“The broad brush, by the way, concerns calling one ‘liberal’; what makes a theological liberal a liberal is, I believe, a denial of bodily resurrection of the Son of God, not a denial of Paul’s authorship of 1-2 Timothy and Titus.” Daniel Wallace link

Spiral Galaxies in Collision

This is a rather long post. I start with an introduction as to why I am discussing this subject. I am going to be very busy though the early part of next week with the wedding and out of town guests. I will not post again (but will look at comments) until next week.  At that time, I will continue this discussion and plan to conclude it at the end of next week. In the meantime, Deb will post on unrelated topics. Due to this big gap between this series of five essays, I thought I would start with two. I have separated the two essays with lines. You may choose to read them at once or as separate readings.

Introduction: Why we are doing this series on creation and science

On October 11, 2013, I read an article by Tim Challies in which he made a rather audacious claim with no facts to back it up. At the time, Challies had just finished speaking for Ken Ham's beleaguered Creation Museum link and I figured this article was a quid pro quo. Nevertheless, it bothered me and I discussed it at length with my good friend Jim Farlow whom I call KOATAP (knower of all things astrophysical). I have gone to Jim a number of times through the years to help me understand certain scientific principles. Everyone who finds science a bit daunting needs a "KOATAP " in their life.

Jim then wrote a few essays and sent them to me to help me understand how to answer Challies. I decided to use them around the time that my daughter got married.  Well, lo and behold, last week, Al Mohler made a statement that I believe is both misinformed and unnecessarily accusatory. He demonstrates a lack of understanding in his definition of theistic evolution. Frankly, Dr Francis Collins could run rings around this statement and he is one of the most respected scientists in the world, a theistic evolutionist as well as a devoted Christian. In this statement, Mohler appears out of his league. From Evolution Is Most Certainly a Matter of Belief: 

On one point, however, Krattenmaker is certainly right: he argues that it is possible to believe in God and to affirm evolution. That is certainly true, and there is no shortage of theistic evolutionists who try to affirm both. But that affirmation requires a rejection of the dominant model of evolution in favor of some argument that God intervened or directed the process. The main problem with that proposal, from the scientific side, is that the theory of evolution as now taught in our major universities explicitly denies that possibility. Theistic evolutionists simply do not present the model of evolution that is supposedly “settled science.”

On the other hand, such a blending of theology and evolution also requires major theological alignments. There can be no doubt that evolution can be squared with belief in some deity, but not the God who revealed himself in the Bible, including the first chapters of Genesis. Krattenmaker asserts that “it is more than possible to accept the validity of evolution and believe in God’s role in creation at the same time.” Well, that is true with respect to some concept of God and some concept of creation and some version of evolution, but not the dominant theory of evolution and not the God who created the entire cosmos as the theater of his glory, and who created human beings as the distinct creature alone made in his image.

I know that CJ Mahaney says that Al Mohler is the smartest man on the planet and all, but Mohler is not a scientist. (Quick aside-why does Mohler allow the over-the-top, almost creepy adulation from Mahaney? See the latest from Thou Art the Man.)

I have decided that, whenever these guys make such statements, I will provide alternatives from deeply committed Christians who are either evolutionary creationists (preferred by some to theistic evolutionist) or old earth proponents. This blog is blessed to have two such folks-Old JohnJ and Jim. So, if you tire of our continued push on this subject, tell the high profile guys to zip their lips and we will as well. I will especially jump on the bandwagon when I find influential Christians questioning the faith of those who believe otherwise. I believe that both Al Mohler and Ken Ham have done so.

Once again, I wish to stress that I have no problem when people defend their belief in a young earth by appealing to belief in a literal Genesis. However, the moment they jump into science, then it is with science we MUST debate!

---

Part 1: Does Science Support a Six Day Creation

I read through Tim Challies article Why I Am a Six Day Creationist posted on October 11, 2013. He lists several reasons for his belief, but perhaps the most ostentatious is this:

SCIENCE CONFIRMS IT

The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground.

When Mr. Challies says this, he is effectively undermining his entire argument. Why? Because science does not tell us the creation was created in six literal days as humans measure them, nor does it indicate the Earth is ‘young’ (which typically means <10,000 years to a Young Earth Creationist). In point of fact, the only self-consistent conclusion one can draw from the data using the scientific method and our current knowledge of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and astronomy is that the universe is over 13 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. And this is in fact the almost universal consensus of those that are educated in and do research in these fields.

To be fair, Mr. Challies is not alone in his claim. There are several organizations and individuals that attempt to paint the mainstream scientific conclusions as biased results which ignore critical evidence. Indeed, it is very likely Mr. Challies bases his statement upon the information they provide and the arguments they make.

So, what in fact does ‘science’ say about the age of the Earth or the age of the universe? To evaluate that is a very non-trivial action. And it is in fact a topic that is way beyond the scope of this short comment on Mr. Challies claims. But it is very important to note that Science and Mathematics in the 21st century are a massive collection of knowledge and data that requires even the most powerful minds on the Earth decades to master. Indeed, to master just one field like physics at a level in which one is competent to do research may require a minimum of 8 years of post high school education in the most complex areas of both mathematics and physics itself. These subjects include abstract concepts that most of the population could not even begin to understand, regardless of how long they tried.

And yet, Mr. Challies (and a whole host of others) will read, in my opinion, a few 8th grade reading level articles from AIG (Answers in Genesis) and think they can then pass judgment on the conclusions of centuries of painful, tedious research from the greatest minds who have ever lived.

So, what does Mr. Challies bring to the table to evaluate how ‘compelling’ the scientific arguments are for the age of the Earth or the universe? What does he bring to the table that lends credulity to his claims to have actually in some sense or another evaluated the science and concluded it is lacking?

To quote Mr. Challies himself:

"I am a self-employed computer guy from Canada with no seminary or Bible college education. I have nothing more than a bachelor’s degree in history and one I really only barely deserved, and I earned it from a college people only know of because Clark Pinnock taught there. I attend a church no one has heard of and, until recently, had never met any well-known Christian leaders or speakers. So while I am supremely unqualified, people continue to visit the site. When they do so, they read book reviews, they read personal reflections, and they read what I attempt to teach or share on the subject of theology. I often feel like I’m in over my head."  

And so, in fact, Mr. Challies is uniquely unqualified to evaluate how compelling the scientific arguments are.

And yet, he has an audience. An audience that likes what he has to say and for one reason or another places a certain amount of trust in what he says.

And so he chooses to take advantage of their trust and tell them that Science says the Earth is <10,000 years old.  A subject in which by his own admission he has no applicable formal education – only a history degree. How can any educated man of integrity with no formal education in a subject stand up and with a straight face say that centuries of research are completely wrong!

And why? Why would a man with little training in science use his position as a respected Christian blogger to lend support to a claim he is wholly unqualified to comment on? How can a man of honesty and integrity say such a thing when he has not one iota of capacity to judge if that claim is in fact true?

Tim Challies is not alone. There is a whole plethora if bloggers and ministers and individuals that blindly promulgate the idea that one can make a viable scientific case for a <10,000 year old age for the Earth. A claim that has overtaken Evangelical Christianity and which finds its source in a few misguided individuals. A myth that functions as a glass crutch for faith and that fails any real inspection of the facts. To those that never venture out of the YEC pseudoscience bubble, it feels safe. But woe to any who actually learn the math and science that is pertinent to this discussion.

And that is the real tragedy behind what Mr. Challies has said. It is in fact a lie. A falsehood. Science simply does not support his position.

In Part II, I will examine what science is, and in subsequent essays I will explore what it actually says about the age of the Earth and the Universe.

---

Part 2: What Is Science?

In this second part, I’d like to explore what science is, and address what is to be gained by Tom Challies this previously quoted statement.

From the Tim Challies article Why I Am a Six Day Creationist posted on October 11, 2013:

SCIENCE CONFIRMS IT

The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky and ever-shifting ground.

What is Science?

Why would what science has to say about a young Earth be important to start with? Why would it be important enough to be part of justification for that belief? But first, let’s make a few statements about what Science is not. Science is not (necessarily) Truth. When a scientific conclusion is supported or even when it becomes rigorously supported and gets labeled a Theory, or even when it becomes so ubiquitous and pervasive that is moves to be considered absolute fact, it is in fact not the same as ‘reality’ or ‘truth’. So the first thing we must recognize is that in the ultimate sense, the fact an idea is supported by science does not mean it is necessarily true. And, in an ultimate sense, the fact an idea is not supported by science does not necessarily mean it is false (It does, however, mean it is very unlikely to be true).

Science, in fact, is really two things.

• The first is a systematic method used to investigate and gain understanding about the physical world.
• The second is a set of Ideas that have been subjected to the scientific method and found by scientists (people trained in the scientific method and areas of scientific study) to have been validated by that method.

So why would science be something Tim Challies would look to for support of his belief in a young Earth? Why would he even make the statement at all?

The reason is that science and the scientific method has proven itself to be a very, very reliable way of uncovering, if not the truth about creation, at least something so close to the truth that it is very hard to tell the difference. We can and do use those conclusions to manipulate our world reliably and to understand its workings in a way that allows us to predict its behavior. That is, the discoveries of science have allowed us to cure diseases, build airplanes and spaceships, explore other planets, create computers and televisions, predict the weather, understand volcanoes and earthquakes, and so on ad infinitum.  As a result, our overall trust of the conclusions of science is very, very high. And when someone can say science supports their conclusion, they gain an immediate endorsement of the highest quality.

What is the scientific method?

In a nutshell, the scientific method begins with observations about some aspect of nature. We may observe rain falling, or a comet in the night sky, or an odd behavior in an electrical circuit. From those observations, we derive a hypothesis that proposes a reason for the observations we’ve gathered. To be clear, this hypothesis is no mere presumption or arbitrary conjecture, it is first and foremost derived from our initial data set.

Once the hypothesis is made, a set of tests is proposed to challenge the hypothesis. If these tests are conducted and produce results consistent with the hypothesis, then it can be retained and lives to fight another day. If not, the hypothesis must be discarded and a new hypothesis is generated that explains both the initial set of observations AND the new data gathered by experiment.

The process then repeats, potentially forever, with each new hypothesis explaining a larger and larger set of data and observations. Eventually, a hypothesis tends to reach a place where new tests simply confirm over and over again the same hypothesis without further revision, or with only trivial revision (perhaps better termed clarification). Once this occurs, a hypothesis tends to move into the realm of Theory or even eventually may become regarded as Scientific Fact.

In the end, however, any scientific conclusion is always subject to refinement or even refutation if data can be found that denies the existing theory, or even ‘fact’ as it were. So it is possible, even if the current scientific consensus is that the universe is 13 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that one day we may discover evidence for some other conclusion.

But any such new theory would need to do two things. It must explain:

1. ALL the currently known data AND
2. whatever new data has caused the upset.

It will not be some isolated conjecture that is based on some odd piece of data whose fit into the current set of theories is a mystery and that fails to address the massive set of data already used to derive the current set of theories.

The implications of Tim Challies statement "Science has confirmed it."

So then, to conclude my second essay, for Tim Challies to say “Science supports a six day creation and young earth”, he seems to be saying that the current set of scientific theories that have survived the rigorous scientific process of testing and validation point to that conclusion. That is the implication of “Science Confirms it”.  Yet they, in point of fact, do not. Any review of the current research in the area will show no such support.

In his expansion of the statement Mr. Challies recognizes the distinction by saying he means not science as I have originally defined it, or as it is defined by the entirety of the scientific community, but rather science according to his own personal definition and evaluation – which is in fact quite simply nothing more than Mr Challies unfounded, unqualified, personal opinion.

So, again, we can conclude something very disquieting about this short little paragraph in Mr. Challies discussion of his belief. Mr Challies has invoked an element that has great public trust on his behalf without any real justification for that act and in effect dressed his own opinion up as something far more valuable and having far more authority.

Unfortunately this kind of thing is typically known by another name: deception or false pretense. And, not to put too fine a point on it, this same kind of thing, if practiced by a scientist as relates to his research, would, if discovered, end his career.

TWW will present the remaining 3 essays next week. 

Lydia's Corner: Isaiah 62:6-65:25 Philippians 2:19-3:3 Psalm 73:1-28 Proverbs 24:13-14