Cantuar said:
And therefore we can, at this stage, just reject the bits of it we don't like (because they conflict with our theology) by saying that they're the result of sinful man's imperfect understanding of a fallen world while keeping the bits we happen to find useful and don't conflict with our theology, even though both are based on the same principles and method, is that what you're saying?
No. I am saying that as rational people we must determine where our authority, our cornerstone, our foundation comes from. All else is built on that. I am saying that science does a great job explaining itself. Yet regardless of how well it explains itself, it is not the authority. Instead I suborninate all of man's findings with divine truth. If it does not match divine truth, then man is in error. He must go back and reexamine what his basis for impuning divine truth is.
Cantuar said:
One way and another, we've had a few raical alterations already. One thing that doesn't tend to happen, however, is that an explanation that was discarded in the past as being incapable of covering all the evidence, is resurrected in light of new evidence. The problem is that the old evidence, which it didn't explain, is still there. Young earth creationism is an explanation that was discarded 200 years ago because it failed to explain many observations of physical geology.
I can appreciate that. I don't agree, but I understand the logic. It is sad; however that those things God asks us to take on faith, when we 'discover' things on our own that conflict with divine truth, we hold our findings superior to the divine truth. This should not be the case.
Cantuar said:
That's just an excuse. It's a way to weasel out of something you don't like. Unless you're prepared to apply that reasoning to the scientific method across the board, you're being less than honest.
It might seem that way, but that is not my intention. Lets look at an example: In a 'funhouse' you go into rooms where all you see around you is in perfect harmony with itself, yet you feel off balance and can't quite figure out why things seem off. The truth is, the house is built square and true, and the evidence you observe is perfectly in line with that; however your body indicates that gravity is pulling ou sideways instead of down in relation to the room you are in. It is because the construct is not the whole truth. It is only part of the truth. The lacking portion of the argument in Evolution and much of science as it conflicts with scripture is that we are only willing to look at the angles of the house, and the door jams, and the vertical and horizontal lines in the house. The overwhelming evidence in the house would indicate that Gravity pulls you sideways - yet when you leave the confines of that 'half truth' world, you find it was wrong all along. It was only our perception of what we saw around us. We used the best methods possible to discern the environment, they were just not adequate for the task.
Cantuar said:
All scientific explanations are theories. However, theories exist because there are facts that need explaining. The theory of evolution (variation and selection) explains the fact of evolution (descent with modification). All the hand-waving in the world about why it's OK to ignore evolution only applies to the current explanation, not the fact. Evolution happens. If you don't like the current theory, it would help to have a specific scientific reason. Otherwise the suspicion of and reluctance to accept the theories that conflict with your theology, while being perfectly happy about the ones that don't, starts to look hypocritical.
I go by scripture alone to determine how the Earth came into existence. I subordinate all things to Biblical Exegesis. In that study, we compare scripture with scripture. We have faith that it was God who inspired the writers to wrinte the very words he wished them to, to convey the very truth he wished us to hear.
If indeed we can explain away the story of YEC and Adam and Eve and the subsequent confrontation between Adam and Eve and Satan, then why did Christ need to die? Where is the fall of man? It is equally mythical or allegorical.
We need as a people less reliance on man's observations and experiences and more reliance on faith and a Christ based relationship.