The problem with YEC science

[juvenissun]

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

I don't think this statement should be treated seriously. It was said in 1832. The science then was not "sound" at all no matter how sound it appeared at that time. Same way holds true today. So the statement would be much safer to go the other way. The Bible is Always true, and the science needs to catch up at all time.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't think this statement should be treated seriously. It was said in 1832. The science then was not "sound" at all no matter how sound it appeared at that time.

You aren't putting this in historical perspective. Nor are you giving reasons why you think the science was not "sound". Was Kepler's science "sound" in 1620 when he discovered the elliptical orbits of the planets? Was Newton's "sound" later in the 1600s when he came up with the laws of motion? Absolutely! Kepler's and Newton's equations are essentially correct today.

It was in 1831 that the last vestiges of Flood Geology were shown to be wrong. Flood Geology -- the idea that a world-wide Noachian Flood caused all geological features -- had been slowly falsified since about 1780. More and more strata had been shown to be impossible to have been laid down by a global flood. By the mid-1820s only the uppermost gravels and morraines were thought to be the products of Noah's Flood.

By 1831 it was shown that even these could not possibly be the result of a world-wide Flood. Therefore Flood Geology was completely refuted and the interpretation that Genesis 6-8 referred to a "world-wide" flood had to be wrong. THIS is what Christians in 1832 were referring to. They knew they had to base their interpretation of the Bible to be in agreement with what God tells us in His Creation.

Unfortunately, you deny God:

So the statement would be much safer to go the other way. The Bible is Always true, and the science needs to catch up at all time.

Is the Bible "always true" in Luke 2:1 when it says "the whole world" was enrolled in Caesar's census? Is "the Bible Alwasy true" when it says the earth is immovable?
Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5.

No, what you have done is say "my interpretation of the Bible is always right, no matter what God tells me in His Creation". That is turning your back on God. Do you really consider it "safe" to turn your back on God?

 

[juvenissun]

Absolutely! Kepler's and Newton's equations are essentially correct today.

Today, there are "classical physics" and "modern physics". What do you think is the reason? Have you heard physicist said that "we do not understand what gravity force really is"?

what you have done is say "my interpretation of the Bible is always right, no matter what God tells me in His Creation". That is turning your back on God. Do you really consider it "safe" to turn your back on God?

The above quote has several logic errors. I am not sure should I spend time to correct them.

 

[Deamiter]

Today, there are "classical physics" and "modern physics". What do you think is the reason? Have you heard physicist said that "we do not understand what gravity force really is"?

Surely if you are aware of classical and modern physics, you are aware that they are both still taught because they are both still true! Classical physics is simply a special case when speeds are low (compared to the speed of light) and objects are large (compared to atoms). Before things like quantum mechanics and relativity could be accepted they first had to explain the same things Newtonian physics explained. What you call modern physics has not replaced classical physics, it just provides a more general set of rules.

That's actually the basis of science there. In physics it is very rare that an long-established and well-tested theory is proven wrong. In the case of classical physics, it was actually further verified by showing that classical physics still describes the universe as observed by humans on Earth and the rules given by classical physics (i.e. F=MA) are PREDICTED by the rules in modern physics.

Yes there is always more to be explained, and we certainly don't yet know exactly where gravity comes from. But when you suggest that because we don't understand where gravity comes from, we are probably wrong about geology and all other areas of science, you are severely misunderstanding the advances of science in the last few centuries. Any further theories will have to incorporate the current understanding of the universe just as modern physics incorporates classical physics and it's likely that with the two areas of physics, both the general and specific cases will be taught seperately (usually starting with the specific cases as they're ususally easier to understand).

The above quote has several logic errors. I am not sure should I spend time to correct them.

He didn't use sarcasm marks, but you might note that he made the exact same statements as you did, but switched out one claim for another. You are right to note that the claim makes logical errors, but you might ask yourself if the Bible is always true, who decides who's interpretation of it is true? We would argue that the Bible is indeed true and it is simply your poor interpretation that has pitted it against observable reality, not a vast conspiracy among those of us who choose to observe reality.

 

[juvenissun]

In physics it is very rare that an long-established and well-tested theory is proven wrong.

I do not say classical physics is wrong. I just say that we know better than that now. As a result, we can also see the scientific understanding is matching better with the scriptures, but not the other way around.

you might ask yourself if the Bible is always true, who decides who's interpretation of it is true?

