Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

TUaD,

Jugulum: “So, exegesis is to the Bible as science is to the physical world.

Use the grammatical-historical hermeneutic for sound exegesis.

Be appropriately cautious of higher-criticism methodology when exegeting.

Adam and Eve are factual persons

Uh… Was that a response/criticism to what I said? Or just a general comment on what constitutes good exegesis?

Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. (See Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).

Science is fallible human enterprise.

And exegesis is fallible human enterprise, and physical data is completely factual.

Hence what I said to rayner.

P.S. I’m not saying that the Bible and the physical data are perfect parallels. The Bible is fundamentally communication in language.

Physical data is not quite communication in the same sense. (There are senses in which it is general revelation, and does communicate. But physical data is simply… physical facts.)

And that may have relevant implication for dealing with conflicts between interpretation of the Bible and interpretation of physical data. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not “science vs the Bible”–it’s interpretation vs interpretation.

I am quite ardent, though, about an old age, particularly since I’m somewhere out in the Armninian fields, or an adjoining grassy area, but not in the Calvinist pasture. If I were a Calvinist, then the issue of the age of the earth will not affect the number of redeemed people, which has been preset by God. Being in the other field(s), I believe that the number of the redeemed has not been set, and that the issue of the age of the earth can be something that dissuades a person from being saved or from continuing in their salvation. I am, for example, currently talking with someone (unsaved) about Christ who would ditch the whole thing if he had to swallow a young earth. If I did not have an alternative to YEC, that fact would probably stop the conversation until he had some existential or other crisis that made it possible for him to ignore or look past the young earth issue. I have an alternative, so it’s not an issue in our conversations and we talk about other things.

Regards,
#John

Thanks, #John. (I find myself still wanting to call you John C.T. Old habits die hard you know!)

I guess I am curious as to where you put Adam and Eve in all of this, assuming you believe they were literal people. As I understand it, the age of the earth at 6000 years or so has been calculated from the geneaological records in the Bible as closely as possible from what is given us there.

If we think mankind has been around a lot longer then that, it seems to me we are creating another whole set of problems with our understanding of the Bible. Then we have to say that the genological record is nowhere near accurate or that there were large groups of people left out of it or explain it in some other way. What is your take on that issue?

As you can maybe guess, I have been exposed almost exclusively pretty much all of my life to Christians that believed YEC was the truth and anything else was very much frowned upon.

And from the looks of the poll results, there are a lot of others that still hold to this view.

I don’t mind what people call me on this blog . . . as long as it’s not late for dinner (yes, lame humour, but my free will failed me). typing John C.T. in replies is fine as there is not another one on this blog (yet), and it won’t affect my bank balance (once upon a time another similarly named John made a withdrawal at my bank, but the bank took it out of my account instead of his).

I do think that he was an actual physical human and that he passed on his genetic material.

I think Adam was created long after the earth. I’m fine with any long period of time located anytime prior to Adam’s creation.

As for the amount of time from Adam till now, I’m flexible. All Bible interpreters acknowledge that the list of descendents of Adam contains gaps (the whole beget thing refers also to great grandfathers, etc., not just immediate fathers). So one can pile up a great number of years in the gaps.

What I haven’t thought a lot about is the presence of cave paintings and bones and tools that date to 10,000 or more years ago. H. Ross has a solution that accounts for it. On the other hand, errors in dating in more recent things can make a significant difference: is the cave painting from 7,000 or 17,000 years ago is only 10,000 years but of big significance, whereas, is the earth 8.6 or 6.6 billion years old is a 2 billion year difference but not significant in relation to YEC as either is outside of YEC time.

BTW, the thing I don’t find convincing about Ross’s work is the matching of a specific creation day to a particular period in the earth’s history. I personally find what he does too much of a stretch and that the literary approach seems more sensible. But then, I am more familiar with language and literature.

Perhaps if CMP is looking for a new post to start, and is short on topics, he could have someone guest-write on the issue of light and the age of the earth. It’s fine for me to say that YEC has no biblical or scientific answer to that fact, but most people are not convinced until they’ve had a chance to express their views and wrestle with the topic (and I don’t expect people to be convinced simply on my say-so).

Regards,
#John

Well, we’ve seen dogmatic statements that the earth is billions of years old, but no evidence or reason for the belief has been provided. The most typical answer boils down to “that’s the current consensus view of science and I don’t think it’s likely for the majority of scientists to all be wrong about that.” However, the consensus view of science has often been completely wrong … consider, for example, the completely ridiculous idea that “invisible germs” might be causing surgery patients to die, and that we should sterilize scalpels prior to use. The scientific view was certain that this was impossible, and chose to ignore the evidence presented.

So it’s wise to at least allow the possibility that the supposed proof of an old earth is actually a flawed interpretation. There is a growing volume of data that suggests precisely this. As an example, Dr. Terry Mortenson (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=20) has a PhD in the History of Geology and is an expert in what happened when the young earth view (which had been the consensus) was replaced with an old earth view. Anyone who would like to learn about this could begin here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0828turning_point.asp

Regarding what conclusions science has actually reached, there is a great deal of evidence that the earth is young. Interested parties could take a look here for starters:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/age-of-the-earth
http://creation.com/answers
http://www.icr.org/evidence/

Christians are called to compare everything with scripture and to be wise. We have an obligation to carefully consider teachings that we receive.

I really appreciate this discussion. One very important theological question that has been brought up earlier, but not addressed: Is physical death the result of sin?

To John 1453 …
If you haven’t already, I encourage you to read my previous comment (#89). It appears that you are a Christian, but you, like so many other Christians, do not grasp the fact that the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how the world came into being apart from God. In its pure form – the form that is taught to every youngster in evey public school in the US – it is entirely atheistic.

Furthermore, every theory that accepts the “ancient” age for the earth lends support to evolutionary theory. Contrary to what you have suggested, there is a great deal of evidence for a “young” earth (6-10,000 years old), as well as plenty more evidence that the ancient age REQUIRED by the TOE is a complete myth. Despite your apparent wisdom, it certainly appears that you have not read much creationist literature.

I say this in Christian love, but your derogatory remarks about Young Earth Creationists is very hurtful to the spread of the truth about God’s Word. Although, as I said, I believe that you are a Christian, you are guilty of the condemnation in Romans 1:22: Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Jugulum: “Uh… Was that a response/criticism to what I said? Or just a general comment on what constitutes good exegesis?”

Just a general comment.

On another note, I have run across some “higher-criticism” folks and some “theistic evolution” folks who don’t affirm a historically factual Adam and Eve in the beginning chapters of Genesis.

In this particular regard I think they are false teachers.

