Not as things appear, but as things are

[inkidinkido]

For a long while I've been interested in the view that while God did create the world in 7 days, it is also the case that the best and most genuine human investigations into reality by their own human means will in the best case produce evidence consistent with old-earth atheistic evolution.

In philosophical terms this is known an extreme anti-realist view about the nature of scientific knowledge.

I believe that this position can be rationally held, and that an extreme anti-realist view such as this is philosophically plausible.

This is an alternative solution to the problem of reconciling Biblical testimony with the discoveries of modern biological and evolutionary sciences.

On the views of some detractors of those I have over time shared my view with, the primary issue such a position must address is as to why God would allow what appears to be an extreme appearance/reality distinction to come about.

Please do not close my thread. I am a Christian and I am generally interested in this position as a means of reconciling aspects of those positions discussed in this forum.

Also, does anyone know whether this view has a name or any historical proponents? Has anyone else encountered this view before now?

Thank you.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Also, does anyone know whether this view has a name or any historical proponents?

young earth creationism: faith that the bible is literally true missing no information in the first few verses, no matter what 'science' proves. Of course i think if you market it right you might believable to do what the "Intelligent Design Theorists" have to say.

the standard counter-argument to

why God would allow what appears to be an extreme appearance/reality distinction to come about.

being

1.) Science is wrong, created by fallible humans
or
2.) It’s a deception, be it from God to force us to have faith, or from Lucifer to try to trick us into not believing the word of God.

I don’t think the second is true, but it sure is true that it’s effects are true. Don't believe me? look at my "to know..." thread where i have to argue that extra-marital sex is sinful.

as for one, i subscribe to it partly, but am not a YEC.

 

[inkidinkido]

Ok, yes. I'm not just sure whether I have conveyed my opinion fully, so I will add this to try to be sure.

I do not consider myself part of the YEC camp because I believe they are mistaken in how they view themselves to relate to mainstream geological and evolutionary science. I see the accusations of bias and conspiracy tendencies of some in the YEC camp as being very negative. I am also not interested in - nor do I consider my position in the same camp as - Intelligent Design theorists.

Part of the motivation for my position is that I do not believe that mainstream geological and evolutionary scientists are generally attempting to misrepresent their findings, or are otherwise deficient in their efforts - efforts qua human efforts. They are in fact, doing the absolute best that a human being - Christian or non-Christian - can do through the means they have chosen in a domain that they have constructed with rules and proceedures they have created.

Further, nothing prevents them from producing models which predict future phenomena, but that the models make useful predictions does not speak to their reality. But in so far as models produced by evolutionary and geological scientists provide practical predictive benefits, they serve a perfectly legitimate purpose.

I am not so much committed to "7 days" as I am the appearance/reality distinction I have described. But I do believe that that world was created in 7 days.

I think you caught my meaning. Thanks.

My position is not concerned primarily - or generally at all - with disputing scientific findings, but rather with scientists who misunderstand the nature of the claims they have the capacity to make.

Their claims are properly about models and domains of their own creation which have arisen as a result of human perceptions and processes and rationalities of human invention. Epistemologically, reality is inaccessible to them through these means.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

but rather with scientists who misunderstand the nature of the claims they have the capacity to make.

I like it, which means you’re probibly going to have all heck to pay when the flamers get here

You also need better marketing for your idea. But it's independent thought, which is alwase good for the disgusion.

 

[lucaspa]

For a long while I've been interested in the view that while God did create the world in 7 days, it is also the case that the best and most genuine human investigations into reality by their own human means will in the best case produce evidence consistent with old-earth atheistic evolution.

Why do you think the evolution was atheistic? What about the investigations tells you God was absent?

This is an alternative solution to the problem of reconciling Biblical testimony with the discoveries of modern biological and evolutionary sciences.

Why do you think it is a viable solution? And why do you think it superior to theistic evolution?

the primary issue such a position must address is as to why God would allow what appears to be an extreme appearance/reality distinction to come about.

That's one issue. How do you propose to resolve it? A bigger issue is, if God really created, then those evidences were put there by God. Why would God go to all that effort to deceive us?

Also, does anyone know whether this view has a name or any historical proponents? Has anyone else encountered this view before now?

The name that comes to mind immediately is the Oomphalos Argument or the Appearance of Age argument. However, having a 7 day creation and still having evolution is part of Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory, and Schroeder's theory, which we can call the Relativistic Theory for now.

 

[lucaspa]

young earth creationism: faith that the bible is literally true missing no information in the first few verses, no matter what 'science' proves.

That's not really YEC. YEC claims that the evidence of creation really shows a young earth. This idea of "no matter what science proves" is a fall-back position when science doesn't show what YECers say it shows.

the standard counter-argument

being

1.) Science is wrong, created by fallible humans
or
2.) It’s a deception, be it from God to force us to have faith, or from Lucifer to try to trick us into not believing the word of God.

Unfortunately, both these counterarguments end up denying what creationists so desperately want to prove: God created.

look at my "to know..." thread where i have to argue that extra-marital sex is sinful.

You have to argue that homosexuality is sinful. Different thing. Altho, yes, you do end up trying to argue that sex where neither party is married is sinful. Magus, you do have to represent the arguments accurately. Not just put up your strawman versions of them.

 

[lucaspa]

They are in fact, doing the absolute best that a human being - Christian or non-Christian - can do through the means they have chosen in a domain that they have constructed with rules and proceedures they have created.

Are the rules and procedures totally "created" or are they independently existing procedures that humans simply use?

