[geocentrism] Re: Evolution (Paul's article)
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Paul,
This is the main one.
James...
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul,
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
axiom
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
axiom.
Paradigm
Existence Axiom
Observable Axiom
Literal Axiom
Inspired
Axiom
Naturalistic
Axiom
Can be
disproved
Intelligent Design
X
X
Evolution
X
X
Literal
X
X
Gap
X
X
X
Day Age
X
X
X
Allegory
X
X
X
Creation Science
X
X
X
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.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
Other related posts:
