Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Valkhorn]

Point taken on "miracling everything into existence that contradicts with contemporary scientific thought" as a valid explanation. But I would suggest it is a materialistic premise that does not allow for the possibility of a Flood, not hard facts.

Woah there. The 'hard facts' don't support a 'Flood' either.

As to the question, "Is YEC Science?", it is like asking "Is Naturalism Science?" The answer to both is "No", but each is foundational to our interpretation of scientifically observable evidence.

I don't think you have a real idea of what you're talking about there. The 'interpretation' of evidence is pretty obvious. That's why YEC tends to ignore a lot of evidence or make most of it up.

 

[Matthew777]

YEC is not science but I believe that OEC represents a harmony between Scripture and science.

Peace.

 

[Loudmouth]

YEC is not science but I believe that OEC represents a harmony between Scripture and science.

Peace.

Do you think that OEC is a scientific theory? If yes, why?

 

[dpatrick]

I don't think you have a real idea of what you're talking about there. The 'interpretation' of evidence [for evolution] is pretty obvious. That's why YEC tends to ignore a lot of evidence or make most of it up.

Counterstatement:

"I don't think you have a real idea of what you're talking about there. The 'interpretation' of evidence [for a biblical interpretation of geological history] is pretty obvious. That's why evolutionists tends to ignore a lot of evidence or make most of it up."

This is my point: interpretations of facts for evolution tend to be pretty obvious --- to those who hold to a naturalist view of the world. However, the facts themselves fit well within a Biblical framework as well. I don't think it advances too much dialogue to suggest I simply don't know what I am talking about, nor that YEC purposely "ignores" data (or fabricates it).

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

Counterstatement:

"I don't think you have a real idea of what you're talking about there. The 'interpretation' of evidence [for a biblical interpretation of geological history] is pretty obvious. That's why evolutionists tends to ignore a lot of evidence or make most of it up."

This is my point: interpretations of facts for evolution tend to be pretty obvious --- to those who hold to a naturalist view of the world. However, the facts themselves fit well within a Biblical framework as well. I don't think it advances too much dialogue to suggest I simply don't know what I am talking about, nor that YEC purposely "ignores" data (or fabricates it).

You're giving supernaturalism a bit much for credit. I should say that it's obvious that biblical interpretation of geological history does not agree with the naturalistic interpretation. And what facts are you referring to that fit in the biblical framework? Something Hovind said? The only facts I know of is the evidences that exist from geologists' works, as well as those of physicists and astrophycisists, and they all agree on the naturalistic interpretation.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is my point: interpretations of facts for evolution tend to be pretty obvious --- to those who hold to a naturalist view of the world.

No, it is obvious to those who follow the scientific method. This is why YEC is considered to be a dogmatic theological position, not a scientific one.

However, the facts themselves fit well within a Biblical framework as well. I don't think it advances too much dialogue to suggest I simply don't know what I am talking about, nor that YEC purposely "ignores" data (or fabricates it).

Anything can "fit in well" if it is credited to a supernatural deity who is capable of doing anything. Proclaiming "it fits well" is no different than proclaiming "God Did It".

What wouldn't fit well, that is the question. Galaxies billions of light years away? Not a problem, it is due to an unevidenced white hole or God created the light in flight. Rocks dating to billions of years old? Not a problem, geologists don't know what they are doing. A sorted fossil record? Not a problem, hydraulic sorting or ecological zoning. Every attempt to "ignore" the evidence exposes the YEC mindset. If it conflicts with my interpretation of the Bible it must be wrong.

 

[Valkhorn]

"I don't think you have a real idea of what you're talking about there. The 'interpretation' of evidence [for a biblical interpretation of geological history] is pretty obvious. That's why evolutionists tends to ignore a lot of evidence or make most of it up."

The problem is the counterstatement just isn't true. And you'd have to be very ignorant of basic geology and science to not realize how untrue that is.

This is my point: interpretations of facts for evolution tend to be pretty obvious --- to those who hold to a naturalist view of the world.

Not exactly. They should be obvious to anyone, even those who are religious. In fact, there are millions of theistic evolutionists - people that believe in the bible and Jesus and all that and still accept evolution as a valid scientific theory.

However, the facts themselves fit well within a Biblical framework as well.

How? A literal reading cannot, only a metaphorical interpretation of what the Bible might mean can fit what is actually in the real world.

I don't think it advances too much dialogue to suggest I simply don't know what I am talking about,

Well I'm not so sure that you do. And if you do not, that in and of itself is not an advance of much dialog.

nor that YEC purposely "ignores" data (or fabricates it).