Further, nothing prevents them from producing models which predict future phenomena, but that the models make useful predictions does not speak to their reality.

This lies at the heart of deductive logic. Take a statement. Assume it is true. True statements have true consequences but can't have false consequences. Now, make deductions from that statement. Those deductions are predictions of knowledge we should find if the statement is true. Thus, when the "models" do find the knowledge, or predict future phenomena, that does speak to the accuracy of the "models" or, more accurately, the truth of the statments. Because if the statements were not true, the predictions would not happen.

But in so far as models produced by evolutionary and geological scientists provide practical predictive benefits, they serve a perfectly legitimate purpose.

So you would dissociate the practical benefits from the truth value of the theories? That's a new one for trying to get rid of data you don't like! Not a valid way of doing it, but at least new.

My position is not concerned primarily - or generally at all - with disputing scientific findings, but rather with scientists who misunderstand the nature of the claims they have the capacity to make.

Such as the scientists like Provine and Dawkins who extrapolate science beyond its limits to state that science supports their atheistic faith? Then to do that you have to understand science and its limitations, not try to dismiss it as you did above. Yes, you can counter the atheistic claims of Provine and Dawkins, but you can only do so by using science accurately.

Have you ever heard of methodological materialism or methodological naturalism? Have you ever conducted an experiment?

Their claims are properly about models and domains of their own creation which have arisen as a result of human perceptions and processes and rationalities of human invention. Epistemologically, reality is inaccessible to them through these means.

Reality is accessible thru these means. However, some questions about ultimate reality are not accessible. This is where you need to know how science is done. What you want to do is argue against particular theories. That won't work. What you have to do is argue against the extrapolation from those theories to statements like "God does not exist" or "atheistic evolution". Hint: like all of science, evolution is agnostic, not atheistic.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

You have to argue that homosexuality is sinful. arguments accurately.

I seriously doubt that you trying to call homosexual sex aceptable is going to help your argument, i was trying to be charitable.

Unfortunately, both these counterarguments end up denying what creationists so desperately want to prove: God created.

I disagree with that assessment of intent and outcome. but let's keep that to the other thread

 

[lucaspa]

I seriously doubt that you trying to call homosexual sex aceptable is going to help your argument, i was trying to be charitable.

This is a great example of what I was talking about in terms of accuracy.

You quoted me as: "You have to argue that homosexuality is sinful. arguments accurately."

What I actually said was: "You have to argue that homosexuality is sinful. Different thing. Altho, yes, you do end up trying to argue that sex where neither party is married is sinful. Magus, you do have to represent the arguments accurately."

You didn't even represent what I said there accurately.

The claim about homosexuality is totally separate from the claims I have made in this thread. The ideas are not connected. Trying to connect them is called "smear tactics." Illegal in a discussion.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

You didn't . accurately.

Do you not know what you said? do you presume the audience at home doesn’t know what you said in this thread? why would they not be able to read for themselves what i was quoting? now take this elseware luc, leave this well-thought-out thread to itself, not your tangents and falme bate.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If you don't accurately quote someone accurately when we can easily verify the veracity of the quote, how is anyone supposed to be able to trust anything you quote?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

If you don't accurately quote . trust anything you quote?

Because they can read the post prior that i quoted from, no one is being deceived and no deception is intended.

Grr*you don't mind if i call you grr do you frag?*: did you know luc is off calling me a racest because i say extra-marital sex is a sin? saying God isn't just because everyone has his own cross to bear. This argument is about standing in the light vs. out right hate speach against anyone that trys to speakout for the truth.

 

[lucaspa]

Do you not know what you said? do you presume the audience at home doesn’t know what you said in this thread? why would they not be able to read for themselves what i was quoting?

It's called good scholarship, Magus. When you quote, quote so that what you quoted accurately reflects the person's position. Even if people can go back and read the original for themselves, it's still just good manners, good scholarship, and honest discussion.

 

[ThePhoenix]

[/font]Do you not know what you said? do you presume the audience at home doesn’t know what you said in this thread? why would they not be able to read for themselves what i was quoting? now take this elseware luc, leave this well-thought-out thread to itself, not your tangents and falme bate.

Magus, since you are posting this I assume that you haven't yet taken high level english. As such here is the common way to show changes in quotes:

Errors - (sic) means that the original author is at fault for the flaw in the quote.

Cutting (short to medium) - the ellipse (...) is used to signify a quote cut of any length.

Information add [] - if your quote is missing information because of context you can add it with [] For instance the quote "his study conclusively proves the existance of flying pink rabbits" makes no sense without a definition of his. Better is "[Dr. Wacky Weed's] study conclusively proves the existance of flying pink rabbits."

For complete cuts that leave the quote block in there simply to show who you're replying to it's customary to use *snip*

 

[lucaspa]

Magus, since you are posting this I assume that you haven't yet taken high level english. As such here is the common way to show changes in quotes:

Errors - (sic) means that the original author is at fault for the flaw in the quote.

Cutting (short to medium) - the ellipse (...) is used to signify a quote cut of any length.

Information add [] - if your quote is missing information because of context you can add it with [] For instance the quote "his study conclusively proves the existance of flying pink rabbits" makes no sense without a definition of his. Better is "[Dr. Wacky Weed's] study conclusively proves the existance of flying pink rabbits."

For complete cuts that leave the quote block in there simply to show who you're replying to it's customary to use *snip*

Thanks, Phoenix. I should have thought to provide this information to Magus.

When the ellipse is used, Magus, the information left out would not change the meaning the author meant to convey.