sir_toejam
Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005
|
I don't think your classification of Carol is necessarily accurate.
I have seen her many time argue that the purview of science is too narrow, and should include philosophical discussions as well. Have you ever checked out her posts about support for teaching ID in science class, or discussions about the time she spent as a "science advisor" to a school district? look for phrases like "elephant in the room" to locate these; i forget which threads they originally appeared in, but it was within the last month.
I could not find in the thread you linked to, her specific addressal of AC's critique of her logic about labeling moses' age a miracle. perhaps you could name the specific numbered post? What i saw was her statement of transcription of years to be essentially that of standard years, and then when called on the fact that this would of course mean that many protagonists were hundreds of years old, claim that this is a miracle, and we should uh, just "move on". I never saw her ever deal directly with the conflict in logic this causes her original overarching statement of the compatability of science and the OT.
Assuming she did and i missed it: Regardless of her latest backpeddaling, how would you resolve the inherent conflict in her logic when she states things like:
"there is no conflict between science and the OT"
with the idea that there are miracles needed to explain a lot of it, but that these are not within the purview of science to explain.
which part do you think she will have to cave on then?
I find the idea that she accepts miracles to be within the purview of science to be totally consistent with much of her earlier writings on PT.
If there was more recent backpeddaling it's most likely simply because of the immediate and very clear inconsistency this position raises with her overarching and oft stated belief that if we just translated the OT like landa does, we would see no conflicts with science.
so, I'm gonna go on record as disagreeing with ya there.
...and the question is still wide open wrt Heddle.
why am i making a big deal out of this?
because just like IDer's, folks like Carol MUST essentially redefine either the definition or purview of science in order to accomodate their belief systems.
that makes them just as much enemies to the success of science as any IDiot, in my book.
It's all about projection, clear and plain, and both of them suffer from it (and denial) in spades.
edit:
in further parsing your link i see you were referring to the post where Carol says:
| Quote | | There is no way around the Hebrew word SHANA meaning year. The longevities of Noah and others throughout Genesis can only be miraculous. But again that is not contradicted by science. You either accept it or you do not. But you cannot use science as a basis for rejection. |
but this is the exact quote that started the whole debate about "miracles" that she commented on later in the thread.
It did not clarify her position, but rather was the nucleus for the rest of the whole debate to begin with!
look again at the last line there:
| Quote | | You either accept it or you do not. But you cannot use science as a basis for rejection |
yikes, now that's serious denial.
it essentially amounts to saying:
everything in here is consistent with science, except the bits that aren't, like miracles and whatnot.
It's an entirely untennable position, starting from the position of inclusiveness Carol began with.
which i think Arden made quite clear in his followup post.
|
).
3-->
