Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

TU&D,

You confidently assert that evolution is a demonic lie, yet you have not taken the time to discuss the evidence I presented. If you really think that evolution is a lie that needs to be “destroyed” as per 2 Cor 10:5, would it not behoove you to rebut the evidence?

Evolution is not a lie. The evidence for evolution is very, very strong. Only those with prior religious aversions continue to deny its validity.

If evolution is really so contrary to Christianity, then why is there evidence for evolution all over the place? Why do you think God would allow such “deceptive” evidence to be so widespread?

Or perhaps you’re denying what God Himself has no concerns about (since the whole evolution deal was His idea to begin with)?

Gabriel, #1052,

Your post is a bit ironically pharasaic. Complaining about assertions being made without an argument, yet doing the same thing you complain about.

Look, it behooves us to begin by defining terms. Look at #1005 by Richard. Then we’re going to slosh around in definitions. Then we could talk philosophy of science and methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. And then we could discuss ….

This thing could go on for a very, very long time. I’ve participated in these discussions on quite a few occasions in the past on other blogs. I’ve made an assessment and my assessment is that my arguments are not going to change your mind. And to be charitable, you’re not going to change my mind either. Fair’s fair.

If you want to blast out a series of comments about all this “evidence” you have for theistic evolution, go for it. I may or may not take the time to respond. I really have other things I need to do. But if you feel the need to validate yourself, please, by all means, go ahead.

Just finish your last comment with “Quod Erod Demonstratum” to let me know that you’re done.

TU&D,

I for one, if I was going to characterize the views of other Christians as “idiotic” “demonic” “lie from the pit of hell” et cetera, I WOULD BE WILLING TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE that lead me to that conclusion, especially if those espousing such views were inviting me to do so and providing the evidence they saw as convincing for their position!

I trust that most of the folks following this thread will be able to see that you’ve done no more than throw around epithets without discussing the evidence. Is that all your position has to offer?

I’m generally a patient person, but there is a limit. If John or another honest seeker of truth gets around to discussing data for evolution, I’ll be happy to rejoin the conversation.

In the meantime TU&D, why not read the Wood paper on human / chimp genetics and tell him why he is wrong? He’s even a YEC, but unlike you, he is qualified and willing to engage the evidence. You could learn a lot from him.

Vita brevis,

gabe

I invited you to make your case. Quit whining and do it. I just ask that you write “QED” when you’re done.

Re post 1053 and evidence for evolution

TU&D stated, ” Complaining about assertions being made without an argument, yet doing the same thing you complain about.”

I observe, however, that Gabe made several posts with what he believed was supporting information. I found the fused chromosome evidence particularly interesting. Neither TU&D nor any one else responded to that.

In my books that counts as assertion plus argument that has not been responded to. What is your explanation for the fused chromosome, TU&D?

BTW, I don’t take as dim a view of the Discovery Institute or Intelligent Design as Gabe does.

Regards,
#John

TU&D @ 1055

I’ve already “made my case.” See these posts:

715, 731-734, 737, 865, 866, 868, 871, 874

If you’ve responded to any of these and I missed it (very possible) please direct me to the relevant posts.

If not, please respond to these lines of evidence before reverting to “useful idiot” or “pit of hell” type aspersions.

gabe

1055.Truth Unites… and Divides on 06 Jul 2009 at 7:13 pm #

I invited you to make your case. Quit whining and do it. I just ask that you write “QED” when you’re done.

Nanny-nanny boo-boo!

Your mama don’t dance and your daddy don’t rock and roll!!!

😛

Dang, wasn’t expecting it to shoot past 1,050 so quickly!

Either way, I’m done for now! If ya’ll are still going a month from now when things have settled down on my side, maybe I’ll jump back in.

It’s been fun interacting with everyone here. I got to think about a lot of good stuff in the process, and I look forward to seeing where this thread goes with Gabe, TUaD, and John posting.

If anyone’s on Facebook, look me up. I’m the only Greg M on CMP’s friends list. I may have time to talk if anyone’s interested, but not certain about that one.

Have a good one!

Someone once defined a fundamentalist as “someone who has stopped listening.” In light of this:

And to be charitable, you’re not going to change my mind either.

that seems to describe TUaD, especially if you Google the screen name and read the pattern of posts on other blogs. There are so many, on so many blogs, that I wonder how TUaD has time to do much else.

At any rate, TUaD, you have clearly shown that you refuse to address evidence (facts can be SO inconvenient) just as you have decided to just ignore me and EricW.

At any rate, I would suggest that others on this thread do as I did, google “Truth Unites…and Divides”, read what’s out there, then consider the source of the comments.

Greg, I’ve appreciated your input and wish you God’s best in your marriage. Marriage (well, who I married) is probably the best decision of my life, outside of the decision to submit to Christ. We’ll miss you on the blog, but I bet you don’t miss us…

Greg, best wishes and God’s richest blessings on your wedding and marriage!

If you’re the reading type (and chances are you are) I highly recommend Mike Mason’s The Mystery of Marriage . It’s at once an easy read and profoundly deep. My wife and I read it before our own wedding these 8 years ago this year.

Greg, I also wish you the best and pray for God’s richest blessing on your marriage. I agree with Dave Z: who I married was the best decision of my life outside of the decision to submit to Christ. In addition to the joys of marriage and the giving and receiving of love, Jesus has used my marriage to teach me about giving and receiving forgiveness and to shape me to be more like Him (still a long way to go, though), and I pray that he will do the same for you. If children are in your future, I pray that God will bless you with them, too. I have three, and they are great.

Thanks also for your contributions on this blog. I have learnt from you.

