.jpg)
Daniel's Comment on Peter's critique of Dr. Bouw.
Bouw’s argument for the occurrence of a solid, imperceptible “firmament” is a case of ad hoc argumentation.
From my earlier response:
Some creationist Cosmologists have suggested the possibility of a solid substructure for the expanse itself at the level of super-string physics.
Of course, when Dr. Bouw talks about "solid" he is extending the language to a new use. What he really means is a mathematical concept that describes the super small structure of the universe. We should regard the biblical language in the same light. Nobody really knows what causes gravity. Tom Van Flandern has an interesting "C" graviton theory. But somehow the heavens hang on what appears to be "nothing" to the naked eye. Super-string theory is really no different. It is just a model to explain the super small structure of the universe.
Dr. Buow was trying to create a model to fit the biblical parameters. It is not the only possible model, but it is a good idea, and so far there is nothing "unscientific" about it. Since there is no contradiction between science and the Genesis definiton of the RAQIA, Dr. Buow's model is not ad hoc. Ad hoc means and argument that is ASSUMED for the purpose of deflecting a criticism that would logically disprove one's position. Dr. Buow probably did not propose his theory to bail himself out of a difficulty with an opponent.
That is, he construes his case not because the evidence suggests that
any such “firmament” exists but because his view of Genesis requires it to
exist. Ad hoc argumentation does not falsify an argument; however, it
does raise red flags. Yes, it may be true that such an edifice could exist in
the constraints of theoretical physics, yet, there is absolutely no evidence for its existence.
It is really unfair to put the label of "Ad Hoc" on Buow. A "red flag" is a suspicion that Dr. Buow's model was created in desperation to make Genesis "work". I don't think Dr. Buow was in any desperation. This
assumption comes from the a priori assumption that Genesis cannot be logically explained, and shows a failure to be able to anaylze the argument from the other side.
I'm glad to see that you have slightly conceeded that Dr. Buow's theory fits the language of RAQIA. It undermines the certainty of your own position.
In addition to Bouw’s fallacious statements about the nature or role of the
“firmament” in Genesis 1, he makes additional exegetical fallacies. First, he is missing a grasp of the sitz im leben (situation of life) of the earliest readers of this narrative. It is imperative that the exegete ask herself what the earliest reader would have understood a passag. It is absurd to read current exigencies into a text; hence, it would be absurd to expect Genesis to identify the occurrence of a “firmament” that had no practical relativity to the interpretive community. The ancient Hebrews evidence no indications of a cosmology physically divergent from their neighbors—they accepted the same basic model of a flat earth and a vaulted firmament.
This opinion comes from failure to see that Genesis is logically consistent with its main parameters of reality, and that there are MANY scientific hypothesis that can fit within the revealed statements. Dr. Buow's theory is one that fits in the parameters. To suggest that Scientists are required to assume the level of knowledge of an ancient farmer as a basis for proposing theories is ludicrous. Scripture only gives the boundaries. It does not limit what can be proposed within those boundaries. It is not a violoation of SITZ IM LEBEN to propose a more complex explanation within the revealed language. The earliest reader would have understood that RAQIA means Heavens. If someone had come along and explained the physics substructure of the RAQIA or things he did not know, then it is still according to the ancient context. The farmer would merely see that the theory fits the parameters he already knew from revealed truth.
We should not suppose that RAQIA means vaulted firmament in the crass sense of a touchably solid dome. Genesis defines it as "heavens" as I already pointed out in my first response.
In addition to missing the sitz im leben of Genesis 1’s original readers, Bouw fails to address what the text specifies as the purpose for the firmament-rakia. Bouw’s “firmament” appears to serve no real-world function other than to evidence his interpretation of a Hebrew creation myth.
Then you should read Buow's proposal more thoroughly. His theory has the unique advantage of an Earth-Centered-Universe. The RAQIA moves around the earth once each sideral day. The heavenly bodies move in the RAQIA with respect to it as a reference point. Given the Genesis language, it is allowable. Modern Science does not exclude it.
Finally, Bouw’s argument is defensive—not offensive. That is, his argument does not explain anything. Rather, it seeks only to redress the maculatory nature of the Genesis firmament-rakia.
For one, it explains a structure that may guide the heavenly bodies. For two, it explains how the universe might rotate. That's not nothing. "Defensive/Offensive" is all in the eye of the beholder. It is not legitimate argument to win the argument by defining the opposition.
I will develop more about the firmament-rakia in short order…
1 comments:
Hello Peter,
My main aim was to show that Dr. Buow was entitled to his model and that it fit within the Genesis account. My second aim was to show that he agrees with me on the definition of RAQIA = heavens. This point and my other points confirm that there is no contradiction between science and the Genesis 1 account.
Second, like most evolutionary apologists, you insist on characterizing the motives of the opposition were it is not warranted in a personified sense. I.e. "defensively adorn" e.t.c. These sort of attempts to define the opposition are not really fair. They are just propaganda designed to win by definition the opposition argument for the audience. Whatever the merits of Dr. Buow's hypothesis such characterizations are not warranted.
For Christians, that the bible states something is evidence by divine revelation for the existence of what it states. The RAQIA exists because God said it does. The argument therefore stands or falls on whether you succeed in showing that the bible is not God's word because it contains unexplainable contradictions.
As you admitted yourself an "ad hoc" argument proves nothing, and it only raises a "red flag". The "red flag" is in the eye of the beholder. Also I may point out that the evolutionary point of view is full of theories and hypothesis that are "ad hoc". They do not prove anything, and they do not explain anything. A phylogenic tree does not explain the fossil record. There is no evidence of transition from one form to another, and the assumption that the sequence from invertebrates to land mammals in the strata is evidence of evolution is fallacious because the assumption of evolution is not proved. Therefore, other explanations of the sequence are valid, such a hydrological sorting and biome segregation.
Dr. Buow's hypothesis has one advantage over the "ad hoc" argument of evolution, and that is his theory is allowed in the framework of divine revelation whereas evolution is not.
Genesis does speak to the modern day. Dr. Russell Humphrey's (Ph.d.) made valid predictions of the strength of magnetic fields of the outer planets before science verified them on the basis of his belief in Genesis. Walt Brown (Ph.d.) has made many valid predictions based on Genesis that have come true. Also Brown's theory has a great deal of parsimonious ability to explain the current geography of the earth.
While many creationists use Copernicus' point of view, Dr. Buow is entitled to his, and science has nothing against it. Scientific hypothesis do not have to be proven to exist by the text. They only have to pass the test of non-contradiction with the text. Science remains the wonderful art of discovering of God's creation.
While you reject Dr. Buow's position, I sense that you may try to use him as evidence for too strict a view of the RAQIA that is not warranted by the text in order to try to involve the text in a contradiction with science.
You try to say that the RAQIA cannot be the modern idea of space. However, what is space? Modern scientists still do not understand the structure of space. One may say that a table is "solid", but in fact at the atomic level it is mostly empty space! There may actually be something there at the subatomic level below the plank length that scientists have not discovered that may be reflected in the divine hint of the word RAQIA. I will not be so bold as to say Dr. Buow has convincingly defined space, but I will be so bold as to say that it is quite improper to assume our understanding of space is so complete as to require a contradiction with Genesis.
Dan
Post a Comment