Not if the assumptions are testable, or are based entirely on rigorously tested physical processes.
In the case of the speed of light, we can treat light as travelling at the same speed in both directions because we know what light is actually made of: electromagnetic waves that are governed by Maxwell’s equations. We know that light can’t have changed much in the history of the universe through a whole variety of astronomical and other observations. One example is millisecond pulsars: these are stars that emit X-rays at very, very regular intervals. If the speed of light had ever been different in the past, we would be able to see it in millisecond pulsars because their frequencies would be changing all over the place. But they aren’t.
And that’s just one of many, many, many other observations that we can make. Once again – there’s no presupposition involved here; rather, this is a test of any stray presuppositions that may have crept in.
I realize that that has been part of the rhetoric from YEC sources for ages, but doesn’t it just sound silly even without knowing the science? How does light know which way it is going? What possible mechanism would reflection have to change the speed of light? By the way, I am sure you can measure the speed of light coming and going these days(whatever that means), though it may have been difficult in the dark ages.
Any examples? I do not think the light thing is valid, but you can try to convince me. everytime we communicate with a deep space probe, we see the lag time both coming and going.
Actually there is. It is possible to determine the distance to distant galaxies using simply geometry. When the light from these distance galaxies is examined, I believe it is the spectrum lines, they match what we see locally. Since the speed of light is involved in determining these features it shows the speed of light has not changed over time.
I oppose teaching YEC in classrooms. You really aren’t thinking clearly about public education. YEC is just one of the many origins positions among Christians. Why should YEC alone be taught, and not OEC and EC, as well? So, now the actual time required for teaching the subject has expanded by a factor of four. But wait … other religions have their own scriptures and interpretations of them. Is it fair for the child of Muslim parents to be taught the Christian interpretations, but not the interpretation of their own faith? And what of other religions? Do they not deserve a place at the table?
I trust you see the problem. Our society is pluralistic, and there are many more religious views than just those held by evangelical Christians, let alone YEC. If you want every child – regardless of their parents’ religious views – to be taught YEC, then we might as well pass a law making YEC the official state religion and be done with it.
Neil, I appreciate your input and think you are asking some good questions. Let me comment on this last question/statement in your post. I feel that you are posing a false dichotomy here, as those are unrelated questions. The first part has been addressed, but regarding whether most here feel the YEC position is intellectually bankrupt is interesting. Certainly, that is the impression one gets but I feel that is a carry over from more secular criticisms, and the reality is a little more subtle when dealing with the EC crowd. I think many if not most here respect the position of having the YEC interpretation of scripture being primal, yet feel that interpretation is incorrect, and ultimately not beneficial in advancing the kingdom of God. I think that changes the conversation a bit. It has nothing to do with intellectual merit, but is focused on theologic interpretation.
And my argument would be that the beginning of the universe is not testable, so scientific tests determining the age of the universe are not, and cannot be fully known. In line with this, we cannot publish science text books as scientific fact for cosmology when we just do not have all the facts. You agree or disagree?
Yes, I do. I am thinking public education is bias to ONE form of science completely based on naturalistic model, and I believe it is founded on humanism. So basically you believe that only humanism should be taught in schools. I understand exactly where you are coming from.
No. There are always assumptions, I have come to accept. Some assumptions have a reasonable foundation that is generally accepted, some do not. I am not a philosopher nor physicist, but assumptions applied to things like the Big Bang probably include such things that reality is observable, observations have meaning, and that the laws of the universe are stable under normal circumstances, just to rattle a few off from the top of my head. I am sure others have compiled a much more accurate and complete list.
No. It is based on simple geometry. The age is a result and not a presupposition. YEC starts with the presupposition that the universe is 6,000 years old and then tries to force the data to fit.
No. YEC starts with a particular fallible human interpretation that results in 6000 years. And if you start with the age is it any surprise that is what you get?
Neil, it’s very easy to say things like that if you aren’t fully aware of all the different tests and measurements that are carried out, how they are all cross-checked with each other, the level of precision in the measurements, and what underlying physical processes and mathematical theorems they are based on. However, when you actually drill down into the details, a very different picture arises. You have come up with a plausible mechanism, for example, of how radiometric dating could give results in the Hawaiian Islands that increase linearly with distance from the main hotspot – at exactly the same rate as direct measurements from GPS readings – if the assumptions on which it were based really were so unreliable that they couldn’t distinguish between thousands and billions. You have to explain how millisecond pulsars could be stable to within one part in a billion if the speed of light had been different at any time in the past six thousand years. And so on and so forth.
Here’s the thing. There’s a tendency among YECs to view the concepts of “assumptions” or “presuppositions” as if they were some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card – a kind of catch-all refutation to any argument that you can’t get round. It isn’t like that at all. The fact remains that the assumptions that scientists use are all based on extensive cross-checks, careful measurements, strong empirical evidence, and mathematical equations. In order to dismiss something as “just an assumption” or “just a presupposition,” you need to give a plausible mechanism by which they could be mistaken. Furthermore, your mechanism needs to be mathematically precise enough to account for the error bars in the end results. And in order to do that, you have to drill down into the details.
In other words, you need to know what you are talking about. Crying “assumption” or “presupposition” or “were you there?” simply doesn’t cut it in that respect.
There has been some very convincing scholarship into the meaning of the numbers in the genealogies. Note, the motivation was not to “disprove” Scripture, it was to better understand the text in its ancient context. https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf
“Among the greatest stumbling blocks to faith in the Bible are the incredibly long ages of the patriarchs and the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11 that seem to place the age of the
Earth at about 6,000 years ago. The key to understanding the numbers in Genesis is that, in the Mesopotamian world view, numbers could have both real (numerical) and sacred (numerological or symbolic) meaning. The Mesopotamians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system of numbers, and the patriarchal ages in Genesis revolve around the sacred numbers 60 and 7. In addition to Mesopotamian sacred numbers, the preferred numbers 3, 7, 12, and 40 are used in both the Old and New Testaments. To take numbers figuratively does not mean that the Bible is not to be taken literally. It just means that the biblical writer was trying to impart a spiritual or historical truth to the text—one that surpassed the meaning of purely rational numbers.”