Grace and peace,
John

Re posts 1005 & 1008 on “consensus” and “false” science

Richard writes about “consensus” science as if it were some sort of unchanging monolith that is based entirely upon a Godless philosophy. However, a number of recent books have shown that western science was based upon, and an outgrowth of, a Christian worldview including the belief that God created a universe that we could investigate and understand. The first modern scientists were Christians, and many of the greatest scientists have had a strong faith in Christ.

Furthermore, the “consensus” is based on what scientists observe in the field and in the laboratory and can explain using reason. It is published in the open and available for testing by others. This process is not perfect, because even scientists lie and steal and sin. However, the openness of science means that anyone can challenge the findings of another. The result is that revolutions in the “consensus” can and do take place, as discussed by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. In fact, even science with theological implications will be accepted if the evidence is there to support it, as was the case with the initial rejection and then acceptance of the “Big Bang” theory of the origin of the universe.

The workings of modern science are in stark contrast to the YEC use of science, which is not open to the evidence or to change because it already has its answer from God, namely, “the earth is 6,000 years old”. Not only does YECism reject immediately and out of hand any science that disagrees with its predetermined conclusion, but YECism is inconsistent with its use of science (as represented by the leading YEC organizations ICR, AIG, etc.). It accepts the science of heliocentrism (earth moves around the sun) and uses that science to “re”interpret scripture that speaks of the earth not moving and the sun rising and moving. But it rejects the many many lines of evidence and science that indicate an ancient (billions of years) age for the earth.

YECism also uses scriptures about lies, etc., to blacken the image of science and OE beliefs, without (apparently) realizing that those scriptures could just as easily be applied to them.

Regards,
#John

Gabe, have you ever been to this forum – http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showforum=20 – the anti-evolution guys on there would be able to give a better defense of our position than we probably could.
I’ve yet to see an argument for evolution that hasn’t been refuted, and much of it is discussed on that forum, as well as the evidence against it, and many of the hoaxes and frauds.

Gabe,

I have been an amateur herpetologist most of my life and am familiar with reptiles. These days, I have no reptiles in the house, but I have chickens in the yard, and am amazed at the very close resemblance between a chicken’s foot and a lizard’s foot. It seems to support current evolutionary belief that birds evolved from reptiles. (But the differences are even more striking.)

So I wonder why there are no feathered reptiles today. If mutations leading to feathers were an improvement, why did they not survive? We should have thousands of species of feathered reptiles, just as we have thousands of species of birds and thousands of species of reptiles. Why did that “improvement” exist long enough to evolve into true birds, then completely die off? As I see it (and I do not claim to be knowledgeable) transitional species are still a major problem for evolutionary thought.

John

In #1044 you made the following comments about “appeal to authority”:

“The fallacy of “Appeal to Authority” is also known as misuse of authority, irrelevant authority, questionable authority, inappropriate authority, and ad verecundiam. An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.”

Although this is true, it is an oversimplification of a very complex subject. The truth is that we ALL appeal to authority ALL THE TIME, including you, of course. None of us can be experts in every subject, so in order to arrive at decisions, we must appeal to those whom we believe are authorities in a particular subject.

The following example will demonstrate my point …
Let us consider the subject of the meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” in the 1st chapter of Genesis. I have never studied Hebrew (although I did study Greek in seminary), so in order to discover the meaning of this word, I must “appeal to authority,” which, of course, I have done. One of the scholars that I have turned to is Dr. Tin Wang. Dr. Wang earned his M. Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary in CA and his PhD in Biblical Studies at the Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion (Cincinnati, Ohio). He now lectures on biblical Hebrew at Stanford University, one of the world’s most prestigious educational institutions, and is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the National Association of Professors of Hebrew. No one could reasonably argue that Dr. Wang is not an authority on the Hebrew language. Dr. Wang is a YEC and states that, “In Genesis 1, yom comes with ‘evening’ and ‘morning,’ and is modified by a number. So it’s obvious that the Hebrew text is describing a 24-hour day … the exegetical burden of proof rests crushingly upon those who view otherwise … But no amount of evidence will convince those who are persuaded to play devil’s advocate – just like the serpent in Genesis 3, they must ask, ‘Did God really say?’” cont.

cont.

Dr. Wang’s conclusion is supported by many other Hebrew scholars, of course. On the other hand, I know there are some such scholars that would disagree with Dr. Tang’s position, some of which have been referenced in this blog. In my opinion, however, Dr. Wang’s position is considerably more persuasive.

You, of course, do not agree with Dr. Wang. HOWEVER, you cannot possibly do this on the basis that Dr. Wang conclusions are not authoritative.

The bottom line is this: we all use “Appeals to Authority,” and in many (most?) cases the authority of these figures cannot be questioned. Thus, in the end our conclusions are dependent upon the perspective with which we approach a subject. In the case of the length of the days in Genesis – and, ultimately, the age of the earth – after careful study I have been convinced that the Bible does indeed teach that the days of Genesis 1 are 24-hour days and, furthermore, that the earth (and the universe) is indeed 6-10,000 years old.

In your case, however, I surmise that you believe that science has DEFINITELY proven the ancient age (4.6 billion years) of the earth, and that the biblical text MUST be interpreted in light of this fact. Both of us appeal to authority. It’s just that we have drawn different conclusions from these sources. In my case, the authority of the Scriptures is my foundation (although I must add that I believe that there is abundant scientific support for the YEC position). In your case, it seems to me that the conclusions of science, as you understand them, is yours.

Your comments in #1050 re: the Genesis Flood presents another example of this issue of Appeal to Authority:
“What is unique about YECism is that it uses the global flood (by whatever mechanism) to account for a wide range of observable phenomena, including sedimentary rock and the movement of the earth’s tectonic plates by postulating an extremely violent and catastrophic flood that not only killed all life (except in the ark), but also completely rearranged and changed the appearance and nature of the earth’s surface.