Thanks, Jugulum, for straightening out the parallels.
Both scripture and physical data require interpretation. Physical evidence is rather close to us; we are physical beings and are intimately familiar with the physical world. This helps us to interpret on a physical level. On the other hand, divine revelation comes from elsewhere. Interpretations of Genesis seem to fail to make sense on the physical level because they assume that God is revealing His own knowledge of the origins. We need only to acknowledge that the Genesis details are based on local belief, and the tension between science and scripture evaporates into a non-issue.

So, old and young exist side by side. In physical terms, we see multiple evidence for the old. Folks in scripture times though, unable to look at that evidence, leaned to a young understanding of origins. Somehow, the young view is much more intimate: Imagine—the world is only a few thousand years old—you can almost reach out and touch it—you can feel the ages advance right up to ourselves, and soon the age will be complete and it will be all over and we will be with God where we belong. Compare this flight of fancy with the impersonal billions of years and incomprehensible billions of miles in our universe and the distant God of it all. There is a considerable appeal for the young, aside from its truth value.

John CT1453: “I believe that it is not responsible for Christians to believe in or to teach YEC because the Bible does not explicitly and conclusively address the age of the earth.”

Steve Bartholomew: “I say this in Christian love, but your derogatory remarks about Young Earth Creationists is very hurtful to the spread of the truth about God’s Word. Although, as I said, I believe that you are a Christian, you are guilty of the condemnation in Romans 1:22: Professing to be wise, they became fools.”

CMP: “I believe that one can be a legitimate Christian and hold to any one of these views. … Being overly dogmatic about these issues expresses, in my opinion, more ignorance than knowledge. Each position has many apparent difficulties and many virtues.

This is an issue that normally should not fracture Christian fellowship.”

Hmmmm, how’s ’bout everybody join hands together and sing “In His Time”?

😉

P.S. I have real heartburn with neo-Darwinian macro-evolution. Professing Christians who profess neo-Darwinism make me wince.

rayner,

“Interpretations of Genesis seem to fail to make sense on the physical level because they assume that God is revealing His own knowledge of the origins. We need only to acknowledge that the Genesis details are based on local belief, and the tension between science and scripture evaporates into a non-issue.”

Is this part of Scripture not inspired by God then? If you believe it was inspired, you are saying that the local beliefs were false–they didn’t have the facts–but God stated them in that way anyway? If you believe that all Scripture is inspired by God (II Timothy 3:16), then you seem to be saying that God told something that was an outright lie here so the local people could understand Him.

If I have misunderstood something that you are saying here, please let me know. But I can not understand your statements in any other way.

re Steve Bartholomew. So far I’ve said nothing about evolution, however, to respond to your concern I will indicate that I personally do not believe in evolution. I don’t think that there is sufficient science to support it, and being a believer in the nonmaterial (God, etc.) I have access to explanations that materialist scientists do not. Materialist scientists are stuck with evolution, because they lack any other potential materialist explanation. (as an aside, please note that evolution and old age earth do not automatically go together).

In regard to YEC, I have indicated that I sympathize with those that believe in it because of where they start from (e.g., only option taught to them, etc.), and I was in that place at one time too. However, once one undertakes any rational investigation of its claims, one finds that there is zero science supporting YEC.

Regards,
#John

John wrote:

“In regard to YEC, I have indicated that I sympathize with those that believe in it because of where they start from (e.g., only option taught to them, etc.), and I was in that place at one time too. However, once one undertakes any rational investigation of its claims, one finds that there is zero science supporting YEC.”

While you may believe this, it is not a true statement. As an example, I was an atheist until an upper division college student; studied science and math and became a Christian as an adult. Furthermore, after considerable study I came to believe in the YEC position. There are many, many others with similar stories. I know many PhD scientists that were old earth evolutionists until adults and are now Christians and YEC.

Richard

OK,

We have one person here stating there is absolutely zero science supporting YEC. We have another person stating that there is. Now obviously, they can not both be right!

A person like myself that is not a geologist, physicist, or astronomer has to rely on the research of others to make a decision–or else just let the Bible speak for itself in the way that seems to be the best exegesis of the text.

We have those that believe in an old earth saying that “science” that says the earth is young is clearly false. On the other hand, we have scientists that believe in a young earth say that they interpret the same evidence in a completely different way and the the old earth folks are completely wrong! So how is the layperson to know what to believe? Sounds to me like a “he said, she said” situation. There is no way that we can be expected to fully understand all of the implications here of what is correct and what is not correct.

Steve Bartholomew,

Re: Post #89 & 108.

I think you misunderstand the scope of the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with the origin of the world, only the origin of species.

I’m sorry to point this out, but this is a great reason why many Christians oppose evolution. They don’t understand it at all. Their opposition is based off of ignorance. If you think it has anything to do with the world coming into existence, then you just don’t understand it.

Your comment about it being “entirely atheistic” is not accurate and implies a misunderstanding of science in general. All science, even the kind you accept and benefit from, operates under the principle of methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. Supernaturalism is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed.

Science does not include anything that leaves no evidence that might be tested. Hypotheses that can be asserted but never supported are not part of science. However, these untestable phenomena are only removed from scientific consideration; they are not ruled out from life entirely. People are free to accept or reject them as they please, and science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject. Science not only rules out the acceptance of divine influence; it also rules out the rejection of divine influence.

Evolution is not alone in its naturalism. All science, all engineering, all manufacturing, and most other human endeavors are equally naturalistic. If we must discard evolution because of this philosophy, then we must also discard navigation, meteorology, farming, architecture, printing, law, and virtually all other subjects for the same reason.

Steve, I would love to see you be consistent in your rejection of ALL “atheistic” science. Until that occurs, I just can’t take your objections seriously simply because you don’t.

“Contrary to what you have suggested, there is a great deal of evidence for a “young” earth (6-10,000 years old), as well as plenty more evidence that the ancient age REQUIRED by the TOE is a complete myth. Despite your apparent wisdom, it certainly appears that you have not read much creationist literature.”

Steve, be cautious quoting Romans. It’s not looking too good in your corner, to be honest.

What is this evidence for a young earth? Can you show me? Can you demonstrate it? And what of the “myth” of an old earth? Can you give me scientific, peer reviewed evidence that isn’t influenced by a reading of Genesis?

I’d be interested in seeing your top three evidences for a young earth. But before you give them, look them up here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I’ve they are answered there, I wouldn’t bother posting them. You still can, but it probably wouldn’t last very long as a legitimate piece of evidence.

In my reply to Richard I’ll post some evidence that suggests an old earth.

Richard, Re: Post #90

“Have you read (for example) the RATE project technical reports?”

Unfortunately the RATE project produced nothing of value for YEC. You can read an evaluation of it here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

T-Rex here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

“Since you mentioned “proof”, what proof of a 4.5 billion year old earth can you present?”

Here is some: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html
1. Radiometric dating shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html)

2. If the earth is old, then radioactive isotopes with short half-lives should have all decayed already. That is what we find. Isotopes with half-lives longer than eighty million years are found on earth; isotopes with shorter half-lives are not, the only exceptions being those that are generated by current natural processes.

3. Varves are annual sediment layers that occur in large lakes. They are straightforward to measure, cover millions of years, and correlate well with other dating mechanisms.

In seasonal areas, sedimentation rates vary across the year, so sediments often show annual layers distinguished by texture and/or composition. We can be confident that the layers are seasonal because we see the same sorts of layers occurring today. Even if they were not seasonal, the fineness of the sediments is often such that each layer would require several days, at least, to form. Some formations have millions of layers, such as the varve record from Lake Baikal with five million annual layers, and the 20,000,000 layers in the Green River formation. They must have taken hundreds of thousands of years to form at the very least.

Dates obtained by counting annual layers of varves match dates obtained from radiometric dating. One varve formation, covering 45,000 years, was used to calibrate carbon-14 dating using terrestrially produced leaves, twigs, and insect parts that also appeared in the sediments. The varves were easy to count because they included an annual diatom bloom.

Varves record climate changes, too, since climate affects the amount of sediments. Climate is affected by orbital cycles known to occur at about 400,000, 600,000, and million-year periods (the so-called Milankovitch cycles). Climate cycles of these durations occur in the varve records. For example, Lake Baikal contains annual layers from twelve million years ago to the present. These sediments contain periodic changes matching the orbital cycles.

4. The abundance and distribution of helium changes predictably as the sun ages, converting hydrogen to helium in its core. These parameters also affect how sound waves move through the sun. Thus one may estimate the sun’s age from seismic solar data. Such an analysis puts the age of the sun at 4.66 billion years, plus or minus about 4 percent.

Richard, based on suggestions I gave Steve, can you give me evidence for YEC?

Cheryl, you have a good point. That is the dilemma that we get in if we base our beliefs only on what others say. Then we have to decide who we are going to consider an authority.

BTW, an earlier post of mine from a couple of hours ago is still being moderated, but once visible you’ll see that I provided several links that anyone interested can follow to begin thinking for themselves.

My post 90 above mentions the non-fossilized T-rex bones that have been found. This is solid physical evidence that these bones are not 67 million years old as believed. Notice that I’ve asked for evidence showing the earth is billions of years old and so far none has been provided.

Since my earlier post is not visible, I’ll repeat one item. Is physical death the result of sin? Scripture clearly says yes (in old and new testament). All old earth scenarios say no, physical death has always accompanied life.

Richard

Richard,

Look above please. 🙂

About physical death and sin…I’m not sure about that.

A close reading of Genesis, Romans, and Revelation raises a few questions.

1. Sin coming into the world brought about spiritual death, not necessarily physical death. Either that or the serpent was right (Genesis 3:4) and God was wrong about them dying on that day (Genesis 2:17). Clearly Adam and Eve did not physically die the day they ate of the fruit (Genesis 5:5). Unless of course a day doesn’t mean a day…. 😛

2. Further, the option for them to live forever was still open to them, as long as they had access to the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22). This was something God Himself admitted.

3. Even if Paul is referring to physical death, then he’s only doing so in regards to humans bearing the divine image at the most. He never makes a clear pronouncement on non-human death (Romans 5:12) prior to the fall.

4. There is reasonable evidence in the Bible that immortality was conditional upon the person having access to the Tree of Life. We see this plainly in #2 above, and in Revelation, where the Tree of Life reappears and is granted to the one who conquers (Revelation 2:7) and used for the healing of the nations (Revelation 22:2) and taken away from any who alter John’s Revelation (Revelation 22:19).

Richard, can you show me where scripture clearly says yes to your question?

Greg re: post 118

Regarding the RATE project. I’ve read the reports and seen conference presentations. I have both technical volumes in my office. I’ve also read the ASA analysis you referenced as well as a response that undermines those conclusions:

http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

Are you putting your faith into the ASA report or have you studied the subject yourself? Most are so convinced they already know the answer that they don’t really think about it.

Regarding the T-Rex bones. The talkorigins doc you referenced is typical in stating that the bones are indeed millions of years old because “This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods”. So I assume that you believe that is sufficient. However, I do not, as many times a formation has been “reliably dated by several independent methods” only to have its age redetermined later to be very different. To the unbiased, this should cause a bit of doubt in just how guaranteed these determinations are…

BTW, in your reply to Steve you essentially said that if talkorigins says it, then it must be true. Sorry, but I don’t have faith in that source of truth.

—-

Greg also wrote :”I think you misunderstand the scope of the theory of evolution. It has nothing to do with the origin of the world, only the origin of species.” This is incorrect. To correct it one would need to restrict it to Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) evolution. The terms “stellar evolution”, “cosmic evolution”, and “chemical evolution” (for origin of life) are in common use within the scientific community.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Changing Man,” Science, Vol. 155 (1/27/67), P. 409:

“Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. … Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life.”

I appreciate Greg’s comments regarding physical and spiritual death. Here’s an excerpt from the book “Refuting Compromise” which provides some biblical arguments addressing the idea that ‘spiritual’ and not ‘physical’ death is the penalty for sin:

** Adam’s sin just brought spiritual death?

[Hugh] Ross … claiming that the death referred to was ‘spiritual death’, not physical (Creation and Time pp. 60–61):

—start Ross quote

‘“Death through sin” is not equivalent to physical death. Romans 5:12 addresses neither physical nor soulish death. It addresses spiritual death. … He died spiritually. He broke his harmonious fellowship with God and introduced the inclination to place one’s way above God’s.

‘In the same manner, it has been established that 1 Corinthians 15:21 (“since death came through a man”) also must refer to spiritual death rather than to physical death. As the following two verses explain, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then when he comes, those who belong to him” (verses 22–23).’

—end Ross quote

But this is amazing, since the whole of 1 Corinthians 15 is about the bodily (physical) Resurrection of Christ, who was physically dead. In fact, Ross, in the quote above, neglected to quote the second half of 1 Corinthians 15:21. This makes it very clear that the death Adam brought was contrasted with the bodily Resurrection brought by the Last Adam, ‘For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.’ If Adam died only spiritually, then, logically, Jesus must only have needed to rise spiritually. This goes against the whole tenor of Paul’s chapter, and a non-bodily resurrection would have been nonsense to Jews.

** The actual Curse

Even Genesis itself shows that Adam’s punishment could not just have been spiritual death. In Genesis 3:19, God pronounces judgment on Adam:

‘In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’

Returning to the dust can mean only physical death, and there would be no point to this punishment unless there was no physical death before. Otherwise, Adam could have said,

‘So what? That was gonna happen to me, anyway!’

Actually, in one sense, the Curse of physical death has a benefit to man, in that it prevents an even worse evil: living forever in a state of sin. And it provides the means of redemption, via the physical death of the God-man Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Richard

Richard,

“The terms “stellar evolution”, “cosmic evolution”, and “chemical evolution” (for origin of life) are in common use within the scientific community.”

Sure they are, but is that what you meant? In a debate that hadn’t brought those terms into discussion, only biological evolution, if that’s what you meant it would have been helpful had you expanded upon it.

If you want a further write up on T-Rex, here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/DinoBlood.cfm

The ASA paper makes this claim: “In this book, the authors admit that a young-earth position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming that exotic solutions will be discovered in the future. No known thermodynamic process could account for the required rate of heat removal nor is there any known way to protect organisms from radiation damage. The young-earth advocate is therefore left with two positions. Either God created the earth with the appearance of age (thought by many to be inconsistent with the character of God) or else there are radical scientific laws yet to be discovered that would revolutionize science in the future. The authors acknowledge that no current scientific understanding is consistent with a young earth. Yet they are so confident that these problems will be resolved that they encourage a message that the reliability of the Bible has been confirmed.”

Since you have the books in question, was this claim true? Can the YEC position be reconciled with the scientific data? If so, how?

Further, about helium, the ASA paper had this to say: “The authors argue that by extrapolating data on the rate of helium diffusion in minerals, the high concentration of helium in zircons can only be explained by a young earth. However, the data presented were taken in conditions of laboratory vacuum and actual diffusion rates in field conditions are known to be considerably lower, by as much as a factor of one thousand or more. The RATE researchers claim to have meticulously accounted for all crystallographic features. However, the diffusion rate of noble gases in minerals is so complex both theoretically and experimentally that helium concentrations are not considered by geochronologists to be reliable for any dating implications.”

What is your comment on that?

You hold your particular interpretation of the Bible in high regard, which is why you are a YEC. But because you have a prior commitment to something, I simply cannot trust your assessment (but I can understand your very quick rejection) of any science that does not directly affirm your prior commitments. I have a very hard time believing that YEC can honestly assess the scientific data for an old earth, or evolution, or anything contrary to their deeply held tradition because they aren’t committed to learning, only an interpretation.

I even question the validity of that interpretation in previous posts (#3 & #68).

Richard,

Are there any areas of scripture that indicate immortality was present in humanity prior to the fall and independent of their access to the Tree of Life? If they already possessed immortality, why was the tree even there?

What about reason #1 that I gave above? When did they die? That day, when God said they would, or not, which the serpent said?

The curse, which you bring up, didn’t take effect until they were banished from the Garden. Which means they were barred access to the Tree of Life, and thus immortality.

Context supports this understanding anyways. The dust to dust curse wouldn’t occur if they still had access to the Tree of Life, as even God admits.

John re: # 114 … You suggest that the primary reason people believe in YEC is that it is “the only option taught to them …” As well as being completely untrue, it is also very condescending. Richard’s rebuttal to your claim (# 115) is excellent. I, too, was a devout believer in the TOE before my eyes were opened to the Truth about God’s creation 30 years ago (the ONLY theory of origins that I was taught growing up, by the way, was the TOE).

Re: Greg’s comment (# 117) … “I think you misunderstand the scope of the TOE. It has nothing to do with the origin of the world, only with the origin of species.” Once again, Richard is ready with an excellent rebuttal, which includes the fact that “the terms ‘stellar evolution,’ ‘cosmic evolution,’ and ‘chemical evolution’ are in common use in the scientific community” (nice job, Richard!).

Greg makes it clear that the foundation of the TOE is NATURALISM (i.e. random NATURAL events) which, by definition, excludes SUPERNATURALISM (i.e. God). It is perfectly obvious that true believers in the TOE – like Greg – believe that naturalism is the foundation for the development/evolution of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, not just life, as Greg argues. The idea that the TOE applies only to the development of life implies that the development of the world prior to this point may not have been driven entirely by naturalism, implying still further that God, or a Creator, may have been involved in the process. Be honest, Greg, do you believe this … that God orchestrated the evolution of the world up until the origin of life, at which point naturalism took over?

To ALL … this is a fascinating blog, eh?

YEC’s have NO method for dating the earth. They have no dating method that provides a recent date for the age of the earth, and thus NO science in SUPPORT of young earth. I emphasized the word “support” to ensure that readers note the distinction between support of one’s position and critique of other positions. All YEC’s have in relation to dating, at most, are critiques of various methods of dating the earth.

YEC’s take as a given that the Bible indicates a recent age for the earth (it does not, but that has been addressed above), and then try to throw water on dating methods that show an ancient earth. Aside from the fact that their critiques continue to be shown faulty, all a critique can do at most is to prove that we have no scientific method for dating the earth (i.e., if all scientific methods fail, then there is no valid method, and hence not date).

Even looking at Richard’s post, he provides as “evidence” a T-Rex fossil that has some tissue that is not fully converted into stone. He claims that this proves that the dinosaur is not millions of years old. Aside from the fact that Mary Schweitzer still believes the dinosaur is millions of years old, note that Richard is relying on western science. He takes as scientifically true that bones turn into stone fossils at a certain rate that takes millions of years, and then points to a fossil that is not completely stone and declares that it can’t be millions of years old or it would be fully stone. In for a penny, in for a pound—-if you accept the science of bone to stone fossil creation you can’t back out when that same science gives you a date of millions of years or when that same science provides an explanation for why some tissue does not fully turn to stone.

Even the RATE project itself acknowledges that its interpretation of the data in favour of a young earth works ONLY IF major assumptions are made, and that its interpretation raises very significant problems that the RATE project writers acknowledge have not been solved. For example, their interpretation of the data only works if one ASSUMES (i.e., not proven) that radioactivity in the time of Noah was a million times greater than today. How could Noah survive the radiation? The RATE project does not know, and does not even have a speculation, but remains “confident” that the issue “will be” solved. That’s their science? Coming up with a solution that creates more and greater problems than it solves?

What many people do not realize is that there are numerous methods of dating, not just a few. But even if they could successfully cast doubt on all the multiple radiometric dating methods, there is no scientific answer to the layers of sedimentary rock or to light from stars.

[cont.]

The YEC postion is rife with holes and assumptions from beginning to end, and the YEC’s admit it. But the YEC answer in each case is to say that they are confident they will find a solution. Why are they confident? Because they believe the Biblical text gives them no way out, that the earth has to be young and that therefore the science will eventually turn out to support that allegedly God given age. YEC is a precommitted ideological belief in a young age in search of a science to support it. The relatively few scientists involved in YEC are backed into a corner by their committed belief in a young earth. So when the science does not support their belief, they spout “we’re confident the evidence will be found”. YEC’s have been forced over the decades to abandon pseudo-scientific belief after pseudo-scientific belief because science incontrovertably demolished those beliefs. Many of their former treasured “proofs” have not only been shown to be wrong, but shown to be foolish and fanciful. The more we learn each year, the more former “proofs” YEC relinquishes, and the greater the confirmation of ancient age.

