[geocentrism] Re: Evolution (Paul's article)

  • From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:25:54 -0700 (PDT)

  I found your suggested article to be very biased against creation science and 
very pro-evolution. The writer seems to try to be fair to people who bring some 
kind godly faith to their evolution as long as they don?t reject the basic 
conclusions of evolution, like creation science does. I don't think the 
paradigms or axioms are very well defined or developed.
  The Evolution Paradigm - 1) everything including the origin and complexity of 
life can be explained with the laws of biology, chemistry, math, and physics. 
2) The earth is about 4.7 billion years old. 3) If God exists, man cannot 
observe anything that he does. 4)The evolution paradigm is based on two axioms. 
  Statement 1) is the same as the definition of the naturalistic axiom. 
Statement 2) is a conclusion of the Evolution Paradigm and doesn't really 
define it. 3) does not belong in the paradigm but belongs to the naturalistic 
  The observable axiom - scientists can accurately observe reality and from 
these observations develop models, theories and laws to describe it. 
  Just because accurate observation is possible does not mean it is not colored 
by prejudice, worldview or mis-conceptions. Nor does it mean the proposed 
models, theories and laws describing reality will do so with any accuracy or 
truthful content. Especially when coupled with the naturalistic axiom.
  The naturalistic axiom - reality can be fully explained with the laws of 
biology, chemistry, math and physics. 
  This axiom should contain the portion about origins, also to include matter, 
energy, elements, stars, planets, etc?, That only natural causes are needed to 
explain anything. If it is true than what place is there for God? No God exists 
should be part of this axiom.
  The Literalist Paradigm - God created the universe and the earth in 6 days 
less than ten thousand years ago. The axiom is based on a literal 
interpretation of the creation story found in the Bible. The literalist 
paradigm is based on a two axioms.
  The existence axiom - God exists. 
  The literal axiom - God wanted the creation story found in Genesis to be 
interpreted literally because it is a scientifically accurate account of 
creation. 5)The literal axiom and the observable axiom are mutually exclusive. 
6) If one is true then the other must be false. 
  Statements 5 & 6 are absolutely false. The author doesn't even bother to back 
up his statements. He even contradicts himself by saying "literally because it 
is a scientifically accurate account?". If that is true then the observable 
axiom should be available to confirm or deny Genesis.
  The Creation Science Paradigm - this paradigm shares the beliefs of the 
literalist paradigm with one important exception. This paradigm relies on three 
axioms: the existence axiom, the literal axiom and the observable axiom. This 
paradigm is inconsistent with basic logic. It is like claiming that the earth 
must be a cube, because some of the scientific evidence that suggests that it 
is a sphere has been misinterpreted.  It just does not make any sense to do 
this. The literal axiom is strong enough to stand on its own. It is self 
evident to many people, and it does not need science to back it up. Creation 
scientists spend way too much time trying to prove the literal axiom by 
questioning the validity of scientific theories and techniques. 
  This is just foolish - not only does he not bother to define the CS paradigm, 
be spends the whole paragraph giving his opinion  as to why it isn?t viable. 
His logic is idiotic. There is no conflict with the observable axiom. Creation 
scientists make good use of the observable axiom, it's what constitutes the 
majority of their arguements.
  The Day Age Paradigm - Each day in Genesis should not be interpreted as a 24 
hour day. The days represent long periods of time. This allows the earth and 
universe to be old. It also accommodates the fossil record, because with this 
interpretation one would expect simple animals to appear first. God is 
responsible for creation but he used evolution as a tool. This paradigm is 
based on the observable axiom, the existence axiom and the inspired axiom. 
  The inspired axiom - the Bible is the inspired word of God. It should 
therefore be read very carefully, but different interpretations of scripture 
are possible. There are two flavors of the inspired axiom - one interprets the 
word inspired to mean that God did not allow any errors during or since the 
inspiration. The other allows for man to introduce errors. With the first 
interpretation, the Bible is the word of God. With the second, the Bible is 
man?s interpretation of God?s word.
  The Gap Paradigm - Each day in Genesis is a 24 hour day, but the days are 
separated by long expanses of time. Like the day age theory, this allows for 
the old age of the earth. Unlike the day age theory, it allows less freedom for 
