My contention is that scientific creationism, even if it is right, strangles the right reading of Genesis 1 for the simple virtue of being scientific. It is a strange animal, a myth born out of the need to read something as not being "just a myth" but as something which has scientific and historical explanatory power. But what does it mean for Genesis 1 to be scientific, to be historical? Such a reading of Genesis 1 locks it into the past, rendering its mythical guidance useless, and thus leaves the Christian without a consistent paradigmatic understanding of his or her Christianity, in almost every case.

- post #1, posted 28th March 2006.

In any case, my question stands. If Creation and the global Flood really are miracles, how can any scientific evidence help to prove that they happened?

Er, is this a response to the OP?

No, it's really more of a reply to one of the posts which started this whole thing off: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26550494&postcount=202

 

[laptoppop]

No prob. If you could have responded to me you would have.

One thing - I think we need to be careful about this assumption. I know for me, I don't have time to respond to everything going on around here, and I bet most folks are the same way. We shouldn't construe silence as having any particular meaning - we all have to choose what to post, and sometimes I might have an answer, but it would take too long to post with the appropriate links, etc., or involve a bunch of other topics, etc.

 

[laptoppop]

And because the causality of natural events is immutable

Ah, but that presupposition is one of the key problems. If there is only one possible cause for the observable evidence, that has more merit. But in the case where there are multiple possible causes, the argument breaks apart. For example, interpreting the fossil record and the geologic column. It makes a huge difference if one starts from the foundation of allowing a global flood or not. In one case, the record is interpreted as demonstrating millions of years, in the other the exact same record is interpreted as primarily demonstrating the aftermath of a global flood. Each model has issues and requires secondary refinements.

In terms of the OP - I think a better way of saying it is not is the past "knowable" as much as is the past "provable". One cannot prove past events in a typical scientific manner. One must discuss them more using strategies like legal strategies, weighing the evidence and trying to build a case beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not see there being a strict line of demarcation - but rather a general statement that the further one goes back in time, the more difficult it is to prove a particular level of specificity. Much like I learned some people see Genesis as proceeding from non-historical to historical gradually, there is no line, but a general progression of uncertainty which needs increasing evidence to meet the burden of proof.

 

[shernren]

Ah, but that presupposition is one of the key problems. If there is only one possible cause for the observable evidence, that has more merit. But in the case where there are multiple possible causes, the argument breaks apart. For example, interpreting the fossil record and the geologic column. It makes a huge difference if one starts from the foundation of allowing a global flood or not. In one case, the record is interpreted as demonstrating millions of years, in the other the exact same record is interpreted as primarily demonstrating the aftermath of a global flood. Each model has issues and requires secondary refinements.

In theory, any set of complete evidence has only one possible cause. In actual life, very few sets of evidence are complete. However, it is still possible to discriminate between possible causes and non, assuming that there is no a-priori statement of what the actual cause was and that one works strictly from the data backwards.

Take the bullet example. When the Epps brothers first arrive on the scene, all they can detect is that someone is bleeding in the abdomen. That immediately reduces the possibility of death by suffocation, say, or by poison, to nearly zero.
The forensics lab determines this-and-that about how far into the brain the bullet penetrated and what the bullet was made of, etc. Now we can narrow it down. The victim wasn't shot at close range but at far range, and by a sniper.
The psychology people produce profiles of all the people who may have had a motive to shoot the victim. So we know that out of all the suspects, it's possible that Eddie was the sniper, but relatively impossible for it to be Murphy.

Etc.

What is important to note is that at each stage, we may not have clearly identified the one process that works (i.e. the sniper was her husband jealous that she was having an affair, say), but we can identify what doesn't work. Just because I cannot qualify the one correct explanation, doesn't stop me from disqualifying any of the many incorrect explanations.

When it comes to modern geology, the possibility of the global flood has pretty much been discounted quite a while ago (by committed Christians), even if the actual sequence of events has not yet been fully elucidated. To me, a creationist does not so much "allow" the global flood as assume that a global flood occurred and then ask how this makes sense of the evidence. When I look closely I see lots of duct tape holding the global flood model together.

But that's another thread. I'm glad that you basically acknowledge both that in theory (if we hold the presupposition of consistent causation) we can prove the past by the present, and that in practice we derive the most probable explanation which may not be the actual one. My main point is that there is no effective difference between knowing a most probable explanation and knowing an actual explanation, scientifically speaking.