A belief in a global flood does not necessitate a belief in that kind of a flood.”

cont.

cont.

I would disagree with your conclusion and argue that a global flood definitely IS capable of the type of chaos that you describe. One of the authorities I appeal to in this conclusion is Henry Morris. I know you are familiar with him (see my comment #983). For the sake of others, Henry Morris was the co-author of “The Genesis Flood”, the book that launched the modern creationist movement. In addition, he has a PhD in hydraulic engineering from the Un. Of Minnesota and was Chairman of the Civil Engineering Dept at VA Tech University. He was widely recognized as an authority on the Genesis Flood, even by those who did not agree with his conclusions.

The expertise of Henry Morris in this field cannot be questioned. I imagine that you would argue that his conclusions re: the science of the flood were forced by his strict adherence to his belief in the 24 hour day in Genesis 1. I, on the other hand, would argue that his faithful adherence to the truth of God’s Word opened the door to the truth about the science of the Genesis Flood.

Different approaches, different conclusions.

Steve B et al.:

I probably agree that the meaning of yom in Genesis 1 is a 24-hour day. But I think what the ANE-mindset folks here have been arguing is that one needs to understand what it meant to an ANE person in his/her culture to be told/taught that Elohim’s creation took place in 6 days.

To us it means that the world and everything in it were created in 144 hours, more or less. And that is in fact what the text “literally” says.

But the ANE proponents here seem to be saying that those who have immersed themselves in years and years and years of reading the texts and documents and writings and inscriptions and tablets, etc., of ANE peoples – not just Hebrews, but Akkadians and Sumerians and Canaanites, etc. – to the point where they could “feel” what went on in ANE life and thought would argue that ANE folks would not take Genesis 1-3 as teaching what Genesis literalists understand or argue it to be teaching about the how and when those things happened.

Or so ISTM.

1070.EricW on 07 Jul 2009 at 7:55 pm #

Steve B et al.:

I probably agree that the meaning of yom in Genesis 1 is a 24-hour day. But I think what the ANE-mindset folks here have been arguing is that one needs to understand what it meant to an ANE person in his/her culture to be told/taught that Elohim’s creation took place in 6 days.

To us it means that the world and everything in it were created in 144 hours, more or less. And that is in fact what the text “literally” says.

please take the time to read the definitons of “yom”.

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

gil:

Why does that page you asked me to read say, as if it were an established and acknowledged fact, that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible (“Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.”)? What is their proof for that? Most of the stuff in those books about Moses is written in the third person, not the first person.

Re #1072 by EricW

And Moses did not write the part about his death.

Re 1069 by Steve B

The reason I had defined the global flood was to respond to Richard who questioned whether I knew what YECs had written about and how they had variously described it. My original point was that the global flood as described by YECs (ever since Morris’ 1961 book) was very different from previous understandings of the flood. Furthermore, I was pointing that I was not concerned about the difference between various YECist flood mechanisms, but only with the commonalities of their theories: the flood laid down all the sedimentary rock, the flood caused rapid tectonic plate movement, the flood carved out the Grand Canyon, etc. My comment was not about whether the global flood could do these things.

Moving on to what a global flood could accomplish, I don’t believe that a global flood, operating according to the regularities of nature established and sustained by God, could accomplish what Morris claims. Morris doesn’t fully rely on God’s natural world anyway, and openly states that God specifically intervened to accomplish certain things during the flood (primarily by causing the alleged vapour canopy to become rain). I certainly would dispute that Morris is an authority on what he writes about a global flood. He lacks a great deal of knowledge about geology, oceanology, etc. that would be needed to construct a testable model. His “theory”, or rather speculation, is full of conjecture, “ifs”, assumptions and completely lacking in the sort of detail and math used by scientists who study rocks and oceans and the movement of water.

For example, Morris in The Genesis Flood wrote , “The fossil-bearing strata were apparently laid down in large measure during the Flood, with apparent sequences attributed not to evolution but rather to hydrodynamic selectivity, ecological habitats, and differential mobility and strength of the various creatures.” In other words, the flood sorted corpses of animals into strata, as some species struggled more effectively than others to stay above the rising waters.

Not only is that statement a mere speculation, even a moment’s thought reveals how preposterous and ridiculous it is. As Kenneth Miller has written, “Mammals occupy virtually every corner of this planet. Some are very large, some are extremely small, some are quick, some slow, some burrow into the ground, some swim in the ocean, some climb the highest trees. They differ enormously, as Henry Morris might say, in terms of their “hydrodynamic” properties (shape and weight), “ecological habitats,” “differential mobility and strength.” Yet, not a single mammalian fossil appears until the very last strata from the creationist “flood” were laid down. And when they do appear, with incredible bad luck, the fossils arrive in just the right sequence to piece together imaginary evolutionary sequences in a dozen [cont.]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-pointperson_05edi.State.Edition1.1ff611c.html

Point Person: Michael Reiss

02:33 PM CDT on Thursday, July 2, 2009

The tension between evolution and creationism is always bubbling near the surface of Texas’ culture wars. The latest example occurred just a month ago, when Republican Don McLeroy, a critic of evolution, was ousted as the chair of the state Board of Education.

Intense debate over teaching creationism in schools is chiefly an American phenomenon, but one exception occurred recently in England. When Michael Reiss, a scientist and Anglican priest, urged more cultural sensitivity for creationist students, he lost his job as head of education for the Royal Society – the United Kingdom’s national academy of science.

You ran afoul of the Royal Society over creationism. Can you briefly explain what happened?

To be honest, what happened was, I gave a talk about how science teachers should deal with pupils who come from creationist backgrounds. And one of the things I argue is that science teachers must be respectful of pupils, whatever their backgrounds. And most of the papers in the U.K. reported this very faithfully. But one or two suggested that I was arguing that creationism should be taught in science lessons. And it all rather blew up after that.

And the Royal Society gave you the boot, right?

The Royal Society was placed in a very difficult position, because, in a sense, they’re a member organization, and, of course, a lot of their fellows had no idea who I was, even though I was the director of education. And for a few days the Royal Society decided to try to ride it out, and eventually it decided to cut its losses.

You were raised as an atheist, trained as a scientist, came to Christianity as an adult and eventually became an Anglican priest. How do you reconcile your Christianity with the theory of evolution?

It’s quite important for me to say that I was indeed a scientist first, so I never went through a period where I wondered whether the early chapters of Genesis, for example, should be read literally. I was always pretty confident that the scientific understanding of the age of the world and the evolution of the species must be correct. I was then very relieved when I eventually found that, among academic theologians, even before Darwin’s time, that actually was always the consensus view and that fundamentalists’ literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis only really got going in the last 100, 150 years.

[cont’d]

[cont’d]

St. Augustine, one of the most profound theologians in the Western church, counseled against fundamentalism on the question of Genesis, right?

You’re absolutely right. He wrote a rather impressive book called The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, which, despite its title, actually attacked Christians who read the first few chapters as being factual history. Augustine – a major theologian, who lived about the time of the fourth century common era – honestly did not think that was the way to read them.

I’m somebody who has a very conventional Christian faith. I have a quite literal acceptance of the Resurrection. I personally tend to think the virgin birth is probably to be understood literally; to me, it all seems to make sense. But I don’t think we have to read those early chapters of Genesis as telling us about history.

What does your unpleasant experience with the Royal Society tell us about the cultural moment we’re in? What broader lesson should we draw from it?

I think it does suggest – and this is true in the States as well as Europe – that we are at quite an interesting time because normal people feel themselves beleaguered. We don’t any longer have, in most of our societies, a shared common set of values.

In my country, England, religious values are less important on average than they are in the States, and therefore, quite often, it’s religious faiths that are more likely to be attacked. But in some parts of America, I understand, it’s quite difficult if you’re a firm atheist. I want to live in societies where we can have a diversity of people, even if they disagree with one another, respecting one another.

It seems to me that what happened to you – and we have similar things that happen in the U.S. on both sides of the question – puts us in a position where we cannot have the sort of necessary conversations that we must have over science and other controversial issues because people are afraid to teach controversy. It’s easier just to stand back and not talk about it. But I think we’re all impoverished.

And I think if that were to be the case, if people decided not to deal with controversial issues, you’re right, we would indeed be impoverished. I’m actually pretty confident, pretty comfortable. In my experience, the occasional furor in the press, such as surrounded me when I was at the Royal Society, actually often makes it easier for teachers to deal with controversial issues in the classroom. And there’s a fantastic tradition in the States as well as in Europe of dealing with issues of controversy.

[cont’d]

[cont’d]

In Texas, creationism and evolution is a very hot issue in public schools and our state Legislature. If you were going to give general advice to politicians as well as educators about how to handle this issue, what would you say?

I feel very hesitant, as someone who is manifestly English, dreaming of giving advice to people in Texas, but I would urge that we ought to have young people understanding the theory of evolution. That’s not the same as trying to persuade them they’ve got to accept it. And a good science teacher should be able to introduce the theory of evolution and assure young people that this is, scientifically, a pretty strong consensus, without in any way giving the impression that if you don’t accept this, in some way you’re less intelligent. Teachers must respect the communities from which their children come.

And for myself as a teacher, I like having a diversity of pupils. You can sometimes get some really good discussions.

What about religious conservatives respecting science?

Exactly why I’d like to see evolution taught. And it’s a very delicate sort of line to tread. It’s not easy for science teachers. But I want to see science teachers support it. Equally, I don’t believe that science teachers should push their pupils into accepting scientific consensus if the pupil doesn’t want to.

I was taught science superbly, but I was taught it in such a way that I was supposed to make up my own mind. And I’d like to see more of that.

This Q&A was conducted, edited and condensed by Dallas Morning News editorial columnist Rod Dreher, who is on a fellowship in England; his e-mail address is [email protected]. To reach Michael Reiss, e-mail [email protected].

1072.EricW on 07 Jul 2009 at 10:25 pm #

gil:

Why does that page you asked me to read say, as if it were an established and acknowledged fact, that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible (”Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.”)? What is their proof for that? Most of the stuff in those books about Moses is written in the third person, not the first person.

most scholars believe moses was the author. i have no desire to debate that lets stick to the different definitions of the word “yom”. is your contention that “yom” is only used to define a 24 hour period each and every time it is used the the Bible?

yec proponents are absolutely sure that the proper transalation of “yom” in genesis 1 & 2 can only be a 24hr day, they are incorrect.

gil: most scholars believe moses was the author.

I beg to differ, and I think most scholars would differ, too, and not only for the reason I mentioned (i.e., much of Genesis – Deuteronomy is in the third person). I don’t disagree that Moses might have authored some or even a lot of the Torah, but that’s not the same as saying that Moses was the author of the Torah. Moses claims authorship/speakership for parts of the Torah, and the narrative also states what things Moses said and wrote, but it’s a stretch to say that this means that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible.

