Going back to the "strength" of your observations is essentially a derail that does not address the essential question.
Right. In fact there is no scientific rebuttal to the Omphalos argument, which is what the YEC objection to "appearances" is. That appearance (physical) is an appearance of reality (physical) is an article of scientific faith. And, traditionally, an article of Christian faith. That our physical senses connect us reliably (within limits) to physical reality is an act of faith in both the Creator and creation. Take that away and you don't really have a doctrine of creation.
Well, I understand that attempts have been made to push us into the gnostic camp. But, if you want to follow that string all the way and strip all resemblance out of your own theology, what do you have left? Deism? I doubt that or anything like it is what you want.
I am not sure I understand the question. But I don't agree with Deism. Deism, I think, is an expression of the belief (all too often seen in YECism as well) that the only way God can act in regard to creation is by interfering with it: that once made, God leaves it alone except to intervene to produce what cannot happen naturally, or will not happen naturally without a 'course correction' to re-direct it. I take more of a panentheistic approach in that I see God as acting to sustain nature and working through nature as the ordinary rule and do not limit him to intervention.
How do you determine when to be a mystic and when not to be? Just when you have science? Where does scripture give you that license?
Scripture gives that license whenever it points us to creation as a witness to the power and majesty of God. Creation is also God's revelation. Its truth is just as true as that of scripture.
If we see contradiction, it is an indication that our understanding of science or of scripture or of both is too limited.
In another forum, I pointed to a poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins that expresses my feeling here. It is a sonnet called "To Night" which begins by describing the apprehension of Adam and Eve as the first night descends. But even as they shivered at the thought of losing the light of day
"Hesperus with the host of heaven came,
And lo! creation widened in man's view."
I don't think we ever need fear what science discovers about the world. It continually opens windows that widen our view of creation and lead to a greater appreciation of the greatness of the Creator. That, in fact, was my first reaction to a scientific presentation of evolution. To me, it spelled out the wisdom of God as I had never understood it before and I found it breathtakingly awesome.
I didn't discover rational ways to reconcile Genesis with evolution until sometime later. But I had too much faith in God and in God's creation to believe that the scientific truth could be rejected or that the scriptural truth would need to be discarded.
Now I have both the truth of scripture and the truth of science. Best of both worlds.
Obviously you cannot dismiss all observation. But, neither can you take observation as your a priori, based on the examples in the OP. Thus, you are left with inquiry. I am not suggesting this simple thread compels a conclusion against which all argument is frivolous.
Observation--with the caveats I have already named--is the a priori of science. You can say this is a limitation of science, and I agree. Science tells us about creation, not about the creator. It is good at describing how the physical world works. It tells us nothing at all about spiritual reality. It tells us what can and cannot be done, but it says nothing about what should and should not be done.
Yet arguably, spiritual truth and moral truth is much more important than physical truth for human living. All kinds of the most important questions we ask (Who am I? What is the purpose of life? What is the meaning of existence?) have no scientific answer.
So science is limited. It can never be the be-all and end-all of our inquiry. But within its own limited realm, it needs to be respected and its truths need to be accepted.
I can understand that many Christians are leery of science because it can be a small philosophical step from respect for science to espousing scientism, and there are big-name scientists who have made that step and promote scientism as the logical conclusion of science. I can understand for scientists too, that when you are trained to submit all your work, all your reasoned conclusions, to the acid test of evidence, it can be difficult to accept that some things require faith beyond visible evidence. So Christians who are scientists and who support science always walk a tight-rope between expanding scientific knowledge and faithfulness to timeless spiritual truth. It is easier in many ways to reject either science or faith. But, as I said earlier, I believe our Christian commitment to the doctrine of creation requires that we do neither.
Simple distinction: 1. arguments that are frivolous and without merit for any discussion; and 2. arguments that are demonstrably not comprehensive and that require a pursuit of deeper truth -- be it TE or YEC. I am suggesting we are dealing with 2.
Agreed. And thank you.
Though I wonder why you didn't focus more John 2's water to wine. That is a classic example when discussing Omphalos, since old wine is often good wine, and so there is quite a good hint that had an oenologist studied the wine there and then he would have concluded that the wine was pretty old. It's actually a pretty good creationist argument when you use that one; I just don't like how it sounds with bread and fish. Aesthetic quibble. ("If I knew why, it wouldn't be a prejudice" - C.S. Lewis)