Who's interpretation is not important. Whatever the interpretation is, the sole purpose is to strengthen one's faith. If you faith is weakened due to your interpretation, then the interpretation MUST be wrong. Different person has different degree of tolerance. One interpretation on one verse may be fine with one Christian, but is intolerable with another. Then there is the argument.

To me, if one doubts the truth of the Bible, I would say: why bother to be a Chrsitian? When one read something in the Bible that does not fit the fact as we know it, simply admit that we do not know. Do not try to interpret the Bible in order to fit what we now know.

 

[laptoppop]

OK, I guess all the YEC scientists are delusional -- they should just pack up and go home because it was all settled a long time ago.

C'mon -- what a spurious argument. Obviously, we understand a lot more today about lots of issues, such as hydrodeposition, flood dynamics, on and on. Obviously, there are intelligent, educated people who hold both positions, and there are honest, intelligent, rational, educated people who do NOT believe the flood has been falsified. Just saying it has been falsified adds nothing to the debate. The arguments against the flood that were quoted were simplistic, to put it mildly.

 

[Deamiter]

I do not say classical physics is wrong. I just say that we know better than that now. As a result, we can also see the scientific understanding is matching better with the scriptures, but not the other way around.

How can it be one and not the other? How can our understanding of God's creation fit better with our understanding of writings God inspired yet our understanding of this collection of writings doesn't better fit our understanding of creation? This just seems like unnecessarily obfuscating -- especially since you often make random statements like this without making the slightest attempt to clarify.

Who's interpretation is not important. Whatever the interpretation is, the sole purpose is to strengthen one's faith. If you faith is weakened due to your interpretation, then the interpretation MUST be wrong. Different person has different degree of tolerance. One interpretation on one verse may be fine with one Christian, but is intolerable with another. Then there is the argument.

Wow... so by your 'logic' if a creationist's faith is challenged by a theistic evolutionist, the theistic evolutionist's interpretation must be wrong. But by the same logic, if a theistic evolutionist's faith is challenged by a creationist (as mine has) then the creationist's interpretation must be wrong.

Basically if anybody experiences a weakness of faith, their interpretation of scriptures is the prime suspect, not their relationship with God or their connection with the all-important community of believers... As a person who apparently values logic, surely you can see why I might find this claim dubious!

To me, if one doubts the truth of the Bible, I would say: why bother to be a Chrsitian? When one read something in the Bible that does not fit the fact as we know it, simply admit that we do not know. Do not try to interpret the Bible in order to fit what we now know.

Eh? If we know something to be true, we shouldn't even attempt to figure out how the Bible fits without understanding? Martin Luther certainly struggled with the concept of a heliocentric solar system -- but by your logic we should never have looked into how the scripture's discussion of an immovable Earth and God stopping the sun in the sky could possibly fit with our understanding of the universe!

You might be interested to read what St. Augustine had to say on the subject of Biblical interpretation:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

 

[laptoppop]

Isn't it interesting how we always hear about St Augustine.... but never about the mass of earlier church fathers who reaffirmed 6 day creation over and over?

 

[shernren]

Isn't it interesting how we always hear about St Augustine.... but never about the mass of earlier church fathers who reaffirmed 6 day creation over and over?

That is because none of the church fathers ever said anything pertinent (or so it would seem) about how doctrine should be assessed and reassessed in the light of physical evidence. St. Augustine made clear statements about how he perceived the rationality of the world to dovetail with the truth of Scripture, sometimes requiring the reinterpretation of Scripture. And there is a clear precedent for this: for why did Galileo quote St. Augustine on how science and Scripture should be concordant, but never the mass of earlier church fathers who affirmed heliocentrism?

 

[Deamiter]

Isn't it interesting how we always hear about St Augustine.... but never about the mass of earlier church fathers who reaffirmed 6 day creation over and over?

As shernen said, even Augustine never accepted evolution (or germ theory or quantum mechanics or the age of the earth/universe) because no such concept had yet been researched and proposed. In fact, Augustine wrote a great defense of a global flood based on the four elements (earth, air, fire and water) and how those elements should react.

Augustine makes it much clearer than most, though, that we are not to blithly ignore physical evidence based on our pet interpretation of scripture. He tells us what is clear today -- that when we claim that scripture is 'clear' on some point that discusses things that can be tested apart from scripture, and those 'clear points' are tested and found false, to continue to hold to our flawed interpretation of these passages is to drive anybody who chooses to study some of God's creation away from Christ and salvation.