Again I ask, “why?”, “why stick with a young earth belief?” The Bible does not provide any indication as to the date of the earth. Sure, if one makes certain initial interpretations, then one can arrive at a final interpretation that is consistent with a particular age; different initial interpretations will lead to a different interpretation that is consistent with a different age. For example, though the Hebrew word “yom” has a range of meanings, if one interprets all yoms in Genesis one to be 24 hour periods, and if one assumes that the first three days (with no solar day) had a period of light and dark that was 24 hours long, and if one assumes that each day followed the next without a gap, and if one assumes that there was no gap between initial creation and the first day, then one arrives at an interpretation of the first week lasting 168 hours.

Of course, one may have some good reasons for making these initial interpretations, I’m not denying there could be some support for the interpretations. I’m just pointing out that the Biblical text is consistent with more than one set of interpretations and so consistent with more than one age of the earth.

The initial interpretations / assumptions of the YEC are not demanded by the text. The text is open to other interpretations. Other interpretations also have solid reasons supporting them.

Death knell for YEC: light (actually, all forms of radiation) from stars.

Regards,
#John

Cheryl,
All scripture is inspired but not everything in it is God’s knowledge. I do not characterize Genesis as a lie: it is an accurate statement of local beliefs. The tension comes when young earthers consider Genesis as scientific knowledge–contrary to what they may claim, by the way. I have no problem with people understanding Genesis at face value and learning the beliefs that God used in guiding ancient believers and indeed many believers up to the present. We simply need to separate science from theology. The history of the universe and life on earth are questions for the former to answer, not the latter. Theology deals with how God uses those answers in spiritual applications.

I would like to point out re Richard and Greg’s debate that Genesis nowhere speaks of spiritual death. Only one death is indicated throughout the book, as far as I can see, and that is physical. The notion of God referring to spiritual and the serpent to physical in Genesis 3 seems to be an interpretation devised so that both can be telling the truth. As it turned out, neither had been entirely up front about the consequences of disobedience. God had not warned of the other curses, for example. Besides, if God were talking about spiritual death, why did physical death and physical curses result from it at all?

If I had to choose between only these 2 options:

(A) Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution with abiogenesis as is frequently taught in public school biology textbooks

or….

(B) Young-Earth Creationism

and I had to pick one, and I couldn’t say neither, then…

I’d pick Young-Earth Creationism.

Easy pick. Not even close.

CMP has oddly, and unnecessarily, conflated the issues of old age/ young age, evolution/creation, and the interpretation of the language of Genesis 1. Among other things, this has resulted in his categorization failing to include some interpretive solutions respecting old age, and likewise failing to include options dealing with evolution and creation. Moreover, his categorization has created a linkage between age of the earth and evolution/creation that is not necessary except in the case of YEC (which does not allow any time whatsoever for evolution). Similarly, a particular choice regarding the interpretation of Genesis does not necessarily force one into a particular view of either the age of the earth or evolution. For example, one can believe that the Genesis should be interpreted by way of literary framework or analogical days and still believe in a recent earth.

The conflation of the issues has led to comments that respond to some of the old/young age discussion as if evolution were linked to it, which is not the case. Most recently, there is the dichotomy presented by TUaD between Neo-Darwinian evolution and YEC. If one were to set up a binary choice, then the more appropriate opposition is between Darwinian evolution and special creation by God of species and humans. Those who believe in an old earth do not necessarily reject special creation nor do they necessarily accept materialist evolutionary theories.

In addition, the opposition between special creation and Darwinian evolution fails to capture the range and nuances of the various theories. For example, some Christians believe that God built into his creation a seed-like design such that the unfolding and developing of the universe is inherent in the original creation event. Much like an acorn looks nothing like an oak tree but inevitably develops into a full tree, so the original big bang looks nothing like a universe with a planet earth with life but the development of the earth and life was inevitable given the design of the bang.

Or one can have theories of evolution where God directs the process, and directly intervenes from time to time (merely using the term “theistic evolution” fails to capture the fact that there are a number of quite different theories that have God using some variety of evolution).

Returning to TUaD’s post, like him I am unconvinced by Darwinian evolution (of any variety), but unlike him I don’t find that thrusts me into the arms of YEC. The rejection of evolution does not require the rejection of an old earth. There are several varieties of special creation that I could accept, and none of them would require me to choose between an old and young earth.

Regards,
#John

Rayner, you don’t consider the fact that the eyes of Adam and Eve were open, they were ashamed and they hid from God a sign of spiritual death?

Steve,

Re: #125

“Once again, Richard is ready with an excellent rebuttal, which includes the fact that “the terms ’stellar evolution,’ ‘cosmic evolution,’ and ‘chemical evolution’ are in common use in the scientific community” (nice job, Richard!).”

Actually, no. He misspoke the first time and I pointed it out, then he replied that he meant his inflated definition all along, even though there had been no mention of it in the blog prior to his response to me. Only biological evolution had been brought up, so it was very natural and obvious to read his comments in that light.

“Greg makes it clear that the foundation of the TOE is NATURALISM (i.e. random NATURAL events) which, by definition, excludes SUPERNATURALISM (i.e. God). It is perfectly obvious that true believers in the TOE – like Greg – believe that naturalism is the foundation for the development/evolution of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, not just life, as Greg argues.”

Please don’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t say any of that. I pointed out that ALL science is based off of methodological naturalism, not just the kind you do not like.

Please read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism#Methodological_and_metaphysical_naturalism

You’re entire post is completely inaccurate and ignores all that I said in my first response to you. Please go back and carefully read it and at least try to understand what was being said and not what you just want to hear.

And I believe I had a question for you: Since all science is based off of methodological naturalism, which you seem to have a problem with, why don’t you reject all of it? You are inconsistent if you don’t. Most YEC are, both in the science they reject and accept, and in their interpretation of the Bible.

“Be honest, Greg, do you believe this … that God orchestrated the evolution of the world up until the origin of life, at which point naturalism took over?”

I’m not even sure your statement makes sense. I believe in the sovereignty of my God. Whether He chose to guide evolution at every point from the beginning to now, or whether He carefully designed the laws of the universe to get us here according to His will, I don’t know.

By the way, I also asked you for evidence of a young earth. Can you provide some? I’m not the only one to have asked this question of YEC either.

Rayner,

Re: #128

“I would like to point out re Richard and Greg’s debate that Genesis nowhere speaks of spiritual death. Only one death is indicated throughout the book, as far as I can see, and that is physical. The notion of God referring to spiritual and the serpent to physical in Genesis 3 seems to be an interpretation devised so that both can be telling the truth. As it turned out, neither had been entirely up front about the consequences of disobedience. God had not warned of the other curses, for example. Besides, if God were talking about spiritual death, why did physical death and physical curses result from it at all?”

How come the Bible tells me that, prior to my regeneration through Christ, I was dead? Certainly my body was alive. Now either I was physically dead, or I was alive, according to you. Which is it?

I say I was spiritually dead, which seems rather consistent with the whole of scripture.

Physical death resulted because humanity was barred access to the Tree of Life. Even God makes that known! Could you respond to what I had written in posts #120 and 124?

Here is some wisdom from Saint Augustine, one of the most well respected scholars and teachers in the history of Christianity, from something he wrote about 1,600 years ago:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although ‘they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'”

(Augustine, “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, vol. 1, ch.19, in “St. Augustine, Vol. 1: The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, series: Ancient Christian Writers, by John Hammond Taylor (Editor) Newman Press (January 1, 1982)). One can take a look at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0809103265?tag=savedbygracemini&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0809103265&creative=373489&camp=211189

One need only do brief web surfing to find comment after comment by nonChristians, both scholarly and not, who mock YEC and also Christianity because of the YEC pseudoscient.

Regards
#John

Well, everyone is probably headed over to the new thread now, but I just gotta say that while there has been much well thought out discussion, conducted (mostly) with admirable respect, I think that both #John1453C.T. and Greg have produced very compelling support for their positions.

I’m also surprised by the survey. I’d have expected the two Theistic Evolution options to be swapped and the Gap Theory to have come in higher. And I would not have predicted the dominance of YEC.

It is as if YEC’s had a plot of ground that they were mining for gold, surrounded by the other gold mines of Atheists and OEC’s (old earth). Every time the YEC’s find a shiny gold tinted rock they run off to the town assayer yelling “eureka”, only to be told that they only found iron pyrites. The other mines also bring their ore to the town assayer, who informs them that some of it is iron pyrites, and some is actually gold. The YEC’s declare, “that can’t be gold, God told us there is no gold in those mines”. So they hike off to the assayer and start disputing with him about the tools and machinery and chemicals he is using, etc. Time and again the assayer, and the other miners, point out where the YEC’s have gone wrong. “Well!”, respond the YEC’s, “Gold told us there is only gold in our mine”. So they trudge back to their mine and keep digging. The hole they are digging for themselves keeps getting deeper, but the assayer keeps sending them back after finding, yet again, that they have only dug up iron pyrites. Eventually, the townspeople gather on the hills of slag around the YEC mine to watch the entertaining digging by the YEC’s, make jokes to each other about it, and wonder to each other if the YEC’s even know the difference between real gold and fool’s gold.

As an example of the sort of thing that Augustine wrote about, I quote two items I quickly found on the web:

From the bibleandscience.com website: “In 1857 Phillip Gosse wrote Omphalos which means “belly button” in Greek. This was at the time when geologists were saying the earth is very old. He believed that God created the earth to look old. . . . Some believe that God created all these fossil bones of animals that never really lived in order to test our faith in God. Some believe that scientists are putting these fossil bones together wrong and create monster dinosaurs that never really existed. Others say that Satan created these fossils in order to deceive us. Are the fossils we find in the ground from real animals or are they fake created by God to test us? . . .” (the B&S site is an OEC site, but they note that some Christians have believed such things).

A post by justanotheratheist at richarddawkins.net regarding the recent discovery of a giant toad fossil: “Mmm..I wonder on which of the six days god thought up this beauty. Oh no, wait. He didn’t. He just put the fossil there to test our faith, like a gadzillion other fossils. Yes, that’s it. Just in case T Rex etc etc etc wasn’t enough to lead us astray from the path of creationism, let’s slip in a jumbo sized hopper as well. He sure does have a pesky sense of humour, this god fellow. Or there again, perhaps he had [nothing] to do with it?”

The foolishness of God that we are to die for is the foolishness of the gospel of Christ, not the foolishness of stupidity.

Regards,
#John
Regards,
#John

While some YECs think that God created fossils to test the faith of Christians, I think God created YECism to try the patience of OECs. 😀

Steve and Richard,

Steve said this:
“A critical point that is very often completely missed in this debate is that THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING APART FROM A CREATOR (i.e. God).”

And I replied that the theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the earth, only the origin of species. (And I’ve pointed out to Steve that all science is an attempt to explain phenomena apart from a creator, not just evolution or anything else he doesn’t like.)

Richard, you disagreed and returned with a quote that supposedly said otherwise.

In my reply to Steve in post #132 I mistakenly attributed Steve’s original comment to you, which I apologize for.

But, my reply to Steve in post #117 still stands and is very valid even though you (Richard) tried to reinterpret and correct Steve’s obvious blunder. It is very clear from Steve that he was referring to the theory of evolution in regards to biology, not anything else.

And my reply to you, Richard, is also valid because there had been no previous mention in this blog of the expanded definition of evolution which you countered with.

Re: Greg # 132 … Your rebuttal of my comments, Greg, are based upon the distinction between “Naturalism” and “Methodological Naturalism.” Here are definitions of these two terms:

Naturalism [from now on, N]: A philosophical position that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that “nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature.”

Methodological Naturalism [MN]: MN is concerned with acquiring knowledge … It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested by reference to natural events. Explanations of observable effects are to be considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles).

You stated, Greg, that with MN, “Supernaturalism is not ruled out a priori; it is left out because it has never been reliably observed.”
This statement provides both the guiding principle of MN (“Supernaturalism … is LEFT OUT …) and the basis for this principle(“because it [SN] has never been observed.”).
Needless to say, this basis rejects the great number of supernatural events recorded in the Bible. In fact, rejection of these SN events is a prerequisite for belief in MN. Furthermore, belief in these SN events precludes belief in either N or MN. In other words, if one believes in the SN events recorded in the Bible, he will not believe in either N or MN, for they are mutually exclusive; the existence of SN events disproves both N and MN.

In conclusion, both N and MN – which is the foundation of the TOE – reject the truthfulness of the SN events recorded in the Bible … and my claim in # 89, that “The TOE [which is based upon N and/or MN]is an attempt to explain how the world came into being apart from a Creator” is entirely accurate. One more time … if one believes in the historical accuracy of the SN events recorded in the Bible, he cannot believe in either N/MN, because these 2 things are mutually exclusive.

Steve

re Greg post 132 wrote:

“And I believe I had a question for you: Since all science is based off of methodological naturalism, which you seem to have a problem with, why don’t you reject all of it? You are inconsistent if you don’t. Most YEC are, both in the science they reject and accept, and in their interpretation of the Bible.”

Let’s think about this a bit. There are only 2 cases. Either naturalism is true or false. If naturalism is false (and why would anyone be reading a theology blog if they believed naturalism?) then methodological naturalism (ie “science” defined by Greg) is incapable of reaching all truth – even about the physical world. Any instance in which the supernatural has acted beyond the currently understood “natural laws” would cause effects that “science” is incapable of properly interpreting. Thus if God really did what the plain reading of scripture says about origins (and the flood), then “science” by itself will never be able to properly interpret the evidence. Instead, the evidence must be interpreted such that there is no supernatural influence at all. So, it is illogical to expect “science” to always reach proper conclusions. NB – I am NOT anti-science at all; I only advocate understanding its limitations.

The extent to which this gets taken by some who avow a belief in God is interesting. I had a chance to speak briefly with Dr. John Polkinghorne (Templeton award winning physicist and theologian) a few months ago and he essentially said he believes the following:

1. His understanding of the “nature of God” requires that God not “capriciously” interfer with his creation.
2. Thus many of the miracles recorded in scripture did not really occur, scripture is simply wrong.
3. He thinks there is room for God to interact with his creation thru quantum indeterminancy.

I suggested that if my understanding of the “nature of God” differs somewhat from his, then my conclusions about which miracles really occurred could differ from his. He agreed. I then said, then you are saying that truth is relative, and he agreed. Note also, Dr. Polkinghorne’s personal understanding trumps scripture…thus man is the source of truth, and man’s understanding judges the truth of revelation.

Richard

Could God have communicated the truth about origins in Genesis?

It is often claimed that due to the pre-scientific nature of the original audience of Genesis, God could not communicate to them the truths that we (the enlightened) understand today (usually meaning the big bang and biological evolution). To refute this claim Dr. Mortenson wrote a short piece “Genesis according to Evolution” (http://creation.com/genesis-according-to-evolution). Here’s part of what God could have written:

‘When God began to create the heavens and the earth, he expanded a small grain of dust and said, “Let there be light.” And it eventually became so. From this grain of dust, over many great ages he formed the stars and then the sun and finally, after a long age, the earth and the moon. And the earth was hot and dry. There was no water anywhere on the earth. Slowly, God caused the seas to come forth, and from the water he formed exceedingly small creatures in the sea and he said, “Be fruitful and multiply and be slowly changed into fish and plants of the sea and creeping things and animals and plants on the land and birds in the sky.” And after thousands upon multiplied thousands of years, as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore, it was so. But in those days there were terrors on the land and in the sky, and many also fell prey to a host of terrible plagues. Animals were eating each other, and killing with poisonous stings, and from time to time many of the creatures that God had made died and were buried and were no more. But new ones arose to take their place.

‘Then after a further number of long ages, God said, “Let us make man in our image.” So God took one of the animals that had arisen, which looked like a man but was not, and God breathed His spirit into this creature so that it was changed into a man. And God called him Adam. In like manner God made a woman also and Adam called her Eve.2 And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” And it was so. And from this first pair came all the people of the earth.’

So let’s drop the failed argument that God couldn’t communicate accurately, and instead pay attention to what He actually did communicate….

Richard

A critical point that is very often completely missed in this debate is that THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING APART FROM A CREATOR (i.e. God). In fact, it is not difficult to see that this is the theory’s raison d’etre (reason for existence). The theory, in other words, blatantly advocates atheism. Consequently, ANY theory that in any way condones evolution – and aside from YEC, ALL of the theories you present definitely do this – lends support, either directly or indirectly, to this blasphemous idea.

So:

Is the theory of gravity an attempt to explain the attraction of objects apart from a creator (i.e., God)?

Are the theories of quantum mechanics attempts to explain the behavior of particles at the subatomic level apart from a creator (i.e., God)?

Is the theory of digestion an attempt to explain the way people utilize food apart from a creator (i.e., God)?

Is the theory of automobile mechanics an attempt to explain the way the internal combustion engine works apart from a creator (i.e., God)?

The last I looked, “God” and “creator” are left out of most discussions of gravity, quantum mechanics, metabolism and automobile engines. Why? Because they are atheism-promoting theories, whether by design or default or coincidence! 😕

Greg, regarding the scope of evolution you wrote:

Richard, you disagreed and returned with a quote that supposedly said otherwise.

Do you disagree that the quotes I posted show “evolution” is more than biological? If you don’t, disagree, then why say “supposedly”?

Richard writes:
“man’s understanding judges the truth of revelation.”

Of course it does. I don’t believe there is any other option, even for your position. Based on your understanding, you have decided to accept a YEC position, with all it’s implications. Your understanding (reasoning) has led you to choose to believe that the Bible presents trustworthy revelation, therefore you believe it. You have decided the Bible is authoritative, therefore you submit to its authority. But even then you present arguments to support your belief – arguments appealing to reason, or understanding.

An example of the limits of science to explain what is observed:

How are stars formed?

Understanding how stars are formed has proved to be a difficult task…

What we know is this: Stars form in huge clouds of molecules and dust, called Giant Molecular Clouds (GMC). These clouds can range from tens to hundreds of light years in diameter and contain enough material to make thousands to millions of stars.

Stars don’t form alone but in clumps or clusters of dozens to thousands of stars when a portion of the GMC is compressed, increasing its gravity and causing it to collapse.

As it collapses, the large fragment breaks up into smaller fragments which eventually become individual stars. Observations show that the birth weight of stars can range from a few percent to 50 times the mass of the Sun.

It is not known for certain what causes the initial compression of a GMC fragment. There is evidence that shock waves play a role. These shocks could come from a supernova explosion, or fierce winds blowing from a cluster of newborn stars, or from a collision of the entire galaxy with another galaxy.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/sources/stars/stars-12.html

Note that all 3 potential causes for the initial compression assume that stars ALREADY EXIST. This is not at all an isolated statement. Look it up yourself if interested.

Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says:
‘The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.’
(Marcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’,New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.)

More on the failure of naturalistic science to explain the origin of the universe around us:

–Critics of recent creation ridicule the belief that a universe so vast, composed of so many diverse phenomena and processes running at diverse rates, could be fit into a few thousand years. They are less likely to acknowledge the many and severe problems with an old, evolutionary universe. Some of these problems have become accentuated in recent months. Any cosmological system is going to have its share of challenging phenomena to explain. Before casting stones, a little humility is in order.

–A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, “Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril,” the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature.

–“Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men,” Ron Cowen quipped. “That’s the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they’ve looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos.”

–Other recent findings echo this theme of “mature at birth.” Consider three examples from March of this year:

* The Spitzer Space Telescope found clusters of galaxies a third of the assumed age of the universe.
* UV and infrared surveys found “ubiquitous” galaxies at redshift 6.7, corresponding to 5% the assumed age.
* The Swift satellite detected a gamma-ray burst 12.8 billion years old in the assumed time scale. “This means,” said Nature (3/9/2006, p. 164) “that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes.”

–More examples could be cited. These findings corroborate a January 8, 2002, NASA press release that was considered astonishing at the time: based on Hubble surveys, “the grand finale came first” in stellar and galactic evolution. As far back as telescopes look, they see mature creation, not evolution.

–Add to this other problems with evolutionary views. Theories of star formation, galaxy formation, planet formation, globular cluster ages, universal expansion and much more—including some of the best-established ideas in astronomy—have had their share of upsets.

–In a sense, this is how science works. No “fact” of science should be immune from challenge by new findings. What this teaches us, though, is that cockiness is out of order. Critics of recent creation should not be the first to throw stones.

From a 2006 article at http://www.icr.org/article/mature-at-birth-universe-discredits-evolution/

Though there are things we don’t fully know or understand (that seems to be what Richard means by limits), what we do know and understand all points cumulatively to a very old earth. Among the many indicators of an old earth are:
layers of fossilized forests
layers of silt
layers of ice
layers of sedimentary rock
recorded (i.e., present in rocks) changes in the earth’s magnetic field
ancient metorite impacts
stalagmite and stalactite formation in caves
radiometric dating
radioactivity decay
isochron dating
fossilized coral reefs
contintental drift
buried mountains
buried canyons and river channels (in sedimentary rock)
amber (fossilized tree resin)
cobbles (pebbles of conglomerate rock)
burrows of organisms in sedimentary rock
fossilized animal tracks
fossilized marks of raindrops
continuous tree ring records
records in rocks of long term cycles of galactic or solar fluctuations in radiation
the Great Stone Dome batholith off shore of New Jersey, U.S.A.
the creation of large, thick salt beds (e.g., the Salina Salt beneath Michigan)containing pollen, algae, and meteorite dust
soil formation and fossilized soil horizons
volcanic deposits and gaseous pollution in sedimentary rock
the formation of coal
unconformities in sedimentary rock (e.g. in the North Sea Broad Fourteens Basin)
overthrusts along fault lines
etc.
etc.
As an example of one of the above, the Green River Formation of the western United States contains up to six million layers of deposited silt, representing about three million years of sedimentation.

The testimony of geophysicist Glenn R. Morton, a former YEC, can be found at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm. Morton has also written, ” I am a physicist who went into geophysics. I was a committed young-earth creationist when I came out of college and indeed held that position until I was 44 years old. (I published a lot in CRSQ [note: Creation Research Science Quarterly] in the early 80’s. But the geologic data, which I work with every day, simply didn’t support what the young-earthers, including me, were saying. I finally came to a point where I could either admit the facts of geology or remain a young-earther and know in my heart that I was not being truthful with myself or others.”

The testimony of another former YEC, Dr. Joshua Zorn, is an excellent illustration of Saint Augustine’s comments (found in an earlier post of mine above). His testimony can be found at “The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary”, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/zorn.html . Dr. Zorn provides several tragic lessons that he has learned including the negative spiritual implications of YEC, and concludes by writing, “As I write this paper, I see YECS literature becoming more and more widely distributed in the growing churches in my corner of the former Soviet Union. We are sowing the seeds of a major crisis which will make the job of world evangelism even harder than it is already. Lord, give us wisdom!”

Lisa,
I’m saying that Genesis does not make a distinction in terms between ‘spiritual death’ and ‘physical death.’ Nor does God–and the serpent is able to play with the word ‘death’ isolating the physical reference and ignoring the other.

Was Adam and Eve’s shame a sign of spiritual death? It may be intended as a sign of a broken relationship. In a good relationship, we have do not have the shame. Adam and Eve broke the relationship when they trusted the serpent’s advice over God’s. They gained something, but had lost more than they gained.

Greg,
I agree about physical life being dependent on the tree of life. We have then in the garden a tree of physical life and a tree of moral life. Adam and Eve could not live a moral life without that knowledge. They could only obey or disobey authority. Though God told them the penalty of eating the fruit, he did not say what the benefit was. The serpent figured that out used it to entice.

Spiritual death? I’m talking only about Genesis. Yes, it becomes a strong teaching eventually.

Rayner,

I don’t think I am following you here. You say that they couldn’t live a moral life with out eating of the forbidden tree and that it was a benefit. Are you then saying that it was a good thing they disobeyed or that God was deliberately keeping something good from them by forbidding it to be eaten?

John posted a list of supposed indicators of an old earth.

For those unfamiliar with the basics of how dating methods work, there is a good entry level article here:
http://creation.com/how-dating-methods-work

Just to show that the items in John’s list do not preclude a young earth view, I’ll select one or two and post a reply later.

And just to show that YEC’s also have lists of friendly dating indicators, below is a list of a few that imply a young earth. John can (and probably will) claim that these are all misinterpreted, etc and really indicate an old earth — I can respond with documentation that this is not the case, etc…

What’s happening is that all data is subject to interpretation, and it’s impossible to know exactly what happened in the unobserved past…in fact without the ability to do repeatable experiments some would claim that “origins science” is not really “science” at all. It’s certainly not the same as the operational laboratory science that give us our technology…

If someone wants to investigate themselves, it’s not really that difficult to understand. Many of the techniques are rather simple to grasp. To see from the YEC perspective, there are many articles available here:
http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa

A few of many young Earth dating methods:

Pressure remaining in oil deposits
Decay of the Earth’s magnetic field
Supernovas found vs. occurrence rate
Turbulence remaining in Saturn’s rings
Size of Mississippi river delta
Concentration of elements in ocean
Age of the history of mankind
Total number of prehistoric bodies
Rotational speed of the earth
Amount of volcanic sediment
Lack of new star formation
Existence of short term comets
Amount of cosmic dust in solar system
Temperature of the earth
Earth to moon distance
Stalagmite growth rate
Niagara falls erosion rate
Size of the fossil beds
Clustered galaxies
Rate of coal formation
“White hole” cosmology
Carbon-14 in level in all organic matter
Existence of distant spiral galaxies
Thermal activity on the moon
Helium in the wrong places
Erosion rate of the continents
Tree ring chronology
Concentration of salt in the ocean
Sea floor sediment depth
Cosmic dust accumulation on the earth
Mutational load of biological life
Size of the earth’s human population
Poynting-Robertson Effect
Meteorites in the earth’s sediment
Sun diameter & earth/sun distance
Polystrata fossils
Average depth of topsoil
Lunar crater pattern and distinctness
Polonium halos
Salt in the dead sea
Ice cap accumulation rate
Human artifacts in the fossil record

Richard