God to use evolution as a tool. This paradigm is based on the observable, the 
existence and inspired axioms. 
  The Allegory Paradigm - the amount of work that God needed to undertake to 
create the universe, the galaxies, stars, and life is almost infinite. If 
Genesis attempted to describe all of these events, then the Bible would require 
several billion pages of text (how much text is needed to say "God spoke it 
into existence"?). And God would have to spend an incredible amount of time 
explaining concepts like probability, physics, DNA, and chemistry to Moses Why 
go into the nitty gritty details?. So God never intended for the story to be 
scientifically accurate. The story is an allegory. The key points are 
symbolized in the form of a story whose purpose is to describe man?s 
relationship to God. The allegory paradigm relies on the existence, the 
inspired and the observable axioms.
  The Intelligent Design Paradigm - a designer created the universe and the 
earth. The earth is about 4.7 billion years old. The designer created life on 
earth 3 billion years ago. Since then, the designer has continued to guide many 
of the changes. It is this guidance that explains most of the information found 
in life today. Evolution and natural selection are responsible for the 
optimization and maintenance of information, but not its creation. The 
intelligent design paradigm is based on the observable axiom. This paradigm 
does not require a specific Biblical interpretation, so it is not restricted to 
Christianity. This is why the word designer instead of God is used to describe 
the paradigm.
  It is also interesting to note that this paradigm does not use the existence 
axiom. The paradigm does not assume that God exists. Instead it relies on the 
observation axiom to determine whether or not a designer exists. Creation 
Science also uses the observation axiom. The intelligent design paradigm is the 
only paradigm based on a single axiom, and it is the only paradigm that can be 
falsified Not true, everything that uses the observation axiom can be 
falsified. (the naturalistic axiom prevents the evolution paradigm from being 
disproved) Again, untrue, for example, if the geologic column could be shown to 
have accumulated in a short period of time, than the evolution paradigm would 
be falsified. . If the puzzles of life?s origin and its evolution are solved 
next year (now he's just being funny), then the intelligent design paradigm is 
false. If this happens, supporters of this paradigm will either fall back to 
the evolution paradigm or be forced to adopt the existence
    Existence Axiom
    Observable Axiom
    Literal Axiom
    Can be
      Intelligent Design
      Day Age 
      Creation Science
  From this table, it should be clear that most people find the observable 
axiom and the existence axiom self evident. It should also be clear that all 
but one paradigm require two or more axioms. Because all axioms are assumptions 
based on faith, it is always desirable to minimize the number of axioms 
required to construct a paradigm. Why minimize? As long as your axioms are 
obviously true, who cares how many you have.
  All of these axioms are on equal footing with each other. All are 
assumptions. None can be proved or disproved. And not a single axiom is self 
evident to everybody. To most scientists, the observable axiom is self evident. 
To all Christians, the existence axiom is self evident. The remainder of this 
chapter will focus on the naturalistic axiom. 
  Science relies heavily on the naturalistic axiom. This needs to be re-stated: 
Science and naturalism have become one and the same thing, to the exclusion of 
the observable axiom, if the observation doesn?t fit, it is ignored or 
discarded or a future explanation is assumed. This does not mean that all 
scientists are atheists Of course not, but try to use observation or logic 
against naturalism - not allowed!. But it does mean that they are only allowed 
to consider naturalistic explanations when they propose theories to explain 
their observations. This approach has served science very well Nope, it hasn't 
helped a bit, in fact it has saddled us all with pointless and untrue 
conclusions about nature and humanity that have had disasterous results in 
recent history. But it does have a potentially fatal flaw - if there is a 
Creator, then science cannot find Him. The axiom forces this possibility to be 
ruled out before the evidence is considered. can't argue with that. 
  With the use of indirect logic, science does not require the naturalistic 
axiom. So this exclusion seems to be more for convenience and politics than for 
necessity. The result is that the truth is hidden and error reigns.
  To conclude: this author is confused about things because if his acceptance 
of evolutionary conclusions and completely wrong about creation science.

 Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.

Other related posts: