You get a whiff of that at times, but it has always been about what the Word says. That is mostly the YEC position here. I don't know anyone who wouldn't lay aside the evidence and defend their position on the basis of revelation alone.
Perhaps it is because old-earth creationism was the earliest Christian response to the discovery of geological ages, but many YECs do not seem to grasp that TEs do not differ from them in what the text says. They assume we are modulating a few days into billions of years when we are not. Many of us agree that the author's intent in using the term "day" in Genesis 1 was to speak of "day" as we use it in ordinary conversation: what we call a 24-hour solar day. (Note that that description would be alien to the author.)
So it is not a disagreement over a few words, but over the whole nature of the story. And that takes it beyond a matter of what the scripture says into the extra-biblical question of the whole matter of "literal" interpretation.
TEs are not asserting error on the part of the writer. They are asserting that the writer has not given us a description of the mechanics of creation, but a theological perspective on creation in a genre of writing normal for his time.
If we put aside science, what do we have?
If we put aside science, we have a beautiful revelation of profound wisdom.
I suggest that Gluady is closed minded on such questions since I am not seeing even the possibility of putting aside science. Now, if science is correct, there is nothing wrong with being closed minded in this sense.
When it comes to matters of science, there is nothing wrong with not putting science aside, even if it is incorrect. After all, no one is claiming that science has everything right yet. The errors will show up as science continues to be tested against reality. And science will continue to change accordingly.
Perhaps you are right to hope (though personally I think it a very faint hope) that science will eventually change to the point that a literal reading of Genesis 1-2 concords with science. But you have to agree that it does not do so in terms of today's science. And we have to deal with that discord in our generation.
But, if are simply looking at the supernatural (ie, an a priori literal, revealed Word), why must we be laughed at?
Because you are not just simply looking at the supernatural. You are making claims in the area of science that are at odds with scientific observation.
Out of the other side of your mouth you judge the six days of creation as impossible because "evidence" falsifies Gen 1-2.
No, I have never judged them to be impossible. I do judge them to be unscientific. The evidence does not falsify Gen. 1-2. It only falsifies Gen. 1-2
as science.
That is an important qualification. My question to you is: Can you accept Gen. 1-2 as true if it is not true
as science? If your answer is "no" who is it that is holding science up as judge of the truth of scripture?
My question is simple: can people who choose supernatural revelation as their ultimate frame of reference get a fair consideration here of any question here according to their terms?
Absolutely.
Or are they simply regarded as wrong because science is the ultimate frame of reference?
They are not regarded as wrong because science is taken as the ultimate frame of reference. In general TEs do not take science as an ultimate frame of reference. But they will be judged wrong when they make scientific claims that are scientifically wrong.
Said otherwise, why indeed do people laugh at creationists?
Because, they make scientific claims that are scientific nonsense.
You keep pretending to have an open mind about supernatural things beyond the empirical evidence, yet all the while insisting that the empirical evidence "falsifies" the supernatural evidence.
As science, it does. I don't claim an absolute falsification.
And this is why you refuse to accept a literal reading of the text: it creates a dilemma. On one hand you are happy with you empirical case, but refuse to admit the slightest merit any opposing case considered on any other ground. That means your frame of reference must judge all others, yet you keep trying to convince YECs that you have an open mind.
What you are missing is that I don't reject the literal case simply because it creates a dilemma vis-a-vis science. If someone is willing to hold to a literal view in full recognition of the dilemma, I have no quarrel with that on a scientific basis.
What I do quarrel with is the
theology that accepts the dilemma. It is not my perception of science that rejects YEC. It is my perception of God and my understanding of orthodox Christian theology down the ages that testifies to God as Creator that rejects YEC.
I do not accept living with the dilemma of discord between science and scripture because for me to do so is to reject the theology of creation. And it is that theology that is, for me, a more ultimate frame of reference than science.
You said it again. You are saying they must be consistent.
No, I am not saying it must be consistent. I am saying that when science and scripture (as you see it) are not consistent, the inconsistency must have a coherent theological explanation.
If you acknowledge the inconsistency between science and your reading of scripture, I am quite willing to discuss the theological terms on which you do so. I will admit in advance to disagreeing with those terms. But I do ask that you recognize that we would now be debating
theology, not science.
Are you hearing yourself?
Are you hearing me? In the paragraph above?
Meaning that now you have to decide whether to reject a literal reading based on science or whether the supernatural evidence for a literal reading is judged by its own terms.
