I always enjoy dialogues on origins. Big bang standard model or oscillating? Multiverse or just one? Six thousand years or 13.7 billion years ago? Darwinism or design? One thing I’ve noticed with young earth creationism is that they seem to insert, or interpolate, their own presuppositions into the record of nature. They’re performing their own eisogesis into science. I know that one can never free anything from presuppositions, like the reliability of my senses or that other minds exist other than my own, but I wonder if a creationist could look at the data concerning the record of nature, without using the Bible, and come to the same conclusions. If they do then why are so many cosmologists and biochemists in disagreement with them, is it a conspiracy (not using this as an argument)? Why are the only people who believe the universe was created six thousand years ago are those who have a specific interpretation of the Bible? If they come to a conclusion that the universe is nearly 13.7 billion years old then how does that not falsify their biblical interpretation? On what grounds is one warranted falsification? If the former of the two main questions is true, then what is wrong with academia and scientists, why only the select few? If the latter of the two main questions is true, then it seems like young earth creationism is unfalsifiable. Just some thoughts from this morning.
February 17th, 2011