What are the presuppositions of Scientific Creationism? * God. The first presupposition is that there exists a Personal-Infinite, Transcendent Triune Intelligence who creates and orders the world. This immediately rules out ontological indeterminism. The cosmos holds no place for ‘chance’ or ‘randomness’ when it already has an omnipotent and omniscient God who views all events diascopically. * Two revelations, only one authority. The second presupposition is that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the sole authority of Christian believers in all matters that they touch upon – including science and natural history. While there may be both General and Special Revelation given us by God, the only authority for Christians is Special Revelation, which is capable of self-interpretation. To say otherwise is to compromise the doctrine of sola Scriptura and go down the road of Ritschl (1840) and his followers. They claimed there were ‘Judgements of fact’ and ‘Judgements of value’. Scientific and Scriptural truth dealt with different domains and so could not affect one another. This is essentially Stephen J. Gould’s NOMA position, and to a lesser extent Bernard Ramm’s Dual Revelation theory. However, whilst General and Special Revelation may be in perfect harmony, one cannot infer from this that General Revelation is a collateral authority. It is no authority whatsoever when the correct interpretation of Scripture is at stake. (See M.L. Jones on ‘What is an evangelical?’). This implies a number of sub-presuppositions: rapid creation, intrusive death, disease and suffering by human sin, word-wide catastrophe, redemption through the death and resurrection of Christ, coming judgement upon all. * Deflationary, Pragmatic and Coherence theories of truth are all false. Absolute, objective Truth, belongs unto God alone. Fallen humanity has been given absolute, objective and propositional Truth in God’s Special Revelation – the Holy Scriptures. However, because of our infirmity and sin, this Truth can be misinterpreted. What is Truth? In a nutshell, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Truth. Objective truth, independent of the knower (standing alone or within a community) is basic to Christianity and – against the claims of Karl Barth – to the biblical worldview itself. This does not mean our own fallen and finite knowledge is absolute. Rather, it means that the propositional revelation of Holy Scripture is an independent standard of objective truth that is capable of interpreting itself. No extrinsic authority is necessary to interpret God’s word because as a complete Canon of 66 books, it forms a recursive, interpretive, whole – in and of itself. This was the essence of the formal principle of the Reformation: otherwise known as sola Scriptura! Instead, today we have a hermeneutics of suspicion in which biblical inerrancy is believed to be ‘exegetically improbable, hermeneutically defective, theologically dangerous, and educationally disastrous.’ How is Scientific Creationism different from Scientism and Evolutionism? Scientism is the belief that Science alone can explain all phenomena - including life, consciousness and the human tendency toward religious worship. It often sits side-by-side with hard-nosed Empiricism, Atheistic Humanism, and Antiteleological Naturalism. Scientific Creationism, on the other hand, holds that Science has no in-built value system. Christian Theology, being the most parsimonious explanation of life that many eminent scholars have come across, must have primacy in order to provide the foundations of a coherent and cogent worldview within which the scientific method (and the historical context of the prevailing scientific paradigm) can operate. This has been the position of many eminent scientists throughout the modern era (Ray, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Morse etc.).

by Jim (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Sep 17, 2005 at 4:18:40 AM

  (0+)

Here is the way I would like the interview to go: Scientist: Evolution is a fact that all educated people know. Intelligent Design (ID) is just repackaged creationism. Thus it is religion which should be excluded from schools. Interviewer: Excuse me I am a little puzzled. I thought that evolution is a theory? Did we miss some discovery that has proven evolution is a fact? Scientist: Are you daring to question the fact of evolution? You sound like your uneducated ID proponent. Interviewer: Has the scientific method changed? I was taught in science class that discoveries in science went through the scientific method to prove their truth. You know an event must be observable, testable, and it must be able to be repeated over and over again. Scientist: No, of course not, but- Interviewer: Isn't it true that the Big Bang cannot be tested using the scientific method? Scientist: Yes your are correct but most scientists believe the Big Bang is true. It is our best guess. Interviewer: Doesn’t that place the Big Bang outside science like you say ID is? Let me ask if the Big Bang is true then where did the material for the Big Bang come from? Who observed the Big Bang? Where are scientists currently testing, using the scientific method, the Big Bang theory? Scientist: What are you saying? Interviewer: Give us the origin of the material for the Big Bang and what caused the explosion? (A long pause) Interviewer: You don’t know do you? As you said the Big Bang is a belief/ best guess and not even testable using the scientific method. Scientist: You don’t understand many scientists believe the Big Bang is true. Interviewer: The universe appears, through observation, to not be the result of a massive explosion but of order. Scientist: What are you saying? Interviewer: The universe is very orderly arranged. It appears as if someone(s) placed things in an orderly arrangement. Scientist: Well there you go implying God. That is unscientific. Interviewer: When you look at a watch do think an explosion in a junkyard produced it or do you think an intelligent person(s) designed it with remarkable craftsmanship? Scientist: Of course it was designed. Interviewer: Why then when you see obvious design in the universe do you reject a designer? Scientist: A designer of the universe is so unscientific. You really mean God. Everything that exists is a result of blind, random, purposeless chance. Interviewer: Like a watch? Shouldn’t student be exposed to ID? It is a testable observation. Anyway I thought science was a search for knowledge. Scientist: We cannot teach religion in schools. Children should be educated with facts and not myths! Interviewer: So you’re saying only facts should be taught in schools? Scientist: Of course! No religious myths in school. Interviewer: So when will you stop teaching the theory of evolution as a fact, the myth of the Big Bang, the myth that non-living things gave rise to living things, because these are not facts. They are not testable by the scientific method. Scientist staring blankly. Scientist: No, No! There is no way we will every stop teaching those things. True scientists believe in those things. Why we would be the laughing stock of the world. Interviewer: So we should teach just facts? Scientist: Yes are you listening? Interviewer: Isn’t true that you don’t want to expose the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, etc. to valid insightful criticism using ID? Are you afraid of the results? Scientist: No we are a progressive people in the U.S. We have stopped believing in myths. Interviewer: Yes we are progressive but if evolution is such an established fact what do you have to fear? Are you afraid evolution, the big bang, etc. will not be able to withstand the criticism ID will bring? Scientist: There is no debate! ID is not science! Interviewer: And the Big Bang is science? Scientist: Stop bringing up the Big Bang! We are discussing teaching ID in schools. Interviewer: So no criticism of the theory of evolution is allowed. Scientist: Yes but by those who properly understand evolution. Interviewer: So ID proponents are not qualified. Your saying those scientists, with degrees, who are proposing teaching ID in schools, do not properly understand? Scientist: Correct they are not. If they understood they would not propose teaching ID in schools. They should stick to teaching ID in church and not schools. There really just trying to confuse those who are not educated yet.

by J Pugh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Sep 26, 2005 at 12:34:34 PM

  (0+)