We’re treating this as the second installment of an earlier post on this subject. See: Creationism and Logic. As with Part 1, today’s AIG article was written by Jason Lisle, whose creationist writings are familiar to our readers. He’s described at AIG’s website as a Creationist Astrophysicist — whatever that is.
As we’ve noted before, AIG has an entire page devoted to information about this amazing man: Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Until recently, that page had a reference to his doctorate appearing both before and after his name, so we always referred to him as “Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D.” Now that they’ve cleaned it up (perhaps due to our prodding), we’ll drop it. Instead, we’ll call him Jason.
The AIG article is in the form of an answer to a letter they received from a preacher, saying:
[Answers in Genesis] should not tell people that God’s ways are always understandable to the natural rebellious mind.
Here are some excerpts from Jason’s response, with bold added by us:
First, allow me to clarify what we mean by “autonomous human reason.” By this phrase we mean how some people attempt to rely on the conclusions of the mind without using biblical presuppositions.
Where is Jason going with this? Let’s read on:
Biblical presuppositions include such things as laws of logic, induction, the basic reliability of memory, and the basic reliability of our senses. Such things are only meaningful in a Christian worldview …
Aaaargh!! In such situations, we must consult scripture. The site we use for our online searches is BibleGateway. This picture shows the result of our search.
So much for bible logic. What of sensory evidence? For that, we continue:
So, are people able to have knowledge about the universe without these biblical presuppositions? No, they cannot. Knowledge of the universe absolutely requires using things like laws of logic, memory, induction, and sensory experience. I cannot really “know” that the sun is shining unless I also know that my eyes are basically reliable — that what I see is real and not illusion. But if the eyes are merely the accidental product of evolution, there is no fundamental reason to trust their sensations, nor the brain’s interpretation of those sensations.
We find this exceedingly odd. Jason is — correctly — extolling the virtue of logic and sensory evidence — but are those things theological? We thought they were part of the scientific method. As Galileo wrote at the start of his unfortunate controversy over the very un-scriptural solar system, in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany:
They [the churchmen opposed to Galileo’s solar system theory] go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even in purely physical matters – where faith is not involved – they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense.
This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations … . But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words.
And that, in our humble opinion, should be contrasted with:
[Hebrews 11-1:] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Moving along with Jason’s article:
Evolutionists, of course, do believe that their senses are reliable, that there are laws of logic, etc. But in doing so, they are relying upon biblical presuppositions. They are being inconsistent: tacitly relying upon God’s Word while verbally rejecting that same Word.
Well, okay. We’re only at the beginning of what Jason has to say in his article, but we’ve seen enough. If you want to explore his thoughts further, by all means click over to AIG and indulge yourself. Your Curmudgeon’s capacity to deal with such material is sometimes limited.
See also: Creationism and Logic, Part 3.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.