A Creation Quiz: Can Even the Simplest Modern Science Be Found in the Bible?

“I would rather be what God chose to make me than the most glorious creature that I could think of; for to have been thought about, born in God's thought, and then made by God, is the dearest, grandest and most precious thing in all thinking.” ― George MacDonald link

Pont_du_Gard_Oct_2007

[UPDATE: Solution posted at the end. 9/8/14 4:55PM] You have to read this. Its very interesting.

This picture is from Wikipedia and applies to the problem presented:

The multiple arches of the Pont du Gard in Roman Gaul (modern-day southern France). The upper tier encloses an aqueduct that carried water to Nimes in Roman times; its lower tier was expanded in the 1740s to carry a wide road across the river.
Pont du Gard, Roman Empire, October 2007


There is a bunch of stuff going on at Mars Hill: more resignations, bylaw shenanigans, etc.. We will be writing about this more next week. But, the Deebs thought we might try something different today.

Old John J (his preferred moniker) has sent us an intriguing post. Old John J, now retired, received a Ph.D. in experimental physics from Duke in 1967 and made computer science his career. He has written a number of well received and much discussed posts on creationism for TWW. We are thankful for his input. 

He is going to give us a quiz. However, the answer will not be posted until next week. We will post the answer directly into this post. Right now, I'm thinking Tuesday. I know, it will drive us crazy. Although I have the entire post, I am not going to look at the answer until I give it to all of you. Promise!

If you cannot solve the scientific part of the problem, do not fear. The answer to the problem is not necessarily the point.


 In Science Trumps the Bible? — An Amazingly Candid (and Disastrous) Argument, Al Mohler states 

"Well count me in as being lost to the assertion that science trumps the Bible 'about the natural world' or about anything else." 

At the bottom of the cited page are links to related articles written by Mohler.

[ Ed. note: Dee wishes to inject that Al Mohler is an ardent supporter of Young Earth Creationism, implying it is almost a primary doctrine. We wrote about it here. Also, Al Mohler appears to admire and endorse Ken Ham which we wrote about here.]

It appears impossible to have meaningful dialog between science and conservative Christian theology about resolving a most complex question, the age of the Earth and the universe. The science leading to the present estimated age values is complex while fundamentalist theology claiming vastly different values is also based on complex assumptions but focused on the Bible. Neither side understands and perhaps doesn't even want to recognize the presuppositions of the other.

Rather than arguing by starting with such exceedingly complex subjects, I propose to start near the conceptual beginning of science. Thus the intent of this post is to examine a very simple physics problem with the intent of determining if the Bible has a solution to it.

In what follows, I do not want to condemn or criticize individuals who hold to YEC interpretations based on a sincere belief in what they have read in the Bible and/or have been told by professional clergy or theologians. The following exercise is directed towards the professional theologians and clergy who offer and insist on enforcing such misguided interpretations.

The difference between science and theology

Science is simply a careful, systematic study of the universe God created with the goal of finding general theories that explain as much of the observational data as possible. Science is also an intensely conservative enterprise. Conservative in the best sense of the word, demanding that larger proposed changes to understanding be supported by stronger and more extensive evidence.

Science is ultimately evidence based, a bottom up activity; not an interpretation of a holy book given by a religious authority, a top down approach. Fundamentally, observations that can't be reconciled with current theory are what leads to improved theories. The comparisons between observation and theory are intrinsically quantitative, that is, numerical.

The concept of energy as a well defined and measurable physical quantity is central to all of the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology/genomics) and the engineering disciplines which are built on them. If the Bible is going to be used as an authority on matters of science, one concept it must provide is a precise definition for energy equivalent to present science and engineering usage.

The problem to be solved.

To better determine the actual relationship between science and the Bible, I would like to focus on a very specific and simple problem at a Physics 101, non-Calculus, level. [Dee breaks out in a sweat.]

I'll state the problem in very concrete terms. However, it is the conceptual ideas involved in the problem solutions that are most important, not the actual numerical answers:

  1.  What is the energy represented by a cubic meter of water at an average height of 10 meters above a surface?
  2.  If 100 cubic meters of water drains to the surface in 1 second from an average height of 10 meters what is the power being released?

Give the answers in two parts for both 1) and 2).

First, state the general solution to the problems including precise definitions of energy and power. Cite the Biblical verses used to provide these general solutions.

Secondly, compute the numerical answer for the values given. The numeric parts of the problem have been stated in accepted modern metric, MKS, units.

This requires dealing with some practical problems. Specifically, the Biblical units for weight, distance and perhaps, time, do not correspond to current units (Meters, Kilograms, Seconds in the metric system). Please indicate the conversions used to go between the Biblical and metric units and where they are defined. As long as the conceptual parts of the solutions are correct, small differences in the numerical answers can be attributed to lack of knowledge about the Biblical unit definitions in terms of modern units.

While this is a simple problem, it is not a trivial one. The general solutions provide the basic understanding for all of hydro power. Any of our ancestors who built and operated water wheel driven mills would have a qualitative understanding of the principles illustrated by the solutions. In all likelihood, the Roman aqueduct builders during the NT period would also possess a qualitative understanding of these principles.

The given numerical values for height and flow are a good approximation to the Augusta, GA Canal originally constructed in 1845 and enlarged to its present form in 1875. The canal still provides modest but financially useful amounts of power to the Canal Authority and to Augusta.

The challenge for Young Earth Creationists who treat the Bible as a science text.

These problems are intended as a challenge to young earth creationists and other Bible as science advocates. If the champions of YEC or others who want to treat the Bible as essentially a science text but do not or cannot offer Biblical based quantitative solutions to these simple problems, the absence of such solutions will be understood as an admission that there are none. And if there are no simple science concepts derivable from the Bible, why should theologians be taken seriously when they make dogmatic statements about complex science and, unfortunately, maybe anything else?

Old John J's conclusion:

The Bible is about God's moral and spiritual intent for us. It details His salvation message, not science.

At the appropriate time in the commenting, I will request that Deebs add the physics 101 solutions to the post.


Update: Here is the solution.

I do not find it surprising that no suitable Biblical solutions were proposed.

Here are the answers to the problems at the physics 101 level. Explicitly, all the numeric quantities I have used are specified in the metric (MKS for meters, kilograms, seconds) system of units. Notation conventions: * multiplication / division ^ exponentiation: seconds^2 = seconds*seconds [ ] indicates the enclosed word(s) are a single quantity

The problem solution starts with two very fundamental relationships: A) force = mass*acceleration B) energy = force*distance Energy is given in units of joules where mass is in kilograms, distance is in meters and acceleration is in meters/(second^2), read this as meters per second squared.

Substituting force as given by A) into B), using height as the distance and the measured gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface the general solution to problem

(1) is: 1) energy = mass*[gravitational acceleration]*height 1 cubic meter of water is a mass of 1000 kilograms. The gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is 9.81 meters/(second^2) thus the numerical answer to problem (1) is: energy = 1000*9.81*10 Joules: approximately 98,100 Joules

2) power = energy/time 

This is the general solution to problem (2) and serves as the definition of power. The unit for power is the watt which is defined as 1 joule per second. Time in 2) is specified in seconds.

The numerical answer to problem 2) is: power = 100*98100/1 = 9,810,000 watts which can also be stated as approximately 10 Mw or 10,000 kw or 13,400 horsepower. In the spirit of keeping this discussion simple I have rounded 98.1 to 100 for the last three numeric values.

A joule is a relatively small amount of energy. The kilowatt-hour, the energy unit used on our electric power bills, is 3,600,000 joules.

There is some significant knowledge assumed, presuppositions, that is required by the solutions to these two simple problems:

To support even the simple level of physics used in the stated problem solutions there is the necessity of a full positional arithmetic system including a symbol for zero, the decimal point for dealing with fractions (developed in the 5th century AD in India), the concept of negative numbers, and symbolic mathematics (simple algebra dating from ~800AD). This level of mathematics is simply not in the OT nor in any Semitic culture at the time the OT was composed. Much more detail is available in "The Universal History of Numbers", Georges Ifrah, ISBN 0-471-30340-1 .

Hebrew counting and Hebrew units are discussed in

Neither page clearly distinguishes biblical and extrabiblical sources.

A possible example of inadequate arithmetic in OT times is found in: 1 Kings 7:23 "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it." The Sea, 10 cubits in diameter and a 30 cubits circumference yields pi = 3. Perhaps this shows inability to represent fractional parts of numbers, not an inaccurate understanding of the relationship between diameter and circumference. Pi = 3, although not a good approximation, is correct to nearest integer value.

Gravitational acceleration is a measured quantity. The present concept of acceleration starts with the work of Galileo in the late 16th and early 17th centuries AD. Measuring gravitational acceleration requires a significant capability for accurately determining, thus representing numerically, both time differences and distances.

Specifying the value of a physical quantity requires two parts, a numerical value and the units for the value. As is shown in the different possible answers to problem 2) above, the numeric part of the answer depends on the units used. In physics 101 teaching a large part of the effort is developing a working understanding of the units concept.

All derived metric units, energy and power in this example, can be specified as various combinations of the three basic units: meters, kilograms and seconds. For example energy has the units: kilograms*(meters/second)^2. Among other things this enables the calculation of conversion factors for derived units in different units systems given the conversion constants for the three basic ones. In any different system, derived units such as energy, will have to be defined using the same combination of the three basic units, mass, length and time. If they are not defined in such a way they do not represent the claimed quantity.

The fundamental distinction that must be made and accepted is, excepting Gen 1:1 and it's emphasis in John 1:1-5, that the Bible is about our relationship with God and is not a scientific textbook. Mohler's assertion quoted in the opening paragraph simply and very arrogantly states that any theological statement of his trumps all science. Finding some common ground between even simple science and the Bible would be a first small step in justifying such overreaching assertions. The converse is also true. The inability to show that the Bible can deal with simple quantitative science problems is definitive evidence that it says nothing about science.

The technology allowing us TWWers, a world wide group, to participate in these discussions on a nearly instantaneous basis is convincing evidence that our underlying science is correct. This same science provides the justification for the technologies and techniques that indicate the age of the Earth and its containing universe are billions, not thousands, of years old.

This review barely qualifies as scratching the surface of an exceedingly large and deep subject. A starting place for a more comprehensive history of science, numbers and mathematics would be the wikipedia. A few useful search terms are: number systems, metric system, units of measurement, energy, algebra, Hebrew numerals, Hebrew units. I have no intention of writing (or desire to write) a physics 101 text or adding articles to the wikipedia.

 

 

Lydia's Corner: Zechariah 6:1-7:14 Revelation 15:1-8 Psalm 143:1-12 Proverbs 30:24-28

Comments

A Creation Quiz: Can Even the Simplest Modern Science Be Found in the Bible? — 539 Comments

  1. You wrote: “In what follows, I do not want to condemn or criticize individuals who hold to YEC interpretations based on a sincere belief in what they have read in the Bible and/or have been told by professional clergy or theologians. The following exercise is directed towards the professional theologians and clergy who offer and insist on enforcing such misguided interpretations.”

    “misguided interpretations” – you already have condemned and criticized those of us who believe in YEC before you even start.

  2. @ Kay:

    I hope John knows this is going up.

    What I think he meant by that is this. So long as you stick to the Bible and do not delve into science, there is no problem. This is my approach as well. So long as you stick to a pure Biblical approach, I don’t really care. Live and let live, so to speak. People can read all sorts of things into the Bible and come out on different sides-baptism, eschatology ,etc. It is faith based and the interpretation is open to debate purely from a faith based initiative.

    The moment anyone enters the science arena, the game changes and then there needs to be proof. Misguided interpretations means that the Bible is not meant to be a science textbook.

  3. Without spoiling the surprise by giving the answers (I have a science degree, so it’s kind of unfair), it’s worth exploiting the obvious missing piece of data in the questions: namely, whether we are to assume the ton of water in question is 10 metres above the surface of the earth, or some other body with a different gravitational field strength.

    Draining 100 cubic meters of water per second from 10 meters above the surface of a typical neutron star, for instance, would release the equivalent energy of around 25 megatons of TNT per second, or 100 petawatts.

  4. Dee, I am still working on 2+2=4! However, I do believe the writer of Genesis would not have the knowledge to answer this problem. Seeing that the population around him was mostly illiterate, pre-scientific, and tribal, I doubt they could answer it. So what is God to do when communicating his Divine Presence as their Creator??? How does He lead them to understand His eternal presence which existed before He created the world. By answering them through complex scientific explanations? No. He works within their culture and knowledge of the world! How radical an idea it must have been to learn there is only One God! And this God loves his people in a way they can understand.
    God does not change, but He does reveal himself in ways a particular culture can understand. Science and knowledge are wonderful gifts. They help us understand the mechanics of creation. However, only God can give us wisdom! His wisdom can help us use our scientific knowledge in positive ways. His wisdom can also help us grasp the main purpose of Genesis, which is to reveal himself as Creator. How much time do we waste on insisting we alone correctly interpret the Bible, instead of spending the time loving our neighbor and loving God?
    Now that I’ve said my piece—-the scientific nerds ( and I say that as a compliment, cause I LOVE nerds) can have at it! I will now return to my cave!

  5. 1. What is the energy represented by a cubic meter of water at an average height of 10 meters above a surface?
    2. If 100 cubic meters of water drains to the surface in 1 second from an average height of 10 meters what is the power being released?

    My answer will not be able to use the criteria you designate, OJJ, but that’s because I barely passed my Kiddie Chem and Physics for Fools classes that I had to take to graduate university. Instead, I’ll answer using basic concepts:

    1. The energy is that which is inherently found in a cubic meter of water at a height of ten meters.
    2. The power released is the power found in 100 cubic meters of water at that height flowing at that rate.

    Sure this won’t help anyone engineer an aqueduct, but it does confirm the teachings of the Chief Dufflepud in Voyage of the Dawn Treader when considering the properties of water: “Powerful wet stuff, ain’t it?”

  6. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Without spoiling the surprise by giving the answers (I have a science degree, so it’s kind of unfair), it’s worth exploiting the obvious missing piece of data in the questions: namely, whether we are to assume the ton of water in question is 10 metres above the surface of the earth, or some other body with a different gravitational field strength.

    Nick, lets not over generalize. Relative to the Earth’s surface immediately under the rather large 1 cubic meter bucket will be just fine.

  7. Ann wrote:

    I do believe the writer of Genesis

    If you follow the argument of John, he says this relates to the aqueducts that were constructed during the time of Jesus. Therefore, God could have put the instructions in the New Testament.

  8. Tim wrote:

    f the Chief Dufflepud in Voyage of the Dawn Treader when considering the properties of water: “Powerful wet stuff, ain’t it?”

    So far, the best quote of the post and likely to remain so since I love the Voyage of the Dawn Treader!

  9. @ Kay:
    My objection is calling a purely theological statement science. Our science is not wrong, most probably incomplete, but not wrong. That we can have a worldwide group follow and comment on a blog nearly instantaneously indicates our underlying science is correct. The same science that enables modern computing and communications is used to indicate our universe is billions of years old.

  10. Uhhh…. potentialenergykineticenergy ummm… f=ma (i think) why couldn’t you have asked this twenty years ago during my LAST physics class? I would have had an answer before “second!”

  11. From someone in a Denomination (Presbyterian) that gives cover to YEC’ers, and millitant YEC’ers who want all non YEC’ers tossed out as heretics, I can honestly say that treating the Bible as a scientific textbook is complete hermenutical bullocks. The problem is, this has been demonstrated time and time again in our denominational debates, so YEC’ers scoff at this and say, “Yeah, well duh, we know that the Bible isn’t a science textbook… all we are saying is that the text demands a view that is only amenable to YEC scientific accounts of origins…”

    When I remind them that their views would exclude theologians such as BB Warfield, and J Gresham Machen – founding fathers of conservative Presbyterianism in the modern era, who were not opposed to evolution and still held to an inerrant Scripture, all I hear is crickets. It makes me sad that the mainstream Reformed world demands that we bury our heads in the proverbial sand when it comes to science and origins. If we believe Scripture is true, nothing should assault this, not even evolution, old earth, or the big bang. After all, wasn’t it Calvin who said, “All truth is God’s truth”?

  12. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Without spoiling the surprise by giving the answers (I have a science degree, so it’s kind of unfair)

    Nick, if you can give a Biblical based answer to the questions by all means do so. Please show your work (cite the appropriate passages) if you want credit for your answer. No doubt there are many followers of TWW that can also give the science 101 answers.

  13. God never intended for the Bible to have an answer to that problem. The intent of the Bible was to lead/introduce us to God by way of Jesus. The Bible confirms who God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are and what their purposes are quite well. God is also quite capable of working without the input of the Bible.

  14. Let’s remember that Al Mohler was a reporter before he developed his reputation as a theologian. Let’s also remember that we need to carefully define developed, reputation and theologian.

    Since Al Mohler’s in the same combox, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am totally submitted to my husband WRT all things math and physics.

    The Pont du Gard is an awesome structure that is incredibly beautiful. The God who made the ones who built the Pont du Gard is an awesome God. I don’t even know the basics of what water is, or what a hydrogen or oxygen atom is. Does anybody else know that?

    I dimly remember F=MA and acceleration is 32ft/sec/sec (seriously, meters?) but could not tell you where the Bible tells me so, and I don’t think that is the point of the Bible. Honestly, I think God keeps moving the cookies to a higher shelf so that we will have to decide to worship him or worship his creation.

    I shall outsource the actual problem to our family’s physics person. But I’m pretty sure she didn’t learn it in the Bible though she praises God for his creation.

  15. Bridget wrote:

    God never intended for the Bible to have an answer to that problem. The intent of the Bible was to lead/introduce us to God by way of Jesus. The Bible confirms who God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are and what their purposes are quite well. God is also quite capable of working without the input of the Bible.

    You’ve captured the entire intent of the post. And if there is no intent to answer the simplest science questions why should dogmatic claims be made for very complex science questions?

  16. Sergius Martin-George wrote:

    I feel so broke up, Judge; I wanna go home.

    Then let’s call for the captain’s trunk!

    P.S. In noting my upcoming anniversary, I meant to link to a post I wrote abut marriage and my wonderful wife, but the link didn’t work so here’s another. Woo-hoo, anniversary time!

  17. Tim wrote:

    P.S. Apropos nothing in the present post, tomorrow’s my 27th wedding anniversary, woo-hoo!

    Newbie! Congratulations and best wishes for many more.

  18. @ Gram3:
    Funny how those Roman engineers paid attention to Archimedes and his pals on the math/engineering side. But I kinda doubt you can solve Old John J’s problem with a Latin translation of the Bible.

  19. oldJohnJ wrote:

    You wrote: “In what follows, I do not want to condemn or criticize individuals who hold to YEC interpretations based on a sincere belief in what they have read in the Bible and/or have been told by professional clergy or theologians. The following exercise is directed towards the professional theologians and clergy who offer and insist on enforcing such misguided interpretations.”

    You are saying that individuals who hold to YEC have misguided interpretations. Just like the abusive pastors so often discussed here at TWW, you imply that our own Bible reading and understanding is somehow inferior, or worse you assume we are sheeple that follow professional theologians and clergy and cannot think for ourselves.

    By the way, though I don’t have a Science degree, I can pick up the phone right now and call any one of 10 PhD’s in the science field, several with Post Docs from major universities, some who are teaching in major universities, some with international recognition and most of these acquaintances/friends/relatives are at universities which outrank Duke in their particular disciplines of science. Not only are these Scientists still active in their fields of Science, but more than 1/2 are still researching and publishing in the secular science journals. They all are Young Earth Creationists.

    I’m not trying to one up you and I usually stay silent on these discussion here and at Julie Anne’s, but please don’t be naive to think that there are not real Scientists out there who hold to a YE Creation position. There are and you would probably be surprised how many.

