Dr Adequate
9th November 2005, 03:24 PM
I just came up with this thought, which I think is interesting.
* coughs *
The OEC maintains that the Big Bang defies the laws of nature, and so requires the existence of a creator God who can supervene those laws; whereas the YEC uses exactly the same arguments to conclude that the Big Bang defies the laws of nature and therefore didn’t happen.
The OEC says that abiogenesis is impossible, and that therefore when it happened all those billions of years ago, this was evidence of the hand of a life-giving God; whereas the YEC, using the same arguments, says that abiogenesis is impossible and that therefore it did not take place billions of years ago.
The OEC says that the mechanism of mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain evolution, and that therefore the evidence for evolution is evidence for God’s guiding hand; whereas the YEC, using the same arguments, says that natural mechanisms alone are insufficient to explain evolution and that therefore it can’t have taken place.
The OEC (occasionally) says that the existence of life defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, proving its divine and miraculous origin; whereas the YEC, using almost exactly the same arguments, says that evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics and therefore did not take place.
It is hard to deny that the OEC has the virtue of logical consistency on his side: he looks at the facts, thinks them inconsistent with natural law, and finds in this a confirmation of his faith in the supernatural; whereas the YEC, on these disputed matters, looks at the facts, thinks them inconsistent with natural law using exactly the same arguments, and so declares that they can’t be really be facts: for which purpose he must covertly introduce as a premise a rigid and dogmatic naturalism contrary to his religious beliefs.
* coughs *
The OEC maintains that the Big Bang defies the laws of nature, and so requires the existence of a creator God who can supervene those laws; whereas the YEC uses exactly the same arguments to conclude that the Big Bang defies the laws of nature and therefore didn’t happen.
The OEC says that abiogenesis is impossible, and that therefore when it happened all those billions of years ago, this was evidence of the hand of a life-giving God; whereas the YEC, using the same arguments, says that abiogenesis is impossible and that therefore it did not take place billions of years ago.
The OEC says that the mechanism of mutation and natural selection is insufficient to explain evolution, and that therefore the evidence for evolution is evidence for God’s guiding hand; whereas the YEC, using the same arguments, says that natural mechanisms alone are insufficient to explain evolution and that therefore it can’t have taken place.
The OEC (occasionally) says that the existence of life defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, proving its divine and miraculous origin; whereas the YEC, using almost exactly the same arguments, says that evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics and therefore did not take place.
It is hard to deny that the OEC has the virtue of logical consistency on his side: he looks at the facts, thinks them inconsistent with natural law, and finds in this a confirmation of his faith in the supernatural; whereas the YEC, on these disputed matters, looks at the facts, thinks them inconsistent with natural law using exactly the same arguments, and so declares that they can’t be really be facts: for which purpose he must covertly introduce as a premise a rigid and dogmatic naturalism contrary to his religious beliefs.