You're on planet Earth right? YEC ignores and fabricates data all the time. Ask around, or even just look at some of the other threads or even the quiet thread from time to time. You'll see.

 

[dpatrick]

You're on planet Earth right? YEC ignores and fabricates data all the time. Ask around, or even just look at some of the other threads or even the quiet thread from time to time. You'll see.

Valkhorn, I don't doubt that there exist stupid people in the world who engage in stupid ideas and fabrication. I think it is a common misconception that "those YECs" all somehow all hang out together, eat together, and generally never leave each others sides. My focus was on the the issue, not defending a group of people I do not know.

Secondly, I am sure evolutionists do not want to be what they accuse their so-called opponents of being: dogmatic (=statements without support). If that is you, then I am probably dialoguing with the wrong guy/gal.

And if evolution is so dang rock-solid, it should be real easy for you to prove your position (I kind of thought that is what the DEBATE forums were all about kinda sorta)

At any rate, my focus was on the post at hand: Can YEC be called "science", to which I still respond: no more than materialism can: the believe that nothing exists or can be perceived beyond the physical world. These are presuppositions we bring INTO science, and not science itself.

Regards

 

[Ophis]

And if evolution is so dang rock-solid, it should be real easy for you to prove your position (I kind of thought that is what the DEBATE forums were all about kinda sorta)

That's basically been done on these forums (see http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8575593&postcount=1 for example).

 

[nvxplorer]

At any rate, my focus was on the post at hand: Can YEC be called "science", to which I still respond: no more than materialism can: the believe that nothing exists or can be perceived beyond the physical world. These are presuppositions we bring INTO science, and not science itself.

Science is not concerned with ontological naturalism. Science uses methodological naturalism in pursuit of knowledge. Why do so many people confuse the two? Science says nothing about the existence of anything beyond the natural. That is the realm of philosophy and religion. The only presupposition of science is that the universe is observable, and that these observations reflect reality. What is the problem you have with that?

 

[Loudmouth]

And if evolution is so dang rock-solid, it should be real easy for you to prove your position (I kind of thought that is what the DEBATE forums were all about kinda sorta)

It is that rock solid, as others have pointed out. You don't get 99.9% of biologists world wide to agree with a theory unless it is rock solid. Take a look at other threads for the evidence. (Also, science doesn't deal in proof, only evidence and theories).

At any rate, my focus was on the post at hand: Can YEC be called "science", to which I still respond: no more than materialism can: the believe that nothing exists or can be perceived beyond the physical world. These are presuppositions we bring INTO science, and not science itself.

Regards

Science is the search for natural mechanisms that cause natural phenomena. Science doesn't discount the supernatural, it only limits itself to the natural as part of it's methodology. Science is not materialism; science does not say that there is nothing but the material. Science does say that the material or natural is all that we can test, experiment, and verify and so it limits itself to those things that can be tested, experimented on, and verified. Science does not say that unscientific claims are wrong, only that they are not science.

The problem is that some people want scientific justification for their faith. Most societies see science as a very useful tool for finding the truth about the natural world. Those weak in their faith yearn for the certainty that science provides. Others see science as a threat, a force that leads people away from their faith and prevents others from being converted. Both views are myopic and demonstrate an ignorance born out of fear.

 

[dpatrick]

Science is not concerned with ontological naturalism. Science uses methodological naturalism in pursuit of knowledge. Why do so many people confuse the two? Science says nothing about the existence of anything beyond the natural. That is the realm of philosophy and religion. The only presupposition of science is that the universe is observable, and that these observations reflect reality. What is the problem you have with that?

No problem. But you might have missed the beginning of this particular discussion. Someone was touting the superiority of science for the attainment of ALL truth, i.e. which would certainly include what is "beyond the natural." So point taken --- in support of my position.

 

[dpatrick]

That's basically been done on these forums (see http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8575593&postcount=1 for example).

Thank you, Ophis

 

[dpatrick]

It is that rock solid, as others have pointed out. You don't get 99.9% of biologists world wide to agree with a theory unless it is rock solid. Take a look at other threads for the evidence. (Also, science doesn't deal in proof, only evidence and theories).

Thanks, and I am aware of science's foundational philosophy concerning proof vs. theory. I am also well aware of the intricacies of the theory of evolution, having been raised to believe in evolutionist from infancy. (As an aside, having been informed, I am certainly not as convinced of its rock-solid nature as you are.)

