Hi Ethelred!
I was reading some of your posts in Evolution vs. Creationism threads. Personally, I find that debate relatively uninteresting as often the proponents of one side or the other speak to things they actually have very little professional knowledge about. For myself, I would never presume to disprove evolution; and proving creation with the scientific method is absurd as scientific method studies the natural world and creation purports a supernatural phenomenon. On the other hand, what I will debate is the biblical text and it is to that end I have posted a new thread to draw your attention. In my opinion, you are mistaken when you declare that evolution disproves Genesis. While evolution may disprove "Creationism," it cannot disprove Genesis because Genesis does not contain scientific theory. (Incidentally, it may also be argued that Genesis does not prove "Creationism" for precisely this same reason). The attempt to use Genesis, or any other biblical text, in argument (for or against) a natural scientific theory is a waste of time. Genesis is a text written to recount a people's experience with their God; it is highly subjective and personal--which is exactly the opposite of the objectivity desired by science. The stories of Gen 1-11, which includes the creation and flood accounts, are not concerned with answering scientific questions instead they answer theological ones. Many of the stories were written to counter prevailing myths of the period in which they were written. Genesis 1, for instance, is a carefully written polemic against polytheism. It rejects the divinity of the sun and the moon. It counters the myth that a clash of sea monsters created and divided the sea and land masses. Instead, sea monsters are under the sovereignty and creative hand of God. It also rejects the notion that humans were created as slaves for the gods (ie. Atrahasis). In a final analysis, Genesis 1 declares that God created the universe and it also declares that the world and humanity, as the pinnacle of God's creative activity, has inherent worth. Neither of these declarations are scientific ones; they are theological ones. It is not the domain of science to answer these questions; rather, it is the domain of philosophy and religion. When science attempts to answer these questions, it is moving beyond its realm of study and makes steps towards becoming a religion of its own. Too often evolution is propagated as dogma rather than what it is, namely scientific theory. To read Genesis 1 as a blueprint for the creation of the world, which is what you as well as creationists are doing (each for your own ends), is asking that a person from somewhere between 8th-11th B.C.E. was concerned with such matters. It requires that such a person understood and looked at his/her world from a modern (or post-modern), 20th-21st century worldview, which they quite obviously did not. It requires the perversion of a literary work to serve theories (for or against) it was not intended to and did not speak about.
On another point, I also find your argument that God is deceptive if he created a world that appeared to be older that it really was, fallacious. Science, by definition, studies the natural world. It, therefore, by necessity, and quite correctly, excludes supernatural phenomenon from its study. Consequently, it studies the world as it appears to be IF the world only contained natural phenomenon. But, if literature and experience has taught us anything, it is that appearances are deceiving, which is how you arrive at your argument. But, where your argument goes wrong, is that it fails to consider that the substance of the thing might be different and therefore, it is the test not the actual thing that is deceptive. Put another way, if I judge a book by its cover, I may or may not come to the correct conclusion. But, if I come to the wrong conclusion, it is not necessarily because the cover was deceptive; it may be that having failed to consider the substance or content of the book, my test necessarily lead me to deceptive conclusions. So then, if the world does in fact contain supernatural phenomenon, the scientific method may be arriving at deceptive conclusions because it ignores this part of the substance of the thing it studies. This is the limitation of science. It cannot study the supernatural and therefore, its conclusions should always be held in tension with the results of studies in other related and not-so-related disciplines, such as psychiatry, sociology, psychology, theology, literature, personal experiences, history, and so on.
Anyways, having said this much, way to go at keeping those "Creationism" theorists on their toes!
I was reading some of your posts in Evolution vs. Creationism threads. Personally, I find that debate relatively uninteresting as often the proponents of one side or the other speak to things they actually have very little professional knowledge about. For myself, I would never presume to disprove evolution; and proving creation with the scientific method is absurd as scientific method studies the natural world and creation purports a supernatural phenomenon. On the other hand, what I will debate is the biblical text and it is to that end I have posted a new thread to draw your attention. In my opinion, you are mistaken when you declare that evolution disproves Genesis. While evolution may disprove "Creationism," it cannot disprove Genesis because Genesis does not contain scientific theory. (Incidentally, it may also be argued that Genesis does not prove "Creationism" for precisely this same reason). The attempt to use Genesis, or any other biblical text, in argument (for or against) a natural scientific theory is a waste of time. Genesis is a text written to recount a people's experience with their God; it is highly subjective and personal--which is exactly the opposite of the objectivity desired by science. The stories of Gen 1-11, which includes the creation and flood accounts, are not concerned with answering scientific questions instead they answer theological ones. Many of the stories were written to counter prevailing myths of the period in which they were written. Genesis 1, for instance, is a carefully written polemic against polytheism. It rejects the divinity of the sun and the moon. It counters the myth that a clash of sea monsters created and divided the sea and land masses. Instead, sea monsters are under the sovereignty and creative hand of God. It also rejects the notion that humans were created as slaves for the gods (ie. Atrahasis). In a final analysis, Genesis 1 declares that God created the universe and it also declares that the world and humanity, as the pinnacle of God's creative activity, has inherent worth. Neither of these declarations are scientific ones; they are theological ones. It is not the domain of science to answer these questions; rather, it is the domain of philosophy and religion. When science attempts to answer these questions, it is moving beyond its realm of study and makes steps towards becoming a religion of its own. Too often evolution is propagated as dogma rather than what it is, namely scientific theory. To read Genesis 1 as a blueprint for the creation of the world, which is what you as well as creationists are doing (each for your own ends), is asking that a person from somewhere between 8th-11th B.C.E. was concerned with such matters. It requires that such a person understood and looked at his/her world from a modern (or post-modern), 20th-21st century worldview, which they quite obviously did not. It requires the perversion of a literary work to serve theories (for or against) it was not intended to and did not speak about.
On another point, I also find your argument that God is deceptive if he created a world that appeared to be older that it really was, fallacious. Science, by definition, studies the natural world. It, therefore, by necessity, and quite correctly, excludes supernatural phenomenon from its study. Consequently, it studies the world as it appears to be IF the world only contained natural phenomenon. But, if literature and experience has taught us anything, it is that appearances are deceiving, which is how you arrive at your argument. But, where your argument goes wrong, is that it fails to consider that the substance of the thing might be different and therefore, it is the test not the actual thing that is deceptive. Put another way, if I judge a book by its cover, I may or may not come to the correct conclusion. But, if I come to the wrong conclusion, it is not necessarily because the cover was deceptive; it may be that having failed to consider the substance or content of the book, my test necessarily lead me to deceptive conclusions. So then, if the world does in fact contain supernatural phenomenon, the scientific method may be arriving at deceptive conclusions because it ignores this part of the substance of the thing it studies. This is the limitation of science. It cannot study the supernatural and therefore, its conclusions should always be held in tension with the results of studies in other related and not-so-related disciplines, such as psychiatry, sociology, psychology, theology, literature, personal experiences, history, and so on.
Anyways, having said this much, way to go at keeping those "Creationism" theorists on their toes!
Comment