[cont. from my post 1073]:

“And when they do appear, with incredible bad luck, the fossils arrive in just the right sequence to piece together imaginary evolutionary sequences in a dozen different families. Why is it that the first mammal to appear happens to be the most reptile like of all subsequent mammals and happens to appear just after the most mammal like of all reptiles? Shouldn’t a single family of moles near the shore have been trapped by the rampaging waters and fossilized in the Cambrian period? Shouldn’t swimming mammals have been fossilized alongside the jawless and jawed fishes in the early stages of the flood?”

Re Ericw’s post 1074f. on Michael Reiss

Interesting. I’d read about the controversy, but not seen the interview. What I find particularly interesting is that he moved in the opposite direction from that alleged by the fear mongering that “evolution is the greatest threat to faith”. He started in evolution, and became an orthodox believer and even a priest. And he still believes in evolution.

Further to Steve B on the use of authorities

I do agree that H. Morris was an authority in civil engineering: he had a PhD and wrote a textbook that was used in colleges for years. However, expertise in dams and resevoirs and river flow is not sufficient alone for developing a comprehensive theory and model of the nature proposed by the YECist form of flood. It is particularly telling of Morris’ book that whenever he comes to a problem that he cannot resolve by natural means, he resorts to “deus ex machina”

Deus ex machina referred to a plot device in ancient Greek and Roman drama where a god was introduced into a play to resolve the entanglements of the plot. Today it refers generally to any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot. The use of the latin phrase started in the 17th century and means “god from a machine” because it refers to stage machinery from which a deity’s statue was lowered. My point is that nowhere in the Biblical text does Morris find mention of his needed miracles, but instead he assumes that he can use them whenever he runs up against an obstacle that cannot be dealt with by natural means. Furthermore, he is driven to the use of these assumed miracles because he starts with his answer and a little bit of science (only the bits that don’t contradict his theory; he ignores the rest) and then makes assumptions and speculations to fill in the gaps underneath his conclusion.

By assuming miracles that God does not reveal in the Bible, Morris in effect puts words into God’s mouth that God did not say, and works into God’s hands that he did not reveal. I, personally, count that as pernicious, wicked and blasphemous. Moreover, Morris is no prophet that he can speak of the mighty works of God that He did not otherwise reveal. Of course, if one believes that God did what Morris described, then it would be the gospel truth.

Further to my post 1079 on use of authorities

I used the word “personally” on purpose because I recognize that many people view Morris highly, and I don’t want this thread to vear into a discussion of his saintliness. The point is that I don’t hold him as an authority on a YECist global flood, but Steve B. does, so how do we resolve this impasse?

Steve B. is correct that we all use authorities and we cannot do without them. It is important, however, to use authorities appropriately and in the proper contexts, and to recognize their limits. Authorities have studied their subject matter extensively, and render opinions based upon their reasoned assessment of the relevant data.

The truth of something does not, however, depend on the authority. The truth exists before the authority figures it out (or not, if they are wrong), and the truth of something can be established apart from the authority. We can look at the same data, and do the necessary learning for that subject area and do our own calculations and reasoning. Indeed we must where authorities disagree.

I deal with disagreeing authorities all the time; there are two sides to every legal case, and each side has its authorities. It’s my job to probe the authorities and figure out where and why they disagree and where they may have made mistakes, including calculation errors, wrong or unwarranted assumptions, errors in reasoning, etc.

It is not sufficient, nor reasonable, nor even sensible, to merely say, “I have my authorities and you have yours.” We have to look at what the authorities say and how they arrived at their conclusions.

Thus, for example, I have demonstrated Further to my post 1079 on use of authorities

I used the word “personally” on purpose because I recognize that many people view Morris highly, and I don’t want this thread to vear into a discussion of his saintliness. The point is that I don’t hold him as an authority on a YECist global flood, but Steve B. does, so how do we resolve this impasse?

Steve B. is correct that we all use authorities and we cannot do without them. It is important, however, to use authorities appropriately and in the proper contexts, and to recognize their limits. Authorities have studied their subject matter extensively, and render opinions based upon their reasoned assessment of the relevant data.

The truth of something does not, however, depend on the authority. The truth exists before the authority figures it out (or not, if they are wrong), and the truth of something can be established apart from the authority. We can look at the same data, and do the necessary learning for that subject area and do our own calculations and reasoning. Indeed we must where authorities disagree.

I deal with disagreeing authorities all the time; there are two sides to every legal case, and each side has its authorities. It’s my job to probe the authorities and figure out where and why they disagree and where they may have made mistakes, including calculation errors, wrong or unwarranted assumptions, errors in reasoning, etc.

It is not sufficient, nor reasonable, nor even sensible, to merely say, “I have my authorities and you have yours.” We have to look at what the authorities say and how they arrived at their conclusions.

Thus, for example, I have demonstrated that the YECist authorities are mistaken with respect to the Joggins Cliffs and Green River Formation phenomena. It’s not my expert on those formations versus your expert, but it’s the data and reasoning. You and I and other readers of this thread can do the work necessary to figure out who is more likely correct and why. So, on those two formations, the YECist experts have no response other than “We have no answer yet, but we will because God told us the world is only 6,000 years old”. That (non)answer is sufficient reason to suspect that they don’t correctly understand God and are mistaken in that regard.

Regards,
#Johnthose formations versus your expert, but it’s the data and reasoning. You and I and other readers of this thread can do the work necessary to figure out who is more likely correct and why. So, on those two formations, the YECist experts have no response other than “We have no answer yet, but we will because God told us the world is only 6,000 years old”. That (non)answer is sufficient reason to suspect that they don’t correctly understand God and are mistaken in that regard.

