Of course, I realised prior to using the excerpt that the post was from September and that is was not about me personally [hence the use of the word "also"]. However, given its context and your stated opinion of YEC's – “I think they are a bit silly, like the Young Earth Creationists” – I just wanted to make sure that you were not confusing my view.

Thanks for mentioning Goethe. I'll have to check him out before I say anything further, but I'm in a real hurry at the moment preparing for my mother's 60th tomorrow.

Cheers.

And don't get me wrong, I fully realize the limits of materialist reductionism. I'm a fan of Goethe, and even got to use Goethe in my day job a couple times. But we have to admit that the definition of “science” as taught in science classes is basically synonymous with materialist reductionism. Goethe's insights are now categorized as “philosophy” by most. So the point is that “science” (as it is commonly taught) and “creationism” (as it is commonly taught) are completely different spheres.

I will strongly support any effort to recapture the older definition of science and teach kids that real science shouldn't just be materialist reductionism. But even in this (and I suspect you would agree with me), the best way is to bring Goethe into the science classroom, and not creationism or the Bible.

If you want kids to learn creationism, make sure that more kids go to Church.

My feelings exactly. But I hope I didn't give the impression that creationism should be taught in science classrooms. I tried to make that clear. You did read the entire article, right?

I also hope that I didn't give the impression that the word of God and science should be or are, conflated. Again, I thought that was apparent. That the scientific method should naturally flow from a biblical world view is quite a different thing to saying that they are epistemologically linked… I think?

But what I wanted to demonstrate however is that the scientific method, freed from the shackle of materialism, is completely consistent with a biblical world view, and we can learn true things about the world from both sources.

I'd also point out that modern science is demonstrably unconcerned with the authority of scripture, so it's no wonder that the two seemingly conflict. (e.g. Big Bang Cosmology, Radioactive Dating, Modern Geology, etc) … I mean, name a discipline that hasn't got something to say that is in opposition to God's word? Modern science is epistemologically different to creationism, because modern scientists couldn't give a hoot what Moses says. As far as they're concerned, he's wrong.

By the way, I read some of your stuff…

If you believe that the Bible has no authority except when science aligns with it completely, you are an atheist already! By making God’s revealed word subordinate to a relatively inconsequential field of materialist science such as geology, these litmus testers make God’s word inconsequential.
http://lowerwisdom.com/2009/09/young-earth-crea…

Mate, if this is your view of my position also, then you'd want to read my stuff a lot more carefully before you tar me with that brush. You are completely off the mark.

Thanks for your thoughts.

The kind of creationism that fundamentalists want to place in school science classes is based on revelation. If we deny that point, we might as well throw out the whole Bible. The creation story was not an empirical hypothesis. It is the revealed Word of God, the Creator. Creationism comes from an *entirely* different epistemological perspective than the “scientific method”. To argue otherwise is just plain self-destructive.

Likewise, it's suicidal to argue that we could “sneak” creationism into schools by pretending to arrive at it empirically. That's not how Moses arrived at it, and it's not how we should arrive at it.

Yes, it's true that Bacon and Hume relied on the moral foundations of Christianity and the past scholarship of Christians when building their systems. But that is changing the subject. That's like saying that Darwinism is really a form of Christianity, since Darwin's mother was a Christian and Darwin read Hebrews on his deathbed.

Until Churches allow equal time for empiricists, since “empiricism is based on God's revealed physical universe”, it's pretty silly to ask science teachers to teach creationism. If you want kids to learn creationism, make sure that more kids go to Church.

I don't know if I am meant to take your response as polite instruction or a harsh rebuke?

Do I expect the atheist to believe just because the bible says so? Well, I expect atheists to disbelieve much of what God tells them unless the Holy Spirit is involved. I do however expect Christians to believe it and that was the intention behind my original statement in the article; it was about Christian presuppositions and how they shape our thinking, not atheists. Besides, isn't that kind of the motivation behind YEC cosmological and geological models in the first place… Don't those models begin with the presupposition that God's word is true… And because of that, the models work in such a way to demonstrate – evidentially – that Christianity is the best explanation for the observations?

Nonetheless I don't fault your approach at all, which is why I wonder where you think I am going wrong. In fact I think that what you described is the kind of thing I already do. That is, I question their conclusions by attempting to demonstrate the faulty presuppostions and reasoning on which they are based; showing that the evidence best fits the world as described in the Bible.

Say, for something like the bacterial flagellum, I might point out the similarities it has with man-made motors, not just its parts but its construction, and challenge them to think about whether they think a Christian or evolutionary world view can best explain it?

This is what I think would be helpful, if you don't mind? Imagine you are my editor and write a brief paragraph to replace the section of my article with which you took exception. e.g. “…cannot currently resolve. [insert edit here]“.

Me? I'd rather point her to the incredible amount of geological and palaeontological evidence for it.

Duane, do you expect the atheist to presuppose that God created the world just because the Bible is God's Word and it says that God created?

Me? I'd rather sit down with him and see which, the theist or materialist, explanation best explains reality.

I'm interested in improving the way I explain these things to others. So if you don't like my phrasing because of an apparent arbitrary presupposition and can suggest a better way, I'd like to hear it? I actually gave a more specific example by the way (i.e. Humphreys & Hartnett) and obviously there are others that shape our understanding of geology for example (Gen 6-9).

The principled (arbitrary?) presupposition being that God's word id true.

* The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

I am not quite sure how a presupposition can be based on any other piece of knowledge and still be something basic. If it were, it wouldn't be a presupposition. Given that, and since one just presupposes its truth (or pragmatic value or whatever), then it has to be arbitrary. One could just as easily presuppose its opposite, no?