  20. Kay wrote:

    I’m not trying to one up you and I usually stay silent on these discussion here and at Julie Anne’s, but please don’t be naive to think that there are not real Scientists out there who hold to a YE Creation position. There are and you would probably be surprised how many.

    I am well aware that there are a number of scientists that hold YEC beliefs. This does not change the fact that YEC is still purely an interpretive theological statement, not science. YEC is also a secondary issue in our faith and no one will be damned for holding it.

  21. The “creation quiz”, is irrelevant to the question of how to interpret the creation account, and whether or not the Bible can be used to answer questions like this in general is irrelevant to to the question of whether or not we should believe the Bibles miraculous claims.

    The Bible doesn’t concern itself with engineering aqueducts or water wheels. It does concern itself with the question of the origins of creation, however, stating quite simply that in six days, God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. And, it defines the days as having a morning and an evening. It also tells us that Jesus fed the 5,000 using 5 loaves and 2 fish, without providing a bread recipe. I believe both because I have faith, even though “science”, the kind of science used in modern computers, does not support the possibility of either one.

  22. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Funny how those Roman engineers paid attention to Archimedes and his pals on the math/engineering side. But I kinda doubt you can solve Old John J’s problem with a Latin translation of the Bible.

    I can’t solve the problems with any book. It’s not a woman’s role. Men do math, women do words and dishes. I try to fulfill my role by using lots of words here. 😉

    I’ve said before I’m a conservative. So, the question for me is the meaning of the words of the Bible, and I’m not afraid of that discussion.

    John’s remarks about presuppositions are important, I think. What are the presuppositions of science? What are those of YEC. What are the unknown unknowns and the knowns that are wrong? For both views.

    And I wonder what was in the library at Alexandria and who knows where else?

  23. samuel smith wrote:

    The “creation quiz”, is irrelevant to the question of how to interpret the creation account,

    Irrrelevant to you perhaps but not irrelevant to men like Ken Ham and Al Mohler who want to play Bible scientist.

    I have no problem with your leap of faith on Genesis.So long as you don’t say it is scientifically viable.

  24. samuel smith wrote:

    The “creation quiz”, is irrelevant to the question of how to interpret the creation account

    It is relevant to discussions of the age of the Earth and its containing universe. If the Bible cannot answer very simple science questions how can it be applied to deep and complex science questions?

  25. @ dee:

    I don’t think I am taking too many liberties in saying that the quiz here is irrelevant to Ken Ham or Al Mohler either. It’s an attempt to make an argument that fails because, at it’s best, it would have to be considered a red herring. As to Genesis’ account of creation not being scientifically viable, I don’t find the concept of a pre-existent universe or evolutionary biology any more or less scientifically viable than the Genesis account.

  26. @ samuel smith:
    Heck I know Christians who believe that there is an actual gate in heaven with a huge giant pearl on it. So long as they realize that they are not better Christians because they believe it, it is fine with me.

  27. samuel smith wrote:

    I don’t find the concept of a pre-existent universe or evolutionary biology any more or less scientifically viable than the Genesis account.

    Then you have a different definition of science.

  28. @ dee:
    Plus, who said anything about a preexistent universe? I believe in the Big Bang which most scientist believe in. It is totally consistent with Genesis 1:1.

  29. oldJohnJ wrote:

    It is relevant to discussions of the age of the Earth and its containing universe. If the Bible cannot answer very simple science questions how can it be applied to deep and complex science questions?

    Well said.

  30. Remember…. 4+4 = 15 if Mark Driscoll says it does! Now do some “Gospel Centered” math or the bodies under the bus are going to double! :-p

  31. ISTM, a non-scientist obviously, that these problems are based on applied observations or measurements. Please overlook or correct imprecision with terms. How do we connect that with events or processes which cannot be observed. Do we not need to make our assumptions explicit along with our observations?

    I think I understand the presuppositions underlying YEC, but I can’t remember an explanation of the presuppositions of either Old Earth or Theistic Evolution or Naturalistic Evolution.

    How would one connect the words of Genesis, for example, with the current scientific consensus? How should we deal with these questions in a way that takes both seriously?

  32. Gram3 wrote:

    How would one connect the words of Genesis, for example, with the current scientific consensus?

    Current cosmology indicates there was a beginning labeled the big bang. Present observations indicate the universe will expand forever. It appears that the overlap between science and the Bible is limited to Gen 1:1 and its affirmation in John 1:1-5.

  33. dee wrote:

    @ dee:
    Plus, who said anything about a preexistent universe? I believe in the Big Bang which most scientist believe in. It is totally consistent with Genesis 1:1.

    I agree that the Big Bang makes more sense WRT Genesis. But I do remember my college physics prof saying that the Big Bang was a passing fad or the new thing or something to that effect. He was invested in what he had been taught, and was resistant to information supporting the Big Bang, even though it fairly quickly became the consensus view. So, don’t we have to account for groupthink and other errors in thinking regardless of our current position (model?) How do we do that?

  34. 100 kJ and 10 MW are my answers.

    My calculation of energy is the potential energy of the water which is derived from ultimately Newton’s universal law of gravity that all masses in the universe exert a force on each other inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This calculation can be done only when knowing the radius of the earth (which dictates the value of the acceleration due to gravity on earth). My calculations would only be valid on earth.

    My power calculation is based on power being the rate of energy released verses time.

    I don’t know of any biblical references that would assist me in this calculation as it would not have been possible until newtons universal law of gravity and his gravitational constant of 6.674 x 10^-11 would have been determined in the 18th century.

    However, this law was in place long before Newton discovered it and it speaks to me of the order and majesty of a creator.

  35. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    How would one connect the words of Genesis, for example, with the current scientific consensus?
    Current cosmology indicates there was a beginning labeled the big bang. Present observations indicate the universe will expand forever. It appears that the overlap between science and the Bible is limited to Gen 1:1 and its affirmation in John 1:1-5.

    But aren’t there some assumptions embedded in “indicate” and shouldn’t we make those assumptions explicit, including some nod to uncertainty?

    I should have said that my prof who didn’t buy the Big Bang objected on the grounds that it couldn’t be. That struck me as a faith position, and I didn’t understand why he didn’t take the observations supporting the Big Bang seriously.

  36. It is so nice that some of you managed to end up with clean science. Everything we ever did was nasty, smelly, sometimes potentially dangerous and frequently had been deceased for quite some time. I still smell like formaldehyde, I think. None the less, the question of biological existence and the how and when lie will within the realms of inquiry of the nasty, smelly, dangerous and deceased. The planet and such, no, the other guys will have to worry about that.

    It seems to me that one cannot reconcile the genesis accounts of creation, if understood literally, with the scientific evidence. One therefore has to either choose between the two, or else reconsider how the genesis accounts can be understood in some way as to alleviate the disconnect between the two. None of that is easy. One way to deal with it is to refuse to deal with it. One can compartmentalize things, hold two non-consistent ideas in tension, and wait for more evidence or more insight. Or one can fight the fight for better or for worse.

    I personally do two things at the same time. I believe something different about the genesis stories than the YEC people believe, and I also hold ideas in tension so that if more evidence or more insight bursts upon us I am ready to listen to what is being said. In the meantime I continue to go out on the back forty with boots because there are critters back there under the ivy, and I continue to work on turning said back forty into something park like. I do this because creation with its living things is marvelous and to be cherished and enjoyed. Both science and the bible can agree on that.

  37. Tom R wrote:

    I don’t know of any biblical references that would assist me in this calculation as it would not have been possible until newtons universal law of gravity and his gravitational constant of 6.674 x 10^-11 would have been determined in the 18th century.

    Your answers are of course correct and you correctly observe that the science that allows the computations only was understood a few hundred years ago. That is in fact the point of the post.

  38. Speaking of people of both religion and science, NBC is airing a special on Dr. Kent Brantley right now on the East coast.

  39. @ Nancy: I think one of the first things to attend to is trying to reconcile both creation accounts in Genesis w/each other. That takes a lot of “living in tension” all on its own! 🙂

  40. @ Gram3:
    The most basic presupposition in modern science is that the processes we can observe and measure today have been the same since the big bang. The laws of physics, the rules of chemistry, etc are the same. Now, unlike when I was in college we can model the universe with different inputs and what we get is not what we see now. This is when YEC’s start twisting themselves into pretzels like Lisle and his “light was created in transit’ from stars that are 13.8 billion light years away.

  41. @ dee:
    Different than what? My definition of science is “knowledge gained through observation and experimentation”. Look up the word in the dictionary. The claims of origins in the Bible, and made by “science” concern events that occurred when there were no humans in existence to observe anything. The claims of evolutionary biology concern changes to life forms that are so gradual and minute that they cannot be observed. These theories are therefore, by definition, unscientific. The fact that many people claim they are “scientific” is an irrational appeal to authority (a common logical fallacy).

  42. Gram3 wrote:

    But aren’t there some assumptions embedded in “indicate” and shouldn’t we make those assumptions explicit, including some nod to uncertainty?

    Yes, there is a long chain of observations, interpretations and theories that lead to the idea of the “big bang” as the beginning of our universe. TWW has had a number of explanatory posts along these lines. See http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/01/31/reasons-why-science-supports-an-old-solar-system-and-an-old-earth/ as a starting point. This and others can be found under the creation topic in the categories list.

  43. To go in a slightly different direction, IMO Al Mohler’s quote needs to be understood as primarily a political point and not a scientific one, despite the science reference.

    He may believe in YEC, and he may not. It really does not matter, practically speaking, because he is attempting here, ISTM to strengthen his own political position among non-Calvinist fundamentalists in the SBC by using Giberson whom he has positioned as the common enemy. The non-Calvinists distrust Mohler’s Calvinism, so I believe his actual point is to induce these non-Calvinists to be more afraid of Giberson’s TE than they are of Mohler’s Calvinism and to move the trust needle in his direction.

    That’s my non-scientific assessment after going to his site. His articles are basically boilerplate. Find something to cause alarm, express outrage, declare that something bad is nothing less than the end of the world, and imply that he is the answer. IOW it’s an op-ed formula that he uses. That’s just my observation, so YMMV.

    But, back to the point of how we get two viewpoints to talk to one another. I think that the conversation, among those who are willing to talk, might be advanced by a little humility about what we actually know and don’t know and don’t even know that we don’t know, putting it in Rumsfeldian terms.

    Conservatives can demonstrate some humility about the very real limitations of the Hebrew language WRT scientific matters, for starters, as well as the limitations of our knowledge of ANE culture and our limited sample of comparative literature. Also, a frank acknowledgement of when Genesis was compiled would be helpful, I think.

    Progressives can demonstrate some humility about the limitations of inferences drawn from observations and measurements and assumed initial conditions and about what is yet unknown. A candid acknowledgement that the scientific consensus is or should be always considered a model of the truth and has, in fact, changed just as biblical interpretations have changed.

    We can frankly acknowledge that we all have points where it is faith that is connecting the dots. We can all acknowledge agendas and subjectivity. We can worship with one another. We can stop implying that some of us are dolts and some of us are heretics, that some of us are science deniers and some of us are scripture deniers. And we can try to help one another not be either.

    Just some thoughts from someone who enjoys cross-cultural exchange aimed at increased understanding and someone who values the concerns of both.

  44. dee wrote:

    I believe in the Big Bang which most scientist believe in. It is totally consistent with Genesis 1:1.

    “The Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe.”

    Genesis states that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. not
    all the previously existing matter in the universe was compressed into a single point and exploded into the current universe. These two theories are consistent ONLY inasmuch as they both assume that the current universe had a definite starting point in measurable time. The different causes and sources of matter that make up the universe are not consistent IN ANY WAY.

  45. oldJohnJ wrote:

    This and others can be found under the creation topic in the categories list.

    That would be a good place to start getting up to speed with the state of the discussion. Thanks for that suggestion.

  46. samuel smith wrote:

    These two theories are consistent ONLY inasmuch as they both assume that the current universe had a definite starting point in measurable time. The different causes and sources of matter that make up the universe are not consistent IN ANY WAY.

    It is precisely the implication of a beginning that was a barrier to accepting the Big Bang by some in my living memory. I don’t think that the Bible tells us how God created what he created other than he spoke and it was so.

    Science, I think, exceeds its proper scope if it is asserted that there *cannot* be a supernatural creator or that there definitely *was not* a supernatural creator. Likewise, IMO theologians exceed their scope by saying precisely how God did what he did, or even what *spoke* means in this case. I don’t think it is helpful to go beyond what the text tells us.

    For any who see holes in my thinking, please help me out.

  47. @ samuel smith:

    In the end it boils down to one of two things. Either God created the matter or He did not. All Christians who are scientists believe that He did. Most scientists who are Christians also believe in an ancient universe and most of those believe in evolutionary creationism. And believing that God is the Creator of all matter as well as time, is consistent with Scripture in each and very way.

    They are as deeply committed Christians and as faithful to the Bible as any YEC. No one gets brownie points with God because they believe in a young earth or believe that there is a great big pearl on an actual gate in heaven.

    God is the Creator and blesses those who seek to understand Him in the matter that He created. He blesses Francis Collins, a theistic evolutionist, for mapping the human genome which He designed. Collins has said that in his work in understanding the genome, he senses the language of God which he calls the Biologos.

    The Bible tells me Who. Science tell me, in part, how the Who put it together. And it is glorious indeed. Together they give me a greater understanding and appreciation for all of creation. Nope. YEC are not more faithful than OEC.

  48. Gram3 wrote:

    ISTM, a non-scientist obviously, that these problems are based on applied observations or measurements.

    Not to derail the thread here, but what does ‘ISTM’ mean? Often times the acronym soup gets me as bamboozled as an Egyptologist trying to decipher an unknown cartouche on some plinth at a dig site.

  49. samuel smith wrote:

    These theories are therefore, by definition, unscientific.

    No they are not. You use the AIG explanation: “Were you there?” That is merely a shut down argument. It could be used for much of the Bible. You were not there when Job walked the earth, yet you are willing to believe the Bible which has little verification for the life of Job except for faith. I, too, believe the Bible and in the life of Job.

    Evolutionary changes have been well documented and are innumerable. They are there for anyone who wishes to read about them. Many people prefer to stick to the simple statements that are fed by AIG-no intermediate species, etc. and rarely check it out for themselves.

    As for looking up science in the dictionary, due to my husband’s career path, we lived it and do not need to “look it up.” Are you a scientist?

  50. dee wrote:

    Muff Potter wrote:
    ‘ISTM’
    I think it means “It seems to me.”

    Yes. Sorry for the confusion. I’m lazy and I hate Windows 8.1.x which I am confident is irrefutable evidence of the Fall. And this new computer has the worst keyboard I’ve used in a very long time. So I use shortcuts.

    In general it is good, I think, to state an opinion or an analysis as such and not assert it as truth. I try to do that but am not always successful.

  51. Kay

    PS: I have written extensively on this topic. Please click creationsim and start reading. Ken Ham has only a few scientists on his site-you can see the numbers. I have. There is a reaon that there are not more. 

  52. oldJohnJ wrote:

    It is relevant to discussions of the age of the Earth and its containing universe. If the Bible cannot answer very simple science questions how can it be applied to deep and complex science questions?

    Where the Bible makes propositional statements including those that can be scientifically measured, it does so accurately. Whether or not the Bible contains data that can be used to engineer a water wheel is irrelevant to that fact.

    For instance, Proverbs 25:16 tells us not to eat too much honey, because it will make us sick. The fact that the Bible does not explain in detail how the pancreas secretes insulin to metabolize blood glucose does not change the fact that the statement is medically and scientifically accurate: overconsumption of sugar makes people sick.

    Where the Bible makes claims about the origin of the universe, they are accurate, whether the current scientific community agrees with the Bible or not. If those who claim that the Bible teaches a “young universe” (less than 10,000 years) are correctly interpreting the Bible, then the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and theories to the contrary are wrong. If that interpretation is incorrect, it should be addressed by correcting the hermeneutic, not by claiming that Biblical truth is inferior to “scientific” assumptions about the age of the universe.

  53. My question (as an agnostic) is this….if the Bible, which teaches a 6-day/YE creation is to be regarded as false or allegorical, than what other “plain teaching” is also not true.

    How can you trust anything in the Bible when it’s foundational statements are not supported by real world investigation into it’s claims?

  54. samuel smith wrote:

    not by claiming that Biblical truth is inferior to “scientific” assumptions about the age of the universe.

    And that is precisely what we do-we correct the hermeneutic. We have done this a lot. Segregation and slavery was supported by the Bible but we have come to realize our understanding was in error.

  55. @ dee & Gram3

    Vielen Dank! to both of you for unmasking the mystery of ISTM.

    And Gram3, once again you have my sympathies regarding the Windows quagmire. I dare say that not even Hercules could clean the manure from Microsoft’s Augean stables.

  56. dee wrote:

    These theories are therefore, by definition, unscientific.
    No they are not.

    Since you “lived it” and have checked this all out for yourself, please explain the “scientific” processes that can evaluate the truth/falsity of believing that the existence of the universe can be attributed to a special act of creation versus the natural process described in the “big bang” (matter that existed prior to the beginning of this universe in time).

    Not speculation…science.

  57. samuel smith wrote:

    Please, provide an example of macro-evolution.

    The evidence is out there in droves. I suggest that you visit Biologos and read.

    Then http://www.oldearth.org/theistic_evolution.htm

    Here are other sites to get you going. They are not Christian specific site.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
    http://www.transitionalfossils.com
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional2.shtml

  58. @ samuel smith:
    Frankly, I get weary of the YEC folks who come onto this blog without having read carefully on the subject outside of the typical AIG stuff. This takes time and lots of reading. Not a one shot, drive by shooting.

    I have spent hours reading the AIG stuff. I bet I know the site better than many people who swear by it. I only wish others would invest as much time in reading the alternatives. Now I may be mistaken. Perhaps you have read the stuff i have repeated here. If you would like, I could list site after site after site but you are as capable of looking it up yourself if you are truly interested.

  59. dee wrote:

    Frankly, I get weary of the YEC folks who come onto this blog without having read carefully on the subject outside of the typical AIG stuff. This takes time and lots of reading. Not a one shot, drive by shooting.

    If you want to do something about elitist, self-righteous attitudes among Christians on the topic or origins, I suggest you take a look at your own posts.

  60. dee wrote:

    @ samuel smith:
    I cannot prove that God created the universe.

    Maybe we need to talk about the nature of proof. Can anyone “prove” God created the universe or exists? Or that he did not? I think we have a forensic question and it is about evidence and what that evidence shows or doesn’t show about what we have not personally witnessed and how persuasive the evidence is. So, who bears the burden and what are the standards? Can everyone agree on any of those things?

    For me, I’ll admit that it largely comes down to an appeal to authority, at least at some level, regardless of whether you make your appeal to a science authority or to a theological authority. I don’t personally have the knowledge to evaluate the vast majority of what is written by scholars of the various disciplines of science or of theology or ancient languages or ancient cultures.

    What are the points of agreement and what are the deal-breakers for both sides? Sheesh, I sound like a post-modern hipster.

  61. @samuel

    For what it’s worth, here’s my views

    I was bought up with strict AiG style teaching, but have since changed my opinion slightly

    Key for me is the age of the universe. There’s nothing that says to me that it’s young and everything that screams “ancient”. Even a simple thing such as the distance of the stars – If the universe were 10,000 years into the past (see stars > 10,000 light years away). Problem is, we can see stuff millions of light years away. I’ve heard this explained as “God created the light mid-travel” or “God made stuff to look old as a test of faith”, but then you’re creating a god who deliberately sets out to deceive which is inconsistent with the god of the bible.