 

[Calminian]

I'm glad that you basically acknowledge both that in theory (if we hold the presupposition of consistent causation) we can prove the past by the present,...

This seems to be the presupposition that ALL old earth models are built on. The problem is when christians refuse to let this assumption go, even in the face of clear biblical testimony. Miracles are the exact opposite of consistent causation. If the creation account is indeed a testimony of a series of miracles (supernatural causes), as almost all theologians affirm, we have a serious rational problem using science alone to shed light on the account. We must first determine whether the account contains miraculous claims before science even comes into the picture. To apply science fist would be circular reasoning.

 

[Jase]

This seems to be the presupposition that ALL old earth models are built on. The problem is when christians refuse to let this assumption go, even in the face of clear biblical testimony. Miracles are the exact opposite of consistent causation. If the creation account is indeed a testimony of a series of miracles (supernatural causes), as almost all theologians affirm, we have a serious rational problem using science alone to shed light on the account. We must first determine whether the account contains miraculous claims before science even comes into the picture. To apply science fist would be circular reasoning.

It is circular for you to claim the Bible is an accurate account because the Bible says so.

AIG is absolutely clueless when it comes to science. Their very statement of faith is a direct contradiction to the scientific method. You can't start with a conclusion and only accept the evidence which supports that conclusion, while chucking out anything that disagrees.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This seems to be the presupposition that ALL old earth models are built on. The problem is when christians refuse to let this assumption go, even in the face of clear biblical testimony. Miracles are the exact opposite of consistent causation. If the creation account is indeed a testimony of a series of miracles (supernatural causes), as almost all theologians affirm, we have a serious rational problem using science alone to shed light on the account. We must first determine whether the account contains miraculous claims before science even comes into the picture. To apply science fist would be circular reasoning.

even in the face of clear biblical testimony


This is the heart of the problem. The Bible does not clearly state that Noah's flood breaks all the rules of physics, nor does it clearly state that the world is 6kya, these are interpretations of Scripture analogous to science's interpretation of the physical evidence for a 4.5Bya earth and no global flood.

It is not at all clear that i must say as a Biblical Christian to science that there is this clear demarcation line that you can not pass with methodological naturalism, your tools will fail you because this is a universal supernatural event that you can not detect and as a result everything on the other side of this event is inaccessible.

if it were clear then we would not be here discussing the issues of creation and evolution.

 

[Calminian]

It is circular for you to claim the Bible is an accurate account because the Bible says so.

The Bible is a collection of corroborative testimonial evidence. It is not just one book therefore it is not circular to cite it. Having said that, do you not believe it is inerrant? I can see this objection from an atheist, but I thought we were all in agreement that Bible is accurate.

AIG is absolutely clueless when it comes to science. Their very statement of faith is a direct contradiction to the scientific method. You can't start with a conclusion and only accept the evidence which supports that conclusion, while chucking out anything that disagrees.

Unless you deny inerrancy, I can't see the logic behind your objection. I can see you differing on interpretation but even your interpretations should precede science. Do you disagree?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Having said that, do you not believe it is inerrant? I can see this objection from an atheist, but I thought we were all in agreement that Bible is accurate.


this is the wrong forum for an indepth discussion of this, however i would point out that there is a spectrum of ideas expressed by:


inerrancy, infallibility, truthful, inspired, authoritative etc.
they are not simply synonyms.

 

[Calminian]

even in the face of clear biblical testimony

This is the heart of the problem. The Bible does not clearly state that Noah's flood breaks all the rules of physics, nor does it clearly state that the world is 6kya, these are interpretations of Scripture analogous to science's interpretation of the physical evidence for a 4.5Bya earth and no global flood.

I'm simply arguing for a Bible first epistemology amongst Bible believers. If one comes to the text first and concludes exegetically that there is no intention by the author to convey a miraculous creation, or young earth or literal geneologies, etc. then I have no quarrel. The only thing I'm objecting to is those telling me I have to abandon my reading of Genesis due to scientific concerns. Would you at least agree with me that?