And again we come back to what is meant by "literal". If by "literal" you mean "scientific" i.e. the story describes what were in principle empirical observable events, yes, I reject it as a scientific reading, because it is not scientific.
But if "literal" means the sense intended by the author, then I contend that I do read it literally, for to me, a theological reading is the literal reading.
Then you speak of a "supernatural revelation" that a literal reading is correct. What on earth does that mean? It cannot mean that a scientific reading is correct. So in what sense is the literal reading, validated by supernatural revelation, correct? What makes it "literally" correct?
I am content to say to you that there are two different frames of reference: 1. human observation; and 2. supernatural revelation read literally.
And I would say there are probably several alternate frames of reference that you are not accounting for. Your box of 2 frames of references is too small.
Can't you simply accept that choice 2. has a reasonable measure of internal consistency and let it go at that? I don't think you can. Your attack on choice 2. on the basis of 1. is relentless.
Theologically, no, I can't. Because in my theological frame of reference the Creator has not sealed off the creation from human observation, but actually points to it as a mode of revelation.
This is what YECism rejects: that the created world is revelation. That is the basis for asserting the superiority of textual revelation over observation: that the created world is not revelation or is a defective revelation.
Of course, what is not stated is that it is not only the text per se that is superior to the work of God, but that it is the text understood "literally" i.e.
as science, that is superior to the work of God as revelation.
There is no recognition of the Word of God as the origin of created nature on the same or similar basis that the Word of God is the origin of the text of scripture.
Nor is it just a matter that scripture alone is the vehicle of the Word of God, but also that one set interpretation of scripture is considered identical with the Word of God.
Now, I think all of this is meat for discussion, but again it is theological discussion, not scientific discussion.
The ultimate frame of reference we are both appealing to is not scripture, nor personal revelation, nor science, but our respective theological stances on how these work together.
I do not reject YECism for its bad science, though that has an impact, but because I reject its basic theology. And I rejected that basic theology long before I took any interest in science or had the slightest inkling of how far from science YECism stood.
But I am certainly willing to discuss it.
In doing so, what do you have? You have no room in your heart for any acknowledgment of any of the merit in any YEC argument.
Not for any scientific argument, no. Scientists do science. Scientists know what is scientifically valid in terms of today's science. And if some of today's science does not match up with reality, reality will let us know in due time.
I am well aware that there are aspects of reality that science does not know well and where it is struggling to form theories, such that all hypotheses in these areas must be held very tentatively. And that there are aspects of reality we do not know at all, and/or where everything we think we know may be completely wrong.
That does not in the slightest change what science is
at this time.
But if YECists wish to argue the merits of their case on any other basis than science, I'm open. I'll argue hard for what I believe, but I will discuss with an open mind.
Do I do the same thing? Sure. I do think science should be judged on the basis of revelation. I wouldn't dare argue that here in this thread. This is a different argument altogether.
Well, start a different thread then. Because I think this is exactly what you should dare to argue. This is a key issue and worth debating.
But, I do think YECs should have the ability to argue science on its own terms.
I am not sure what you mean here? Do you mean on science's own terms? If so, you have to abide by science's own terms. Or do you mean YEC terms?
Funny thing is, when we do that, your camp acuses us of being materialists.
Wel,, when you try to justify a reading of scripture on the basis that it is scientifically valid, you are accepting that science is the frame of reference that decides what is real and true in everything, not just in science.
Just the other day I was reading a comment on Joshua's sun standing still. The author (Northrope Frye) noted that Immanuel Velikovsky had worked out a complicated scenario that would physically, scientifically "explain" this. Of course, he recognizes that Velikovsky is not mainstream science either. But the important point it the conclusion of his comment.
What I am saying is that all explanations are an ersatz form of evidence and evidence implies a criterion of truth external to the Bible which the Bible itself does not recognize.
That is the point of the charge of materialism or scientism: it is you, yourselves, in your attempts to validate a scientific reading of scripture that submit scripture to science as the ultimate frame of reference.
But, for the sake of argument, however, I don't mind putting that aside and simply confining a discussion to whether science is internally consistent. I think E=Mc2 is brilliant, even if the whole c thing is wrong.
I will tell you what I think is brilliant about it, or for the CBR thing as a matter of fact, even if I think it is overblown. The evidence against CBR is not empirical, admittedly. I understand that. Much of the CBR rationale however is also not empirical.
For the most part, you would have to discuss that with the scientists, not me. Especially theoretical physics. I've learned a lot of biology and think I could hold my own there. I am fairly shaky in geology and totally lost in physics and chemistry.
My principal area of interest is the theology relative to science, not the science per se.