    My thinking is – if someone tells me the bible means “literal 6 days” and all evidence says otherwise, then the person telling me what they bible means is wrong. I’m not saying the bible is wrong, just that interpretation of it.

    wrt evolution, I’m not so convinced. One of the stumbling blocks for me is the very beginning – to get life started required the formation, somehow, of a complete self-replicating DNA chain. Perhaps theistic evolution is a thing, I don’t know. In short, I’m happy to live with this in the “just don’t know and probably never will” basket

    Thing is, this is all a sidetrack. Out opinions, no matter how strong or weak, will never alter the truth of what happened and will have no bearing on our salvation or anyone else’s *so long as they remain secondary issues*.

  62. Dave wrote:

    If the universe were 10,000 years into the past (see stars > 10,000 light years away)

    Not sure what happened there, but I seem to have skipped half a sentence. Should read

    If the universe were less than 10,000 years old, we’d be unable to see more than 10,000 years into the past (see stars > 10,000 light years away)

  63. samuel smith wrote:

    Different than what? My definition of science is “knowledge gained through observation and experimentation”. Look up the word in the dictionary.

    Zetetics. As in Zetetic Astronomy, defending the Bible against Heathen “Science” that said the Earth was round and not flat.

    The scare quotes around “science” are the giveaway.

  64. dee wrote:

    Kay
    PS: I have written extensively on this topic. Please click creationsim and start reading. Ken Ham has only a few scientists on his site-you can see the numbers. I have. There is a reaon that there are not more. 

    Dee, Scientists who are YEC do not all exist in Ken Ham’s world. His list is not the complete roster. I know some scientists (and physicians for that matter) who do not advertise their personal creation beliefs because to do so would be a death blow to their careers in major secular universities not only from the atheists in their community but from Christians who go on the attack. Some in my corner of the world have no affiliation with AIG and some who do are respected and protected in that AIG maintains privacy for those who need to stay behind the scenes. You have no way of knowing how many are in that community. You only see what is in print.

    I have read what you and others have written, read writings by scientists I respect, and I have had plenty of conversations with notable scientists in this area and have them accessible for questions.

    Nothing I’ve read here changes my beliefs. I’m not asking anyone to change theirs. Everyone has their biases and you can find all matter of studies and information to back up your position just as highly intelligent, active Scientists who are YEC can speak to their position.

    Regrets that I started posting on this as it is my practice to avoid these conversations. That insult from the get go was hard to ignore and the generalizations and declarations of “truth” are amazing.

    dee wrote:

    And that is precisely what we do-we correct the hermeneutic.

    I like you Dee, but sorry – this is also the claim from pastors that you write about so often. Everyone wants to claim they have the correct hermeneutic.

  65. Dave wrote:

    If the universe were less than 10,000 years old, we’d be unable to see more than 10,000 years into the past (see stars > 10,000 light years away)

    JMJ/Christian Monist put it something like this:
    “Where did God put the projector that’s back-projecting all these stars and galaxies on a screen 6000 light-years away?”

  66. dee wrote:

    Many people prefer to stick to the simple statements that are fed by AIG-no intermediate species, etc. and rarely check it out for themselves.

    And the “show me the intermediate species” is a rigged argument. I’ll show you how it’s rigged:

    1) Take a handful of coins from your pocket. These coins represent a finite number of fossils in an evolutionary sequence.
    2) Put two of the coins down on the table with some space (a couple feet or around half a meter) between them.
    3) YEC points to the space between the two coins. “Where’s the intermediate species?”
    4) Put a third coin between the two for the intermediate species.
    5) YEC points to the two spaces between the three coins. “Where’s the intermediate species? And the other intermediate species?”
    6) Put two coins into the middle of the two spaces.
    7) YEC points to the four spaces between the five coins…
    8) Repeat steps 6 & 7 until you run out of coins. (Remember, the number of coins or fossils is finite.)
    9) YEC points to all the gaps between all the coins and crows in triumph.

  67. Gram3 wrote:

    And I wonder what was in the library at Alexandria and who knows where else?

    We’ll never ‘know’ with genuine certainty the specifics of what it contained, but I think we can safely say that a vast treasure trove of priceless works was lost. One of my heroines is Hypatia of Alexandria. Her work on the conic sections was purportedly extensive but none of her works survived the burning of the great library. She was murdered around 415 AD by a mob of fanatical monks who took too seriously Moses’ words about witches and Paul’s words about women teaching.
    One of my pet conjectures is that had she lived and continued her work with the conic sections, she might have predated Kepler’s work by many centuries.

  68. Dave wrote:

    @samuel

    For what it’s worth, here’s my views

    I was bought up with strict AiG style teaching, but have since changed my opinion slightly

    Key for me is the age of the universe. There’s nothing that says to me that it’s young and everything that screams “ancient”. Even a simple thing such as the distance of the stars – If the universe were 10,000 years into the past (see stars > 10,000 light years away). Problem is, we can see stuff millions of light years away. I’ve heard this explained as “God created the light mid-travel” or “God made stuff to look old as a test of faith”, but then you’re creating a god who deliberately sets out to deceive which is inconsistent with the god of the bible.

    My thinking is – if someone tells me the bible means “literal 6 days” and all evidence says otherwise, then the person telling me what they bible means is wrong. I’m not saying the bible is wrong, just that interpretation of it.

    wrt evolution, I’m not so convinced. One of the stumbling blocks for me is the very beginning – to get life started required the formation, somehow, of a complete self-replicating DNA chain. Perhaps theistic evolution is a thing, I don’t know. In short, I’m happy to live with this in the “just don’t know and probably never will” basket

    Thing is, this is all a sidetrack. Out opinions, no matter how strong or weak, will never alter the truth of what happened and will have no bearing on our salvation or anyone else’s *so long as they remain secondary issues*.

    Precisely.

    And, for the record, I am old enough that I can remember when Ken Ham was a new voice on the radio. A voice who was, quite simply, announcing to the world & all who dwell therein, that all my ancestors were wrong, wrong, wrong, and he, King Ham the Unkosher (the First of his name) was right, & only he was right, & we should all fall down & prostrate ourselves before his great wisdom.
    It was, in fine,IMHO, an act by a latter-day Barnum. I still can’t believe that so many people have bought into his stuff.
    Honestly, most Christians used to just say that God hadn’t yet revealed how science & Scripture work together, but that it didn’t matter, because God would explain it to us in Heaven.

  69. Muff Potter wrote:

    And Gram3, once again you have my sympathies regarding the Windows quagmire. I dare say that not even Hercules could clean the manure from Microsoft’s Augean stables.

    When I had to trash the entire old computer a couple of years ago, I went Apple. I got insinuations that doing so was an assault to humanity, but after an initial learning curve I love the new computer.

    Be not the first by whom the new is tried, nor yet the last to lay the old aside.

    Don’t know what is new and what is old for folks, but just saying.

  70. Gram3 wrote:

    He may believe in YEC, and he may not.

    As to the matter of whether Mohler would act from political motivations as opposed to strict adherence to something he says he believes, by his own admission he does act politically (apparently) in a different matter. There is or used to be a you tube video in which Mohler, in answer to a question, stated that he was not a dispensationalist but that he has hired people (to teach at SBTS) who are. Dispensationalism is also a diving issue for some, and Mohler apparently does not think it is a place to draw the line. Why he makes such an issue of YEC but not the other, when both arguments are derived from “I believe that when the bible says such and such here is what it means..” I am not sure. But I suspect the difference must be at least partially political.

  71. Gram3 wrote:

    For any who see holes in my thinking, please help me out.

    Well, maybe you maintain a supposition that I do not. Or not. It would perhaps not be accurate to suppose that everybody wants this issue solved. There seem to be certain advantages to the conflict itself for those who profit from it.

  72. Gram3 wrote:

    it fairly quickly became the consensus view. So, don’t we have to account for groupthink and other errors in thinking regardless of our current position

    It depends on whether the changing of the mind is due to new evidence which was convincing, or whether it was merely due to wanting to run with the crowd or some combination.

    To me a huge difference between “scientific thinking” and “biblical thinking” as one frequently hears from people is precisely in the area of what does it take to change one’s mind. New evidence is a big motivator in science. Let some historical researcher, however, uncover something previously not know but which relates to some understanding about the bible and there is not the same response. In science, having some new evidence and then changing one’s thinking about xyz in no way changes one’s mind about science itself nor changes one’s mind about the relative importance of and limitations of science. Another way to say that is that nobody’s world view is altered merely by having new evidence about xyz.

    In sola scriptura thinking people, however, they also seem to mean sola the current evidence and sola the current understandings and sola the current conclusions, including the conclusions about xyz. With that sort of thinking, any changing of the mind about xyz would potentially destroy their entire sola system. (Hey, I like that. “sola system”)

    Like “doubtful” mentioned above, if you can’t belief what the bible says about xyz, how can you believe what it says about anything. To that I would say that you can doubt your understanding of what the bible is saying when it says thus and such, and you can doubt your understanding of what the purpose of scripture is, and you can doubt even your own biases and motivations without totally trashing the bible. But this would be similar to the though processes of what I have just said is a way that scientists deal with new information, and some people it seems do not do that.

  73. Kay wrote:

    dee wrote:
    and most of those believe in evolutionary creationism
    Source info for this statement please.

    I don’t know of a well done survey. However you might want to look at the American Scientific Affiliation and Biologos web sites. Links to both are given in the blogs section of the TWW home page.

  74. On previous threads on this and related issues, I have pointed out the following:

    The Bible has a lot of passages which we readily interpret as figuratively true but not necessarily literally true. That is, there are stories that are intended to educate us that do not depend on literal truth. One of the difficulties is separating the literal from the figurative.

    Jesus taught in parables. Those stories contain great theological truths, truths about human behavior, truths about sin, truths about God’s concept of justice and fairness, etc. There is no necessity that those stories be literally true in order to be great truth.

    Much of the OT has a great similarity to other ancient tribal literature, with origin stories, stories about great warriors, etc. There are parts of Genesis, like people living to 900 years old, that would seem unlikely to be literally true. BTW, one of those really old people seems to have died at the same time as the great flood! And the two creation stories in Genesis are difficult to align with each other.

    I take the creation story as: God created the universe. He created all that exists. He created humanity with the ability to contemplate good and evil, wonder at the creation, and interact with the Creator. And while God was the creator, what he created was good, but not perfect, as mankind chose to reject the love that God offered for simple temporal pleasures and to seek the knowledge and authority that belongs only to God. And that is human nature, which we can all observe, often even in the persons who inhabit our pulpits, as they seek to rule over us, contrary to the explicit teaching of Jesus.

    Literal truth is the weakest form of truth that there is. Difficult to even demonstrate in court. And every observer of an event will have a different story to tell about it, and they are rarely even 75 percent consistent with each other. Thus we have the different stories in the Gospels, with details that are not consistent from one reporter to another. And we accept the totality of the message as true: God came to earth in human form, loved us, taught us, was condemned to die, was murdered, and rose from the dead. And if we believe that, we can claim the gift of continued existence with Him. We are to share that message. Everything else is of lesser importance.

  75. samuel smith wrote:

    If those who claim that the Bible teaches a “young universe” (less than 10,000 years) are correctly interpreting the Bible, then the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and theories to the contrary are wrong. If that interpretation is incorrect, it should be addressed by correcting the hermeneutic, not by claiming that Biblical truth is inferior to “scientific” assumptions about the age of the universe.

    For a deeper look at a single methodology for dating please look at: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
    Weins is a Christian and deals not only with the science supporting radiometric dating but many of the arguments raised within the Christian community against the technique.

    Yes, the hermeneutic needs to be changed.

  76. Kay, I thought the same thing upon reading that part. Also, when I read this portion, ” it is the conceptual ideas involved in the problem solutions that are most important, not the actual numerical answers”, I thought this comment sounded very much like common core in regards to mathematics. .. I stopped reading at that point to comment, but I will finish the article now. :

    @ Kay:

  77. @ Melissa:
    My intent is trying to establish what the Bible teaches about science, not prepare a curriculum. That is why I am trying to get a discussion started about how or if the Bible deals with science.

  78. I’d like to emphasize what is important about the very simple problem I presented. The actual numerical answers computed according to present science are not what I was looking for. Very specifically, I am looking for evidence that the foundational ideas embedded in modern physics can be found in the Bible. If they cannot then we should understand the primary purpose of the Bible is giving knowledge of God and His desires for us. When the OT was given He, of course, would know of the coming development of increasingly profound science in our time period and not give details not understandable by the Hebrews 2000 or so years before the time of Christ on Earth or in conflict with current science 2000 years after Christ’s earthly sojourn.

  79. samuel smith\

    Typical response. Don’t discuss the science in any depth but, instead, attack tone. Another way to obfuscate.

  80. Kay wrote:

    . I know some scientists (and physicians for that matter) who do not advertise their personal creation beliefs because to do so would be a death blow to their careers in major secular universities not only from the atheists in their community but from Christians who go on the attack

    Wow- so Christian scientists and physicians are all hiding behind the scenes to protect their jobs? They are all a bunch of wusses? I think not. This is another claim that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are persecuting YEC scientists because they know the real truth. You do understand that this is a fallacious argument. You cannot prove a negative.

    Also, it is insulting, with Christians being persecuted for their faith around the world, that there are those who think that Christians couldn’t stand up for the truth in the science world. God help us if a real persecution occurred.

    Nope- the vast majority of scientist who are Christians are not YE. The reason is clear. There is no scientific evidence for this belief of a very tiny group of people.

    The argument goes: there are a plethora of high level scientists who have been forced to go underground because they will be persecuted, not for their faith, but for a “belief” in YEC. When I say that’s ridiculous, then you can say “I know they are there, lots of them, but I can’t tell you because they are hiding out.

    This is the vast conspiracy argument and I do not buy it. Deb will tell you-I hate conspiracy theories.

    Kay wrote:

    I like you Dee, but sorry – this is also the claim from pastors that you write about so often. Everyone wants to claim they have the correct hermeneutic.

    The church has changed its hermeneutic on a number of occasions: heliocentricity, slavery, etc. although there are some Christians who are now revving up in those areas again which is astonishing.

  81. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And the “show me the intermediate species” is a rigged argument. I’ll show you how it’s rigged:
    1) Take a handful of coins from your pocket. These coins represent a finite number of fossils in an evolutionary sequence.
    2) Put two of the coins down on the table with some space (a couple feet or around half a meter) between them.
    3) YEC points to the space between the two coins. “Where’s the intermediate species?”
    4) Put a third coin between the two for the intermediate species.
    5) YEC points to the two spaces between the three coins. “Where’s the intermediate species? And the other intermediate species?”
    6) Put two coins into the middle of the two spaces.
    7) YEC points to the four spaces between the five coins…
    8) Repeat steps 6 & 7 until you run out of coins. (Remember, the number o

    I am repeating HUG’s comment because it is quite true. Some of my friends often joke about this tactic. Those who use it do not understand how ridiculous it sounds.

  82. @ doubtful:
    I was tired last night and had to go to bed and did not answer your question. I look at the Bible through the lens of the world that I live in. If God created the Bible for us, then it must be relevant to all times and cultures. Frankly, it has been a success and I think I know why.

    I look out at the world and continue to see sin-we kill and hurt each other every day. Millions live in poverty and many die of hunger. Even in the US, our peace with one another is in short supply due to years of persecution due to race, culture, gender, etc.

    When I see the Bible narrative, I see a people who could not maintain a culture without violence and all sorts of inhumanity. In fact, they look a lot like us.

    It is evidence that we need something outside ourselves to show us the way. We need to be forgiven for the despicable way we treat one another.

    The Bible describes our estate, it provides an answer and promises and eternal solution. The narrative rings true to me.

    Now- the plain stuff is not so plain. We are dealing with the infinite and immortal who can create a universe. How does he relate to those who are so vastly different than He? He sent Jesus as an example-to show us the simplicity of the faith when found in His Way.

    The rest of it is subject to interpretation which goes on and on and on. For example: when it says God created man out of the dust-do we think he took a bunch of dirt, added water and made a man? He created the stars by speaking a word-why bring up dust? I often wonder if he is talking about DNA, the building block that he made the basis for all life.

    Plain language: yes for the big picture. More complex for the little stuff.

  83. Thanks, JohnJ. Good stuff that Christians deal with continually. I feel hostility creeping in to the posts, tho. Not comfortable. When we start saying “you, you, you,” that makes me feel sad.

  84. Kay wrote:

    I know some scientists (and physicians for that matter) who do not advertise their personal creation beliefs because to do so would be a death blow to their careers in major secular universities not only from the atheists in their community but from Christians who go on the attack.

    Well, now, that is the thing. Their “personal beliefs” have no standing. Evidence has standing. Reason and analysis have standing. Perhaps these “scientists” in hiding are aware of this and wisely don’t put themselves in such a position. If they were concerned enough about their necessity to speak up, and if they had good arguments and impeccable credentials in whatever field of knowledge they were speaking about, they would do so. Or else, they are being cowardly. The world is full of people who stand up for the truth as they see it and live with the consequences. Nothing makes a “scientist” an exception to the rule of adherence to truth.

    May I also note that when someone speaks outside his/her recognized area of expertise he has no more standing than mere casual conversation. If, for instance, some geologist and some astrophysicist are discussing something, each has a right to be heard and taken seriously only within the bounds of his own field. For any “scientist” to insist on his personal opinion being given equal weight with the opinion of someone in a different field would make the “scientist” look foolish. It ought to damage his credibility in any academic setting. secular or not.

    And for any physician to demand to be heard on the this subject as an expert opinion, unless that person has a least a separate doctorate in a specific field in question would be ridiculous. I am a physician (with an undergrad degree in biology and an area of concentration in chemistry and physics) and I try to be careful to couch anything I say as clearly generalized opinion and observation rather than trying to act like I deserve to be heard on any other basis. We can have personal opinions, we can comment about our observations of how some systems work as opinion only, we can opine about the philosophical bent frequently seen in those areas of the sciences which we have been exposed to, and we can comment about some area of some science in which we may have some lower level degree as long as we make sure that we do not present ourselves as authorities in opposition to the actual authorities in that field. But beyond that, no. Any physician who tries to play off his/her MD as being other than what it is, that person is a shame and disgrace to the profession.

  85. This is exactly why I do not want to live in a theocracy. I cringe every time a politician insists that the founding fathers were Christian and we are a Christian country and ought to conduct ourselves that way. These people are never talking about my Christian beliefs, but ones I don’t follow. Imagine having certain Christians in charge of science education in this country. Research shows an inverse correlation between religiosity in a country and scientific achievement.

  86. @ samuel smith:
    We get it. God provides miracles. We Christians all believe in those. But, within the miracle of creation, He gave us the means to observe his creation and even create within that paradigm. That is called science.

    Once again, I have no issue with those who wish to take the Bible literally-6 days, 6,000-10,000 years old. However, in so doing, those who do don’t score brownie points with God for their superior faith. Those who believe in a young earth are not better Christians than those who do not.

    The real issue is an ex nihilo creation by the Uncaused, First Cause who we call Creator. We can all agree upon that. How He did it is up for discussion amongst those who are believers.

  87. After my unfortunate (at least at the time) separation from local church organizations, I experienced a wilderness of doubt about the nature (not the existence) of God. When I finally opened a bible again I determined I wanted no part of man’s version of God’s word but that I would trust the holy spirit to teach me those things i had not understood but had accepted; in short, to short-circuit the cognitive dissonance on steroids in my brain from 30 years of fundygelicalism.

    I dusted off my rusty 3 years of rusty high school Latin (helpful for understanding Greek noun cases, not so much verbs), and delved into ancient Greek. What a treasure trove of truth i have found, and ding! It makes sense.The pieces are beginning to fit together without twisting, and it harmonizes beautifully with the gospel of jesus Christ! Bonus points for being a Berean!

    The correlation to this post is that “day” (or yo·vm in Hebrew) can mean (and this is according to Strong’s BIBLICAL lexicon, so imagine what a secular lexicon with no agenda might suggest):

    age, always, continually, daily, birth, each, today,
    From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb) — age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (… Live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

  88. samuel smith wrote:

    Was Jesus raised from the dead?

    I was not there and neither were you. I do not know personally anybody who was there, and there is no hard evidence for the resurrection. The available evidence is hearsay which came down in oral tradition prior to being written down. The earliest manuscripts appear to be missing, and the level of consistency from one to the other of the very early manuscripts which are available is less than 100% about many things.

    There is more hard evidence regarding the age of the earth than there is about the resurrection of Jesus.

    I believe in an old earth and in the resurrection. I believe in an old earth based on the currently available evidence, unless and until it be proved differently. I believe in the resurrection by grace through faith.

    But and if it turns out that we have totally misunderstood the resurrection and have to come to some different understandings of what it was that actually happened, that would not mean I ceased to believe in Jesus. The picture is bigger than that by far.

    I have come to think that some of the passion behind some of the YEC/OE debate is driven by people’s struggles with doubt. Some seem to think that they can believe the bible but could not believe in Jesus if some “biblical” ideas had to be changed. I am not sure why they feel this way, and the ideas I do have would not play well if I said them in this comment There is a distinct difference here, however, about issues of faith and doubt, and I think that needs investigated.

  89. dee wrote:

    Wow- so Christian scientists and physicians are all hiding behind the scenes to protect their jobs? They are all a bunch of wusses? I think not. This is another claim that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists who are persecuting YEC scientists because they know the real truth. You do understand that this is a fallacious argument. You cannot prove a negative.
    Also, it is insulting, with Christians being persecuted for their faith around the world, that there are those who think that Christians couldn’t stand up for the truth in the science world. God help us if a real persecution occurred.
    Nope- the vast majority of scientist who are Christians are not YE. The reason is clear. There is no scientific evidence for this belief of a very tiny group of people.
    The argument goes: there are a plethora of high level scientists who have been forced to go underground because they will be persecuted, not for their faith, but for a “belief” in YEC. When I say that’s ridiculous, then you can say “I know they are there, lots of them, but I can’t tell you because they are hiding out.
    This is the vast conspiracy argument and I do not buy it. Deb will tell you-I hate conspiracy theories.

    Dee, I am not arguing, neither am I a conspiracy theorist. You do not have my address book nor do you know my family and friends. I’m not arguing the science with you.

    I didn’t say the 10 PhD’s (and physicians and medical professionals) I personally know deny Christ and yet you condemn them for not coming out on their YEC position? Really? They are not closet Christians, and yet because Christians are persecuted around the world, these Scientists have to fess up to a YEC position? It appears this YEC/Evolution topic is not a secondary anything here at TWW.

    dee wrote:

    The church has changed its hermeneutic on a number of occasions: heliocentricity, slavery, etc. although there are some Christians who are now revving up in those areas again which is astonishing.

    Neither “the church” (pick your flavor of definition), nor TWW will define my hermeneutic.

  90. Nancy

    I agree with your post.

    My point is that making broad sweeping statements that leave the impression that there are no true Scientists who hold a YEC position is deceiving and because this is a secondary issue to some and not the hill to die on for others, given my experience, I think people would be surprised if they knew just how many highly educated, practicing Scientists hold this position.

  91. Nancy wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    it fairly quickly became the consensus view. So, don’t we have to account for groupthink and other errors in thinking regardless of our current position

    It depends on whether the changing of the mind is due to new evidence which was convincing, or whether it was merely due to wanting to run with the crowd or some combination.

    Yes, I agree. The problem is that as humans we are subject to all sorts of self-deception and confirmation bias and rigid adherence to paradigms. We are prone to overvalue what is known and undervalue what is unknown.

    That is why I gave the example of resistance to accepting the Big Bang by an agnostic professor. He was not persuaded by the evidence for it. There was resistance to the germ theory of disease by the top scientists and physicians. So, I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we are exempt from normal human tendencies, whether our field is science-related or Bible-related.

    I think it is naive to think that science as an enterprise (not the scientific method itself) cannot be subject to groupthink, thought-stopping, political motivation, and economic motivation. If a human being has invested time and effort and emotion and other resources into an idea, that human being will have difficulty changing that idea. Some do it more easily than others.

  92. Kay

    We didn;t say there were “no” true scientists that are YEC. If you read our blog, you will see that we even did a post about one. What I said, and continue to maintain, is that they are in the decided minority within a group that are both trained scientists and Christians. 

  93. Kay wrote:

    Neither “the church” (pick your flavor of definition), nor TWW will define my hermeneutic.

    Why in the world would we want to define anyone’s hermeneutic?

  94. Gram3 wrote:

    So, don’t we have to account for groupthink and other errors in thinking regardless of our current position (model?) How do we do that?

    We keep doing research and publishing the results. There are lots of discussions in astronomy and astrophysics these days about multiverses and other concepts. And when a blockbuster paper is published, people who can understand the math go over it to see if its really correct. I recall that earlier this year a blockbuster paper was published on a point of astronomy (and I forget what it was, I’m not fully caffeinated yet) but weeks later, other scientists were saying, “Hey, wait a minute.”

    One website I like to visit on occasion is Retraction Watch. It basically watches for papers that get retracted from journals. Sometimes, they’re retracted because someone messed up a formula or the work couldn’t be replicated. In other cases, it’s much more sinister and/or criminal.

    http://retractionwatch.com/

    As the tagline for the site says: “Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process.”

  95. Gram3 wrote:

    He was not persuaded by the evidence for it.

    And when he changed his mind was it due to the evidence? Or was he swayed by group think all along? What I am trying to say is that I have no quarrel with what you have said, but also it would be inaccurate to conclude that just because something is believed (or accepted) by a majority then the very level of acceptance of the belief would be evidence of group think. Perhaps, perhaps not.

    This is off the subject, but we see a lot of this difficulty in some current political issues. I am not going there (politics) here (TWW).

  96. Gram3 wrote:

    I think it is naive to think that science as an enterprise (not the scientific method itself) cannot be subject to groupthink, thought-stopping, political motivation, and economic motivation

    Yet, there is a lot of evidence that the universe is 15+billion years old. Ev,e give or take a billion or so, there is no way to get down to 6,000 years with any scientific measure.

    My husband has a theory. He believes that if the evidence was compelling that the earth is 6,000 years old, there would be atheist and agnostic young earth scientists. And if they could prove it, they would win a Nobel Prize for doing so.

  97. mirele wrote:

    One website I like to visit on occasion is Retraction Watch. It basically watches for papers that get retracted from journals. Sometimes, they’re retracted because someone messed up a formula or the work couldn’t be replicated. In other cases, it’s much more sinister and/or criminal.

    This is so important. YEC scientists refuse to submit their research for any peer review due to a belief in a vast conspiracy to hide the fact the earth is young. However, there is one scientist who is working with mathematical models who says he is going to submit his work for peer review. Now there is one guy with guts.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/09/06/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-a-young-earth-scientist-and-the-biologos-president/

    I was once in a Sunday school class in which a man said “I heard The Discovery Channel is sitting on the evidence of a young earth.” Kid you not!

  98. Nancy wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    For any who see holes in my thinking, please help me out.
    Well, maybe you maintain a supposition that I do not. Or not. It would perhaps not be accurate to suppose that everybody wants this issue solved. There seem to be certain advantages to the conflict itself for those who profit from it.

    That depends on the issue involved. If the issue is whether the Bible is a book on the scientific method or math or physics or chemistry, then I don’t think anyone thinks that it is. If it is whether one relies more on the High Priests of the Bible or the High Priests of Science, then I say a pox on both.

    That’s why I would like for anyone to correct how I am approaching thinking about these issues as a person who quite literally does not have adequate personal knowledge to assess the science claims or too assess the claims of various Biblical scholars.

    This is repetitive, but I think, as you said, that when anyone speaks beyond their knowledge, then they are merely opining. If they present their opinion as a fact, then we need to probe more deeply.

    I believe that the Bible does not speak to the concerns of scientists and Bible scholars should not presume to do science. I also don’t believe that science should presume to speak beyond its domain and should be honest about its limits. There are domains where the two seem to me to overlap such as ethics. That’s probably for another thread, though.

  99. Do people who hold to a young earth belief think those who believe in an old earth are rebelling against God? Can they not believe that God can use scientific means for His actions? What about the plagues in Egypt? There are natural explanations to them but this shouldn’t negate the fact that God had His hand in them.

    But even if it was a literal six day creation, wouldn’t it have to be a supernatural occurrence, like an angel suddenly appearing? If so, then why on earth (no pun intended) involve science?

  100. Nancy wrote:

    And when he changed his mind was it due to the evidence? Or was he swayed by group think all along? What I am trying to say is that I have no quarrel with what you have said, but also it would be inaccurate to conclude that just because something is believed (or accepted) by a majority then the very level of acceptance of the belief would be evidence of group think. Perhaps, perhaps not.

    My impression at the time was that he resisted it was because he was invested in Steady State, although he did allow for an oscillating universe as long as there was no explicit beginning. So, IMO the real sticking point for him was avoiding the implication of a creator which Big Bang cosmology at least allows from a Christian worldview. I think, in his case, it was both investment in Steady State and avoidance of a creator. I do not know if his position ever changed since I did not follow him after that.

  101. dee wrote:

    My husband has a theory. He believes that if the evidence was compelling that the earth is 6,000 years old, there would be atheist and agnostic young earth scientists. And if they could prove it, they would win a Nobel Prize for doing so

    That’s funny and possibly true. Certainly there would be a lot of prestige and money on the line. But I think that is true of those who are dogmatic about their particular opinion in the scientific realm, as well.

    I guess my issue is distinguishing among axioms, data, information, and conclusions based on them. These get confused, I think, and need to be kept in the right column.

  102. Well,we do have, apparently a major event for humans somewhere around 12,000 or so years ago, the neolithic revolution with the development of agriculture. A quick google check just now showed a range of opinion approx. from 9.000 to even up to 14,000 years ago. The development of agriculture with the subsequent ability to settle in stable communities and develop what we today more or less recognize as civilization including the ability of some members of the society to do something other than be totally consumed with the search for food was a major step in human history.

    So the thinking that the history of mankind does not go back nearly as far as some fossil finds would indicate may be influenced by the knowledge of people millenia ago of the relatively recent major development of agriculture and its associated societal changes. I have no idea how long things like that can pass intact in an oral tradition, nor any idea how far back the various creation stories go, but it would be interesting information to have.

    The genesis information does speak of this one or that one who was the first to do this or that, so they were thinking about societal change and the development of new skills and ways of living.

  103. Kay wrote:

    They are not closet Christians, and yet because Christians are persecuted around the world, these Scientists have to fess up to a YEC position? It appears this YEC/Evolution topic is not a secondary anything here at TWW.

    The road to fame and fortune as a scientist requires upsetting the applecart. If you want to sustain an unpopular theory you have to have evidence that will pass peer review. Major advances in theory have always started with the single or perhaps very small group of scientists who have done exactly this. If you can’t bring reputable evidence to the discussion it is merely opnion.

  104. And if I can follow up on my last post:

    The scientific process has room for retractions. It can admit, “hey, we made a mistake.”

    The YEC belief (I can’t call it a process, because it’s not a process, it’s a matter of faith) doesn’t have a way to retract bad findings. Consequently, when you look at (for example) Answers in Genesis’ web site or other YEC web sites, you’ll see lots of speculation, but absolutely no way to prove all these speculations. And since they can’t prove their speculations (as there’s no process, just faith), there can be no way to retract the ones for which there is no evidence.

    Ken Ham is caught between a rock and a hard place. He has no process to prove that the account in Genesis is the true one. So he doubles down and says that the Bible is the most absolutely correct book on the face of the earth and it comes before any sort of evidence to the contrary. This is not how science is done. Ham is entering with a presupposition that cannot be tested and must be taken as a matter of faith.

    In addition to the double-down of the presupposition that the Bible is most accurate and science as practiced by scientists is not, Ham triples down by saying if you don’t accept YEC, you are not a true Christian. Sadly, he’s not the only one who does this (talking about you, Albert Mohler).

    I think YECs don’t do themselves any favors by sticking to presuppositionalism regarding creationism. In my more blunt moments, I have been known to call YECs liars. That’s a bit much because in Ham’s worldview, where the Bible is supreme, he’s not a liar. But in the outside world, where we deal with evidence, not faith, Ham does come across as a consummate liar or at minimum, deliberately ignorant.

    Just as a side note, the Slooh observatory will be having a viewing tonight of just-discovered Asteroid 2014 RC aka “Pitbull” as it zips by the Earth at 1/10th the distance to the Moon (25,000 miles). It’s not a small rock; it’s apparently 85 feet long. Not as big as the 6 mile/10 km rock that was a cause of the dinosaur extinction, but bigger than the meteor which hit in Eastern Russia in early 2013.

    http://live.slooh.com/stadium/live/slooh-tracking-rogue-asteroid-2014-rc-pitbull-skimming-by-earth-at-only-25000-miles-40234-km-away

    If you go to the site it should give you the time of the event in your time. It’s at 7 pm Mountain Standard Time Saturday, which is 10 pm Eastern Daylight Time.

  105. Shannon H. wrote:

    But even if it was a literal six day creation, wouldn’t it have to be a supernatural occurrence, like an angel suddenly appearing? If so, then why on earth (no pun intended) involve science?

    Great comment. you are getting at what I am trying to say. I think there are two viable options for Christians.

    1. Believe Genesis as a literal account of the timing of creation as an act of faith. Period. I can buy that. It was miracle and for some reason God has elected to present a young earth that looks ancient. For that, one would trust God.

    2. Believe God created the heavens and the earth and that science indicates that the world and the universe tests out very, very old. Since we do not believe that science contradicts Scripture, those verses should not be interpreted in a wooden literal sense.

    Neither side is a better Christian than the other. Both sides take Scripture seriously.

  106. dee wrote:

    there is no way to get down to 6,000 years with any scientific measure.

    The 6,000 is an unfortunate artifact of Ussher. My point is to expose the underlying assumptions and test them, regardless of whether it is science or the Bible. I think Ussher’s underlying assumption of a continuous genealogical record and an arbitrary (IMO) assignment of generation length misunderstands genealogy, the purpose of documenting lineage in the Hebrew culture and later in establishing the line of Messiah. But, at the same time, I think we need to take those concerns seriously.

    Probably, I’m just a stickler for demonstrating the steps to a conclusion and supporting each step.

    Out of curiosity since I’m not in a position to know, is the peer review process generally reasonable and reliable, or do new ideas get dismissed before being published? Has that process been politicized or corrupted by Big Interests?

  107. Kay wrote:

    I think people would be surprised if they knew just how many highly educated, practicing Scientists hold this position.

    I’m sure that some do. The point that Dee and OldJohnJ are trying to make, is that such scientists must maintain a belief in a young earth purely on faith. They cannot do so based upon science, because the evidence we have on hand does not support it.

  108. @ oldJohnJ:
    For years, I believe in an old earth but was not convinced on the subject of evolution. I used to believe that there were no transitional species, etc. because that was what I was told. That is, until a friend challenged me to actually look into the matter. Was I ever shocked! As I saw the evidence, i slowly changed to embrace evolutionary creationism while still believing that God worked in and through all of it.

  109. I thought I’d mention a bit more about the discovery of the causes of the dino extinction in a separate post, because it’s a great example of how science corrects itself.

    Prior to 1980, it was known that the dinosaurs had become extinct, but the exact mechanism was still being proposed. It was thought that various physical phenomena on the earth itself had occurred which caused the extinction. These would have included a cooling earth and a change in the air we breathe to include less carbon dioxide, which would have affected the plants the dinos fed on.

    Luis and Walter Alvarez absolutely shook up the worlds of geology and biology by proposing the Chicxulub impact event in the very early 1980s. Seriously, other scientists thought these guys were *crazy* even though they had impeccable credentials, because what they were proposing was absolutely novel. An extinction event caused by an *asteroid*? Are you nuts? While Luis Alvarez was a world-famous physicist, he was criticized for going outside the area of his expertise to promote the Chicxulub theory.

    It took years for other scientists to come around to the idea. It helped that the Alvarezes’ work could be confirmed by other scientists who could find the enriched iridium layers and shocked grains of quartz produced by the impact event. Another thing which helped was the impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 into Jupiter in 1994. Astronomers (and just plain old people like me) were impressed with the scars carved into Jupiter’s gas layers by the entering pieces of the comet. It was the perfect scientific experiment to show that a comet, even after it had been gravitationally torn into a number of pieces, could pack a punch on a HUGE planet like Jupiter to leave marks.

    All of this was made possible by scientific evidence. Can you imagine if the Alvarezes had just put this idea out there with no evidence, no proof and no tests? That, folks, is what goes on with YEC. They’re putting the idea of the six 24 hour days of creation without any proof–you’re supposed to just take it on faith, even if the real evidence says otherwise. That’s not how science works, which is why I get annoyed at people like Ken Ham.

  110. And I know I’ve talked a lot, but I have to tell this one last thing.

    Some years ago, my boyfriend, who is Catholic, was thinking about becoming a mentor for a child whose parent was incarcerated in the Arizona prison system. He went through the process, but when it came time to sign the papers, he could not. That’s because Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, which ran the program, required the mentors to sign on to a statement of faith which included creationism and biblical inerrancy. He absolutely declined to do so, and asked the coordinator at his parish how she could sign such a statement, because “it’s not Catholic–we have no problem with evolution!” She basically blew him off.

    As it turned out, the MentorKids program was being funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services. A federal judge found that Prison Fellowship was violating a host of rules about the program needing to be non-sectarian. One of the items proving the case was the statement of faith that people like my boyfriend had to sign to be a part of the program.

    So yeah, this stuff has real-world consequences beyond people trying to push YEC on high school kids in science class.

  111. Without reading any other comments, 1 cubic meter = 1000 L = 1000 kg. Potential Energy of 1000 kg of water at 10 m height using 9.81 m/s^2 as value for g = mgh = (1000 kg)(9.81 m/s^2)(10 m) = 98, 100 J.

    Assuming the Potential Energy of 100 cubic meters of water = 100(98,100 J) = 9,810,000 J and assuming that none of the potential energy is dissipated during its 1 second drop, the power = 9,810,000 J/1s or 9,810,000 Watts.

    I realize that I simply answered the second part of the question because I had information that made it possible (though I am open to correction if my calculations are incorrect). What we would consider primitive cultures did some astounding engineering feats; ironically, for lovers of the SAT Verbal Section, it would seem their languages were perhaps more complex than ours as well. We have access to more information–I am not convinced we are more intelligent in terms of raw intelligence than the builders referred to in the question.

    Interesting post–now I can begin to read the comments (and perhaps see how wrong my approach to solving the problem was).

  112. dee wrote:

    Shannon H. wrote:
    But even if it was a literal six day creation, wouldn’t it have to be a supernatural occurrence, like an angel suddenly appearing? If so, then why on earth (no pun intended) involve science?
    Great comment. you are getting at what I am trying to say. I think there are two viable options for Christians.
    1. Believe Genesis as a literal account of the timing of creation as an act of faith. Period. I can buy that. It was miracle and for some reason God has elected to present a young earth that looks ancient. For that, one would trust God.
    2. Believe God created the heavens and the earth and that science indicates that the world and the universe tests out very, very old. Since we do not believe that science contradicts Scripture, those verses should not be interpreted in a wooden literal sense.
    Neither side is a better Christian than the other. Both sides take Scripture seriously.