It is not at all clear that i must say as a Biblical Christian to science that there is this clear demarcation line that you can not pass with methodological naturalism, your tools will fail you because this is a universal supernatural event that you can not detect and as a result everything on the other side of this event is inaccessible.

You are back, it seems, to the same circular argument. You just said above that the Bible does not teach a young earth, yet here you say you have to take science into account because you believe it can even detect miracles (inconsistent causation) in the past. BTW, in my experience most scientists disagree with you.

if it were clear then we would not be here discussing the issues of creation and evolution.

This text has always been clear about the historicity of Genesis, even amongst the ECF allegorists. All modern OEC models are built on modern naturalistic theories.

 

[Calminian]

inerrancy, infallibility, truthful, inspired, authoritative etc.
they are not simply synonyms.

Would you at least agree it is a reliable witness? Jase used the term accurate account. Do you also agree it is circular to conclude the Bible is an accurate account?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'm simply arguing for a Bible first epistemology amongst Bible believers. If one comes to the text first and concludes exegetically that there is no intention by the author to convey a miraculous creation, or young earth or literal geneologies, etc. then I have no quarrel. The only thing I'm objecting to is those telling me I have to abandon my reading of Genesis due to scientific concerns. Would you at least agree with me that?

How do you build this Bible first epistemology?
The Bible is not a dictionary, even the Hebrew and Greek words are embedded in a linguistic culture that is not part of the Scriptures.
the Bible is not an atlas, where is Jerusalem? that is a question addressed to geographic and partly to history, the Bible does not have the GPS coordinates of the temple mount in it.
How do you even know which books are in the Bible? that is a question of historical theology. The very table of contents, the canon is not part of special revelation but of general.

That is just the beginning of the problems posed by:
linguistics
culture
geography
history

to any biblical epistemology.

where in the Scriptures does it talk about the difference between perceptions and memories, a crucial element in epistemology? How about issues like phenomenal vs internal representation, where do find these things tackled in Scripture?

The big point is that both books of God have to be read in concert, the book of words and the book of works, there is a dependence of each on the other. there is a parallel between the hermeneutics of reading Scripture and the scientific methodology used to understand Creation. both are integral parts of God's revelation to humanity and if one appears to be out of sync with the other then the problem is ours, something is wrong in our intrepretation of one or the other or more probably both.

i've never told anyone to abandon their reading of Genesis, most of the time i find myself saying "please read the text carefully, that is not what it says, you are misinterpreting because of your prior commitments to a system". Does science inform our knowledge of Gen 1, of course, but the text is determitive and authoritative and that is why YECism is so very wrong.. it misses all the important theology of Gen 1 and sacrifices it to a scientific and historical reading based on the mistaken notions of 19thC scientism.

 

[Assyrian]

This seems to be the presupposition that ALL old earth models are built on. The problem is when christians refuse to let this assumption go, even in the face of clear biblical testimony. Miracles are the exact opposite of consistent causation.

I would have thought miracles were still causation, only in this case God caused them. But causation has operated in the universe since God created it.

If the creation account is indeed a testimony of a series of miracles (supernatural causes), as almost all theologians affirm, we have a serious rational problem using science alone to shed light on the account. We must first determine whether the account contains miraculous claims before science even comes into the picture. To apply science fist would be circular reasoning.

The problem is the bible does not always use the word miracle to describe God's works and it is certainly not used in Genesis. Add to that a lot of God's works use natural processes, the plague of locusts being blown on a strong east wind, Elijah's drought and rainstorm. Some are direct supernatural interventions others are acts of providence.

While Genesis teaches us that God created everything, there is nothing to say he did it by direct supernatural intervention. In fact the text suggests he used natural processes 'Let the earth produce living creatures...'. The only reason I can see to interpret this as a miracle is if you interpret the creation as happening in six literal days. There simply isn't time for the natural processes God seems to have commanded to work. But Genesis does not actually say it happened in six literal days. It even uses the word day in a variety of different ways in just the first two chapters.

Of course we have seemingly miraculous events in the next two chapters, man made of clay a talking snake. But we read in the rest of the bible that it wasn't a snake, it as an angel (supernatural in itself, but not what we are talking about here). We read in the rest of the bible God using the potter metaphor without literally making things of clay, as well as people saying God made them from clay, though they were born naturally.

Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was formed from a piece of clay.

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.