Science is the search for natural mechanisms that cause natural phenomena. Science doesn't discount the supernatural, it only limits itself to the natural as part of it's methodology. Science is not materialism; science does not say that there is nothing but the material. Science does say that the material or natural is all that we can test, experiment, and verify and so it limits itself to those things that can be tested, experimented on, and verified. Science does not say that unscientific claims are wrong, only that they are not science.

Agreed, and see above post to understand in what context my statement originated (response to someone early in the thread who disagrees with your position)

The problem is that some people want scientific justification for their faith. Most societies see science as a very useful tool for finding the truth about the natural world. Those weak in their faith yearn for the certainty that science provides. Others see science as a threat, a force that leads people away from their faith and prevents others from being converted. Both views are myopic and demonstrate an ignorance born out of fear.

Agreed, But I would like to just throw out a personal statistic: in all my years as a Christian in Bible-believing churches, from Baptist to Pentecostal and others (i.e. the type of churches who would be most likely to believe in a young earth), the number of times I have run into such individuals as you have described I can count on one hand. (I would tend to put Hovind in that category, by the way). Most are simply pursuing what they believe to be a very real and vital relationship with their Creator, just as the Bible describes. They are rather ambivalent to science from the standpoint of their faith. I would suggest that the idea that "Christians who believe in Genesis as a historical account do so only out of fear" is a little biased.

 

[Matthew777]

Do you think that OEC is a scientific theory? If yes, why?

I believe it is the bridge between science and theology and is not exclusively either.

Peace.

 

[TheBear]

Asking if the biblical creation story is science is like asking if the resurrection of Christ is science.

Yet, even Christ provided emperical evidence to Thomas. Remember?

How can a miracle be science?

It's not.

Everyone know science starts with a naturalistic assumption and then proceeds to try to find only naturalistic answers.

We are talking about the natural world, aren't we? Science deals in the natural world. Period. Anything supernatural, spiritual, religious, mythological or voodoo, are subjective and useless to science. Isn't it amazing that even though we have large body of scientists, all from different religious/philosophical beliefs and world views, we have all these medical advances?

 

[Jan87676]

Evilution originated with the greeks.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

interpretations of facts for evolution tend to be pretty obvious --- to those who hold to a naturalist view of the world.

That's simply not true. Interpretation of facts for evolution tend to be pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have a predisposed bias against it. The vast majority of the world's theists (who, of course, do not hold to a naturalistic view of the world) accept the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory.

However, the facts themselves fit well within a Biblical framework as well.

No, they don't. That's why creationism has to spend so much of its time attempting to shoot down science.

Can YEC be called "science", to which I still respond: no more than materialism can: the believe that nothing exists or can be perceived beyond the physical world. These are presuppositions we bring INTO science, and not science itself.

Here you fail to understand the difference between methodological and philosophical materialism/naturalism. Science works via methodological naturalism - it's method is to act as if all that exists is the natural world (and it does this because the natural world is all that it can examine). Science does NOT adopt philosophical naturalism - the belief that all that exists is the natural world. Some scientists may bring philosophical naturalism to science as an assumption, but it is not required. Science requires methodoligical naturalism only - and thus makes no statement whatsoever about the existence of things outside the natural (except that it can't study them).

 

[Lycaenidae]

the believe that nothing exists or can be perceived beyond the physical world. These are presuppositions we bring INTO science, and not science itself.

Regards

That isn't a belief.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks, and I am aware of science's foundational philosophy concerning proof vs. theory. I am also well aware of the intricacies of the theory of evolution, having been raised to believe in evolutionist from infancy. (As an aside, having been informed, I am certainly not as convinced of its rock-solid nature as you are.)

I would suggest that you start another thread so that we can look at this evidence that puts the theory of evolution in doubt.

Agreed, But I would like to just throw out a personal statistic: in all my years as a Christian in Bible-believing churches, from Baptist to Pentecostal and others (i.e. the type of churches who would be most likely to believe in a young earth), the number of times I have run into such individuals as you have described I can count on one hand. (I would tend to put Hovind in that category, by the way). Most are simply pursuing what they believe to be a very real and vital relationship with their Creator, just as the Bible describes. They are rather ambivalent to science from the standpoint of their faith. I would suggest that the idea that "Christians who believe in Genesis as a historical account do so only out of fear" is a little biased.

These ambivalent Christians are not the ones trying to remove the theory from science classes, insert poor science in it's stead (i.e. ID), and change the definition of science so that creationism can be taught in public schools. The type of christian that I described above applies to many of the creationists who post on this forum. If you stick around you will soon be running out of toes to count on.