|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
How is it possible to have a successful debate if creationists may not discuss science in the science fora from the creationist premise? As long as creationists accept the scientific premise at the same time, there is no problem. There are really only four avenues I can think of for criticizing the ToE: 1. It is not scientific In this scenario, the creationist must first accept the premise of science and then show how ToE fails to meet the rigorous standards of science. 2. Creationism explains the evidence equally well or better Once again the creationist has to accept sciences premises and show how the creationist position is scientifcally superior to ToE 3. I believe it to be false This is faith, so it doesn't belong in the science fora 4. Science itself is faulty/incomplete This is the area which the fora don't easily cover, though it could fit nicely into 'Is it science?':
quote: It might be better though, if there was a philosophy forum to discuss such meta issues. So what IRH says makes sense (even though he goes on to draw a harder line later on) - if you are discussing science, you have to play be the rules of science. If you are discussing creationism, you play by the rules of creationism. The two different philosophies will obviously never agree any more than Epicureanism and Stoicism. Challenging a conclusion of Epicureanism using Stoicism's premises will get you nowhere due to its inherent nonsensical nature. This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 24-November-2005 08:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Yes there are many interpretations to be found, but there is ALSO this body of coherent established Protestant theology and since it is this theology that is pertinent to the creationist-evolutionist debate, which is what is under discussion here, those that don't adhere to a literal six-day creation and a literal worldwide flood don't need to be considered in this context.
I have heard a number of evangelical theologians speak on the issue. While most preferred literalism (and the others did not reveal their own positions), they agreed that an acceptance of the theory of evolution is permitted. Or, as it is usually presented, a belief in evolution is within the pale of orthodoxy.
No legitimate Protestant theology ever leaves it up to the individual to interpret scripture.
I think you are mistaken. But I am no expert in theology, so I will wait and see if others comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4465 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Ok, seeing as I'm not in any way qualified to discuss the bible, I'm bowing out of this debate. I think I've stated my part to the best of my abilities.
To my knowledge, the partitioning I suggested has not been tried here yet. If it were, I would expect that the admins would have to monitor the debate closely to make sure that those involved were not attempting to argue from the wrong premise. Have fun The Rock Hound "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Faith writes:
Here is a statement from the Southern Baptist web page. No legitimate Protestant theology ever leaves it up to the individual to interpret scripture.quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But I can propose for starters what I've been saying in the last few posts, that it would help if the presuppositions of the Biblical creationists were respected as a coherent worldview, no matter what their degree of scientific knowledge, and I'd add as well, one with an illustrious history in Western civilization Let's think about this. I know you and I can talk. True, I offended you once, but I apologized for that. So let's apply how we can talk to the whole field. And I think what I suggested earlier is a good idea. You just lay out your premises beforehand, and if people don't want to accept that, then they are out of court for that debate. What's wrong with that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Faith writes: How is it possible to have a successful debate if creationists may not discuss science in the science fora from the creationist premise? Modulous writes: As long as creationists accept the scientific premise at the same time, there is no problem. There are really only four avenues I can think of for criticizing the ToE: 1. It is not scientific In this scenario, the creationist must first accept the premise of science and then show how ToE fails to meet the rigorous standards of science. 2. Creationism explains the evidence equally well or better Once again the creationist has to accept sciences premises and show how the creationist position is scientifcally superior to ToE 3. I believe it to be false This is faith, so it doesn't belong in the science fora 4. Science itself is faulty/incomplete This is the area which the fora don't easily cover, though it could fit nicely into 'Is it science?': -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As long as evolutionists accept the ID creationism premise at the same time, there is no problem. There are really only four avenues I can think of for criticizing ID creationism: 1. It is not scientific In this scenario, the evolutionist must first accept the premise of ID creationism and then show how Creationism fails to meet the rigorous standards of science. 2. ToE explains the evidence equally well or better Once again the evolutionist has to accept ID creationism's premises and show how the evolutionist's position is scientifcally superior to ID creationism. 3. I believe it to be false Since both have elements of science in them both belong in the science fora. 4. ID creationism itself is faulty/incomplete This could fit nicely into 'Is it science?': The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As long as evolutionists accept the ID creationism premise at the same time, there is no problem. Why? Just like the scientific method is subject to being challenged, any other premise is subject to challenge. To say some premise should be accepted without challenge is simply admiting that it is incapable of being supported. That's why the IDists and Biblical Creationists demand their premise be accepted. They know that both are so weak that they will not stand up to even passing scrutiny. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All you are doing, Modulous, is reiterating and reinforcing the Science Premise as if there were no other. [AbE: That is, your analysis of the problem is completely from the Science Premise without the slightest awareness of the Biblical Creationist Premise]. This thread is trying to discuss the YEC Premise in comparison to it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-25-2005 03:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have heard a number of evangelical theologians speak on the issue. While most preferred literalism (and the others did not reveal their own positions), they agreed that an acceptance of the theory of evolution is permitted. Or, as it is usually presented, a belief in evolution is within the pale of orthodoxy. If they accept evolution in any sense at all they are not literalists. I can't even understand what that could mean. But I have acknowledged that there are all kinds of points of view, and yet nevertheless there is a substantial literalist theological consensus on Genesis. Maybe it would simplify this point if I just tracked down the comments on Genesis of a number of well-known Protestants. We don't need all Protestants to agree in order to establish that the position I take is solidly within orthodoxy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Modulous was not restatign a scientifi premise - he was showing that the claimed confliuct was less relevant than you claim.
As I see it now the real problem ahs become clearer. First Faith demands that we should accept the beliefs of literalist inerrantist Protestant theologians as reliable sources on the history and nature of the physical world. I can see no valid reason for accepting this demand unless this claimed authority could be demonstrated rather than taken as an a priori presupposition. It is even unacceptable in the Faith-based fora because it would seriously prejudice matters where other branches of Christianity or other religions are involved. Second Faith wishes to introduce these bveliefs in the science fora. Modulous has already addressed this point - as have I in earlier posts - and there seems to be no valid reaon for doing so. We are talking about non-scientific beliefs and thus they are neither valid as scientific evidence nor as dictates as to what science should find.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God. You must read this very differently than I do. I looked through that website and find only the most conservative statements consistent with my own beliefs overall. I didn't find a statement on evolution but there were links to Philip Johnson's arguments. As for the above quote, what do you think it means? In context I read it to mean that they oppose the idea of any body OUTSIDE the church body imposing a confession of faith on the church body, since they mention a "secular" as well as "religious" source of such an imposition, but I didn't read far enough to find more of an explanation of this. But the statement is introductory to their own confession of faith after all, so they certainly aren't against a confession of faith as such, merely the imposition of it from outside. [AbE: In case it isn't clear, a confession of faith is a statement of principles the signing body as a whole is to be held to. It hardly admits of individuals within the body having the right to deviate from it. Much deviation simply means the individual should not belong to that body.] And perhaps you also read such terms as "priesthood of believers" and "soul competency" and "liberty in Christ" differently, consistent with your idea that individual judgments of scripture are acceptable, as if this could mean that all individual interpretations are equal? I understand them from Paul's writings to mean that all believers have the same gospel message through the Holy Spirit and the same authority to proclaim it, not at all permission to deviate but merely an acknowledgment of spiritual competency to recognize the truth. The priests of the Old Testament Temple had strictly delineated official functions and they are the model of the priesthood of all believers, so there's nothing at all in this concept that suggests individualism, but rather strict adherence to the requirements of the gospel. I'm not familiar with the term "soul competency" but I think the concept is probably familiar enough: something like the fact that the individual has the Holy Spirit and therefore the competency to judge according to the standards of the gospel, not implying perfection but inspired judgment to different degrees, and certainly implying that there is a body of truth that individuals may know in different degrees, but nothing along the lines of the freedom to differ wildly, which you seem to imply. And "liberty in Christ" does not mean liberty to invent your own doctrine, but refers to liberty from legalistic standards of sin. If you have reason to think I'm wrong about the above, you'd have to show me that your view of it is spelled out somewhere on that site. I couldn't find anything to that effect on the site myself (though I didn't read it thoroughly), and the idea doesn't fit with what I know about Southern Baptists either. They are overall a conservative Bible-believing body and affirm a definite set of literal Bible readings. This message has been edited by Faith, 11-25-2005 03:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Modulous was simply applying the scientific premise.
I am not demanding anything at all, much less suggesting introducing creationism into the scientific fora. This thread is about defining the status quo, which includes trying to analyze the exclusion of creationist premises from the science fora, but certainly not proposing including them as the solution to that situation. I've said repeatedly that there is NO solution to this conflict between the opposing premises/worldviews. All I've "proposed" is that the science-minded would do well to learn to appreciate the YEC premise as the coherent worldview it is, but I'm hardly demanding it. If I'm proposing anything along practical lines it is that YECs avoid the science debates or leave the site altogether, and that EvC should make a more concerted effort to seek science minded creationists. This message has been edited by Faith, 11-25-2005 03:02 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You just lay out your premises beforehand, and if people don't want to accept that, then they are out of court for that debate. What's wrong with that? That's an OK idea, something to be added to IRH's idea about how to deal with the problems under discussion, but I'd really like it to be recognized that I'm not in the business of proposing a solution here. I'm really only trying to ANALYZE the situation, and point out what seems to me to be the inherent and fundamentally unresolvable conflict. I'm also trying to break the hegemony of the ruling science premise by insisting on the equality of the Biblical creationist premise, and demonstrate that these are two total worldviews in conflict, and not, as the science side always interprets it, merely a matter of good science versus bad science, or scientific correctness versus scientific idiocy. But again, solutions, proposals, advice, etc. are NOT what I'm aiming for on this thread. I've many times said that I really don't think there is a solution. Some ideas to ameliorate the worst effects of this head-on collision could come out of it I suppose, and I have ventured a thought or two on the subject myself, but this is NOT what the thread is about. I know everybody always wants solutions whenever somebody starts trying to define a problem, but this overlooks the great difficulty involved in defining a problem clearly. Seems to me the thread has been wandering quite a bit today anyway and I'm not succeeding in my objective at all. This message has been edited by Faith, 11-25-2005 03:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Well if oyu are not suggestign including creationism in the science fora then why do you disagree with Modulous' post which gives reasons why it is unnecessary ?
And when you talk about including creationist premises in the science forra are you not in fact asking that creationist beliefs (e.g. that Noah's Flood happened) should be accepted as unquestionable facts in the science fora ? Which is exactly what Modulous and I argue is unnecessary As for your claim that there is no solution it seems to me that the solution is clear. You can stop making unreaonable demands which serve only to give your side an undeserved advantage.
quote: But YEC does not offer a coherent worldview and the YEC methodology I have observed is opposed to even attempting to build a coherent worldview. Even if YEC offered a coherent worldview it would not deserve resepct on that score - solipsisim offers a coherent worldview. And even if it deserved respect it would not necessarily follow that it deserved to have its premises treated as scientifically valid. There is nothing preventing YECs from making scientific arguments - just as you attempted to do so with your argument against evolution based on genetic diversity. Your problem there was ignorance of the facts, not an inability to introduce creationist premises. Unless you concede that the evidence is strongly against creationism there is no reason I can see why creationists could not acquaint themselves with the facts and make valid arguments. Creationists should only avoid the science fora if they lack the capabilities to argue well there - not because creationist premises should be included.i
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
As long as evolutionists accept the ID creationism premise at the same time, there is no problem. Evolutionists should accept the ID/creationism premise if they are arguing on the territory of ID/creationism (ie., faith or ID fora) in order to show it is somehow contradictory or inconsistent or leads to intolerable theological consequences. They don't have to accept the creationist premise in the science fora, that is point of the debate. This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 25-November-2005 12:39 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024