Regards,
#John

John – Re: #1073

You stated: “For example, Morris in The Genesis Flood wrote, “The fossil-bearing strata were apparently laid down in large measure during the Flood, with apparent sequences attributed not to evolution but rather to hydrodynamic selectivity, ecological habitats, and differential mobility and strength of the various creatures.” In other words, the flood sorted corpses of animals into strata, as some species struggled more effectively than others to stay above the rising waters.

Not only is that statement a mere speculation, even a moment’s thought reveals how preposterous and ridiculous it is.”

In my opinion your criticism of Morris’s speculation is utterly incorrect. Simply put, the point Morris was making here is that, in light of their physiology, mobility, etc. – including intelligence – in a massive flood it is perfectly reasonable that mammals would be trapped in higher strata than creatures that lived in the sea (which includes over 95% of fossils).

You proceed to refute Morris’ claims with a quotation from Kenneth Miller, the author of “Finding Darwin’s God.” Miller is a notorious basher of YEC’s and often pontificates about subjects far outside of his field of expertise. An example of this is shown below:

“On the PBS series Evolution, as well as in his book (p. 101), Miller has also echoed antitheist Richard Dawkins in claiming that the vertebrate eye was badly designed, being wired backwards. But neither has the slightest standing in ophthalmology; one who does is ophthalmologist Dr. George Marshall, who said:
“The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.”2 (for complete article, see http://creation.com/letter-to-the-editor-christianity-today-refuting-kenneth-miller).

Miller’s book closes with these words:
“There are always a few who find me after class and want to pin me down. They ask me point-blank: “Do you believe in God?”

And I tell each of them, “Yes.”
Puzzled, they ask: “What kind of God?”

Over the years I have struggled to come up with a simple but precise answer to that question. And, eventually I found it. I believe in Darwin’s God.”

When it gets to the point where my sparring partner uses Kenneth Miller to refute the opinion of Henry Morris on the subject of the Genesis Flood, I think it is time for me to move on. The chasm is simply too great.

So, I wish you all well … Adios, amigos!

Ooops, ouch. The editing function did not go so well for me. It’s all there, though readers will have to skip the middle repeated part.
sorry.

1078.EricW on 08 Jul 2009 at 9:37 am #

gil: most scholars believe moses was the author.

I beg to differ, and I think most scholars would differ, too, and not only for the reason I mentioned (i.e., much of Genesis – Deuteronomy is in the third person). I don’t disagree that Moses might have authored some or even a lot of the Torah, but that’s not the same as saying that Moses was the author of the Torah. Moses claims authorship/speakership for parts of the Torah, and the narrative also states what things Moses said and wrote, but it’s a stretch to say that this means that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible.

again, the issue is the multiple definitions of “yom” and your determination that it can only mean a 24 hour day.

gil:

I think you misunderstand my comment.

I am simply saying that the author of Genesis 1 was most likely using yom with its customary meaning of a 24-hour period because Genesis 1:

1. portrays the creation as taking place in six days, and

2. these days are described as consisting of an evening and (or followed by) a morning, following an ordinal numbering system [with the possible exception of the first day, which is more literally “one day” (as opposed to “the first day”)]

This does not necessarily mean, however, that the ANE mindset would have understood the author to be saying or meaning that the heavens and the earth and all their hosts were in fact created in six literal 24-hour days.

Thus, while the narrative use of yom in Genesis 1 may have been as if yom was referring to 24-hour periods, that doesn’t mean that the meaning of what was said/told was that these things in fact took place in six 24-hour periods.

steve B @ 1081

In my opinion your criticism of Morris’s speculation is utterly incorrect. Simply put, the point Morris was making here is that, in light of their physiology, mobility, etc. – including intelligence – in a massive flood it is perfectly reasonable that mammals would be trapped in higher strata than creatures that lived in the sea (which includes over 95% of fossils).

Steve, what is your explanation for the fact that the remains of flowering plants appear only relatively late in the fossil record? Also, their pollen (which is easily dispersed from its source and found almost everywhere today, even in oceans and the arctic, etc) is also only found late in the fossil record.

Before you start talking about “hydrological sorting” of plants and pollen, pollen embedded in amber has the same distribution in the fossil record as free pollen.

Or perhaps flowering plants are smarter than some animals? 🙂

Gabriel,

From what do you believe flowering plants evolved?

Richard: flowering plants (angiosperms) are descended from non-flowering plants.

An example of a non-flowering plant are ferns. Ferns show up in the geological column much sooner than do flowering plants. Fern spores are widespread in those lower layers too (where one cannot find any pollen).

There is no known “hydrological sorting” mechanism that can separate ferns, spores, flowering plants and pollen in a flood! I have never even seen a decent YEC response to this “little” problem.

Gabriel,

flowering plants (angiosperms) are descended from non-flowering plants

Please be precise. Exactly what non-flowering plants gave rise to flowering plants?

Perhaps you were vague as there is simply no good evidence that flowering plants evolved at all…and this is a problem that has been documented from early on, and remains unsolved despite the abundance of plant fossils. The quotes below in no way imply that these scientists disbelieve in the evolution of flowering plants. They simply admit the lack of evidence.

The origin of flowering plants is one of ‘evolutionary biology’s most enduring puzzles’. (Crepet, W., The abominable mystery, Science 282(5394):1653–1654, 1998; p. 1653.)

‘We know nothing whatever of the origin of Angiospermous families … .’ (Scott, D.H., Extinct Plants and Problems of Evolution, Macmillan, London, p. 217, 1924.)

‘apparently sudden appearance of quite well-developed Flowering Plants is still, perhaps, the greatest difficulty in the record of evolution’. (Scott, D.H., The Evolution of Plants, Henry Holt, New York, p. 40, 1911.)

