How’s this: The Bible was written a long time ago by people whose understanding of the world was not as clear as what is understood today about the world.
They are not winning. Ark attendance down, survey after survey showing less and less support for a 6000-10,000 year old Earth.
I’m not sure how that can work. Quite simply, scientists will not consider scripture as evidence about the world (as distinct from evidence about culture and historic cultures).
Yes, EPS has hosted these sorts of things before. I don’t really distinguish between ETS and EPS for the annual meeting b/c people go to both since all the sessions are at the same site. I don’t care which entity actually hosts it.
The really question it seems is to decide if two panels on separate aspects is warranted. Perhaps one focused on biblical-theology and another on philosophical-theology.
I agree, but Plantinga is well read by popular audiences and is often doing a lot of the intellectual lifting for popular polemics against methodological naturalism in science. Imagine Philip Johnson on philosophical steroids and you get Alvin Plantinga.
I agree and this is where I deviate from Plantinga. Because he does not well delineate what is part of science and what is not, his suggestion becomes unhelpful, and even counter-productive. What he was missing was The Rules of the Game.
I would propose that:
In Science, Scriptural manuscripts are valid evidence about the world in science like any other document, such as texts of the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita and so on. Science can legitimately, for example, ask questions about the carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the evolution of scripts, and so on are legitimate questions for science.
In Science, Scriptural manuscripts is valid evidence as a non-inspired source of information about the past. In the same way we can study the march of Hannibal through the Alps with Elephants, considering what was mythic and reality.
Outside science, we can include Scriptural revelation as evidence as we build more complete views of the world.
There might be opportunity for legitimate questions to be raised from contemplation of #3 to be addressed in purely scientific ways in science.
The issue I have with Plantinga’s work is that he does not make the distinctions between scientific and theological thinking clear and this makes his proposal unworkable.
Scriptural manuscripts are valid evidence about the world when shown to be valid evidence in anthropological science like what @Alice_Linsley does.
That is what I mean. Also, look at this JAMA article on the crucifixion from 1985:
This seems like a legitimate use of Scripture within science along these two models;
The cultural aspects that anthropological science can bring are very beneficial. For example, I am sure from the knowledge and culture at the time, most people knew that snakes don’t talk. So the language used must have been figurative and not to be taken literal.
I don’t agree there is such a thing in nature as science.
Its just a human construction after the fact of a working nature(including twisting it/inventions)
SO science is just a verb. Not a noun. Its just a methodology to reach conclusions. SO its a high standard of investigation that CAN DEMAND confidence in its conclusions.
So planes and drugs are PROVED by science to work.
In origin matters its all about PAST processes and results that have a lineage to the present.
I see it as very, very, very, difficult to investigate origins. whatever is right. In fact more intellectuaslly difficult then biology which is more difficult then any physics/invention so far done. I’m not sure if physics could ever be as complicated as biology.
YEC , sometimes ID, says conclusions in origins about denying God, or Gods clear fingerprints, or evolutionism are not based on a high standard of investigation.
Sometimes we say no one is doing science and sometimes we do the same science. everyone gets mixed up.
I say evolutionism is not a scientific theory but only a unrested hypothesis BECAUSE its claimed evidence are not based on biological processes. Instead they are based on AFTER THE FACT of biological processes. SO they invoke fossils/geology, comparaitve anatomy and genetics, biogeography, minor in species experimentation., and heaps of speculation.
What do you think science is?
I think science is a noun.
4 posts were split to a new topic: Does Appearance of Age Render God a Deciever?
A post was merged into an existing topic: Welcome Greg to the Forum
Young Earth Creationism has been criticized for lacking a solid scientific basis. It also should be criticized for lacking a solid Biblical basis.
I would agree that using terms like “pseudoscience” tend to close more minds than they open.
If there was one BIG problem that most scientists have with YEC is that it starts with a conclusion, and then accepts or rejects evidence based on that conclusion. For example, the only reason that YEC’s doubt the science demonstrating constant decay rates for radioisotopes is that it leads to conclusions they don’t like. “Answers in Genesis” isn’t afraid to just spell it out:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "–Answers in Genesis
I agree that this is probably the main reason why YEC is labeled as “pseudoscience” by many. Because it is perceived as not seeking the truth, but rather seeking to support the truth it has established elsewhere.
So, given that, do people who are steeped in the evolutionary sciences also see why a similar accusation is often made by those who do not fully accept evolution as an explanation for all of the life that we see on the planet? Many outsiders (edited) feel as though an a priori assumption has been made (end of edit) that evolution happened and then work to backfill with evidence.
I’m not making a statement here at all… I’m merely saying that this should be a point of empathy rather than division. We all have our POV and seek to support it. We can all have a healthier discussion if we see others’ objections as clearly as we see our biases. Some here are already very good at this. Others, eh… not so much.
Except that is not true.
It is not true that many outsiders feel that an a priori assumption has been made? Or it is not true that an a priori assumption has been made?
There was no a priori assumption made.