    Can we say that people who are skeptical of a particular conclusion of science can still be supporters of the scientific endeavor and not science deniers? IOW, can we grant the intellectual space to have a different way of reconciling the claims of the scientific community with the claims of the theological community without being labeled anti-science?

    Can we say that scientific conclusions result from a chain of inferences that have assumptions that should be made explicit and tested for reasonableness? That science has its own axioms that are essentially points of faith?

  113. I should also offer this caveat; I don’t make a big deal anymore out of the wars over how God created. It is enough for me to see His character revealed in the beauty of nature and the results of the fall manifested in how we humans engage with nature and each other.

    I subscribe to the primacy of the biblical worldview because no other thought system describes man, in both his glory and shame–I propose that the thought system that describes what we presently are has more reliability regarding what we once were and where we came from.

    Cheers to all of you; I am about to start with comment 1!

  114. @ dee & OldJohnJ:

    Is there a difference between evolutionary/progressive creationism and theistic evolution? I’ve never been quite clear on this.

  115. oldJohnJ wrote:

    The road to fame and fortune as a scientist requires upsetting the applecart. If you want to sustain an unpopular theory you have to have evidence that will pass peer review. Major advances in theory have always started with the single or perhaps very small group of scientists who have done exactly this. If you can’t bring reputable evidence to the discussion it is merely opnion.

    Within living memory, geologists were being laughed (and worse) out of lecture theatres for claiming that the earth’s continents are slowly moving relative to one another. That, at any rate, is what my geology lecturer told us in the first of his series of lectures on plate tectonics. It was a new theory and it seemed patently absurd, since nobody at that time knew of any way in which solid rock could bend and flow.

    However… moving continents did explain a lot of things about the earth that were pretty easy to observe but – before then – rather harder to explain. But here’s the thing. The then-new-fangled theory of continental drift made novel predictions, so it was testable. If the continents really were moving, it would have consequences that sceptical geologists could go out and observe. Out they went – and observe them they did.

    The geological community then declared the Continental Drift Movement to be heretics in league with satan, adjudged that they had used witchcraft to create the new evidence and burned them all at the stake. The geological community accepted the very theory it had lately rejected as nonsensical because it both explained what was previously known, but more simply and cleanly than existing theories, AND it predicted new phenomena that had not previously been known.

    Sorry – have to pause at this point because it’s tea-time here and I’m on.

  116. oldJohnJ wrote:

    When the OT was given He, of course, would know of the coming development of increasingly profound science in our time period and not give details not understandable by the Hebrews 2000 or so years before the time of Christ

    It’s much like when Jesus used the mustard seed for his parable on faith. Obviously mustard seeds are not the smallest on earth, but what good would it have done his listeners if he’d said something like “Your faith should be like the seed of a plant that has yet to be discovered on a continent you don’t even know exists”?

  117. Hester wrote:

    Is there a difference between evolutionary/progressive creationism and theistic evolution?

    Theistic evolutionists grew increasingly aware that the YEC has do-opted the term creationism. In fact, today, in literature, you will see many people assuming that a creationist adheres to a young Earth and is antievolution.

    However, all Christians are creationists by virtue of believing in a God who created the heavens and the earth. So, some are now adopting the evolutionary creationist label to clarify the matter.

  118. mirele wrote:

    That’s because Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship, which ran the program, required the mentors to sign on to a statement of faith which included creationism and biblical inerrancy.

    I did not know this and plan to look into it.

  119. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Within living memory, geologists were being laughed (and worse) out of lecture theatres for claiming that the earth’s continents are slowly moving relative to one another. That, at any rate, is what my geology lecturer told us in the first of his series of lectures on plate tectonics. It was a new theory and it seemed patently absurd, since nobody at that time knew of any way in which solid rock could bend and flow.

    However… moving continents did explain a lot of things about the earth that were pretty easy to observe but – before then – rather harder to explain. But here’s the thing. The then-new-fangled theory of continental drift made novel predictions, so it was testable. If the continents really were moving, it would have consequences that sceptical geologists could go out and observe. Out they went – and observe them they did.

    Yes, I remember hearing about continental drift (that’s my recollection of what it was called), too. My recollection is that the phenomenon of drift was recognized based on fossil and geological identity between widely separated land masses. But I don’t think that the mechanism of plate tectonics was known at the time. Boy, that was a long time ago, but seems like yesterday.

    Good point about a new hypothesis making testable predictions. That’s the scientific method side of the scientific endeavor. The part about scoffing at someone who challenges orthodoxy is the human side of the human endeavor. And thankfully we do not burn those people at the stake at least until they have had a chance to test their hypothesis.

  120. @ oldJohnJ:
    Some in the atheist community like Richard Dawkins are stating that one must interpret the Bible literally and believe in young earth in order to be considered real Christians. He says it is is impossible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

    I have increasingly seen statement like this from the atheist community and I have been pondering why. Theory: Christians who are evolutionists are a real threat to the atheist agenda. Francis Collins has made inroads into that community, becoming close friends with Christopher Hitchens before his death.

    Until scientists like Collins came along, Christians who believed in a YE were easily marginalized due to the lack of scientific evidence. How do they marginalize someone like Collins? Not very easily. He is one of the greatest scientists of our generation and is a Christian (SBC flavored).

  121. Gram3 wrote:

    the human side of the human endeavor.

    That makes no sense, Gram. What you meant was the human side of the *scientific* endeavor.

  122. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Part 2

    Sorry about that. As OJJ points out, any scientific knowledge can be challenged and, indeed, overturned because there are very clearly agreed criteria about what makes one theory better than another.

    Now, the question has been raised regarding whether Jesus rose from the dead. Personally, I don’t think there’s any connection between how long ago he created the heavens and the earth, and whether he rose from the dead. But anyway.

    Did Jesus rise from the dead? Who cares? He’s gone, to be replaced by a book that is supposedly a more perfect and final description of God than Jesus was (which would explain why it doesn’t do most of the things Jesus did, like walk on water, or talk, or heal people). And supposedly Jesus is coming back, but that can’t be right – it must be unbiblical – because it would be an eternal denial of the sufficiency of scripture.

    Except… If Jesus did rise from the dead, wouldn’t that have consequences? Wouldn’t he be alive now? That is – to my mind – worth pursuing.

  123. dee wrote:

    all Christians are creationists by virtue of believing in a God who created the heavens and the earth

    Precisely. Just because I read Genesis 1-2 (and other passages) as covering God’s sovereign creativity in general terms and not as an empirical description of the events doesn’t make me less of an adherent to creationism as a Christian.

  124. @ dee:

    Very interesting. I think your theory makes economic sense since the product he is selling is atheism and he doesn’t want to lose the evolutionists who might be tempted to consider theism.

  125. dee wrote:

    Some in the atheist community like Richard Dawkins are stating that one must interpret the Bible literally and believe in young earth in order to be considered real Christians. He says it is is impossible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

    Which is trivially nonsensical, and illustrates why Dawkins is (in nearly every important respect) the Park Fiscal of atheism. Atheist fundamentalists defining the term “christian” to suit themselves (because they have to) are an affront to more than just religion!

    But it’s also frustrating when non-scientists redefine science.

  126. Tim wrote:

    Precisely. Just because I read Genesis 1-2 (and other passages) as covering God’s sovereign creativity in general terms and not as an empirical description of the events doesn’t make me less of an adherent to creationism as a Christian.

    That is the way I see it.

  127. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    Interesting post–now I can begin to read the comments (and perhaps see how wrong my approach to solving the problem was).

    Your answers are correct. But correct numerical answers including the proper units weren’t my goal. I am still looking for an answer that is grounded in the ancient Hebrew tradition that is passed onto us in the OT.

    This bears repeating: I would like to see an answer grounded in the OT. The problem as given is essentially trivial in terms of contemporary physics.

  128. dee wrote:

    Some in the atheist community like Richard Dawkins are stating that one must interpret the Bible literally and believe in young earth in order to be considered real Christians. He says it is is impossible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

    I find Richard Dawkins to be an atheist blowhard. In my mind, he’s now up there with Ken Ham in usefulness due to his dogmatic take-no-prisoners atheism which appears to be the mirror to Ham’s take-no-prisoners fundamentalism. Dawkins also needs a filter on his mouth and on his Twitter account. The guy is his own worst enemy.

    Interestingly, the atheist/agnostic/freethought (I’ll shoehorn them all in under skeptic) community has a huge woman problem, which is in some ways not unlike that occurring among evangelical and fundamentalists Protestants! Women skeptics have been complaining over the years that when they go to meetings and conventions, or when they work with male skeptics on projects, they have been sexually harassed and propositioned. Some men in the skeptic community don’t exactly see this as a problem, or don’t take it seriously. Last weekend, the James Randi Educational Foundation punted its president, one J.D. Grothe. While there was sadness in some quarters, there were more than a few comments of “Good Riddance,” because Grothe had denied there were harassment issues at The Amazing Meeting while earlier taking complaints of said sexual harassment.

  129. dee wrote:

    My husband has a theory. He believes that if the evidence was compelling that the earth is 6,000 years old, there would be atheist and agnostic young earth scientists. And if they could prove it, they would win a Nobel Prize for doing so.

    That made me laugh hard it’s so on point. 5 points to Dr. Dee.

  130. Tim wrote:

    Precisely. Just because I read Genesis 1-2 (and other passages) as covering God’s sovereign creativity in general terms and not as an empirical description of the events doesn’t make me less of an adherent to creationism as a Christian.

    I also agree with this. And after approximately 4000 years since Genesis was originally written we are just at the beginning of understanding just how subtle the created universe is.

  131. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Didn’t follow the last part but it sounds interesting.

    The issue of the resurrection arises, I think, from a confusion of Naturalist Science and Science proper. All observational evidence demonstrates that resurrections do not occur. The Naturalist Scientist concludes that therefore the Resurrection did not occur. A Scientist operating properly in the domain of science should be able to say both that as far as we know, natural processes do not produce a resurrection, nor can they; BUT the domain of science, by definition, does not and cannot speak to the realm of the supernatural.

    Even conservatives and YEC should not (which is not to say that they do not) object to science operating within its domain. I think that there is a reaction against Naturalism which is an ideology. We need to keep our terms precise, I think.

  132. Physicians, generally speaking, are not scientists. Their belief on evolution or the age of the earth is irrelevant. Arguing for these ideas because of what some doctors believe is simply an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

    Too many folks who argue against evolution have never studied the subject, or even read one book on the subject. They are just parroting AIG and Discovery Institute talking points. What’s worse, they spout the same items over and over without ever bothering to check and see why scientists haven’t been persuaded by their “gotcha” claims. It’s easier to charge scientists with having an agenda, than it is to look up the rebuttals to the same old YEC claims.

    PS. In the Ham/Nye debate, it was shocking how little Ham even tried to appeal to science. He simply fell back on his understanding of Genesis. He really brought forth little scientific evidence in support of his position.

  133. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Did Jesus rise from the dead? Who cares? He’s gone, to be replaced by a book

    And so forth the rest of what you said. Great comment.

    Let me meander a bit into a realm in which I am not an authority. During that year I spent as a psychiatry resident one of the things that the staff kept emphasizing about things people think and do was “what is the patient getting out of this? What purpose does this belief or behavior serve in this patient’s situation?” In the words of others–what is the payoff?

    Perhaps, the specific purpose of substituting anything for the actual living present God, at least for some people and for some religious systems, is specifically in order to avoid having to deal with Him. Perhaps, then, the substitution is both cause and result of trying to avoid God, for all the usual reasons.

  134. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    That made me laugh hard it’s so on point. 5 points to Dr. Dee.

    I shall convey your kudos to him. He’ll be pleased. It’s his favorite argument.

    Christians seem to be stuck on the theory that only Christians can believe in a young earth. However, Dr Dee says that, if a young earth was provable, an atheist would take the evidence and say that the earth is 6000 years old and you still don’t need to believe in God.

  135. Rob wrote:

    n the Ham/Nye debate, it was shocking how little Ham even tried to appeal to science. He simply fell back on his understanding of Genesis. He really brought forth little scientific evidence in support of his position.

    He’s afraid to do so. Have you read the science on his site? As time goes on, the science becomes more and more compelling. That is why I think if people wish to believe in a YE, they need to do so as a leap of faith based on a few Bible verses.

  136. Gram3 wrote:

    can we grant the intellectual space to have a different way of reconciling the claims of the scientific community with the claims of the theological community without being labeled anti-science?

    I am not sure about this. Since there is virtually no peer reviewed scientific studies out there that even hints at a young earth, then if the position is YE, there is little to no science available to reconcile.

  137. Gram3 wrote:

    Out of curiosity since I’m not in a position to know, is the peer review process generally reasonable and reliable, or do new ideas get dismissed before being published?

    In fact, we published this post which proves that scientists are loathe to prevent a different point of view from being presented to the point, in this case, it became ridiculous. You may find reading about Dr Peter Duesberg, a repeated scientist and HIV/Aids denier, interesting.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/06/27/doug-wilson-and-the-american-family-association-hivaids-conspiracy-theorists/

    Also, there are many people who are willing to suspend scientific observations in the matter of faith. Years ago, I met with a man who was a graduate of the Naval Academy and was an excellent engineer. He is a Mormon. He and I met for over a year every other week to discuss faith. The following exchange startled me and has relevance to the conversation. He challenged me to not read anti-Mormon books but only read the actual words of Mormon leaders. And so I did. I love challenges like that.

    I showed him a statement by Brigham Young (or it might have been Smith) which I got off the BYU website. They had an “ask the professor” section. Apparently, Young said that he knew that there were people who looked like Amish people who lived on the dark side of the moon. I promise I am telling you the truth. The student asked how he could accept this as true given what we know about the moon.

    The science professor at BYU responded to the student by saying “well, we haven’t explored every bit of the moon at this time.” This is a corollary to Ham’s argument “Were you there when God created the earth?” In other words, until the entire moon is explored, dug into, etc. it could still be true. How do you know it isn’t?

    I showed this to my friend who couldn’t believe that I found this on the BYU site. However, this smart engineer who ran a huge engineering firm, was forced, by his faith, to accept this just like that professor although he did admit he had some difficulties with this one.

  138. @ oldJohnJ:
    Understood, oldJohnJ; we are perhaps on parallel tracks. I would consider it part of what some classic Christian authors would call “Common Grace”, that God seeded in us the potential to (was it Newton who said?) think His thoughts after Him? The Bible addresses the core issues that vex mankind and reveal the wonders of God–I am amazed at what I see in the creativity, in my children’s generation, in the students that I teach, that comes from a place not addressed in the routine of life experience or academic curriculum. Intelligence, wisdom, what the soul can long for and create, using the material God created subject to His natural laws that govern–shouldn’t that provoke us all to worship? and live more humbly?

  139. Rob wrote:

    Physicians, generally speaking, are not scientists.

    Right many doctors have both and MD and PhD in their field, for those bent on research. Those are scientists. But having a “science” PhD in a medical field does not make one an authority on origins. While we are on the subject, and not directly related, having credentials in more than one area is not at all rare for physicians. Many have both MD and JD, for example. One guy I worked with at one time had an MD and was working in the ER, a JD and was teaching at a local law school and also was an ordained Methodist elder. I will say this for doctors, many are incredibly work oriented and high energy, and I read an article at one point presumably showing a relatively high incidence of adult ADHD in the high performers. I do not think there is something wrong with people who do this. I personally worked the night shift as an RN while going to college and med school in the day time. Probably something diagnosable there?!

    So, I aim to give credit where credit is due while maintaining clear boundaries of authenticity. And I do wish people would give up the myth of the magic white coat.

  140. Nancy wrote:

    What purpose does this belief or behavior serve in this patient’s situation?” In the words of others–what is the payoff?

    Actually, I think that line of inquiry is applicable in lots of ways. What are the interests and who benefits and how. Another is who is afraid of what and why?

  141. @ dee:

    I’ll check out the link–started the one JohnJ gave. Since my background is not the hard sciences, on what basis can I evaluate claims? Doesn’t it come down to trust in an authority for someone like me?

    Obviously I have authority trust issues.

  142. @ dee:

    Not Amish – people who looked like Quakers. (I know, I know, it’s a minor quibble, but even so… ;))

  143. Gram3 wrote:

    Since my background is not the hard sciences, on what basis can I evaluate claims? D

    Google! My favorite resource. Read a scientific claim then go to the internet and look it up. There are many article geared to nonscientists.

    I highly recommend that you go to
    http://biologos.org
    http://www.reasons.org
    http://www.oldearth.org

    Do head to head comparisons with the AIG website. Look at one claim at AIG like radiometric dating. Then, go to the other sites and see what they have to say. I am warning you-it takes time but it is understandable and you may find yourself deeply challenged.

    Then Google things like “transitional species.” There is an old mantra in Christian circles that there are none. I used to believe that until a scientist friend challenged me to do some reading. I was shocked at how wrong my assumptions were.

    I recently got an email from a reader who as a YEC. I challenged him in a similar regard about 2 years ago. He told me that he now believe in theistic evolution. Needless to say, i was shocked because he was an ardent YE proponent. I asked him why. He said he did what I suggested. It took him awhile but he began to see that he could accept science, an old earth and evolution and still be a strong Christian. That is one email I saved!!

  144. mirele wrote:

    I find Richard Dawkins to be an atheist blowhard. In my mind, he’s now up there with Ken Ham in usefulness due to his dogmatic take-no-prisoners atheism which appears to be the mirror to Ham’s take-no-prisoners fundamentalism. Dawkins also needs a filter on his mouth and on his Twitter account. The guy is his own worst enemy.

    That’s a fair assessment. Dude really needs to stop tweeting.
    mirele wrote:

    Interestingly, the atheist/agnostic/freethought (I’ll shoehorn them all in under skeptic) community has a huge woman problem, which is in some ways not unlike that occurring among evangelical and fundamentalists Protestants!

    It’s also coming out as a huge problem in the gaming community. Honestly at this point I think we’re seeing more a cultural mores evolution occurring then any one group. This sort of nonsense against women has got to end.

  145. Nancy wrote:

    myth of the magic white coat.

    But we want magic answers that remove uncertainty. And want gurus who wear lab coats or vestments.

  146. mirele wrote:

    I find Richard Dawkins to be an atheist blowhard. In my mind, he’s now up there with Ken Ham in usefulness due to his dogmatic take-no-prisoners atheism which appears to be the mirror to Ham’s take-no-prisoners fundamentalism.

    Just like Ayn Rand and Josef Stalin, funhouse-mirror reflections of each other.

  147. dee wrote:

    Some in the atheist community like Richard Dawkins are stating that one must interpret the Bible literally and believe in young earth in order to be considered real Christians. He says it is is impossible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

    Dawkins is just as much into Biblical Hyperliteralism as Ken Ham. Both require the Bible to be a word-for-word checklist of FACT FACT FACT.

    “His mind is made of wheels and metal.”
    — Treebeard re Saruman

  148. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Within living memory, geologists were being laughed (and worse) out of lecture theatres for claiming that the earth’s continents are slowly moving relative to one another. That, at any rate, is what my geology lecturer told us in the first of his series of lectures on plate tectonics. It was a new theory and it seemed patently absurd, since nobody at that time knew of any way in which solid rock could bend and flow.

    As I understand it from Steven Jay Gould’s essays, the major stumbling block towards accepting plate tectonics was nobody could figure out the mechanism to push continents around. Also, where was the trace of their path across the ocean floor? It wasn’t until the mid-Atlantic Ridge spreading and subduction zones that they had the solution.

  149. dee wrote:

    you may find yourself deeply challenged.

    That’s my normal state of being. 😉

    Having had my concerns dismissed and being treated as unserious, I’m reluctant to dismiss others’ concerns without giving respectful consideration. So I do appreciate any references, pro or con to either “side” that you all have provided.

    I do think the matter of “who” and “why” and “what” are more important WRT the Christian faith than “how.”

  150. Gram3 wrote:

    Since my background is not the hard sciences, on what basis can I evaluate claims? Doesn’t it come down to trust in an authority for someone like me?

    I think this is an exceedingly important question. I think the answer in the present internet age is to build a network of “authorities”. Look for consistency. Don’t rely on a single source of info. Upthread Dee gave a number of links. This is a good start. I’d add the American Scientific Affiliation, asa3.org to her list.

  151. dee wrote:

    This is so important. YEC scientists refuse to submit their research for any peer review due to a belief in a vast conspiracy to hide the fact the earth is young.

    At which point, Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory logic is in effect. ALL evidence against The Conspiracy is Disinformation planted by The Conspiracy; lack of evidence for The Conspiracy is PROOF The Conspiracy has silenced it; and anyone who doubts The Conspiracy exists has PROVEN themselves part of The Conspiracy. The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.

    And Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory has this way of pinching you off from reality.

    “If you’re conspiracy theory doesn’t fit the facts, Invent a Bigger Conspiracy!”
    — Kooks Magazine

  152. Nancy wrote:

    samuel smith wrote:

    Was Jesus raised from the dead?

    I was not there and neither were you.

    Ah, yes.
    The one-to-one linkage between Six-Day Young-Earth Creationism and The Resurrection.
    Might as well be recorded on a YEC sound card, it gets played every time.

  153. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I was looking at his bio on wikipedia, trying to ask why he became an atheist. Interesting tidbit, he was confirmed Anglican at 13 but shortly thereafter read Darwin, or about Darwin, and decided he had to give up christianity in order to follow darwinian evolutionary concepts. There was mention that he said at one time that he was (always) looking for the same answers first in the church and then in evolution but thought the latter had better explanations. I particularly notice a couple of things here. This decision was made in early adolescence, and he went right to an either or mode of thinking. Here again is the “black and white” and “right or wrong” thinking that I think I see in some religious fundamentalists and some atheism fundamentalists. I don’t know, just thinking out loud.

    On a similar note, I can’t figure out why Bart Ehrman became an atheist. I have read right much of his stuff at this point, and he is not saying anything that requires anybody to become an atheist. But Ehrman’s background shows years of being a fundamentalist, including Moody and Wheaton. I think there may be some link here with rigid thinking which cannot deal with nuances and complexities.

    But two is not a series.

  154. Bridget wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    In other news, Djokovic-Nishikori has gone to a fifth set…
    Ummmm . . .4th set.

    Ah, yes, erratum: when Nishikori went 2-1 up, on the assumption that Djokovic could not lose the match, I extrapolated thence to a five-setter.

    Federer-Cilic has been delayed by rain.

  155. Tim wrote:

    Sergius Martin-George wrote:

    Alas, someone took and ate up all of my corn.

    I’ve called in Sheriff John Stone, Serge. He’s about to make an arrest. I feel so broke up about it, I want to go home.

    I heard he was with CHP now.

  156. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Ah, yes, erratum: when Nishikori went 2-1 up, on the assumption that Djokovic could not lose the match, I extrapolated thence to a five-setter.

    Just seen on the front page of the NY Times:

    Nishikori Upsets Djokovic to Reach Open Final

  157. oldJohnJ wrote:

    The road to fame and fortune as a scientist requires upsetting the applecart. If you want to sustain an unpopular theory you have to have evidence that will pass peer review. Major advances in theory have always started with the single or perhaps very small group of scientists who have done exactly this. If you can’t bring reputable evidence to the discussion it is merely opnion.

    Your statement has nothing to do with mine. I never claimed these Scientists were engaged in creation research in their occupations. I said they hold to a YEC position. These are peer reviewed scientists in their disciplines of science.

    Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Kay wrote:
    They cannot do so based upon science, because the evidence we have on hand does not support it.

    That’s your opinion. Both sides look at the same evidence (fact) and come to different conclusions (obviously). I would like to see a bit of honesty in discussions instead of sweeping generalizations and when making statements, admission of the fact that there are highly intelligent Christians who hold to YEC.

    You also said “such scientists must maintain a belief in a young earth purely on faith.” referring to Scientists who hold a YEC position. In my opinion, belief in evolution takes a lot of faith.

    Speaking of faith, TWW hosts Wade Burleson’s teaching each week. I’m listening to his Genesis series now. He said,

    “I would propose to you that evolution is nothing but an attempt to flee from man’s accountability to his creator.”

    Is there tolerance/respect/consideration for his belief in this group?

    I’m enjoying his message and will continue with his series. If others are interested… emmanuelenid dot org, click through…Home/Media/Sermon Archive/Genesis/Roots: An Introduction to Genesis.

  158. Kay wrote:

    These are peer reviewed scientists in their disciplines of science.

    I am glad they are peer reviewed in their specialties. I only wish that YEC would do the same with their “research” and I put it in quotes for a reason. Until they are peer reviewed I don’t consider it viable research.

    Once again, I am not against people justifying their belief in YEC on the Bible. i have some problems with claims that science is on their side. There is no proof of that.

  159. Kay wrote:

    Is there tolerance/respect/consideration for his belief in this group?

    We are close friends with Wade Burleson and spent time with him in Enid. He respects us and we him.

  160. dee wrote:

    We are close friends with Wade Burleson and spent time with him in Enid. He respects us and we him.

    Maybe you can ask him to clarify this remark:

    “I would propose to you that evolution is nothing but an attempt to flee from man’s accountability to his creator.”

    A rather flip blowing off of a major branch of science over the last century plus. “Nothing but”? Really, this comment does not seem to come from someone serious about discussing the ‘issue’…

  161. roebuck wrote:

    A rather flip blowing off of a major branch of science over the last century plus. “Nothing but”? Really, this comment does not seem to come from someone serious about discussing the ‘issue’…

    I’ve pulled one sentence from the introduction for a whole series of messages and not a “flip blowing off comment”. It’s a part of several messages teaching Genesis. Take a listen.

  162. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Indeed; and it’s a Cilic/Nishikori final. I bet nobody saw that coming.

    I sure didn’t. I was thinking Federer/Djoko all the way. What a world! Cilic/Nishikori indeed! The world moves on…

  163. Kay wrote:

    I’ve pulled one sentence from the introduction for a whole series of messages and not a “flip blowing off comment”. It’s a part of several messages teaching Genesis. Take a listen.

    I will try to go an listen to his message if I get a chance, but you really have to admit that that sentence is rather dismissive and provocative…

  164. Nancy wrote:

    On a similar note, I can’t figure out why Bart Ehrman became an atheist. I have read right much of his stuff at this point, and he is not saying anything that requires anybody to become an atheist. But Ehrman’s background shows years of being a fundamentalist, including Moody and Wheaton.

    Might be a burnout case, then. When you burn out on one extreme, you flip to the other extreme and take your extreme attitude with you. Communism begets Objectivism.

  165. Nancy wrote:

    I was looking at his bio on wikipedia, trying to ask why he became an atheist. Interesting tidbit, he was confirmed Anglican at 13 but shortly thereafter read Darwin, or about Darwin, and decided he had to give up christianity in order to follow darwinian evolutionary concepts.

    In many ways he sounds like “The Ken Ham of the Mirror Universe”. (Cue Star Trek theme…)

    Subscribes to the “Christianity OR Evolution — CHOOSE!” except he chose the opposite direction from Ham et al.

    As far as I know, Anglicans are NOT YEC. Yet this doesn’t sound like the usual “Church of England Atheist”. Wonder if he just had the Uber-Fundamentalist personality and it glommed onto Darwin instead of Bible.

    Old Peanuts strip:
    Charlie Brown: “What do you want to be when you grow up?”
    Linus: “A fanatic!”
    Charlie Brown: “Have you decided what you’re going to be fanatical about?”
    Linus: “No. I’ll just be a wishy-washy fanatic.”

  166. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    When you burn out on one extreme, you flip to the other extreme and take your extreme attitude with you.

    This seems to be a valid general principle. What strange folk we are!

  167. roebuck wrote:

    Nishikori Upsets Djokovic to Reach Open Final

    Woohoo!! Way to go, Kei! I’m not really into tennis, but I sure wish I could see him play now.

  168. Gram3 wrote:

    Out of curiosity since I’m not in a position to know, is the peer review process generally reasonable and reliable, or do new ideas get dismissed before being published? Has that process been politicized or corrupted by Big Interests?

    To take your last question first: Basic science is a loser financially. Rightwingers like to make a big deal about scientists getting grants for projects. Many of those grants are for ess than $100,000 and are supposed to support the scientist, an assistant, pay for lab space and for experimental product. Certain high tech equipment like electron microscopes or dna testing may cost thousands of dollars. So basic research is not done for the money.

    Basic research may result in a marketable product but usually the right to sell it and profit belong to the company or the university, not the scientist.

    The peers that review papers usually come from two sources: people the author knows in her field and people the publication selects. This gets back to something Dee and Kay were discussing. I was a geologist. It would be wrong for me to review a paper in astrophysics. It’s not my field. And quite honestly as an Oklahoma/Mid Continent geologist I would not pose as an expert on the Ural Mountains in Russia.

    One of the key steps in the scientific method is that other scientists should be able to replicate the initial results. A well written paper accepted for publication will detail the steps of the experiment or research, the data and the conclusions. Other scientists will pick all three apart: the structure of the experiment of research, the data and the conclusions. Many times the grandiose, earthshattering conclusions are not supported by the data. The most common problem is having just a few data points and drawing sweeping conclusions from that.

    Science is not perfect but I would like to point out that it is OTHER SCIENTISTS who usually catch the liars and con artists.

  169. @ Hester:i don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘evolutionary creationism’ Creationists believe that God created every organism on earth as it appears today. There is no room in that belief system for evolution which means change.

    Theistic evolution states that all the evidence found for 4.5 billion years of evolution on earth is real but that the process is directed by God.

  170. nmgirl wrote:

    i don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘evolutionary creationism’ Creationists believe that God created every organism on earth as it appears today

    That is the definition given by those who co-opted the definition of creationism-the YEC. In fact, creationism is simply a belief in a Creator God. There is a movement within theistic evolutionist circles to take it back and use evolutionary creationism so that the world does not think that creationism define by folks like Ken Ham. I have a couple of friends who used to call themselves TE and now prefer the term EC.

  171. @ nmgirl:

    Thanks for that info. Who funds the basic research? I am personally aware of an instance of NSF funding for Biochemistry research, but I don’t know how allocation decisions are made either by the funding entities or by the institutional entities. I’m trying to figure out the process and find points where bias might enter.

  172. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The one-to-one linkage between Six-Day Young-Earth Creationism and The Resurrection.

    Ken “I never called anyone a heretic” Ham wrote an article for his website that links the doctrine of the atonement to a necessity of belief in YEC. If you don’t, you are “in danger of denying the doctrine of the atonement.” Which means……you are not saved if you deny it!

  173. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    It’s also coming out as a huge problem in the gaming community. Honestly at this point I think we’re seeing more a cultural mores evolution occurring then any one group. This sort of nonsense against women has got to end.

    I was going to mention the science fiction convention community but decided not to. It’s a huge problem there and has been for decades. Greats of science fiction have had no problem groping, propositioning and sexually harassing women in multitudinous ways. It’s really put me off the genre, although I was happy that Anne Leckie swept the awards this year with “Ancillary Justice” (a great book that, among other things, will have you questioning gender assumptions).

  174. numo wrote:

    hee hee! No oxygen, so no moon people, I’m afraid.

    Were you there? Have you explored ALL of the moon? Have you dug beneath the surface? How do you know there is no oxygen? besides, we all know that no one landed on the moon. See how upset Aldrin is when confronted? He is also part of the conspiracy….

    http://youtu.be/wptn5RE2I-k

  175. @ roebuck:
    I am sending it to him in an email. I disagree with him on this point and on some points of Reformed theology that he embraces. At the same time, Wade is one of the most loving and kind pastors I have ever met. he is much nicer than I am. It is our hope to demonstrate that we can disagree with secondary issues and still be friends.

  176. dee wrote:

    Creationists believe that God created every organism on earth as it appearstoday

    Is that what Ham and others teach? I thought that creationists believe that “kinds” were created and from them we have what we see today. Maybe we need a taxonomy or chart of the viewpoints.

    I think, regardless, that the idea of “kind” illustrates the problem of using ancient Hebrew as if it were a precise language of science. And assuming that what we classify as a species corresponds somehow to the Hebrew translated “kind.”

    I need to explore that a bit. In view of the genetic evidence, has anyone found a misclassified organism or an anomaly between the data types? I think that would be interesting. I have a lot of reading to do, it seems…

  177. dee wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    My husband had a grant from the NIH back when he was doing adenosine receptor research.

    Oh, that’s causing some flashbacks…Thanking the Lord for those who do medical research. Actually any research!

  178. Nancy wrote:

    On a similar note, I can’t figure out why Bart Ehrman became an atheist. I have read right much of his stuff at this point, and he is not saying anything that requires anybody to become an atheist. But Ehrman’s background shows years of being a fundamentalist, including Moody and Wheaton. I think there may be some link here with rigid thinking which cannot deal with nuances and complexities.

    I believe Ehrman hit his wall with the problem of evil. He wrote a book about it (“God’s Problem”). And, from having read Ehrman and listened to a couple of talks of his, I would definitely NOT put him in the same class as Dawkins. He’s not a loudmouth with no mental filter, like Dawkins.

    Interestingly, the book of Ehrman’s I’m working through right now is one that he really didn’t want to write (“Did Jesus Exist?”). However, he felt compelled to do so prior to his current book (“How Jesus Became God”) because the idea that Jesus never existed and was completely a myth has taken hold among quite a few atheists (as well as some wacky New Agers). If you think Ehrman doesn’t like fundamentalists, he REALLY doesn’t cut the mythicists any slack. Ehrman has managed to annoy some atheists by steadfastly affirming Jesus’ existence.

  179. nmgirl wrote:

    Science is not perfect but I would like to point out that it is OTHER SCIENTISTS who usually catch the liars and con artists.

    See the Retraction Watch website here. (No connection here, I just like to understand why papers get retracted.)

  180. Kay wrote:

    “I would propose to you that evolution is nothing but an attempt to flee from man’s accountability to his creator.”

    A lot of misunderstanding could be avoided if we separated out clearly one’s views on evolution from their views on the age of the universe.

  181. nmgirl wrote:

    The peers that review papers usually come from two sources: people the author knows in her field and people the publication selects. This gets back to something Dee and Kay were discussing. I was a geologist. It would be wrong for me to review a paper in astrophysics. It’s not my field. And quite honestly as an Oklahoma/Mid Continent geologist I would not pose as an expert on the Ural Mountains in Russia.

    That’s why Luis and Walter Alvarez’ research into the dinosaur extinction was really criticized. Luis Alvarez was a top-notch physicist, not a geologist (but his son Walter is) and not a biologist. Other scientists HEAVILY criticized Luis Alvarez for stepping outside of his discipline to write about a dino-ending impact event. Eventually Luis and Walter were proven as right as one can get in science (which is that the hypothesis holds up under lots of examination by other scientists), and the Chicxulub asteroid impact is generally accepted as the extinction event for the dinosaurs. Of course, the hypothesis is still being examined, and there are some who are arguing (for example) that the impact event was just the tipping point for other biological/geological processes going on at the time.

  182. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    It’s also coming out as a huge problem in the gaming community. Honestly at this point I think we’re seeing more a cultural mores evolution occurring then any one group. This sort of nonsense against women has got to end.

    You also saw this back when “gaming” meant pencil, paper, and funny dice.

    I discovered D&D in late 1975, and was an avid gamer from 1976-1980. The first several years it was ALL geeky white boys. No girls. Saw my first female gamer around ’76-’77 (girlfriend of a gamer who got hooked herself), and it was usually only one or two females in an otherwise all-male gaming club (Expeditions Ltd, Cal State Fullerton 1976-1980, average membership around 30 or so divided into several gaming groups).

    You didn’t see an influx of female gamers until the very late Seventies. THAT was also when the horror stories of female gamers started surfacing — including the run-on-rails gang-rape-the-girl-gamer’s-characters scenarios to hammer into her head that “NO GURLZ ALLOWED”. These stories seemed to come from from small independent gaming groups of young “trid gamers”; though female gamers were unusual, the Fullerton club primarily treated them as gamers first. (Though if they were cute, they would become the target of every crush of us young socially-inept male gamers. That was just the way things were back then — a lot of us were gamers because we were social rejects everywhere else. Especially in the girlfriend department.)

  183. oh, and welcome to Kay and Samuel my fellow brother and sister in Christ. Awesome to meet you!

    Apologies for the somewhat tense discussion here. I think one of the problems is that we’ve got people from a number of different sides all of whom hold assumptions on what those on other sides think and so it takes time to work through those assumptions and chip away at them. Often we’re guilty of forgetting the person we’re talking to and arguing instead against a viewpoint. Does this make any sense? probably not …

    I think some of the forceful pushback you’ve encountered is not really directed at you personally, but instead you’re seen as a proxy for Ken Ham and his ilk who I honestly do see as dangerous to the christian faith. My children have been given, by their grandparents, a number of AiG type books and I’m astounded at the level of intellectual dishonesty contained within them. I’m also upset when I see articles like this (sorry, can’t find link, but Ken Ham was accusing some christian musician of rejecting the trinity of Jesus because he didn’t accept YEC)

  184. dee wrote:

    It was another scientist who blew the whistle on his colleagues.

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01/19/3544566_in-a-notebook-at-nc-state-a-smoking.html?rh=1

    Thanks for that informative article; it would make a great case study for several disciplines. And it remind me of the Driscoll fiasco and SGM fiasco where insiders had a duty to expose things that they knew, or should have known, were wrong.

    The guild mentality with a wagon-circling and legal strategy.

    Loved the

  185. Loved the picture, too. Nothing like clouds of chalk dust to get the thinking going.

    Someone, seriously, I need a gently used Apple II. This Windows 8.666 machine and I are not getting along. At all. It auto-posts in such a way as to make me look even more foolish.

  186. Dave wrote:

    Ken Ham was accusing some christian musician of rejecting the trinity of Jesus because he didn’t accept YEC

    This is precisely the kind of intellectual dishonesty that has taken over in Comp circles, too. And there’s probably a Venn for all these circles. It only works if you don’t stop and try to think about the connection that is being drawn. Most people don’t, because they are following their reflexive reaction against the asserted threats to (their particular theory of) the atonement.

    It reminds me of Mad Libs. Fill in a Bad Thing that threatens a Good Thing. It doesn’t matter what you plug into the formula because it’s not intended to make sense.

  187.   __

    ” 1.618 ? ”

    hmmm…

      God is ‘taking’ to us through His creation, we only have to lòõk, N’ discover, 

    Skreeeeeeeeeeeech!

    …and be in awe!

    holy Head, Flow, N’ Gravity…Wartburg!

    -snicker-

    ‘Wattz’ Up Wit Dat?

    Sopy
    __
    A ‘few’ Example(s): 

    http://www.sacred-geometry.com/bruce-rawles_sacred_geometry.html

    God,  Math, and the Golden Ratio?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZQoaI-K3ro

    —> Left over space: Donald Duck – in “Mathmagic Land” (grin)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJgkaU08VvY

    🙂

  188. Dave wrote:

    I’m also upset when I see articles like this (sorry, can’t find link, but Ken Ham was accusing some christian musician of rejecting the trinity of Jesus because he didn’t accept YEC)

    That’d be Michael Gungor (http://gungormusic.com/blog/). He’s been bitterly attacked for not believing in YEC and yes, if you don’t believe in YEC in some people’s minds, you don’t believe in Jesus.

    However, believe it or not, it’s not the worst I’ve seen in the last month. Good “Christians” have been really hurling all sorts of meanness and nastiness at Vicky Beeching, a British Christian singer (and Oxford-trained theologian) who had the temerity to come out of the closet in August. Beeching’s Facebook has been the target of so-called Christians who will send a person to hell tout suite if she comes out. *shakes head*

    “They will know we are Christians by our love.” Not in these two instances.

  189. A bit late to this discussion, which has been good, so I have a few thoughts.

    Dee had a reference to her web page about a YEC submitting a paper to a refereed journal (http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/09/06/a-tip-of-the-hat-to-a-young-earth-scientist-and-the-biologos-president/). In that web page, she states:

    [quote]The foundations of current science are the almost 100 year old theories of quantum mechanics and relativity. There is no experimental evidence that either of these theories have been unable to explain. [/quote]

    Well, actually, we’re still not settled on a very basic item, gravity. We think we can get experiments formulated now to maybe explain the difference between QM and GR, but we’re far from explaining this simple item we experience everyday. I cringe a bit when I read that everything is (or most things are) settled because that’s one beauty of science, we can re-evaluate and alter theories as time moves on. Since no one is omniscient except God, we have to allow for changes in our understanding of the material world through the scientific method.

    Regarding peer reviews, they generally tend to work. I’ve published a number of papers, refereed for conferences and some for journals, and also am asked to perform peer reviews in my field. I’ve caught a few that violate a few basic laws, such as conservation of energy (!), and others that have questionable assumptions or methods leading to the author(s) conclusions. In most cases, the papers I’ve reviewed did not cross those boundaries and needed relatively minor corrections.

    In the case of YEC, they do have some journals of their own where they conduct peer reviews (for example, Creation Research Society). Obviously, this is in the minority compared to the general scientific publication numbers finding an old earth & universe age. The more troubling aspect is I doubt either side can conduct a truly impartial or disinterested review of the other; the basic assumptions are so far apart there really isn’t a fruitful discussion. It’s a rare event when truly divergent views can be hashed out in the peer review process, though it does happen once in a while (reference the asteroid impact and dinosaurs). I think there is too much “emotional capital” built up in the origins debate most of the time for meaningful discussion or reviews. Discussion in this thread has been fairly good, and that is much more of an exception on the internet.

    Regarding Old John J’s question, I think I can find the answer he wants in the Bible if I write something akin to “The Pejorative Calculus” by Joel Cohen, part of a large essay entitled “On the Nature of Mathematical Proofs”. In that essay Cohen quite convincingly proves that Alexander the Great did not exist, and that he had an infinite number of limbs. Humorous reading!

  190. pk47tech wrote:

    I doubt either side can conduct a truly impartial or disinterested review of the other; the basic assumptions are so far apart there really isn’t a fruitful discussion. It’s a rare event when truly divergent views can be hashed out in the peer review process, though it does happen once in a while (reference the asteroid impact and dinosaurs). I think there is too much “emotional capital” built up in the origins debate most of the time for meaningful discussion or reviews.

    Thank you for that information. Particularly appreciate the sentence about emotional capital. I’m trying to sort out the issues and the various positions, and all that without the requisite background to make an informed judgment. So I default to my default. Intellectual inertia.

    Has anyone spelled out their core assumptions on either side? I am discovering this part may be more difficult that I thought.

    Your insight into the peer review process is helpful. From your perspective, how can the question of origins best be addressed across the scientific disciplines? It seems to me as a non-scientist that one’s model of origins would have to take into account data and models from many diverse areas of expertise: from cosmology to microbiology to geology to fluid dynamics, to whatever bears on the question. So, what are your thoughts on that? Who integrates the disciplines or synthesizes the data or syncs the models or however the process should be described. I hope that question makes some sense.

  191. mirele wrote:

    “They will know we are Christians by our love.” Not in these two instances.

    What I wonder is, if you come out as an evolutionary creationist and as gay, do your problems get worse in a linear or exponential scale? 😉

    Bonus question: if the energy expended in the keystrokes spent vilifying Michael Gungor and Vicky Beeching was directed onto the power grid, by how many tons would global CO2 emissions be reduced?

  192. dee wrote:

    The real issue is an ex nihilo creation by the Uncaused, First Cause who we call Creator. We can all agree upon that. How He did it is up for discussion amongst those who are believers.

    Amen.

  193. Dave wrote:

    I think some of the forceful pushback you’ve encountered is not really directed at you personally, but instead you’re seen as a proxy for Ken Ham and his ilk who I honestly do see as dangerous to the christian faith. My children have been given, by their grandparents, a number of AiG type books and I’m astounded at the level of intellectual dishonesty contained within them

    As I stated above: I think Ken Ham is another Barnum. I put no faith whatever in anything he says. (Or does). If we only knew how many people have turned away from faith in Christ due to Ham’s antics, we would all sto[ grousing and weep. The man is a positive menace, & a bully to boot.

  194. I generally don’t think too much about this topic because I of how left brained I am. I’m content within God’s creation as it is and don’t find the debate all that interesting. But, there are aspects to this that I wonder how to reconcile with some things I believe.

    For example, I believe that within the whole, entire expanse of the universe God chose to create a special environment for human life here on earth. And I believe the ultimate purpose of God in creation was to establish a community of persons made in his image, and that it was his good pleasure to do so.

    Ok, so, I also believe that God is an uncreated being without beginning or end. And my mind is so finite that it’s difficult for me to comprehend God being God outside of anything visible. My tendency is to want to point to what we can see and measure scientifically, and within that to come up with statistics that measure things on large scales, like gazillions of years, etc. And I get that because, dang, from the little I can see the universe is GYNORMOUS, and I can see it would make sense to assign to all this eons of time. If I made it, for example, it would have taken me billions and billions of years. And when I get into creating stuff, I’m such a perfectionist, that I’d probably take trillions of years just arranging the stars, making sure it’s all fung shui, and that after having experimented with tons of different possible arrangements before I locked in on the one.

    Also, I can also imagine God being totally happy as God just as God without there being any existence of anything visible whatsoever. And I believe that God isn’t contained by anything we see or that exists as far as the universe goes because God transcends it all. In other words, God didn’t need to create anything, I guess, although since God is such an artist (as well as a scientist, although I’m more artistic so I’m siding with God being creative and in that science is found) he needed to produce some art, and I’d agree he did a pretty bang up job of it.

    And what we see, according to what is written, is that the creation reflects the invisible attributes of God. And God, I understand, is like ANCIENT. I mean, God is so old that I’m almost positive he’s got stuff stored away that completely reaks of moth balls, know what I’m saying?

    He is, after all, The Ancient of Days.

    So, although I think God is also very relevant and hip, I can definitely understand him wanting to make something that says, “Look at that” and all the members of the God head agreeing, “Oh yeah, that’s so us.” And instead of everything being totally fresh and new, maybe everything was made new but was, like, totally ancient at the same time.

    So, do you think that’s possible? That it’s a old, like ancient, young earth?

    And if not, and if it’s billions of years old, in existence long before mankind, like so long that the connection to us is virtually irrelevant, then why would God have waited so long to make man? Because I doubt what’s being suggested here is that we, too, evolved and humans are super, super old. Because, doesn’t the creation account in Genesis and the whole story that follows link Creation directly to the existence of human beings?

  195. I meant to say I was more right-brained in my last comment, but possibly because I’m cross dominant I said left-brained when I really meant right-brained. Or maybe I’m just confused.

  196. zooey111 wrote:

    As I stated above: I think Ken Ham is another Barnum. I put no faith whatever in anything he says. (Or does). If we only knew how many people have turned away from faith in Christ due to Ham’s antics, we would all sto[ grousing and weep. The man is a positive menace, & a bully to boot.

    I’ll try to tie scientific peer review and AIG together. I was gifted with a guest post a little over a year ago that dealt with fraud in the sciences: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/10/fraud-in-science-are-some-young-earth-proponents-being-disingenuous/ Fraud exists but there is reasonably effective self policing. Scientific sounding papers with a conclusion that doesn’t match the data presented don’t get far in the review process. It’s quite understandable that AIG papers don’t appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

  197. @ Gram3:

    It does not need to be bias, though it may be. Sometimes it is sloppy work. Sometimes it is personal ambition or greed. Sometimes it is unwillingness to fight the attendant battles. It can be lots of things. For almost all the reasons that people do what they do, those can be found wherever there are people.

    If the public knew about some of the mess in health care, they would–oh wait, they do know and they don/t… So much for that idea.

  198. Just a gentle reminder. What I am looking for with the problem stated in the post is for evidence that there even a few concepts that correspond to science in the Bible, Genesis in particular. While there has been a lot of interesting discussion so far no such evidence has been supplied.

  199. You know, I want to be sure that I don’t come across as strident towards those here with YE beliefs. My anger is at Ken Ham, who I firmly beleive is a fraud, a charlatan, who is taking money from honest regular folks.
    The folks here? Look, you all have the right to make your minds up justr like I have, & sometimes we won’t agree. (As I said in my 1st comment in this thread, I wish we could all get back to when it was possible to have different opinions about this, & not be fighting among our selves).

    Besides, science is not exactly my field. English literature, & Latin are so much easier to deal with…..

  200. Paula Rice wrote:

    I meant to say I was more right-brained in my last comment, but possibly because I’m cross dominant I said left-brained when I really meant right-brained. Or maybe I’m just confused.

    You may be on to something there about this-brained or that-brained affecting one’s thinking in this area. Another factor may be one’s knowledge/information (and facility with that) in certain areas. I listen to some of what OldJohnJ says and how he and the other science people talk–how they think and how they handle information–and though I have no specific knowledge about certain things they talk about, I just instinctively? understand where they are coming and feel “at home” in the type of thinking processes they use to get where they are going (what they are saying).

    At the same time I listen to other people (commenters) and feel like they and I live on two different planets inside our skulls. I cannot follow their thinking at all and do not understand how they can follow their thinking. The reason I mentioned “instinct” is because I think it may be at least tied to personality and most certainly is not much under the control of the individual, manifests itself very early in life, and is possibly actually congenital and even genetically determined.

    But we are the church, and we have to get through this. My real problem is not as much with the thinking of the people whom I fail to comprehend (though that is a biggie) as it is with the assumption of “I am right (compared to you) and I am a good christian (compared to you) and I have a right and a duty to God to convince you of that no matter what I have to do to get that done.

  201. May I say about NC State–I audited a couple of grad courses there in the biology department (ecology was one and evolution was the other) and I love that place. (I have a bit of graduate level biology from back in the day (between undergrad and med years), but did not pursue an advanced degree, though I very seriously considered it.) Anyhow, I found the people in grad biology to be waaaay smarter than I am but extremely good with explanations and extremely open to interacting with the students. They are, along with the Methodists, “my kind of people.” And when we got to tromping around out in the woods (again) and going out in the ocean on the university biology department’s dredging boat getting bottom samples (well, watching the people who did that) my brain was able to squirt some home-grown happy juice into my dwindling self and this set up the situation in which I was able to begin to find my way back to God after some wandering away a bit.

    So, when one of my kids was home one summer and worked off a couple of required biology courses in summer school at State, and actually like it, well there you go. Thank you, State.

  202.   __

    Old John,

    Hey,

    Thank You for taking the time for us.

    Your point is well taken.

      IMHO Science is a valuable tool. The bible, however, once a law book, now joined with the new testament writings has becomes a storybook. In it we are introduced to the Creator’s Son who assures us we can know our creator, and be at peace with Him. 

    Jesus showed us the way.

    God created Man, and Man created science. 

    Seems ta me, God has already done the ‘math’.

    Walk behind Him, and get a glimps…

    …maybe one day we will wake up, and find Him in our own backyard.

    1.618

    …those that seek Me early shall find me.

    Lord, may the faithful pray to you while You may be found,

    🙂

    Sopy

  203. @ oldJohnJ:

    Nothing quantitative. But see what you think about this. There is an attitude, it seems, in scripture which plays well with an attitude seen in science. In the incarnation is there not an element of an attitude of “here, I will show you myself, now you make some observations and conclusions based on what you see.” In the sending of and experiencing of the Spirit I think I see an attitude on God’s part of “here you go, now try this and see if/how this works. Play around with the possibilities and see what results you get.”

  204. @ Gram3:

    some is government, often through the pentagon or National Institutes of Health or CDC for example. For profit companies will fund in house research o but will also make grants to university scientists.

    One of the biggest concerns in the research community now is the GOP’s drive for congress to review and ‘approve’ grants from the NSF. The criteria for approval being that the research have an immediate profitable use. That’s not how research works. A discovery today may never be economically profitable or may turn out to be the key to something decades down the road.

    This “profit motive” is what is leading people like ricky bobby perry to want to cut state funding for research universities. Of course if you look at ricky bobby’s college transcript he wasn’t exactly an academic success.

  205. @ mirele:

    But as a physicist, Alvarez knew that iridium is not a common element on earth and that there had to be an explanation. And there data and conclusions could be researched by other scientists and therefore confirmed. You can’t confirm ‘goddidit”.

  206. Gram3 wrote:

    Thank you for that information. Particularly appreciate the sentence about emotional capital. I’m trying to sort out the issues and the various positions, and all that without the requisite background to make an informed judgment. So I default to my default. Intellectual inertia.
    Has anyone spelled out their core assumptions on either side? I am discovering this part may be more difficult that I thought.
    Your insight into the peer review process is helpful. From your perspective, how can the question of origins best be addressed across the scientific disciplines? It seems to me as a non-scientist that one’s model of origins would have to take into account data and models from many diverse areas of expertise: from cosmology to microbiology to geology to fluid dynamics, to whatever bears on the question. So, what are your thoughts on that? Who integrates the disciplines or synthesizes the data or syncs the models or however the process should be described. I hope that question makes some sense.

    Gram3, I’m sure there are compilations of the underlying assumptions for each side. I don’t have a list or a site that has done them side by side, and I don’t spend a lot of time on the origins discussion. Frankly, it hasn’t been a worthwhile pursuit of my time – it’s not a major item, and has turned into more of side discussion in my opinion. Take the example of Dee on this site – she’s decided on a position, but in reality that position isn’t enhancing or taking away from the great work Dee and Deb do on this site. And that work to the abused is more important than the origins debate, and has a real impact on people’s lives. I could similarly point to YEC people who are not strident but also do important work in the kingdom.

    The fact that in the early church writings of the Ante-Nicene leaders you find that differences in eschatological views are handled with grace points in the same direction. They didn’t make it a test of fellowship and membership as we know those concepts.

    Across various disciplines, the best way work is handled in this area is when a team of researchers is from those various disciplines and produces a joint paper in the field. One paper I was a co-author for was composed by five of us, each with different specialties that applied to the subject. We compiled our work and the lead author helped ensure the consistencies across the sections so our effort was focused and contained the correct usage of each major discipline. These are frequently hard papers to compose, and we went through 23 internal revisions before the final article was approved by all of us. It became a fairly foundational article in the field and was one of the most referenced articles for 3-4 years. That’s how you integrate across the disciplines successfully.

    Oh, and if a refereed article has a large number of authors, it doesn’t follow that this is the scenario that happened. In some fields, there are large experimental teams and they all become co-authors. They are in the same discipline and are not a broad multi-disciplinary team as I described.

  207. dee wrote:

    It is our hope to demonstrate that we can disagree with secondary issues and still be friends.

    A worthy project! He sounds like a nice guy…

  208. Nancy wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    It does not need to be bias, though it may be. Sometimes it is sloppy work. Sometimes it is personal ambition or greed. Sometimes it is unwillingness to fight the attendant battles. It can be lots of things. For almost all the reasons that people do what they do, those can be found wherever there are people.
    If the public knew about some of the mess in health care, they would–oh wait, they do know and they don/t… So much for that idea.

    And Nancy, to add one more, sometimes it’s the pressure to publish or perish that’s behind the sloppiness/etc. I see those.

    The other category is simply that of being a graduate student. Sometimes the faculty advisor isn’t monitoring them closely enough and the student produces a poor quality submission for a number of reasons, including inexperience and lack of guidance. When I suspect that during a review, I work with the professor and 19 times out of 20 I get an immediate apology and a far superior revision of the manuscript. Everyone learns and improves from that approach.

  209. Many Christians reject YEC as ignorant about science. But will then insist that Jesus rose from the dead after three days. Last I checked, science doesn’t back up the dead rising from the grave. That’s an article of faith, not science.

  210. Sopwith wrote:

    God created Man, and Man created science. 

    I think this is an important observation. Trying force a certain interpretation to a difficult text seems to me taking on God’s job.

  211. @ Nancy:
    A useful statement. God created the lows of physics with an understanding of where they would lead. He didn’t say what they were and left discovering them to us.

  212. Dave wrote:

    A lot of misunderstanding could be avoided if we separated out clearly one’s views on evolution from their views on the age of the universe.

    Evolution is a very slow process. The anti-evolution crowd benefits greatly from YEC giving it a lot of support.

  213. Warren Throckmorton is reporting that three Mars Hill locations are closing. Two are in Seattle, the third is here in Phoenix. Another location, in Huntington Beach, CA, is staying open but only on the condition that giving increases (don’t you just love the pressure).

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/09/07/mars-hill-church-to-close-three-locations-another-on-hold/

    Personally glad to see the dudebros of Mars Hill disbanding here in Phoenix. We do not need that kind of He Man Woman Hating Club nonsense wrapped in Jesus here. Of course, NOBODY needs it and I hope it goes away in Seattle as well.

  214. pk47tech wrote:

    Regarding Old John J’s question, I think I can find the answer he wants in the Bible if I write something akin to “The Pejorative Calculus” by Joel Cohen, part of a large essay entitled “On the Nature of Mathematical Proofs”. In that essay Cohen quite convincingly proves that Alexander the Great did not exist, and that he had an infinite number of limbs. Humorous reading!

    I’m gonna have to look into Cohen’s book, I bet it is funny, probably a lot like Alice and her adventures in Wonderland. Some time back, we had a professing atheist here at TWW demonstrate quite handily with a simple proof by contradiction that there is no such thing as a kind and loving God. Don’t get me wrong, I care not what a person believes or disbelieves about theology because more often than not, it has no bearing at all on said person’s character as a human being. And Fendrel (the atheist) is a kind and good man.

  215. @ Nancy:

    When thinking of bias, I think of lots of different kinds of bias–some intentional and some accidental, some known and some unknown–that might affect a given outcome.

    Because I don’t have much knowledge about the scientific peer-review process or, for that matter, the way research is done in the hard sciences, I ask a lot of questions to try to identify the steps in the process, each of which is a potential entry point for various types of bias.

    I’m skeptical because I have studied manipulative science (my candid term), and once you learn how to lie with statistics or faux info, you cannot erase that from the list of possibilities. And the financial and political incentives, to the extent that you can separate them, must be accounted for, ISTM.

    I hear you on the health care system, although I primarily look at the economics of it.

  216. zooey111 wrote:

    You know, I want to be sure that I don’t come across as strident towards those here with YE beliefs. My anger is at Ken Ham, who I firmly beleive is a fraud, a charlatan, who is taking money from honest regular folks.
    The folks here? Look, you all have the right to make your minds up justr like I have, & sometimes we won’t agree.

    Totally agree with that. The ones who are profiting from making the issue that makes them money essential to the faith. The rest of us who are trying to figure this out in conversation with others are not the problem, regardless of our current position.

    Latin phrases somehow seem so Intellectual. Now, if you pronounce your Latin with an Oxbridge inflection, you are approaching unassailability.

