Friday, April 29, 2005
An A-Priori Commitment to Millions of Years?
Many people rightly claim that Creationists have an a priori commitment to a young earth. We in fact do (at least to some extent -- the biosphere). However, I have been wondering of late whether or not the other side has similar commitments, even though they claim not to. The reason for that is that many of the original reasons for belief in "millions of years" have been long refuted. However, when you look at projections for the age of the earth or the universe, they get progressively longer, but the reasons for projecting this have been shown to be wrong.
This indicates to me that perhaps they had an a priori commitment to long ages, probably based on Greek philosophy (which had been revived during the renaissance). The geologists of the 19th century talked about getting out from under the Abrahamic
(or was it Mosaic -- can't remember the actual terminology) system. Anyway, the dates go slowly outward from Mosaic dates -- starting out at about 80,000 years, and progressing steadily upward until we are at the 4 billion mark for the earth today, and the 20 million mark for the universe.
Anyway, nothing explicit, it is certainly very likely that they did not have an a priori commitment, but it just made me wonder, and I might look into it more at a later date.
This indicates to me that perhaps they had an a priori commitment to long ages, probably based on Greek philosophy (which had been revived during the renaissance). The geologists of the 19th century talked about getting out from under the Abrahamic
(or was it Mosaic -- can't remember the actual terminology) system. Anyway, the dates go slowly outward from Mosaic dates -- starting out at about 80,000 years, and progressing steadily upward until we are at the 4 billion mark for the earth today, and the 20 million mark for the universe.
Anyway, nothing explicit, it is certainly very likely that they did not have an a priori commitment, but it just made me wonder, and I might look into it more at a later date.
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 7:55 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
There are a lot of good reasons to have that a priori commitment. I know that was a self contradictory statement, but there really are a lot of reasons to think the earth is young. If those reasons are rejected by one crowd, the argument becomes a prejudice in the minds of the opposition. Bias is everywhere. It's there whether you see it or not, but once you learn to see it, you'll see it everywhere.
If you want a pretty complete history of where the long ages came from, you can read "In the Minds of Men" by Ian Taylor. There is a link to it on this site:
http://FromNoahtoHercules.com
Of course, I could have linked to it directly, but there are lots of other evidences of a young humanity there and I hope you can look at them. We don't have to have an a priori commitment to a young earth. It becomes an experiential, knowledge based commitment once you are exposed to the evidence.
Post a Comment
If you want a pretty complete history of where the long ages came from, you can read "In the Minds of Men" by Ian Taylor. There is a link to it on this site:
http://FromNoahtoHercules.com
Of course, I could have linked to it directly, but there are lots of other evidences of a young humanity there and I hope you can look at them. We don't have to have an a priori commitment to a young earth. It becomes an experiential, knowledge based commitment once you are exposed to the evidence.
<< Home