‘Although great progress has been made … during the past century, the data in hand even now provide only partial answers to most of the problems considered by Darwin. In particular, these included the “abominable mystery” surrounding their early evolution, notably their center of origin, their ancestry, and their “sudden appearance” in the Middle Cretaceous as a fully evolved, wholly modern phylum … . The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identified in the fossil record, and no living angiosperm points to such an ancestral alliance. In addition, the record has shed almost no light on relations between taxa at ordinal and family level.’ (Axelrod, D., The evolution of flowering plants, in: Tax, S. (Ed.) Evolution after Darwin Volume I: The Evolution of Life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 227–230, 1960.)

‘how and when flowering plants appeared on Earth remains a mystery, a question that has gone unanswered by evolutionary scientists for more than a century’ (Solving Charles Darwin’s ‘Abominable Mystery’, NASA Science News, , 17 April 2001.)

The flowering plants arose in the early Cretaceous (120-130 mya); however, no fossils showing a transition from gymnosperm to angiosperm have been discovered. This makes the origin of the angiosperms mysterious. (http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/~karyla/angio/)

Richard,

the “gap” of knowledge that we do not know the precise species that gave rise to angiosperms is hardly surprising. I might as well ask you the precise identity of your ancestors back, say, 1000 years ago.

I’d rather hear your explanation for how all these flowering plant species got sorted into the top layers of the geological column, along with their pollen, but never got mixed up with ferns or spores in layers below.

Your strategy is a common YEC one: demand infinite detail from standard geology / biology while holding to a model that provides no predictive power or explanatory detail.

Any well-developed theory in science will have areas that are unknown – because a good theory generates new hypotheses that spur new research.

YECism, on the other hand, has nothing but ad hoc answers to its multitude of problems.

Or, an OEC might respond: sure, God zapped angiosperms into existence ~130 MYA. How exactly does this support your position?

One more comment on angiosperms: we now have good genomics evidence that flowering plants and non-flowering plants share a common ancestor.

That’s one of the neat things about science and a well-developed theory: as new fields open up (for example, molecular biology) and new data comes in, every prior theory is tested again. Often, modifications are made, but really good theories stand the test of time.

We’ve had a 150-year run with evolutionary biology. 150 years of testing, testing, testing.

Don’t for a minute think that scientists are merely toeing some party line. I’m a working scientist, and I know for a fact that many scientists are very proud, narcissistic even. They’d like nothing better than to overturn a major theory with their own ideas, and bask in the publicity that results. If there really was evidence for “design” as the IDers have it, biologists would be all over it.

So far, in 150 years, no data has cropped up that challenges the basic ideas Darwin proposed: modern species arose through descent with modification through natural selection. Moreover, every new advance in Biology has confirmed these ideas at ever-increasing levels of detail.

Maybe it’s time to accept reality, folks.

Gabriel wrote:

the “gap” of knowledge that we do not know the precise species that gave rise to angiosperms is hardly surprising.

So you’re still using Darwin’s excuse of the “incompleteness of the fossil record”. Actually, if evolution did occur, it’s very surprising that there is no fossil evidence given the abundance of plant fossils.

Given about 375,000 kinds of plants, and an average of ‘only’ 1,000 transitional forms for each one (most likely many more would be necessary), then 375 million transitional forms would be required. Not one clear example has ever been found in the abundant plant fossil record. And yet, the ‘only direct evidence’ of evolution is ‘provided by the fossil record’. (Futuyma, D., Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, 1986.)

Don’t for a minute think that scientists are merely toeing some party line.

only if they want to retain their jobs, be granted their degrees, etc…

So far, in 150 years, no data has cropped up that challenges the basic ideas Darwin proposed: modern species arose through descent with modification through natural selection.

This is a ridiculous statement. I just asked about precisely such data….the lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of flowering plants.

On evidence, authorities an interpretation

It does not matter how much incontrovertible evidence I present on this thread, the YEC response will be that of J. Sarfati: “We should remember, if confronted with other ‘unanswerable’ challenges to the biblical world view, that even if we don’t have all the answers, God does. And He, in His good time, may raise up godly scientists to discover them.” (Creation Magazine, Volume 21, Issue 2. Published on the web at answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/yellowstone.asp) [which I posted previously at my post 750]

One reason that YECs are so dogmatic and closed minded about the science of the age of the earth (or the flood, or evolution) is that they are taught that their view of Genesis is essential to their faith. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) teaches that the young-earth creation interpretation of Genesis 1-2 should be the foundation of our faith The argument is basically that the foundation (or beginning) of scripture is Genesis and that if we begin to question the literal interpretation of this book the foundation will crumble, causing us to question all of scripture and the historicity of Jesus, and thus leading us to reject faith in Jesus.

Not only is the logic obviously faulty (the use of figurative or metaphorical or literary techniques in one part of text does not entail that all other parts are to be treated the same), not only does it ignore the fact that OEs do believe that Genesis is true, but that approach to the Bible and faith is unscriptural. The foundation of our faith is the doctrine of Jesus Christ; see, for example 1 Cor. 3:11, “For no one can lay any foundation other than what is being laid, which is Jesus Christ.” To bind our faith to anything else is disastrous.

On Recent Evolution

I have read that prior to the voyages of exploration, rats did not live on the Island of Mauritius. Some of the rats, deserted the first ships that landed there. It has been reported that the rats of Mauritius have a chromosome count and type that is unique and found nowhere else in the world. “There are many researchers who have studied the chromosomes of the black rats from several locations of the world, but none has observed in them the karyotype characterized by the Robertsonian fission as seen in the Mauritius type.” Yosida, T. H., et al, 1979, “Mauritius Type Black Rats with Peculiar Karyotypes Derived from Robertsonian Fission of Small Metacentrics,” Chromosoma, 75: 51-62, at p. 59.

Gabe, are there similar examples? and do you have access to a copy of the Yosida paper?

Regards,
#John

Richard,

There are plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record. Even YECs who know their stuff know this to be true. For example, see this publication by Kurt Wise (PDF).

You’re arguing from an absence of evidence. I’m saying that the evidence we have collected over the last 150 years supports an old earth and biological evolution. There is a difference.

John, that sort of thing has been known for some time in mammals such as mice. It’s a rearrangement of a genome into a new chromosomal set. This sort of data shows that the human : chimp chromosome differences are well within the reach of natural changes in a short amount of time.

Re post 1081f. regarding sorting of fossils

Logic and reason are impartial to one’s morality. Yes I do know that Miller is an ardent evolutionist, but that fact does not invalidate his reasoning about the impossibility of the flood sorting the fossils. Your attack on my use of the quote is an example of a fallacious ad hominem argument, and since I’m curious as to how many fallacies will be recorded on this thread here goes another definition: “Ad Hominem” is Latin phrase that means “against the man” or “against the person.” An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

This type of “argument” has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Richard’s reply was not responsive to the original argument, nor to Gabe’s supplementary argument in his posts 1085 or 1087. Starting a discussion about the evolution of plants is irrelevant to the issue of the sorting of fossils. In addition to Millers’ and Gabe’s points, I would also draw attention again to the Green River Formation in which there are thousands of alternating layers of rock, where one layer has pollen, the next does not, the next does, etc. No flood is capable of producing such alternating layers.

Introducing the evolution of flowers when what is at issue is the layering of fossils is an example of the red herring fallacy. The “red herring” is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

Topic A (layering of ferns and pollen bearing plants) is under discussion.
Topic B (evolution of flowers) is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Going back to layering, if layering of fossils was achievable, we would see a distribution of the animals within layers according to their physical…

1084 eric

“This does not necessarily mean, however, that the ANE mindset would have understood the author to be saying or meaning that the heavens and the earth and all their hosts were in fact created in six literal 24-hour days.

Thus, while the narrative use of yom in Genesis 1 may have been as if yom was referring to 24-hour periods, that doesn’t mean that the meaning of what was said/told was that these things in fact took place in six 24-hour periods.”

gotcha, excellent thought!

my dad read the bible to us after breakfast and dinner everyday year after year from cover to cover. i can remeber as a little kid asking him about how there were days when the sun and moon weren’t around untill the 4th day.

the other thing i asked when i was young what was different about the garden God planted east of Eden versus the rest of the Earth at the time.

[Continued from my post 1095]

Going back to layering, if layering of fossils was achievable, we would see a distribution of animals in the layers according to their physical characteristics and their ability to “swim”, or move in water. But that is not what we see. We see in each layer of rocks a range of body types and masses and shapes, and we see a range of locomotion abilities. We don’t see all the similar body types in a certain layer. Furthermore, we see a particular collection of animal and plant types (sizes, abilities, etc.) at that same layer over wide geographic distances and not repeated in subsequent layers.

In a different layer of rock (e.g., one that is closer to the surface) we will find a different collection of animals, and again with a range of body types and masses and abilities to move in water.

Finally, one only has to examine more recent floods to note that the floods kill and jumble together animals and plants of a wide range of shapes and sizes; the sorting is minimal, and the sorting that does occur is very unlike what we see in the layers of sedimentary rock.

Regards,
#John

Oh, and BTW Richard, Kurt Wise thinks that a limited amount of death occurred before the Fall. I can provide a reference if desired.

YECs would do well to read their own researchers (the ones with real credentials, not the apologetics types).

Even within the YEC camp, things are not as rosy as AiG would have you believe…

Gabriel,

The complete lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of flowering plants was documented by evolutionists, not AIG creationists. Your responses imply that you have no such evidence to offer, so it stands that there is no such fossil evidence.

Your response to a very direct question about data was to change the subject and imply that I’m unfamiliar with “real” creationist scientist’s work. I happen to have read years ago the very article by Dr. Wise you mentioned and have it in my hands right now…BTW, you might be interested to know that it was published in the Creation Technical Journal v9 part 2 in 1995. So your attempt to denigrate creationist organizations is flawed.

Dr. Wise’s article discusses how a creationist might properly respond to the claims of transitional forms…precisely the type of claim that appears to NOT be made regarding flowering plants. Thus this article has nothing to do with the question at hand, other than his statement:

The commonness of transitional forms in the fossil record is an intuitive prediction of most macroevolutionary models.

which agrees with my contention that a lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of flowering plants IS a very unexpected occurrence.

Richard,

Since you’re so familiar with Wise’s work, do you agree with Dr. Wise that

(a) death occurred before the fall, and that

(b) transitional fossils are strong evidence for macroevolution?

Of course the evidence from the fossil record about flowering plants comes from evolutionary science. YECs haven’t done paleontology research!

You know, Wise includes hominids in his list of transitional fossils. You’d think you would be more concerned with that set of data than plants.

Or do you prefer to focus on areas not well understood in hopes no one will notice the problems with your approach?

BTW, John has rightly pointed out the whole transitional plant thing was a red herring you threw in in response to a discussion about fossil layering. Do you have an answer for the layered pattern of fossil plants and pollen or not?

No one in geology or paleontology wrings their hands about a lack of data – they go looking for it. Really rapid stuff is hard to catch in the fossil record. Most transitionals will get out-competed by their own progeny in pretty short order (geologically speaking).

YECs used to make this argument with whales. They don’t any more. Wonder why?