Subject: Re: Creationism (was Re: "With All That You Acquire, Acquire
Understanding")
Date: 14 Jan 2000 06:39:47 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Darren R Middleton <> wrote:
> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote in message <>...
[snip]
>>You should base your trust on a considered examination of the
>>actual arguments themselves; and you would be very well advised
>>to double check their information (I say from experience).
>>
>>Darren has been caught out himself by me in this group; as I hope
>>he might acknowledge with his customary grace.
>
> I would have thought,  'pointed out'  would have been more accurate Chris.

Granted; that would have been better. My apologies, and thanks.

May I say that I pointed out by an example the importance of checking
information (re Morowitz). You had been trusting a source which was
supplying misinformation on Morowitz' research.

>>Now, despite my own PhD, I do not expect Darren or anyone to
>>immediately accept my word on this, just as I would hope they
>>do not immediately accept the word of creationist PhDs either.
>
> Fair enough. But we are talking about interpretations of facts not the
> facts themselves.
> Actually I have an apriori commitment to accepting divine revelation which
> places creationism firmly on the agenda. In a similar way to atheists who
> accept only material explanations for the phenomenal world predicated on
> an apriori commitment to naturalism.

It depends what you mean by creationism. I use it of so-called
scientific creationism, which is the attempt to justify by
scientific or empirical means the historical veracity of early Genesis.

All Christians accept divine revelation (though they may not agree on
all aspects thereof :-), including a great many mainstream scientists.

A substantial number of Christians consider that divine revelation
includes a revelation of events in prehistorical times, and that
this revelation implies that there was once a a global flood, and
that the Earth is young (not much older than humanity), and that
there was a special seperate creation for species, which are thus
not related by any common natural ancestry. This category is mainly,
with a small number of exceptions, not scientists.

What sets (scientific) creationists apart is the additional belief
that this divine revelation is consistent with, or even can be
confirmed with empirical evidence and scientific methodology.

It is at THIS point that I sit up and take notice. It is this
argument which is explicitly and deliberately empirical, and
which can and should be addressed without reference to the divine
revelation.

I have not ever seen that opinion reasonably argued on the
basis of empirical evidence and scientific methodology. I
have frequently seen it unreasonably argued.

I appreciate and to some extent sympathize with Christians who
object to the hijacking of the term "creationist" to be limited
to those who make these empirical arguments, and I do try to
remember to qualify the term a bit with the term "scientific".

I also am not greatly concerned with so-called old earth creationists,
who mostly accept our animal ancestry and the basics of geology. It
seems to me that _their_ real dispute is not with science, but with
the philosophy of some scientists and many theologians.

> Snip
>
>>>>: Go for it - but I'm hardly an authority! (Though I guess I've had a
>>>>: fair bit experience in one university.)
>>>
>>> Try reading J.F Ashton PhD "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose To
>>> Believe In Creation"
>>> BTW, all have a PhD.
>>
>>If you have this book on hand, I would be interested to see
>>a list showing where each PhD was obtained, and in what field.
>
> I have it at hand - here is a short list....
> J. Bergman - Biology - Wayne State Uni
> H.Zuill - Biology - Loma Linda Uni
> A. Roth - Biology - Uni of Michigan
> T.Standish - Biology - George Mason Uni
> A.Jones - Biology - Uni of Birmingham
> W.Frair - Biology - Rutgers -The State Uni, NJ.
> W Veith - Zoology - Uni of Cape Town
> A Snelling - Geology - Uni of Sydney
> E Kennedy - Geology - Uni of Southern California
> K Wise - Geology - Harvard Uni

Thank you; I see two of the names I gave you (Wise and Snelling)
confirmed here as I pretty much suspected. Roth and Standish ring
bells, but I do not know anything about them off the top of my head.
I think this list is a useful reminder that the debate cannot be
usefully made on the basis of qualifications alone.

As a hypothetical and not as a formal offer, I would be personally
willing to discuss with any of the above (assuming they were willing
to do so in a mutually respectful manner) the actual empirical
arguments; but only in a form where there was time for consideration
of the offerred evidence and for research into its foundations. In at
least some cases, I am sure I would need to do a lot of work to keep
up. I acknowledge that I would need to take extensive time and effort
to do such research, and that I would in some cases seek out details
from other authorities; as is normal for a genuine scientific dispute.
I would, following normal professional practice, acknowledge any
assistance received, but base any argument on theory and data, not
simply on an argument from authority. I would probably be creamed by
a number of the above in a formal debate with limited time for
presentation and no time for checking and research; and do not
consider that to indicate much of anything either way.

Cheers -- Chris