|
RCC -> RE: the earth (1/11/2008 11:09:25 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Even the seemingly firmest conclusions of science are questionable, despite the methods science has developed to reduce error (peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc.). quote:
I don’t think science has anything to say about the possibility of miracles such as the Resurrection; that’s outside science’s domain. Richard, you're really missing this fundamental flaw in your attempt to understand YEC's position. Origins science is NOT subject to observational scientific methodology. Your first statement misrepresents the use of observational science by YECs for other kinds of scientific endeavors. I use peer review, statistical methods, independent replication of results, double-blind tests, etc. every day in my medical practice and clinical research. These methods are worthless and irrelevant to proving the "seemingly firmest conclusions" of the origins of the universe and earth's biodiversity.
How so? Doctors frequently make inferences about events that no one has observed directly (e.g., etiology of a patient’s illness, events at the molecular level). Detectives solve crimes without the testimony of surviving eyewitnesses (and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway). Astrophysicists have made discoveries about events and processes in the interiors of stars. So it’s possible to make valid inferences, using the methods of science, about past events that were not directly witnessed by humans.
quote:
Biblical creationism is outside the domain of observational science because it was a supernatural, one-time event for which experimentation and replication of results are impossible.
True, assuming that such an event (a supernatural one-week creation) occurred. Science can’t prove that such an event never occurred: God, after all, presumably could have created the world to look as if it were billions of years old and as if all organisms were descended from a common ancestor.
All science can do is to study the observed evidence and make inferences based on it. According to the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields, the evidence indicates overwhelmingly that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that all organisms are descended from one or a few common ancestors. Now if you disagree and you want to be taken seriously, you’ll need to explain why. There are two possible routes you could take:
1) Use scientific reasoning to dispute the conclusions drawn from the scientific evidence. This is what “scientific creationist” groups such as Answers in Genesis attempt to do, with essentially zero success so far in persuading mainstream scientists. (AiG is coming out with a “peer-reviewed” journal, “peer” apparently meaning “fellow YEC.”) To my knowledge, AiG has never explained what conceivable evidence, assuming it existed, would be sufficient to change their minds regarding evolution and the age of the earth. But if no imaginable evidence would change their minds, their discussion of the evidence is disingenuous and a sham – it means that, as for YEC geologist Kurt Wise, the evidence is ultimately irrelevant to their beliefs.
2) Argue that God, who is presumably always truthful, has said that He created the Earth and all “kinds” of organisms in a literal six-day period. That’s a tough one, and I would like to see some actual arguments, as opposed to mere assertions, for this. As evidence, we have some ancient manuscripts, copies of copies of copies…, that speak of God’s actions in the third person, and whose interpretation has been hotly disputed for centuries even among Christians, with no end to the debate in sight. Assertions about "what God has plainly told us" are vacuous: there's nothing plain about it. It's as if someone finds a stone tablet with the inscription "I CREATED THE WORLD IN 4004 B.C. -- CHEERS, GOD" and then talks about "what God has plainly told us."
|
|
|
|