[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:121, topic:36307”]
The only other characteristic I assigned to him was that he saw Noah’s Flood and the primary reason that the Grand Canyon looks the way it does.[/quote]
That’s insufficient for assessing. Is he testing those hypotheses or not?
[quote]If on that basis, you say he has denied science, then how are you not saying that his embrace of the Bible on that point is ipso facto denial of science?
[/quote]No one has said that the basis you are offering is sufficient. The only objective basis is whether or not he has hypotheses that make empirical predictions and is testing his hypotheses, as hypothesis testing is the essence of science, not retrospective interpretation of evidence.
You said “shouldn’t they be willing to grant that a YEC geologist is not necessarily denying science in his embrace of the Bible?”. I said sure, definitely, and pointed out that no one actually does this.
Because I know it’s possible to embrace the Bible and accept that the flood had nothing to do with making the Grand Canyon. Because I embrace the Bible, and I don’t believe the flood made the Grand Canyon. Because I don’t subscribe to the false dichotomy that you can embrace either the Bible or science, but not both.
And because I know that his embrace of the Bible is not what is causing him to deny the science, it’s his embrace of a particular human interpretation of the Bible, which he has chosen to privilege above science. Simple.
I’m with Benjamin Burke. If a YEC geologist departs from faith explanations and approaches phenomena via the scientific method, then good on her or him. The evidence and the reasoning must be clear and subjected to peer review.
Mike Gantt: Very interesting question. If I, as an atheist, were to encounter incontrovertible evidence that god created the earth in a few thousand years, well sure, I’m on board.
So, when you embrace the Bible, you’re embracing the Bible. But when the YEC scientist embraces the Bible he’s only embracing a particular human interpretation of the Bible. Doesn’t sound like you’re being as fair to the other guy as you are to yourself.
So why do you speak of the YEC as having embraced the Bible, and the non-YEC as having embraced science? You keep using the language of dichotomy. You wrote “If BioLogos folks don’t want to be considered as denying the Bible in their embrace of science, shouldn’t they be willing to grant that a YEC geologist is not necessarily denying science in his embrace of the Bible?”. That shows you believe there are people denying the Bible in their embrace of science. As Ben said, “The “embrace of science” and “embrace of the Bible” comments are very telling of your position”.
No I didn’t say that at all. I did not deny he is embracing the Bible. On the contrary, I said very clearly “his embrace of the Bible is not what is causing him to deny the science”. That states explicitly that he embraces the Bible. What I also said that it is a particular interpretation of the Bible that is causing him to deny the science. I explained this in detail. You can embrace the Bible and still embrace science. If you embrace the Bible but deny science, it’s because your interpretation of the Bible has a flaw.
Remember, I’m one of countless Christians through the ages who believes in the “two books” principle, based on the Bible, which was taken up by Jewish and Christian commentators, the idea that both nature and the Bible are books written by God, and that when interpreted they will always agree. Science is our method of interpreting nature. So there’s no problem embracing both science and the Bible. You would do well to adopt this view.
On this, practically everyone would agree: BL, AiG, RTB. What separates people is the way in which they do it - the relative weights they assign to various claims of the Bible and science. It’s unfair of you, therefore, to claim a monopoly on having embraced the Bible and science.
No, not everyone, because the YEC groups typically do everything they can to undermine confidence in science and characterize it as unreliable. They see it as a threat.
No it has nothing to do with the relative weight they assign to various claims of the Bible and science. You keep doing this, regardless of how many countless times you’ve been corrected by a very long list of people. Every time someone has an interpretation of Scripture with which you disagree, especially one which harmonizes with science, you characterize it as them having placed less weight on Scripture, less emphasis on Scripture, less importance on Scripture, or devaluing Scripture. This is simply untrue.
No, it’s the way I talk about some YECs; specifically, YECs who are on record as telling people that science can’t be trusted, that science is unreliable, that science is just opinion, that science is the “wisdom of men”, who characterize science as mere “shifting sands”. Those are people who not only devalue science, they do so explicitly and with pride.
Yes. YEC groups (such as AIG, CMI, etc), typically do everything they can to undermine confidence in science and characterize it as unreliable. Individual YECs are a different matter. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
So kindly answer my question: can you point me to a YEC geologist who is testing his hypotheses, or at a minimum has a hypothesis that makes empirical predictions?
AFAIK, no such people exist. Do you see my point, assuming none do?
Jonathan: So there’s no problem embracing both science and the Bible.
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:130, topic:36307”]
On this, practically everyone would agree: BL, AiG, RTB.[/quote]
No. I explain why below.
Incorrect. Those groups push pseudoscience and falsely portray it as science. It has nothing to do with weights.
[quote]It’s unfair of you, therefore, to claim a monopoly on having embraced the Bible and science.
[/quote]It’s unfair of you to make such claims while simultaneously claiming scientific illiteracy and an unwillingness to learn about science!