William Lane Craig commits classic anti-creation mistake

[Stripe]

Young-Earth creationism is in massive conflict with modern science.

He uses this to justify a "myth though historical interpretation" belief in his Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 27) podcast.

The No. 1 failure of this criticism? Belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is also "in massive conflict with modern science."

[Stripe]

Full text.

[chair]

Young-Earth creationism is in massive conflict with modern science.

He uses this to justify a "myth though historical interpretation" belief in his Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 27) podcast.

The No. 1 failure of this criticism? Belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is also "in massive conflict with modern science."

So you finally agree that YEC is a religious belief, not a scientific one. Good to hear.

[Stripe]

So you finally agree that YEC is a religious belief, not a scientific one. Good to hear.

Try to quote me saying that.

Wait. Is that a lie? I'm outraged and demand an apology.

[chair]

...

The No. 1 failure of this criticism? Belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is also "in massive conflict with modern science."

Just a logical parallel between the above statement and YEC vs. modern science. Though you did not explicitly say that.

I

[Stripe]

A logical parallel between the above statement and YEC vs. modern science.

It's at best an implication that only a bad-faith reading would come up with.

You did not explicitly say that.

There's the key. We have to say it for it to apply. For instance, you have denied being a leftist, so we have to respect that.

In this thread, the challenge of logical failure is against WLC, who rejects the plain-reading Biblical account because he thinks science has disproven it. However, he accepts Jesus Christ as his risen saviour despite the scientific impossibility of a man coming back from the dead.

[The Berean]

It's at best an implication that only a bad-faith reading would come up with.



There's the key. We have to say it for it to apply. For instance, you have denied being a leftist, so we have to respect that.

In this thread, the challenge of logical failure is against WLC, who rejects the plain-reading Biblical account because he thinks science has disproven it. However, he accepts Jesus Christ as his risen saviour despite the scientific impossibility of a man coming back from the dead.

I always found it bizarre that anyone would believe one but not the other.

[Stripe]

I always found it bizarre that anyone would believe one but not the other.

For being super into logic-based arguments, WLC's responses to the YEC position are insane.

He's been through this series of podcasts three times now that I've listened to and each time, his tactics have shifted wildly. First time, there was this great big sign up on his Web site that he didn't discuss YEC because it was "divisive" (right after a show he did calling homosexuality a sin). Next time around, he had all these defenses against YEC challenges as if that made the case against it. This time he's dropped all those tactics for science-based ridicule.

For how good he is in a debate, he'd get torn to shreds on this topic pretty much no matter who he faced.

[Alate_One]

The No. 1 failure of this criticism? Belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ is also "in massive conflict with modern science."

Any miracle is clearly outside the realm of science. But not only that it can't *technically* be disproven by scientific methods because it is a one off event. Unless someone can 'find the body', there's no real way to disprove it. (See a really horrid Christian novel called: A Skeleton in God's Closet)

But the silly thing about this argument is ancient people were well aware that humans didn't spring back to life spontaneously, that's what made it a miracle. People realized this was not a normal event which is what science is about studying, the normal natural processes of the universe.

The problem with YEC is it makes a statement about the function of the world around us. It makes predictions about how the natural world should look, and unfortunately those predictions are not borne out by the evidence. Early scientists (who were virtually all Christians) went out into the world and realized the evidence did not support a global flood.

Suggested reading:

The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence
by Davis A. Young

[Stripe]

Any miracle is clearly outside the realm of science. But not only that it can't *technically* be disproven by scientific methods because it is a one off event. Unless someone can 'find the body', there's no real way to disprove it. (See a really horrid Christian novel called: A Skeleton in God's Closet)

But the silly thing about this argument is ancient people were well aware that humans didn't spring back to life spontaneously, that's what made it a miracle. People realized this was not a normal event which is what science is about studying, the normal natural processes of the universe.

The problem with YEC is it makes a statement about the function of the world around us. It makes predictions about how the natural world should look, and unfortunately those predictions are not borne out by the evidence. Early scientists (who were virtually all Christians) went out into the world and realized the evidence did not support a global flood.

Suggested reading:

The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence
by Davis A. Young

This is irrelevant to the challenge WLC faces. He dismisses the plain reading of the Bible because it is "disproven by science" in the case of YEC, but would not apply the same standard to the resurrection.

[Lon]

The problem with YEC is it makes a statement about the function of the world around us. It makes predictions about how the natural world should look, and unfortunately those predictions are not borne out by the evidence.

By 'evidence' or by 'speculation.' Perhaps 'science evidence' (as if evidence is science's) or 'science-speculation?'

Early scientists (who were virtually all Christians) went out into the world and realized the evidence did not support a global flood.

Suggested reading:

The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence
by Davis A. Young

Er, Creation Research Institute and Answers In Genesis? Listen to 6 Days and Stripe a bit. They've addressed this a number of times, but most early Christian scientists believed in a global flood until the 18th/19th century, even some scientists today (Smithsonian).

How committed are you to evolution if data cannot dissuade you?

[Alate_One]

By 'evidence' or by 'speculation.' Perhaps 'science evidence' (as if evidence is science's) or 'science-speculation?'

I mean the hundreds of ways evolution explains how biology works. Creationism does not. Trying to use creationism in biology is like trying to ride a bike with both arms tied behind your back. It's mental gymnastics that are so awkward it's painful.

Er, Creation Research Institute and Answers In Genesis? Listen to 6 Days and Stripe a bit. They've addressed this a number of times, but most early Christian scientists believed in a global flood until the 18th/19th century, even some scientists today (Smithsonian).

How committed are you to evolution if data cannot dissuade you?

I used to be a YEC back in high school and early college. I had two copies of the Genesis flood. We got ICR tracts all the time. Once I got enough scientific knowledge I realized how none of it fit any of the available data. Creationist literature in general has a very poor scientific basis. It's primarily composed of data cherry picking, misrepresentation and occasional outright falsehoods. Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.

[JudgeRightly]

I mean the hundreds of ways evolution explains how biology works. Creationism does not. Trying to use creationism in biology is like trying to ride a bike with both arms tied behind your back. It's mental gymnastics that are so awkward it's painful.


I used to be a YEC back in high school and early college. I had two copies of the Genesis flood. We got ICR tracts all the time. Once I got enough scientific knowledge I realized how none of it fit any of the available data. Creationist literature in general has a very poor scientific basis. It's primarily composed of data cherry picking, misrepresentation and occasional outright falsehoods. Bones of Contention was the last book I had, it tried very hard to deal with human fossils, but it was pretty obvious they were trying to shoehorn the data into the categories they WANTED it to fit into.

If I could give you one book that explains ALL of the evidence almost perfectly, would you read it?

[Alate_One]

If I could give you one book that explains ALL of the evidence almost perfectly, would you read it?

Possibly but most likely I would pick it apart. I have been all over the web and seen most of the newer arguments as well. They are slightly better, but still very wrong. Behe tries very hard but still fails.

[Alate_One]

If I could give you one book that explains ALL of the evidence almost perfectly, would you read it?

Would you read Evolutionary Creation or I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution?