Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

John wrote:

Richard has support for rapid rock formation in a marsh (which I do not deny), that does not refute the fact that sedimentary rock is created (slowly) in other parts of the world.

Another straw-man, I never denied that sedimentary rock is created slowly at times. Are you saying that slow sedimentation at one point in time and place precludes rapid sedimentation at others? Or perhaps you’d claim that by examining the sedimentary rocks that are formed we can tell the difference.

If so, you’re claiming superior geological knowledge to OE geologist Derek Ager who wrote:

“we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous”

(post 266)

I thoroughly understand that there are multiple models for rock formation. I do not deny that there are OE models. I also know that the existence of a model capable of explaining an observation is not proof that the model reflects reality. For that you must prove that there are no other satisfactory models.

You’ve repeated stated that there are no YEC models to explain the rocks we observe. Without being specific, this nothing but an assertion. Exactly what rock formations are impossible to explain in a YEC model? Give a specific example or two.

—————-

It is therefore incorrect to describe the various models of rock formation processes as contradictory and exclusionary, i.e., either one or the other, either fast or slow. I note that this false and incorrect presentation of contradictories also relates also to Richard’s mischaracterization of “errors” in relation to geological dating, so it appears to be a faulty premise that permeates much of the reasoning he has presented here.

Yet another straw-man. I’ve never presented the false dichotomy that you’re claiming. John, for this discussion to be at all useful, at least stop making things up. It’s should be beneath you.

—————-

Notice that John continues to ignore this:

If I gave you a rock, and the K-Ar results from a lab showing a calculated age of, say 3.5 ± .25 Myr, would you know how old it really is?

—————-

Neither AIG quote you posted claims that ALL sedimentary rocks were formed in the flood.

[cont. from 300] The little they have produced has been shredded. What the YECs publish, is published only in their inhouse magazines or websites, and is not of the level or quality of what is published in geology journals. Their short descriptions are filled with “if’s” and other unsupported assumptions. They do not describe or set out the details of degree of heat needed or the length of heating, the length of sunlight exposure, the speed of the water flow, nor the time frames in terms of days that the processes would have taken (remember, all the rock formation processes would have had to occur within the one year period of the flood).

For many of their alleged processes, the flood waters, carrying a mixture of different types of particles and dead things, would have had to sort them in peculiar and very non-waterlike ways, and then deposit layers that turn to rock before other layers are deposited and then the first newly formed rock layers are eroded, and then further deposition and rock formation occurs, and then those rocks are heaved and moved around, and further erosion and deposition and rock formation occurs. Multiple separated events of rock formation erosion and movement, and all within one year. We can and do know how the materials (water, sediment particles, rocks) that God created move and behave. They do not behave in such a way that they could ever accomplish what the YECs describe in either the timeframe they have nor by the physical process they have available (the behaviour of solids in water). Futhermore, they do not have the time available for the creation of metamorphic rock following the creation of sedimentary rock.

But the YECs are not overly troubled. The sedimentary rock must have been created during the global flood. There is no other way. There is no other point in the God declared 6,000 year history of the earth for so much rock to have formed. So if they don’t have a testable model or theory, and don’t have a detailed description, they remain confident that they will one day find it.

Note, the above described problems are only inherent in the YEC version of the global flood, because they require that the flood create all the sedimentary rock. If one believes in an old earth, then the sedimentary rock is formed over millions of years prior to the flood. The world wide flood should leave detectable traces, but those traces would be other than the previous formation of sedimentary rock. For example, a global flood would lay down sediments, and we should find a sediment layer, or vertically adjacent sediment layers, related to the flood.

Regards,
#John

re post 299. You are correct, Josh. And this is exactly what has happened in the field of evolutionary biology. Atheist, moslem, bhuddist, and even some christian scholars rip each other apart. They tear down and discredit each others models even though they know that they are creating cannon fodder for creationists (creationists of all stripes). Collections of these kinds of materials can be found at http://www.evolutionnews.org/ and at http://www.uncommondescent.com/

I’m sure there are other such sites, but those are the ones I frequent (but no posting, I like CMP’s blog too much).

This ripping and shredding and supplying of cannon fodder to creationists does not happen in the field of geology (including rock formation and rock dating).

Geology continues to move ahead like the fields of solar energy, nuclear fission and fusion, metallurgy, oceanology, non-evolutionary biology, plant breeding, etc.

Regards,
#John

Joshua,

To understand how the dominant belief in a young earth became a dominant belief the an old earth. Take a look at Dr Mortenson’s work. As I posted earlier:

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

re post 301, Richard states, “Are you saying that slow sedimentation at one point in time and place precludes rapid sedimentation at others? ”

No. I’m saying that both fast and slow sedimentation occurs and that both fast and slow rock formation occurs. The speed of sedimentation is something apart from the process of lithification (the formation of rock from sediments).

Richard states, ” Exactly what rock formations are impossible to explain in a YEC model? Give a specific example or two.” Point to any sedimentart rock. YEC’s so-called “flood geology” does not explain any of the sedimentary rocks that we see. Obviously both YECs and OEs agree that volcanoes create rock, since volcanoes erupted both before and after the flood (but flood geology cannot account for the age of some volcanic rocks, nor for the incorporation of volcanic rock into sedimentary rocks in the manner we find it), and obviously we can both allow for marsh rocks and chemically created rocks (stalactites–though flood geology cannot account for all stalactites). YE also cannot explain most metomorphic rock creation, so you can pick almost any one of those too.

Richard quotes Derek Ager as supporting him and disproving me. For the life of me I cannot figure out why, since the very existence of the quote undercuts Richard. Ager, as noted by Richard, believes in an old earth, so, obviously, Ager believes that both fast and slow sedimentation are compatible with a belief in an old earth.

Sedimentation occurs quickly and slowly and with breaks. So what? One would expect that over millions of years. After sedimentation we then need lithification by way of changes cause by heat, pressure, and chemical reactions. Pressure squeezes the particles closer together and eliminates spaces. The observable weight of the sedimentary rocks is not sufficient to accomplish the process quickly, but rather would only enough for a slow millions of years squeezing. We also need seepage of chemicals, and then chemical reactions to bind the particles together. Not a process that happens in less than a year.

For my benefit and the benefit of others who are reading the exchanges, I provide below a quote from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

[end of quote]

[cont.]

Post 301, Richard states, “Yet another straw-man. I’ve never presented the false dichotomy that you’re claiming.”

Richard stated in post 265: ”

[sedimentary rock formation] takes from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

Fact is that observational data constantly shows up that contradicts that statement. Rocks are observed forming quickly, but OE believers are content to place these data points on the shelf as somehow inapplicable to the unobserved formation of other rocks.”

Post 279 by Richard: “Recall the geologist who wrote it up stated

The rock is ‘forming faster than anyone had ever believed possible, with one stone creating itself in just six months.’

so the real geologist admits the observation violated their models (that why it would be thought impossible). John just asserts it doesn’t matter and has no implications related to the validity of the models. ”

Post 290 by Richard: “I’ve shown examples in which the observations were contradictory to the geological model (rapid rocks, for example).”

What I gathered from that was that Richard was claiming that his example of fast forming rock contradicted the slow formation of rock, that is, if rock formed quickly then it did not form slowly. If I was wrong, and Richard agrees that rock can be formed both quickly and slowly, then I stand corrected. Perhaps Richard would again explain that aspect of his position; I would rather disprove his actual position.

I also pointed out, however, that the types of fast rock formation he pointed to were not types of rock formation that could occur during a flood, and they are not types of rock formation/creation that YECs use when they discuss the formation of sedimentary rock.

In regard to sedimentary rocks, it would be helpful if Richard would indicate which sedimentary rocks were not formed in the YEC version of the global flood, and which AIG or ICR (or other) articles discuss this.

Richard continues to ask, “If I gave you a rock, and the K-Ar results from a lab showing a calculated age of, say 3.5 ± .25 Myr, would you know how old it really is?”

I’ve been dealing with other matters, and not ignoring it because I can’t deal with it. [cont.]

Regards,
#John

In comment # 300 above, # John stated that the universe works the same way today as the day it was created because God’s laws are the same now as then. (Not an exact quote, but I think I have the idea right.)

A question just came to my mind however. And that is, just exactly how certain are we about that?? Genesis 3 makes it very clear that there were great changes on the earth after the fall of man, and Romans 8 makes it plain that all of creation was subjected to vanity, (futility or a curse depending on the translation read). Could it be that some of those laws and functions also changed at that time? And could they perhaps have changed even more at the time of the flood? God said in Genesis 6 that He would destroy man with the earth. Maybe things have not always worked the same way as they do now. But like I said, this is a thought that just came to my mind now. So I don’t know if it has validity or not regarding natural law. Does anyone else have any knowledge on this.

The question, “If I gave you a rock, and the K-Ar results from a lab showing a calculated age of, say 3.5 ± .25 Myr, would you know how old it really is?”, is nonsensical. One needs to know other details and factors such as the location where the sample was taken, the composition of the rock, etc.

re post 304 and the reference to Dr. Mortensen’s work.

“woo hoo”, or “big whoop” as others might say.

Both young earthers and old earthers have existed side by side for a long time. Yippee. I’m not truckin’ with those who claim that YE is false because it is allegedly recent.

Here again is a helpful quote from the fallacies website:

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

[end of quote]

Well, at least Richard and I agree on something.

I do appreciate the quote from Lyell’s in 1827, which remains appropriate:

“[they were] incapable of appreciating the force of objections, or of discerning the weight of inductions from numerous physical facts.”

re post 307. Astute observation. However, it would be a unique position to hold that the nature of gravity, oxygen combustion, fluid dynamics, etc., the basic workings of God’s universe changed. Furthermore, which sin would have resulted in the changes, and when? The sins of Adam and Eve? Their sin happened after the passage of millions of years from initial creation (on the OE view). The sin of Satan? we have no biblical timing on that one except the implied but obvious fact it occurred before Eve’s fall. In addition, the futility and groaning etc. referenced in the Bible is understood to relate to death primarily, and then also evils like sickness. There is no logical, moral, or biblical reason to expect that the sin of moral creatures would affect the suspension of fluids in water or the nature of nuclear fusion in the sun, as the operation of those processes is essential to life. In addition, the work on the “fine tuning” of the universe has revealed that the numerous physical constants and aspects of our universe and world are so finely tuned, have so little margin especially in combination with each other, that we could not have them be other than what they are at present and still have life.

Regards

# John,

Thank you for the personal apology above and for the compliment.
And I have always been in the YEC camp. It has been what I have heard and been taught for most of my life from both a Biblical perspective and from the creation science folks. I have been following this conversation with interest. But I have not had the time to do any of the extra reading in any of the links from either side. To try to sort through and comprehend all of this and make sense out of it is mind boggling and pretty hard to do from my perspective at this time! I am going to be out of town for some time now–leaving tomorrow as far as I know–so won’t be reading this at all for some time now.

Regarding my comment # 307 above: It was Adam’s and Eve’s sin that I was referring to. And of course, if one takes a YEC position, that doesn’t have to be a large amount of time after the start of creation at all.

Also, Genesis 3 makes it plain that there were changes in the way the earth produced–Adam would work the earth with the sweat of his brow, and the earth was cursed and brought forth thistles. If any natural laws other than that changed then or at the flood is or course not proven by that at all. It was just a thought. And you do have a point about the “fine tuning” of the universe.

Richard,

Thanks for the link, but after reading it, you still haven’t addressed my question. All that the link provided was a rationale that the YEC position had Christian support early in history:

“Dr. Mortenson’s eye-opening text The Great Turning Point dispels the widely promoted myth that belief in ‘young earth’ creation is a recent phenomenon, popularized by Bible-believing Christians only in the past few decades. Based on his Ph.D. research in England, Dr. Mortenson shows that even before Darwin, there were a number of Christian writers who collectively became known as the ‘scriptural geologists.’ For biblical and geological reasons they did not accept millions of years of earth history (an idea which was already becoming popular a few decades before Darwin published his famous book in 1859). ”

That is totally irrelevant to my question. I’m not asking about Christians now, I’m asking why you think the majority of geologists (95% + at least) believe in an Old Earth when it would extremely beneficial for their career’s if they were able to “debunk it” and set up another valid theory?

I guess to give it more clarity I’ll ask it this way:

Can you provide ANY evidence for a non-Christian geologist arguing for a Young Earth model?

If not, why don’t you find this problematic?

Curious your thoughts.

Your brother in Christ.

-Joshua

“I’m asking why you think the majority of geologists (95% + at least) believe in an Old Earth when it would extremely beneficial for their career’s if they were able to “debunk it” and set up another valid theory?”

heh, heh, heh. As someone familiar with academia and academic politics, I’ll let someone else handle this softball question.

The answer to that will also address (largely) the very weak complaint that since there’s so little Christian scholarship published in secular refereed journals, then Christian scholarship must be inferior or lacking.

Truth Unites…and Divides,

Many of your comments are puzzling to me…

Christian Philosophers are at least even with (if not out number) non-Christians in the academic realm and in academic journals (have you seen anyone give a responce to Plantiga’s evolutionary arguement against naturalism?). Francis Collins was head of the Human Genome project, many of the individuals from the Discovery Institute (i.e. the Intelligent Design think tank) get published in well known journals…

So I fail to see how you have even attempted to address the issue aside from expecting me to assume that “you know better.” Its an odd way of going about conversation to be sure. Either you aren’t familiar with the scholarly material or you failed to understand my question.

Let me clarify it again with this quote from the AIG website, and you tell me if you have a problem with it in terms of the scope and purpose of science:

“By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. ”

If this is the case, why bother “doing science”? I mean its much easier to say “The Bible is Inerrant and the simplest explanation is the best, end of story”. Why try and bring science into the mix when the real issue is exegetical techniques?

Curious your thoughts.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

“many of the individuals from the Discovery Institute (i.e. the Intelligent Design think tank) get published in well known journals…”

?! Is that right? I’ve read that ID’ers get blacklisted.

“If this is the case, why bother “doing science”?”

#1. Many “scientists” in the past and some currently are Christian, and they are doing it for the Glory of God.

#2. Need to define the term “science”. Gets us into the field of Philosophy of Science. Also gets us into discussions of philosophical and methodological naturalism. And all this takes us far afield from the blog post although it is relevant.

Good points, Josh.

I’m enjoying this exchange, but, I don’t expect to convince Richard or TUaD or any other YECs of anything because they are at present incapable of changing their minds. They believe God told them that the earth is only 6,000 years old (told them through His Word, not in a recent vision), and how are they going to go against that? Call God a liar?

They will only be capable of change if they come to agree that either (1) the YEC interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, or (2) there are other interpretative options open to them which include either a YE or OE. In the case of the latter (i.e., coming to (2)), once they see that Scripture is capable of interpretations consistent or compatible with either the OE or YE view, then they will have to either (a) form their belief on the age of the earth via the physical sciences, or (b) remain agnostic about the matter.

I will for now leave rock formation and dating, and other examples that are unexplainable via YEC flood geology (such as fossils atop the Himalayas, or fossilized dinosaur nests and footprints), and turn to the matter of light.

Regards,
#John

235. Steve Bartholomew on 02 Jun 2009 at 11:13 am wrote:

Greg, …I must add here that you have shown remarkable resilience defending your position, and I will not be at all surprised to see your disappearance from this blog at any moment. If this event is imminent, but you still read this comment, I wish you the very best in your continuing quest for the truth! Steve

Steve: I hope your remarks didn’t drive Greg away. 🙁 I’m still waiting (hoping) for him to post his promised list of (re)sources for the ANE view(point) of Genesis.

John CT: “I don’t expect to convince Richard or TUaD or any other YECs of anything because they are at present incapable of changing their minds.”

Hold on there, pardner. I never said I was a YEC.

I’ve always maintained that YEC’s and OEC’s should set aside hostilities toward each other and redirect them instead towards neo-Darwinian evolutionists and their compromising enablers, the theistic evolutionists.

Joshua,

Sorry for posting the wrong link for Mortensen’s actual work. Try this for the start point:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/scriptural_geologists.asp

and this for links to several subsequent articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=scriptural+geologists&search=Go#q=scriptural+geologists&site=default_collection

I find it quite useful to understand a bit about a paradigm change when considering whether it’s really a move toward truth or not.

We must remember that the notion of completely objective scientists is mythology (see Gould quote earlier).

Now just to provoke thought, consider the following questions:

Can you provide ANY evidence for a non-Christian scientist arguing for the physical resurrection of Jesus?

If not, why don’t you find this problematic?

Eric – Re: post #315 …

“Steve: I hope your remarks didn’t drive Greg away. I’m still waiting (hoping) for him to post his promised list of (re)sources for the ANE view(point) of Genesis.”

For some reason I sensed that Greg might be pulling out of this blog. If this happened to be true, I just wanted to leave him with some words of encouragement (“I wish you the very best in your continuing quest for the truth!”). If he did pull out, it would appear that my intuition was correct, eh?

If Greg doesn’t respond to your request, I hope your search for this info is successful. I imagine Amazon would be a good place to start.

Steve

John said in post 294 that one can believe in both an old earth and a global flood. Of course, nobody does.

Re: Amazon – that would cost money, something I’m not flush in at the moment. Besides, Greg said that most of his information was available online, which was one reason I was hoping he’d post his list of sources/resources:

“Sometime tomorrow I will make a list of resources that explain this subject further, many of which can be listened to or watched online.”

I guess I could Google for ANE, Hebrew Bible, videos, etc.

Wow,

I think this will go down in history as CMP’s most active post! I was wondering today if this could top 300 posts, but didn’t think it would as it seemed to be slowing down after my last posting. Guess not!

I haven’t been on since I’ve been very busy these past two days. School, work, church, sleep, etc. I’d also like to apologize for not posting some of the resources when I said I would. I’ll fix that tonight.

Given that there are over a hundred posts since I last posted, I’m not sure I’d be able to catch up in any reasonable way. Honestly, I think we are all very happy with our current positions, so I’m not sure how helpful it would be. I’m reminded of this wonderful comic that helps put it all into perspective: http://xkcd.com/386/

But, I’m always happy to further explain my position to anyone who wants to listen. If anyone has Facebook, feel free to look me up on it. I’m on CMP’s friend’s list, the only Greg M on it.

Now for resources. Can’t say these are super scholarly or anything, but they have been helpful to me as I’ve worked my way through this (and there’s still a lot I don’t know yet).

John H. Walton has been the strongest “popular” writer for viewing Genesis through an ANE worldview. I recommend three books by him on this subject.

1. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible
2. NIV Application Commentary: Genesis
3. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

The third one is due to be released in July, and is a more focused and popular presentation of information found in his other two books. A chapter summary can be found here on IVPress (http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/toc/code=3704) and a blog post on it here: http://addenda-errata.ivpress.com/2009/05/the_lost_world_of_genesis_one.php

He also has a more scholarly volume coming out on the very same subject, which he mentioned should by out by the end of 2009. The title is “Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology” and published by Eisenbrauns.

Further, Walton also presented a lecture at Logos Bible Software about a year ago on the subject, and I’d highly recommend it to anyone interested. Here is the link: http://www.logos.com/media/lecture/walton.mp3

Bruce Waltke, in his recently released Old Testament Theology, wrote on the theology of the creation in Chapter 7. While I cannot remember if he quoted Walton, I do know he had basically the same position on the interpretation of Genesis 1, namely the importance of an understanding of the ANE worldview.

Both authors are considered some of the top Old Testament Evangelical scholars in the world. That doesn’t guard them against error, of course, but it does mean what they say on these issues should be carefully weighed and considered.

Their focus is mostly on scripture. They very rarely bring science into the discussion, which I think is the right thing to do at first…

[Continued]

But for those interested in the science aspect of this debate, I really just recommend this website: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/

The blog is interesting, but the video section is where it truly shines:

http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/

If you have the time to watch them, I recommend them all.

The “Science and Christian Education” series is very helpful in understanding the nature of science and how it should affect the Christian’s view of the world. It also includes an assessment of all the positions of Genesis, and ends with how historical context is important to interpreting it. Basically all that I have been saying these last few days. If you only watch two, watch the last two; they are worth their weight in digital gold! Richard, you will like this last one as it touches on your main objection about what constitutes “truth” in revelation from God.

The last set, “Christianity & Biology”, are lectures from a Christian biology professor at TWU on evolution. Even if you don’t agree with it, this is a very good presentation on what evolution is, what evidence supports it, what doesn’t, and how all the different positions on Genesis stack up against the evidence we find in nature.

One other book that I’d recommend, which I have not read but only heard highly spoken of, is “Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution”, by Denis O. Lamoureux.

He has a Ph.d in Theology, a Ph.D in Biology, and also one in Dentistry. I’m not sure how the last one fits in, but the first two certainly qualify him to speak on these subjects more so than just about anyone else I know of!

Read the reviews on Amazon and see if its a book you may be interested in learning from. It seems he makes a strong case for reading Genesis through an ANE mindset, the same one that I have been making on here. As to the rest of it, I have to wait until I read it before I make a decision on it.

And that’s about it. (I think. I’m very tired right now!)

EricW, Steve B, Richard, Cheryl U,

Thanks for the great discussion we’ve had over the last few days. Even though I’m lost too much sleep over it (literally!), I have enjoyed it. Feel free to continue on Facebook if you like.

Re: Background per Cheryl U,

Good idea. I think its neat to learn more about people you talk to online.

My name is Greg, obviously! I just turned 26 years old and I live in Houston, TX. I work for my church right now as a janitor/maintanence person. Most of my time is spent setting up and tearing down for events. I’m in college right now, due to graduate in December with an Associates Degree in Nursing. I got engaged this past December and will be getting married this July, something we’re obviously looking forward to a lot!

When I grow up I want to teach theology in a college or seminary, preferably Old Testament. Either that or be an archeologist or a librarian for a seminary! We’ll see what God has in store.

Before I became a Christian I had a strong interest in science. In 1999 when I accepted Christ I soon transitioned to a YEC perspective and spent many years ardently defending it. I was darn good at it too! I can’t remember an evolutionist I’d ever lost to, lol! (Because of this I understand your position and reasoning very well, Richard!)

I began to notice a bad thing though. I’m naturally interested in just about every subject, especially the sciences, so while defending YEC I obviously began to study evolution and the old earth stuff. As my understanding of them increased, I began to find holes in my own arguments. While I could still dominate a debate with them, I couldn’t convince myself of them anymore. The only thing holding me back was my understanding of Genesis.

Once I was exposed to Progressive Creationism, I left behind YEC and started on the path of embracing more of the science I’d previously rejected. I don’t remember when I began to accept evolution, but I do know I did by 2005. By that time I had moved away from Progressive Creationism because it played too fast and loose with scripture. I was unsatisfied with other interpretations too, such as the Framework Theory, for the same reasons.

I decided any coherent position must be true to scripture and to science, as both constitute aspects of God’s revelation to humankind. It was this guiding truth that inspired me not to lose hope in this quest, and not to sacrifice one for the other. Unlike many whom I have heard of (and who inspire me to press on now), my faith was never in danger through this journey. I never considered giving up my faith because of what I was learning.

So for several years I held onto truths that I simply could not reconcile in any useful way. It wasn’t until 2008 that I found Beyond the Firmament where I was introduced to the idea of reading Genesis through ancient eyes. Exposure to Walton helped me to develop this understanding even further.

[Continued]

[Continued]

It was all kinda scary because it forced me to accept the fact that we do have very primitive cosmology in scripture, like a flat earth, things I fought against as a YEC. While I had intentionally overlooked aspects of it previously (like the waters above the sun, moon, and stars) I’m not afraid of it now that I understand why its there and its significance.

This is God’s Word. Who am I to question the vehicle He used to teach the Israelites great theological truths? Who am I to force scripture to fit my own molds?

I make it a practice to be open-minded to ideas, simply because I’ve been wrong so many times in the past. I could be wrong with all this. That much I’m sure about. But on the scale of truth this is the closest I’ve ever been.

No other view reconciles scripture and science as well as this one. It took me ten years to find it, but it was certainly worth it. The idea that modern science and scripture do not conflict is one that is gaining popularity. More books are coming out devoted to it, and more big names are accepting it. Walton’s perspective is gaining traction as a very common-sense approach to interpreting Genesis, and I don’t see that momentum slowing down.

A similar drama played out in the church 500 years ago over geocentrism and heliocentrism. CMP didn’t think the comparison was a good one, but I disagree. It’s an exact parallel.

Christians rejected heliocentrism because it offended a traditional interpretation of scripture that had been believed for hundreds of years and was based on the “literal” reading of the Bible. You even had theologians coming up with their own pseudo-science to try and explain away the scientific data, such as “if the earth really turned, how come we don’t go flying off it?”. Makes a lot of sense, actually, if you don’t understand gravity, which they didn’t until Newton came along. Then the evidence kept piling up until it couldn’t be denied any longer.

Now all of us are heliocentrists, and we all interpret scripture in light of what science tells us about the solar system. Its all phenomenological now, even though that interpretation was unknown to the church prior to Copernicus. Calvin, Luther, and the Catholic Church were wrong. All who relied only on scripture to determine issues of science were wrong in the end and had to change. It was a great embarrassment to the church.

Today’s debate is no different. YEC and those related to them occupy the same spot geocentrists did back then. I urge everyone here to deeply and carefully consider what you have heard from this discussion, not so you can be on the “winning side” of history, but so you can faithfully and accurately interpret the Word of God and be a witness of its truth to an unbelieving world. Leave behind unnecessary interpretations that leave us looking as fools to the world so we can spend more time being fools for Christ!

Let them reject us because of Christ, not because of bad science.

[Finished]

Greg, Thanks for the bio info, and your participation in this discussion. Regarding Glover, in a positive review of his book, it says
http://www.goddiscussion.com/1069/beyond-the-firmament-understanding-science-and-the-theology-of-creation/

The author describes his reluctant acceptance of evolution as just another natural process through which God has been operating in his providental governance of the universe. In that vein, he expresses his dislike of the term “theistic evolution” as not making any more sense than “theistic meteorology.” He cites a number of clearly stated, understandable reasons why biological evolution is currently the most reasonable explanation of the facts that scientists are observing in nature

In Glover’s faq addressing evolution, he says

the Bible does not teach the Big Bang or Evolution, but neither does it teach that the earth revolves around the sun. I’m afraid these scientific theories must be judged by how well they explain or how badly they contradict the available evidence, just as was done with the theory of a moving earth.

So unless this is incorrect, he’s one of many theistic evolutionists that simply states we can’t get historical info from early Genesis.

Help me out here if this is incorrect.

BTW, when I first began critically thinking about origins, much of the YEC stuff was simply awful, and some still is. However, much progress has been made. I hope you continue to seek and eventually get around to considering that God was capable of accurately communicating to his people and actually did so.

Also, everyone seems very concerned about the waters above the firmament. This is actually discussed as physically accurate in Humphreys White Hole cosmology, so it’s at least possible for this to simply be true. Just because we may not understand something (yet) does not imply it can’t be true. Also, just because a Biblical account has been corrupted into other cultural accounts (eg ~200 flood ‘legends’) does not imply that the Biblical account is not true. This is faulty thinking (I’m not accusing you of this:).

Greg,

You’ve clearly stated that you understand ‘science’ to be based upon methodological naturalism. As I showed in post 140, such ‘science’ is incapable of getting it right at any point that God interacts with His creation. Thus decidedly supernatural events such as creation and the flood are completely beyond the reach of ‘science’. Yet you appear to ignore this limitation on ‘science’ and instead accept its conclusions, then you must conclude that the scriptural account does not mean what it appears to say, so the whole ANE cultural argument is used.

Ignoring the limitations of ‘science’ is dangerously close to scientism. Be very cautious….

re post 309 and the claim that nobody believes in an old earth. As the saying goes, you need to get out more. When I was growing up, that is one of the interpretations I heard and read about. If I recall correctly, it was also set out in one of Gleason Archer’s books. In any event, about 2 minutes of googling brought me to this site:

http://www.kjvbible.org/

and here is their statement of faith (KJV preference and old earth and global flood, I don’t think I could’ve found anything better):

Statement of Faith: The Christian Geology Ministry is an Internet based, independent, Bible study resource website. We believe that the Bible’s Genesis accounts of Creation and Noah’s flood are absolutely accurate, True and Faithful. Having said that, be advised that we also believe that the vast body of scientific observations (not theories) pointing to an old Earth, are also True and Faithful, as they are based on forensic principles and ‘Laws of Nature’ established by the Creator God Himself. Our thesis of belief is best summarized by this simple statement:

If the Lord God who created all physical things is the same God who inspired and preserved the Holy Scriptures, then there can be no real contradiction between the literal wording of the Holy Bible and what can be observed in the Earth’s geology. Any perceived contradictions MUST be the result of faulty interpretation of either the Word of God, Earth’s geology, or both, on the part of men.

For the record, we are a Fundamental, Bible Believing Ministry that upholds the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of a virgin, who took upon Himself flesh and shed His blood on a cross as atonement for the sins of all mankind, to give the gift of Salvation freely to those who accept Him by faith as the only way to the Father. We believe in the Premillennial Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and a literal 1,000 year future reign of the King of Kings upon this Earth.

The Christian Geology Ministry firmly believes in the absolute authority of the verbally inspired Scriptures. We accept the Hebrew Masoretic Text as the divinely preserved line of Old Testament Manuscripts and the Greek Textus Receptus as the divinely preserved line of New Testament Manuscripts. This position is fully consistent with our acceptance and belief in the accuracy and authority of the King James Bible English language translation

[end of quote]

It’s actually quite an interesting site, and I’ve bookmarked it.

Regards,
#John

Richard,

I totally agree with you that there are no objective scientists. But you must also agree that Christians aren’t objective when it comes to this discussion either.

I think you have made my point for me in your question:

“Can you provide ANY evidence for a non-Christian scientist arguing for the physical resurrection of Jesus?”

DESPITE THE FACT THAT I KNOW I AM GOING TO GET QUOTE MINNED ON THIS ONE:

My answer of course is “no” to your question and I will go so far as to say I do not believe there is ANY “scientific evidence” for Jesus’ resurrection within the current scientific paradigm. Is there historical evidence? Absolutely and I believe its one of the strongest in antiquity and that’s why I believe in the physical and bodily resurrection of Christ.

However, there is a reason we call it a miracle of God…because it doesn’t happen unless God surpasses the natural laws and does something only He can do.

I mean, how in the world would you “test” or even “hypothesize” how God raised Jesus from the dead? Where would you start? There isn’t one…God simply DID IT through His power.

This leads me back to my original point that you proved with that question:

Why bring science into Creation or the Resurrection? There is no way one can “prove” the resurrection through scientific methods because the source of the resurrection comes from a meta-physical entity (God) that is untestable and unquantifiable…In a similar way, if you start off from the get go with what your conclusion is (the earth is around 6,000 years old), how can you criticize OEC who simply start out with different presuppositios based on their interpretation of nature? It doesn’t make sense to me so I will say it again, why not just say: “The Bible is inerrant, the simplest interpretation is the best, thats that.”

Since I know I am going to get quote mined on this one. Yes, I believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, not because it’s “scientifically possible” (it’s a miracle…) but because of the historical evidence and the confidence I have in the Scriptures that points to it. I simply fail to see why we would even want a “scientific” explanation for the resurrection (or creation) when God and His power infinitely bursts out of all and any of our theories and formulas we could ever come up…

Curious your thoughts.

Your brother in Christ,

-Joshua

Greg, and all, thanks for your bio’s. This has been an interesting discussion, among very knowledgeable contributors. I remain in the YEC camp (appreciate your contributions, Richard), but I will say to Greg that I think you are right to see the proclamation of the gospel ‘being a fool for Christ’ as a much greater priority than defending one’s creation theory (at least that’s what I think you are saying).

John, you chose not to answer my questions about your view of Jesus. I was not intending to ‘call you on the carpet’, but I do think that one’s relationship to Jesus can have a significant bearing on their perspective….on this issue, and thousands of others.

Joshua,

Appreciate your comments. What brings science into the creation (and flood) topics is the widespread belief that science has proven that the straightforward Biblical accounts simply can’t be correct.

Many flat out admit that they disbelieve what they know scripture says because science has proven otherwise. Hence, a bit of critical thinking about what has science *really* proven is in order. That is simply being a Berean.

See the Pattle Pun and James Barr comments in posts 199 and 204.

More on the “waters above” question. It has been insinuated in this blog that such a concept as physical reality is simply impossible. That is not the case.

Here is a recent discussion by cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_1/j20_1_93-98.pdf

followed by criticism from OE Gorman Gray, and Hartnett’s response:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_56-57.pdf

While we certainly don’t know everything (far from it!) no one need fear that the “waters above” somehow destroy the possibility that scripture is actually correct.

Greg,

Thanks for you your bio info. And congatultions on your up coming marriage!

As I mentioned yesterday, I am “out of here” for awhile”. Will have to catch up with the discussion when I get back in town.

God bless all of you.

re my post 306, correction to first line: I meant “old earth and global flood”.

Since the uncle incident, I’ve reflected on my previous posts. My wife often tells me to stop being a lawyer when I get home, because I live most of my waking hours where discussion of ideas is a no holds barred activity which no one takes personally. My colleagues and I at my firm often vigorously disagree. Also my practice area is quite specialized and I sometimes work on the same side as another lawyer or consultant, and sometimes on the opposite side, and sometimes on the same committee. In my posts I’ve tried to stick to the ideas, facts and reasoning. By and large I think I’ve accomplished that, but for those who haven’t read from the beginning I don’t think YECs are stupid. That doesn’t mean that their so-called science isn’t junk. Being committed to a belief that God has told us the earth is young, they cannot do other than junk science. Their commitment is a good, positive thing, and I believe that one should stick with what one believes God has said. It’s just that they misunderstand what God has said and are committed to the wrong thing.

I also disagree with Richard’s portrait of science and the work of God, but I’ll leave that to another post. However, I will follow up on my previous refutation of his use of geologist Derek Ager’s words. I demonstrated that his use of Ager actually undercut his position. Ager, himself has actually taken a stand against YECs:

“For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of ‘catastrophic’ events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable. This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier’s followers, though not of Cuvier himself.

“On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah’s flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessary to include the following ‘disclaimer’: in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the ‘creationists’ (who I refuse to call ‘scientific’).” [Ager’s emphasis]

Derek Ager, “The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History”, (1995: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain), p. xi.

About 1600 years after St. Augustine expressed concerns related to bad science, evangelical Christian geologist Davis Young, wrote something similar:

“The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will
[cont.]

re post 328: “John, you chose not to answer my questions about your view of Jesus.” Yes, but only for the time being while I was writing on other stuff. : ) I believe Jesus is God, who is three in one, and that Jesus was raised from the dead. I also believe that it is far more likely than not that the Shroud of Turin is Jesus’ actual burial cloth.

[Now, the full quote of Davis Young, an evangelical geologist, which I started above, as a follow up to what St. Augustine wrote]:

“The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.

Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God’s truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given.

(Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Thousand Oaks, CA: Artisan Sales, 1988, 163)

Regards,
#John

Richard: “You’ve clearly stated that you understand ‘science’ to be based upon methodological naturalism. As I showed in post 140, such ‘science’ is incapable of getting it right at any point that God interacts with His creation. Thus decidedly supernatural events such as creation and the flood are completely beyond the reach of ‘science’. Yet you appear to ignore this limitation on ‘science’ and instead accept its conclusions, then you must conclude that the scriptural account does not mean what it appears to say, so the whole ANE cultural argument is used.

Ignoring the limitations of ‘science’ is dangerously close to scientism. Be very cautious….”

Amen to this well-stated post. I echo the call for Christians to be cautious of unthinkingly and unknowingly embracing the presuppositions of Scientism.

Science, by definition, cannot explain or account for miracles.

Science, by definition, cannot explain or account for God.

For a Bible-believing Christian then, science cannot explain or account for all the truth that is in God’s Divine Universe.

Science is a subset of Divine Truth.

John,

I appreciate you comments about apparent tone. Once I knew you were a lawyer, I understood your tone as you intended and have taken no personal offense. My wife tells me I’m guilty of the same thing…

You wrote:

Richard quotes Derek Ager as supporting him and disproving me.

and

However, I will follow up on my previous refutation of his use of geologist Derek Ager’s words. I demonstrated that his use of Ager actually undercut his position. Ager, himself has actually taken a stand against YECs:

Did you actually even read post 266? I never said Ager supported me (or YEC). I explicitly said he’s an “non-creationist OE geologist” – I don’t think that I could have been more clear. You really need to slow down a bit. I suspect that you are so convinced that I can’t possibly have anything logical to say that you continue to misread what I’ve written, and then fail to address my arguments at all.

I showed that Ager is forced by the physical evidence of polystrate trees to conclude that deposition is very rapid at times. He then is forced by his belief in OE to conclude that it stops for lengthy periods (to allow for the vast amount of time that *must be there*). He admits, however, that the appearance is that the deposition was uniform and continuous.

So he does not believe what his eyes tell him….he believes that DESPITE THE EVIDENCE the deposition was neither uniform, nor continuous. This is required by his OE views.

The YEC has no problem accepting the physical evidence as rapid, uniform, continuous deposition.

You’ve refuted nothing except your own misreading.

I hope that clears this up a bit.

John

You have made the following claims about proponents of YEC (I will not mention the infamous “uncle incident” for which you (thankfully!) apologized):

“It is not possible to work with YEs because they practice junk science and completely lack credibility.” #264

“YECs have not published anything of recognizable significance in the relevant fields of science that has had any impact on the course of those fields. In fact, they are viewed very negatively.” #289

Re: John Baumgartner, you said: “His credentials are not relevant in so far as he is committed to a 6,000 year old earth for theological and not scientific reasons.” #294

From these and other comments you have made, it is obvious that you have an extremely negative, even disdainful, opinion of YEC’s.
Let’s take a moment to compare your educational background with that of John Baumgartner … In #284 Richard listed JB’s:
* B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
* M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
* M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
* Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

In #263 you listed yours: I have 4 university level degrees: 3 year B.A. in theology/biblical studies. 4 year degree in linguistics. law degree. master of environmental studies.

Based upon educational lbackground alone, then, JB is far more qualilfied as a scientist than yuo are. Furthermore, your cavalier dismissal of Mr. B. is critically flawed. He is not “committed to a 6,000 yr. old earth for theological and not scientific reasons” as you claim. His commitment is based upon theological AND scientific reasons … You just don’t happen to agree with those scientific reasons.

(continued)

John (cont.)

Let me give you another reason why your disdainful attitude toward YEC’s is completely unjustified. Are you familiar with Dr. Benjamin Carson? Here is an excerpt of an article about this remarkable man:

Benjamin Carson: The Pediatric Neurosurgeon with Gifted Hands
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*
Introduction

Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.1 Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age.2 A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.”3 Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”4

Dr. Carson is a leading research scientist. A “voracious reader of the medical and scientific literature” from his graduate school days, he has long been very interested in scientific research and has been very active in this area for his entire career,5, 6 with over 120 major scientific publications in peer reviewed journals, 38 books and book chapters, and grant awards of almost a million dollars. His achievements have so far earned him 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia Universities.

A Google search reveals thousands of sites devoted to this incredible individual. I highly recommend them to you and any other readers of this comment. His is a remarkable and thrilling story.

Dr. Carson is a committed Young Earth Creationist.

Proponents of YEC include hundreds, undoubtedly thousands, of individuals with credentials similar to those of John Baumgartner and Dr. Carson. For you to claim that such worthy people “practice junk science and completely lack credibility” is breathtakingly arrogant … and coming from someone who professes to be a Christian, virtually incomprehensible.

Let me close on a positive note … we actually AGREE about something! For I too am quite convinced that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial clothof Jesus!

Richard: “You’ve refuted nothing except your own misreading.”

You may not have intended your sentence to be so humorous, but that was just laugh out loud funny to me!

Serious comments may now resume.

Geometric measurements to objects which are thousands, millions and even billions of light years away are available, using sensible physical models for the observed objects (various kinds of stars, galaxies, etc.).

One of the basic methods of measuring distances is parallax. The parallax effect can be demonstrated right now, where you are reading this: hold up a finger a few inches in front of your nose. Close one eye and then the other. You will notice that the finger appears to move in relation to background objects (pick something on a wall) when you look from / switch from one eye to the other. This occurs because your left and right eyes are a few inches apart and have a different line of sight and angle to your finger. Now hold your finger out farther and repeat; you’ll notice that the background objects appear to move less.
If one takes a reading of an object and background objects from earth, and then wait half a year until the earth is on the other side of the sun and repeat, one will replicate the effect of looking through one eye and then another.

In 1838 astronomer and mathematician Wilhelm Bessel, at the Observatory at Königsberg, used this effect to measure the distance from earth to the star 61 Cygni. The distance was 10 light years.

Since stellar objects emit all kinds of radiation, not just light waves, other types of waves can be used to measure the distances. Using radio waves one can measure distances out to 10,000 light years away. Using other methods, we can measure distances out to millions and billions of light years away.

Even AIG has abandoned opposition to the large distances, and now agrees that “the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1).” [found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove%5D

As you may know, a light year is the distance light travels in one year. Using basic logic, if a star is 10,000 light years away, it takes 10,000 years for the light to travel from that star to us. If we are seeing the light now, it must have already travelled for 10,000 years to get to us. Since some objects are billions of lightyears away, the light that has reached us must have been travelling for billions of years. In fact, AIG recognizes that this results in the conclusion that the “universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.” [same web page]

This is the result that YECs…

re post response to post #337. I am not disdainful to YECs in general; I am merely pointing out that they are forced to engage in junk science because they are forced to do so by their commitment to a 6,000 year old earth. They cannot appropriately investigate the characteristics of the unverse as God created it the way one investigates other aspects of His universe because the are committed to one and only one answer / result: 6,000 years. That is why they cannot practice real science and why their literature always has this miracle backstop: “if our explanation fails, then God must be working directly to produce the effect that we observe”

Back to light:

This is the result that YECs must counter to maintain that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

At one time, many YECs believed that it might be possible that God created light in transit, so that it only appears old. But this argument ignored the fact that light is not just a particle or wave of energy, but it also contains information . The light contains information that an object produced it and gives information about that object. The light also gives information on things that it has passed through or near on its way here. The light also gives information on events such as explosions of stars.

Consequently the leading YEC organizations have abandoned this argument: “It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. [also found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove%5D

The failed response of the YECs to the phenomena of light include:
-the speed of light has changed since the start of the universe
-time flows at different rates in different parts of the universe, or from different points of view, or is affected by gravity
-local time is different from universal time
-red shift effect

All of these arguments evince faulty understandings of the science involved or incorrect calculations, or unwarranted assumptions, etc.
YECs fall back position is that God sent the light here supernaturally (see same article at web link give above). Nice; a speculation with no proof. But God consistently announces His works so that people on earth are aware of them (as He does throughout the Bible), and he has never indicated in the Bible that he sent star light here supernaturally. Thus, YECs are forced to make this speculation because they have no other way of explaining light from stars. That is, science doesn’t support their theories, and the Bible makes no mention of supernatural light travel, but God is omnipotent so I’ll assume that he sent it here supernaturally and put those words into His mouth. YECs are committed to [cont.]

YECs are committed to such faulty theories and speculative arguments from silence because (1) they believe God says the universe is 6,000 years old (see quote above), (2) God cannot lie, (3) there is no natural functioning of God’s universe that explains the old light, so (4) God must have done it supernaturally, and (5) since the Bible is silent on the matter of the supernatural travel of light, they can fill up that silence with their own speculations.

OR

The YECs could admit that all human interpreters of the Bible are fallible INCLUDING THEM. Therefore, their interpretation could be wrong, and others could be right. Then they could admit that since there is no conclusive proof in favour of anyone interpretation, that biblical inerrantists can validly choose to lean towards one of the various interpretations without trashing other interpretations as “humanist” or “unbiblical” or “unchristian”.

And that brings us to the value of science vis a vis interpretation of the Bible. If science strongly proves that the earth is spherical and not flat, and that it goes around the sun, whereas a naïve reading of the Bible suggests otherwise, then we should be motivated to check if our fallible interpretation is wrong. And this has worked. Though people in the past used Bible verses to support and prove the arguments that the earth is flat or that the sun goes around the earth, no one would do that now. The science is to strong. That is, our understanding of God’s creation obtained using God’s gifts of observation and reasoning and the character of his physical creation shows that interpretation to be faulty in some way. So we go back and look at the assumptions and information used in interpreting the Bible, and we find that indeed we used faulty assumptions and methods in interpreting the Bible. The interpretation was wrong. So we redo our interpretation but with the avoidance of our previous interpretive errors and we find that the Bible allows for interpretations that are compatible with a spherical earth and the earth travellilng around the sun.

Regards
#John

John,

I waiting for your response to my post 336.

Then I’ll happily address the light time travel problem.

BTW, what physical cosmology do you think is likely? Most OEs seem to accept the big bang with some being quite adamant.

John CT: “The YECs could admit that all human interpreters of the Bible are fallible INCLUDING THEM. Therefore, their interpretation could be wrong, and others could be right.”

And visa versa. The OEC’s could admit that they’re wrong and that the others could be right too.

“Then they could admit that since there is no conclusive proof in favour of anyone interpretation, that biblical inerrantists can validly choose to lean towards one of the various interpretations without trashing other interpretations as “humanist” or “unbiblical” or “unchristian”.”

I could go along with that except for the professing Christians who adopt neo-Darwinian evolution and call themselves “theistic evolutionists”.

Re posts 336 & 337: I’m not asking anyone to believe me because of my education or work, nor am I pitting my degrees against anyone else (and I’m not suggesting that Richard is framing it this way, but I want to be clear). I did not raise the issue of my background myself, but only politely responded to the request of cherylu quite well on in this thread.

My point in my comments about Baumgartner et al. is that they have already reached their answer BEFORE they investigate the phenomena in question; BEFORE they do any “science”. Their degrees are irrelevant to this process, because there is no process: they already have the answer. Furthermore, they are committed to the answer such that it is not possible for them to agree that there is any evidence for anything other than a young earth. Their answer is derived theologically—God said the earth and universe is 6,000 years old—and their commitment is religious, not scientific—God said it and he doesn’t lie so they must follow God (and the last bit is admirable).

Real science, the kind of science that christians practice in regard to other aspects of God’s creation, is to use one’s God given faculties of perception and reasoning to observe phenomena and then find relationships among and between the phenomena. Such investigation gives us Boyle’s law, Einsteins theory of relativity, Planck’s constant, etc. But with respect to geology and dating of the universe YECs cannot practice such science. Instead they START with a FIXED answer and then try to develop arguments to make the data and phenomena fit their PRECONCEIVED and PREDETERMINED answer. This way of working leads to bizarre explanations, partial and faulty use of data, misleading use of other’s work, ignoring of context, incorrect and otherwise faulty analysis, ignorance of basic principles, belief in findings which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific knowledge, etc.

Junk science is science that is ideologically motivated and that exhibits these characteristics. The Council of State Governments defines sound science as “research conducted by qualified individuals using documented methodologies that lead to verifiable results and conclusions.” (see http://www.csg.org/pubs/Documents/sgn0109SoundScience101.pdf).

The scientific method consists of certain basic components, which should be followed from a study’s inception to its conclusion. These include developing a testable hypothesis based on previous research, designing a means by which to test the hypothesis experimentally, analyzing the resultant data using appropriate statistical tests, producing a manuscript for review by fellow scientists (peer-review), and finally publication if approved by the reviewers. Other scientists should be able to repeat a published study in order to help substantiate or repudiate its findings.

Regards,
#John

re post 342: “BTW, what physical cosmology do you think is likely? Most OEs seem to accept the big bang with some being quite adamant.”

I think that the big bang is most likely and that research in physics and astronomy is trending on confirmation of that idea. Hubble was rejected the big bang in the 40s because of its theological implications, and so pushed the steady state eternal universe. However, an eternal physical universe is an impossibility, so it must have had a beginning of some kind. So if we look for how the universe began, the physical evidence points only toward some kind of bang. All I’m committed to is a beginning of some kind.

Since some have asked, I’ll give my thoughts on the Noahic flood, but with no intent to defend my thoughts. The YEC flood geology is impossible. The words of the Bible can reasonably be interpreted to mean a local flood while still holding to inerrancy. The words referring to depth, etc., also have a range of meaning, and we must take into account that the Biblical text appears as if it were written from the perspective of a person on the ground in the area where the things describe were happening. So, I could also accept that it rained everywhere around the world, that groundwaters came up everywhere, that much of the land around the world was covered or otherwise affected by the flooding, etc., and that in the local area where Noah was the flooding was more extensive (e.g., the hills were covered). If I was forced to choose one view, I’d go with local, but since I don’t have to put all my nickels on one number I’ll stay agnostic for now.

Regards,
#John.

John, your post 345 indicates it will address my post 336, but you forgot to do so…

re post 343: “And visa versa. The OEC’s could admit that they’re wrong and that the others could be right too.”

OE’s do allow that they could be wrong in their interpretation. That is why there are OE’s that follow a day/age interpretation (like H. Ross and the “Reasons to Believe” web site), a gap interpretation (like the KJV website I listed above), or a variety of the literary or framework interpretations (like J. Sailhammer). That is why the evangelical signers to the Chicago statement on inerrancy discussed but did not settle on one interpretation for Genesis and instead allowed that any of several interpretations were consistent with an inerrant Bible.

Most OE’s do not, however, allow that they could be wrong on the science because the ancient age of the earth is confirmed as much as a spherical earth is confirmed, or a heliocentric solar system, or the workings of oxygen combustion. We will grow in our understanding of the phenomena related to the age of the universe, but the age of the universe will not come down to less than 6,000 years.

But even if it did, the OEs would not lose their faith. Their view of the words in Genesis 1 & 2 is that the words could permit either an old or young earth, but that the best understanding of the words leans towards NO information about the age of the earth. If there is no information about the age of the earth in Genesis, then any answer that science provides is acceptable.

To repeat for emphasis: If there is no information about the age of the earth in Genesis, then any answer that science provides is acceptable. Consequently the OE’s belief in God can never be shaken no matter what result science returns.

Science returns a multi-billion year old age for the earth. Whoopee. There are a number of ways to account for that length of time given the words in Genesis. There could be a gap at the beginning. There could be a gap between each day. Each day could represent a long period of time. The author could be using a particular genre or literary technique. There could be an ANE way of talking about such stuff that is reflected by the wording. etc.

Science returns a young age. Whoopee. We could still be dealing with a literary framework, or a genre type. We could still be dealing with gaps (but smaller ones). Or their could be seven consecutive days of 24 hours each.

Neither way is my faith in God affected, except that every interpretation tells me that God did all this, not Baal or some other god, and not blind physical materialism.

This is quite unlike the effects on YEC followers who are told its an “either/or” situation (either YEC or no believable Bible and no God), or the effects on unbelievers, who ridicule and reject Christ because of the (to them) crazy and ludicrous YEC beliefs.

Regards,
#John

John CT in #347.

I tracked with you all the way except at the end.

You wrote: “… or the effects on unbelievers, who ridicule and reject Christ because of the (to them) crazy and ludicrous YEC beliefs.”

Several responses. No particular order.

#1. If that’s what unbelievers use as an excuse, it’s not valid. Don’t let that sway you. The doctrine of origins is not to be conflated with the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

#2. If they do throw up that very flimsy excuse, it can be *easily* countered. EASILY. And I trust you know how to do it.

#3. Since you’ve stated that YEC is an entirely valid position for inerrantists, why do you seem so angry and bent at demolishing YEC and seemingly insisting that they all become OEC?