|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 04:29:49
|
Usually, on my morning visits to creationisis sites, I find little more than the same, old guff. But once in a while, a silk purse falls from the apologists sow's ear and it's worth reading and commenting upon. Here is one such. It begins with a variation of the usual declaration of faith and then:The Place of Scientific Models
In the course of our work at Answers in Genesis–United Kingdom, we are sometimes asked questions for which the Bible does not give an exact answer. In a chapter that I penned for the New Answers Book, I stated:
“Skeptics often claim, ‘The Bible is not a science textbook.' This, of course, is true—because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue. ... It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about.”
The issue that I was addressing in the New Answers Book was the question “How did animals spread all over the world from where the Ark landed?” The Bible doesn't actually say how this happened, yet it is clear from the Bible that it did happen. That is why a scientific model was necessary. However, I said this about scientific models: such models should be held lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say, future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.
| Uh-huh. One might think that if scientific evidence changes the model, the Scripture might warrent a re-examination as well. Not so. In the belly of this beast we find descriptions of how this works, and you really have to have a fair amount of cast-iron faith to buy into it. Mr. Taylor gets off the the stage with this statement: Conclusion We have seen that scientific models can help us carry out our 1 Peter 3:15 obligation always to have an answer. The scriptural principles behind the construction of a model are absolute. The model itself may contain reasoned conjecture, according to established scientific ideas, so long as these do not conflict with the scriptural facts.
Scientific models, while helpful, must never take the place of Scripture. The scientific model can be superseded. Scripture cannot.
| And that's what it's all about; always have an answer. It's ok if that answer is pure hokum, just as long as you have one.
Above: The Sombrero galaxy, Messier 104, is located 28 million light-years from earth. Because we start from the Bible, which teaches a young universe, creation models seek to understand how light can travel vast distances in a short period of time.
Bottom: The creation model of created kinds starts with the fact that only two animals of each kind (with the exception of certain animals) entered Noah's Ark as the Bible teaches.
|
[Moved to the Creation/Evolution folder - Dave W.]
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 04:41:24 [Permalink]
|
I found this an interesting statement:
...because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie. | Is he saying God is not omnipotent? I hadn't thought there was anything God could not do should He choose to do it. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2007 : 14:29:54 [Permalink]
|
And when the map and the landscape it describes don't match, the landscape is wrong. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|