Since these posts were off topic I didn't answer them, but I'd like to answer them now while waiting for IrishRockHound's notes to appear, because they challenge the essence of my YEC position that is crucial to my posting on this thread. My answer can really be boiled down to one statement: Both nwr and Modulous confirm my point in their objections to it: I said essentially that in any conflict between science and the Bible God is made subject to science by scientists (and modern man in general) rather than the other way around (which is the position YECs take) and both these posts do exactly that:
First nwr:
Message 13 Faith writes:..., because for conventional science the word of God is subject to science ...
I'll suggest that this is wrong. Conventional science simply deals with observed reality.
But it is not wrong. Observed reality is data, but conventional science is willing to come to conclusions ABOUT data that falsify the word of God (the Bible). If it weren't willing to go there, it would be forced to seek other explanations than the ones that falsify the Bible, which is what YEC is doing.
Sure, there are some people who attack the Bible, and some of those are scientists. But science, as an institution, is not involved in these individual actions.
But I'm not talking about people who attack the Bible, I'm talking about those who subordinate it to science, and as long as science as an institution insists that its finds are inconsistent with what the Bible has traditionally been understood to say, the Bible is made subject to science. But this is to make God Himself subject to human science rather than science subject to God.
Many scientists consider themselves to be studying God's creation, and learning how to interpret what God himself carved into the rock, the mountains, the fossil beds.
Yes, and this, again, is human beings putting their own fallible interpretations of nature above what God has explicitly written as a guide. They are willing to let what they observe in nature falsify the word of God (the Bible) instead of realizing that it can't and looking for better interpretations.
They see nature itself as the word of God, as written by His own hand.
Yes, but this is changing the subject. I'm talking about the Bible, and they permit themselves to contradict the Bible's revelation, so my statement remains true.
For myself, I see the Bible as the word of man.
This too is changing the subject. My premise is that the Bible is the word of God, and the statement based on that premise remains true that science has no qualms about violating it.
It was written by man. Only a relatively small portion claims to speak directly of the words and actions of God, but even in those parts it reads as a narrative written by men. But men are fallible, and some of what was attributed to God in the Bible might be mistaken, much as some people today are mistaken in what they attribute to God.
But the premise of my statement was that the Bible is the word of God, not the work of man, and not fallible, and my statement is correct based on that premise, that conventional science has no qualms about violating the word of God. Again, you are simply changing the subject. I already acknowledged that many people rationalize it away as not the word of God, but since it is, (or IF it is, if you prefer) science is directly contradicting God. This is simply a fact.
As I recall from my youth in Australia, and as a member of an evangelical congregation there, people at that time were attempting to reconcile the Biblical account with science. Thus there was day-age theory of the creation. There was the theory that the flood story reported a regional flood (the then known world). I'm not sure where the conflict between religion and science started, but it is my impression that it is a mainly American phenomenon, and that it is certain religion groups who chose to attack science rather than the other way around.
The conflict was obviously present in Australian evangelical circles too, same as everywhere, as it is a real conflict between science and the Bible, only it was resolved there exactly as I have said conventional science resolves it -- that is, if science appears to contradict the Bible, the Bible is reinterpreted, God's word is made subject to science. For those who regard the Bible as God's inspired inerrant word, on the other hand, science is subject to God's word, and it is the scientific data that must be reinterpreted if there is a conflict.
And Modulous' agreement with nwr:
Message 14 nwr writes:
For myself, I see the Bible as the word of man. It was written by man. Only a relatively small portion claims to speak directly of the words and actions of God, but even in those parts it reads as a narrative written by men. But men are fallible, and some of what was attributed to God in the Bible might be mistaken, much as some people today are mistaken in what they attribute to God.
To which I agree. What is written by God Himself into the very rocks which He created, the very universe He crafted with means that would no doubt be incomprehensible to many men. However, since we ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus became as God in this respect, I believe we are capable of learning how God created the universe by doing what comes natural to us...investigating the world and coming to conclusions...something which has been formulated into science...which is fallible, but coming ever closer to truths.
The Bible on the other hand is not the word of God, nor ever claims to be (though some parts do). The books are written by sinners and fallible men (and the writers will even admit this, on occasion, within the Bible). As Faith put it:
conducted by the fallen mind of fallen humanity
They are often Holy Men and prophets, inspired by God but themselves not divine and not perfect.
Not only that, but much (indeed perhaps all) of the original writings by the prophets or their aides are long lost. As such we have only the copies of copies of these documents, which were not necessarily copied by holy men and we have no way to know how these men were affected by the fall and what evil ideas they may have sewn into documents the transcribed. I doubt there are many actual evil ideas of course, but it's accuracy and inerrency cannot be assured.
So rather than looking at the fallible writings and copying of a fallen mind of men, inspired by God as they may be, we should look to that which God himself wrote for us.
This confirms what I said. This is exactly how the Bible is made subject to God. Science has said one thing, so the Bible is reinterpreted to fit what science has said. The Bible was traditionally taught as the trustworthy word of God until modern man decided to reinterpret it in terms such as the above and reverse the order of authority, putting God's word on the bottom and science on the top, forcing God to yield to science when it is science that should be required to yield to God. You are willing to demote God's word instead of science, and this is the essential difference from a YEC, who treats science as subordinate to God's revealed truths in the Bible.
I hope that since this is off topic, any further responses to it will be taken to another thread.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 08:14 AM
™ Version 4.2