  217. @ oldJohnJ:

    I think I’m missing your point, not that I’m surprised by that. My favorite baking book is based on underlying chemistry since good baking outcomes require rather precise chemistry. But my baking book is not a chemistry text, and it does not encompass all areas of chemistry, certainly. Further very few bakers understand that baking is chemistry in action.

    And since baking, for example, predates the formal science of chemistry, I’m guessing that people observed what worked and what didn’t work with the materials they had at hand and passed along what they learned.

  218. @ pk47tech:

    Thank you. The multi-disciplinary team approach makes sense to me.

    I agree that the origins debate is not a primary issue, and that the work on abuse is much more important.

  219. THC wrote:

    Many Christians reject YEC as ignorant about science. But will then insist that Jesus rose from the dead after three days. Last I checked, science doesn’t back up the dead rising from the grave. That’s an article of faith, not science.

    Nobody is claiming that there is valid science to back up rising from the dead. Not scientists nor religionists. There is nothing to argue.

  220. @ Gram3:
    Another good example of the empirical approach (not relying on a deep science understanding) are musical instruments. My favorite example are the baroque era pipe organs. These instruments have seldom been equaled by current builders and never exceeded.

    The main point of the post is that the Bible is not a science text and trying to make it into one cheapens its main message.

  221. THC wrote:

    Many Christians reject YEC as ignorant about science. But will then insist that Jesus rose from the dead after three days. Last I checked, science doesn’t back up the dead rising from the grave. That’s an article of faith, not science.

    And the one-to-one linkage between Six-Day YEC and the Resurrection is a standard trick of YEC Uber Alles types.

  222. I’m coming to the conclusion that YEC Uber Alles, Rapture End-of-the-World Choreography, and Correct Doctrine/Perfectly-Parsed Theology are just three different ways for someone to PROVE They’re Saved And You’re Not. Like Prosperity Gospel types making getting rich THE sign of God’s Favor and MY Salvation. Like More-Calvinist-than-Calvin types trying to PROVE They ARE Truly Elect by parsing theology letter-by-letter for heresy. Like Drys 100 years ago waving their teetotaling. It’s all a form of one-upmanship to PROVE yourself Absolutely Right (and SAVED) and everyone else Absolutely Wrong (and Damned). “ME SHEEP! THEM GOATS! HAW! HAW! HAW!”

  223. Oh, and she says she’s not interested in mathematical history so wouldn’t know the terms used during Biblical eras. She does like Pythagoras, though. lol@ Patrice:

  224. Nancy wrote:

    But we are the church, and we have to get through this. My real problem is not as much with the thinking of the people whom I fail to comprehend (though that is a biggie) as it is with the assumption of “I am right (compared to you) and I am a good christian (compared to you) and I have a right and a duty to God to convince you of that no matter what I have to do to get that done.

    Nancy, this is, I think most important. Personally, I was raised in a YEC environment that was very suspicious of science. Within that paradigm, multiple testing throughout my school years indicated that I was equally right and left brained – both highly analytical and highly creative. Let me tell you, things can get right interesting inside my head. 😉

    That said, this just represents one area from my growing up that created a great deal of cognitive dissonance. At this time, what I believe is in a high state of flux. And from this vantage point, it seems to me that both sides are equally guilty of ‘I’m right and your wrong’ and if my arguments don’t convince you, you’re just stupid or heathen, deluded or anti-christian or whatever.

    I have to say, if someone keeps poking me with a stick trying to prod me into a desired response, whether the stick is a logic-stick or a biblescripture-stick, I’m most inclined to grab the stick and break it…..

  225. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And the one-to-one linkage between Six-Day YEC and the Resurrection is a standard trick of YEC Uber Alles types.

    In my prior experiences with ole-timey protestant fundamentalism I ran into a lot of similar stuff. The one liner or the non-applicable reference or some other unrelated just plain silly question or declaration used to play “gotcha” with people. Some of the things that used to be taught as how to do one on one evangelization with even perfect strangers is too embarrassing to even mention.

    Personally, I wish they would get some better material.

  226. I liked the writing of the person who wrote this.

    But I did not find the questions posed to be really serious.

    I don’t run in YEC circles, so I do not know all of what they may be saying. Having said that, however, I do not know any Christians that would claim that the Bible has answers to the questions posed.

    But there is an interesting question lying behind the physics questions posed.

    It’s not about the “power” (?) or force with which the water will hit a surface from a height of 10 meters.

    All humans that I know, fundamentatlists or otherwise, would say that the answer to these questions can be derived from mathematical and scientific formulae.

    But the bigger question behind this data is this – Can and does the God who created a world that can be decuded from mathematical/scientific principles, act or transcend, in origins or in other instances, such that the normal scientific prinicples do not apply?

    Jesus was dead. He rose, body and all. We will die. We will rise. That assertion is completely contrary to all that science says.

    That is not an excuse to ignore or belittle science.

    As humans, we should base analysis and decsions on what we can deduce from the best science available. We should not be sitting around debating whether God could make 2 + 2 = 5.

    The difficulty is when Christians should advocate for the transcendence of God even over those scientific principles we see and recognize.

    This problem is particularly acute in the discussions about origins.

    Christians, in my view, should not be about denying what science clearly seems to show.

    But Christians, and others, must recognize that the world is not self-created. The mere idea of “ex-nihilo” is not scienfitically provable. But it is impossible even for the naturalist, in my opinion, to give a complete and exhaustive explanation of origins without making some starting point assumptions. Christians lay that at the feet of God. Non-believes should state it and move on.

    It is for that reason that I do not think it is fair to assert that neither Christians nor atheistic naturalists identify their assumptions in debates.

    Christians most assuredly and clearly do.

    Most atheisitc scientists, do not, in my opinion.

    Then, of course, we come to the point of morals and ethics which make no sense at all without the existence of transcendent law or morality. Whether that exists is also an assumption. Again, Christians are very clear to say this. Atheistic naturalists just borrrow the captial from a society that is very Christian in its moral view, and move on from there. To do otherwise makes them look really scary.

    Finally, I disagree that Al Mohler has exalted YEC to a primary doctrine. His public statements (which can be watched on Youtube) essentially acknowledge that much of the evidence would show that the world is very old. Mohler believes it is young as a matter of faith, believing that God somehow intervened, as he did when Jesus arose or miracles occurred in the Bible.

    It is fine to disagree with Mohler. And is is appropriate to rebut any misstatements of Mohler or anyone else regarding data.

    But once there is an honest acknowledgement of the data, if a person wants to claim faith to somehow state that the data has been transcended in some way by God (rather than twisting data – which I know goes on in these debates), that is another matter.

    Again, I don’t favor explanations that choose God’s transcendence over data unless there is a very clear argument from scripture (as in the case of the resurrection), but so long as people are honest to admit what they are doing, at least a discussion can be had. As I said, I do not think that much of the atheistic scientific community (not the believing community) does this.

    Thanks for a fun post.

  227. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Within that paradigm, multiple testing throughout my school years indicated that I was equally right and left brained – both highly analytical and highly creative.

    On wow. I never knew anybody like that. I am thinking that it might make for some unique situations.

    I agree that the accusations are slung in both directions. Of course, if this were not the current issue there would be something else. That attitude can certainly get out of hand.

  228. I meant to say the “Believing Scientific Community” would recognize their assumptions.

    I am not an expert, but in the debates that I have seen over the years, much of the atheistic scientfic community is not propositional when it comes to their assumptions. They spend most of their time identifying and attacking the assumptions of believers, but not identifying and explaining their own assumptions.

  229. @ Nancy: I dunno; the “right brain-left brain” idea (re. some people being “right-brained” and others “left-brained”) has come under a *lot* of fire in the past decade or so. I personally thought it was a tad too simplistic as presented back when, but it sure did sell a whole lot of books! (Drawing on the Left Side of the Brain being one of the biggest-selling titles, back in the early-mid 80s.)

    There are so many people who exhibit a mixture of traits that I just don’t buy it, as science or as (pop) psychology.

  230. THC wrote:

    Many Christians reject YEC as ignorant about science. But will then insist that Jesus rose from the dead after three days.

    Many Christians do many things. But I’ve not come across very many Christians who reject YEC because “science” grew arms and legs and a face and told them to reject YEC. All the Christians I know of who reject YEC (a very small subset of “all Christians who reject YEC”) do so because we believe the available evidence that can be seen in the world around us does not support the YEC interpretation of the different Genesis creation accounts – instead, it supports a figurative one. Thus, we look for powerful meaning in Genesis 1 and 2, but we do not look for data.

    Now, about the resurrection. We believe it is possible because we understand that if God created the underlying order of the physical universe then he remains sovereign over it, and capable of raising his humanly-incarnate Son from the dead. (Just like I can raise a spider from the bath – only on a vastly grander scale.) And we are persuaded by the available evidence:
     That Jesus rose from the grave at a certain date 1900+ years ago, AND/OR
     That Jesus is living and active – indeed, reigning – today

    It is something of a myth that “science denies the possibility of the resurrection”. Firstly, “science” is a way of looking at and understanding the world around us; it is not a person, so it doesn’t think, feel, speak, confirm or deny anything. And secondly, science as it currently stands has revealed no natural process, that we could explain or predict, whereby a human might rise from the dead. Which is entirely different.

  231. Anonymous wrote:

    Finally, I disagree that Al Mohler has exalted YEC to a primary doctrine. His public statements (which can be watched on Youtube) essentially acknowledge that much of the evidence would show that the world is very old. Mohler believes it is young as a matter of faith, believing that God somehow intervened, as he did when Jesus arose or miracles occurred in the Bible.
    It is fine to disagree with Mohler. And is is appropriate to rebut any misstatements of Mohler or anyone else regarding data.

    Let me challenge this comment. As you know, the Gospel is central to the Christian faith. So, if something were to affect the Gospel, in most conservative circles, this would be considered a primary matter-unless I am mistaken. But recently every other word out of the mouths of the “leaders’ is gospel this and gospel that.

    Are you familiar with Mohler’s 2011 interview with NPR? This is Part One of an analysis of his NPR interview. i believe the author wrote 6 posts about it. Mohler claims that the Gospel is at stake.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2011/10/al-mohler-is-wrong-about-the-bible-and-evolution-and-why-i-bother-to-care/

    Then, Mohler goes after Biologos and their belief in evolution.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/01/11/al-mohler’s-young-earth-rhetoric-heats-up/

    Mohler: “I do not believe that BioLogos is “a buzzing little fly.” To the contrary, I believe that it represents a very significant challenge to the integrity of Christian theology and the church’s understanding of everything from the authority and truthfulness of the Bible to the meaning of the Gospel. A buzzing little fly is only a nuisance. The theory of evolution is no mere nuisance — it represents one of the greatest challenges to Christian faith and faithfulness in our times.”

    This is not merely a disagreement of secondary importance if I am to believe the actual words of Mohler. One of the Greatest challenges to the Christian faith??!!!!! Secondary? I think not.

    Finally, the point of this post is different than you think. If the Bible does not solve a simple science problem, one that was solved by the time Jesus was walking this earth, why do we think the Bible is supposed to solve the very complicated issue of the age of the earth?

  232. THC wrote:

    Last I checked, science doesn’t back up the dead rising from the grave. That’s an article of faith, not science.

    So, lets throw out science since it is all a matter of faith? So, when is it faith and when is it science?

  233. Paula Rice wrote:

    So, although I think God is also very relevant and hip, I can definitely understand him wanting to make something that says, “Look at that” and all the members of the God head agreeing, “Oh yeah, that’s so us.” And instead of everything being totally fresh and new, maybe everything was made new but was, like, totally ancient at the same time.

    There is a problem with this for many people. if God created the new to look old, and then tells us that man is without excuse when looking out at all God has created, then God could be viewed as a cosmic trickster.

    It gets worse. Then certain individuals claim that we must “trust” the account in Genesis to be literal. And yet he makes things that not only look old, but actually test out old using our scientific measurements.

    Therefore, the only ones who are going to get it (and with it the Gospel, as some claim)are those who believe in and interpret Genesis in a literal sense. Screws everybody else but some people feel sure that God is going to give them brownie points for sticking to it against all odds. They are the really devout Christians and are most surely the elect. (Sarcasm intended but not directed at you.)

  234. Nancy wrote:

    On wow. I never knew anybody like that. I am thinking that it might make for some unique situations.

    It presented some interesting situations in college.
    My first go-round with college, I was a Fine Arts major with emphasis in Music Performance. My second go, I was a Business major with emphasis in Business Software Engineering.

    I will always remember with a mix of amusement and surprise one day when the Dean of the Computer Science department from whom I was taking a class in Pascal programming, stopped me in the quad and gave me my latest program graded with a ‘A’ and said, with a look of profound puzzlement, “I have never seen programs written the way you write them. I cannot understand how they work. But they do, so I have to give you an ‘A’.”

    I was never really sure how to take that…. 😉

    It is also something that (obviously) affects the way I interpret thing – music, for example. I am a musician. Play a number of instruments and have even played professionally. When I listen to music, I can never just hear the whole. Although I enjoy music and can (and do get lost in it), when I do, I am hearing all the parts at once – that is, I can hear each individual instrument in a classical piece. When I was 12, I undertook trying to score my favorite music for my Jr High band. I can listen to music, play it out on either a piano or guitar, and then write it down….

    Hmm…hadn’t thought about this before, but when I would write computer programs, I would just start and with each step in the program, I would keep writing instructions until my brand of logic got me to the desired output. Then I would create the flow-chart (which is the outline form of a program). I would do the same when writing English term papers. Paper first, the outline. And I know this is backward from the proscribed method in both cases. But it is the way my brain approaches it – just write and see where the ideas take you, then go back and analyze what I wrote and make revisions as needed and create the outline to satisfy the criteria. Not a particularly scientific approach. But I always got good grades on my papers/programs…so?

    I had one counselor who administered the tests look at me and say, “these two traits (analytical vs. creative) must butt heads a lot.” Um, yeah, they do, but usually only when I try to force them into the societal molds of what they should look like. And it can make effective communication difficult. I have gotten used, after so many years, of having people in both camps look at me with blank stares or even veiled hostility when I try to talk about the two together. Hmm…I have always felt there was a certain elegant art to math that seems to get overlooked. The numbers in music – the art in physics….anyway…

  235. @ Anonymous:

    Thanks for a very thoughtful post (and the compliment).

    I am a believer in the Christian God. As part of this I believe the present universe was created by Him. As the creator He has the power to enter it any time and way He desires. The most notable such incident is as Jesus. The created universe evolves based on the laws that were specified when it was created and can be considered amoral. I do not subscribe to the hypercalvinist viewpoint that God makes every microscopic decision that is made. At some past time He endowed a single species with a sense of morality which we have badly squandered.

    The “Big Bang” cosmology affirms a beginning to the universe. The initial data supporting this lead to the 1978 Nobel Physics prize for its discoverers. The 2011 Nobel Prize was given to the astronomers who showed that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing thus indicating there will be no end to it. Essentially current cosmology states the universe is a one time thing. This is well within the framework of what is given in the Bible and is the limit of what the Bible expresses about current science.

    The YEC theological community has been particularly bad about identifying their presuppositions.

    I am much less sanguine about Mohler than you are. Fortunately Dee upthread at 5:04P has saved me the trouble explaining why.

  236. dee wrote:

    THC wrote:
    Last I checked, science doesn’t back up the dead rising from the grave. That’s an article of faith, not science.
    So, lets throw out science since it is all a matter of faith? So, when is it faith and when is it science?

    Trying to think through this, also taking into account Nick’s comment above. ISTM the argument from the Resurrection would apply to Naturalistic Evolution since all natural evidence tells us that bodies do not live once they have died.

    In the case of Creation through Evolution, though, God retains ultimate agency and uses means; therefor resurrection or any other miracle or any other intervention in *his* process is not precluded by a system of Creation through Evolution.

    If that is true, then what is the point where the Naturalist parts ways with the Creation through Evolutionist? Or vice versa. And why?

  237. Ah yes, Gould’s NOMA principle. It doesn’t really work out, and I’m not even YEC. Either the Bible is true or it is not, and I would argue that the OT is not infallible divine revelation as much as it is Israelite nationalist revisionist history.

  238. oldJohnJ wrote:

    The created universe evolves based on the laws that were specified when it was created and can be considered amoral. I do not subscribe to the hypercalvinist viewpoint that God makes every microscopic decision that is made. At some past time He endowed a single species with a sense of morality which we have badly squandered.

    Sorry I missed your comment above before I posted mine. Could you elaborate on the point about the laws which God created being amoral. If God is a moral agent and he has omniscience and omnipotence, why would laws which he ordains with foreseeable effects be amoral? Is that the same thing as saying that creation was good but corruptible? I don’t think that those are the same things, but could use some help here.

  239. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    and capable of raising his humanly-incarnate Son from the dead. (Just like I can raise a spider from the bath – only on a vastly grander scale.)

    So, are you equating you pulling a spider out of bath water to Jesus resurrection? Was Jesus really dead? Was the spider really dead?

  240. dee wrote:

    THC wrote:
    Last I checked, science doesn’t back up the dead rising from the grave. That’s an article of faith, not science.
    So, lets throw out science since it is all a matter of faith? So, when is it faith and when is it science?

    Not at all. My point is that there are things in the Bible that are outside of the realm of science, i.e., the resurrection, that you don’t dispute. But, someone who believes in YEC is considered anti-science? Faith, at its core, is not something that is provable by empirical studies.

  241. Dave wrote:

    oh, and welcome to Kay and Samuel my fellow brother and sister in Christ. Awesome to meet you!

    Hi Dave! Thank you for the nice greeting. It’s a pleasure to meet you too.

    Here is my take on the Gungor story.

    I just read Michael Gungor’s blog and sadly, these have been difficult months for his family. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone and his wife’s post is especially sad and also encouraging.

    In my opinion, Michael dished it out pretty well with some sarcasm and degrading statements over the course of the last few months (blog posts and comments). He managed to insult a lot of people, call a fair number of folks crazy and wrote about the Ark story in such a condescending way.

    Being in the public eye, having an online presence and wanting to appeal to the church en masse and depend on them to make a living, is a challenge.

    He addressed a whole lot more than YEC issues over those months and after reading his views on the OT, most churches I know, if he had been scheduled for a concert, would have also cancelled. I wouldn’t have his music in my house without screening the lyrics now that I’ve read his blog. That’s my choice and my prerogative.

    As far as Ken Ham, of course he is going to respond. I bet the AIG phones were ringing off the hook from journalists/reporters to get his response and his inbox would have been filled with emails – did you see this? – from people all over the world.

    I don’t know how he responded (haven’t looked at it yet), but he usually responds with what he believes. Why should anyone be surprised? I would expect nothing less. I appreciate Michael’s candor and I would not want anything less from Ken Ham. There is less room for deception with honesty.

    Michael Gungor’s eternity is not determined by Ken Ham’s comments, nor anyone else’s. You mentioned that Ken Ham and his “ilk” are a danger to Christian faith and I’m sure you know that sentiment is shared by some of that “ilk” towards your “ilk”. =)

    I don’t see you as a danger. I know a God who has preserved His truth, His Word through the ages and I take Him at His Word and rest in the assurance of my salvation. I’ve studied the Scripture and I’ve studied science and I have no conflict.

    Michael wanted to speak his mind and he did. Now his like-minded fans need to help support him. Sounds like they could use some help.

    Thank you Dave for the tone of your post and your contribution to the discussion.

  242. Nancy wrote:

    Nobody is claiming that there is valid science to back up rising from the dead.

    If you think rejecting YEC gains points with atheists because you both can laugh at the YEC, then think again. They are laughing at you for believing everything else in the Bible.

  243. samuel smith wrote:

    Different than what? My definition of science is “knowledge gained through observation and experimentation”. Look up the word in the dictionary.

    I think you may be making the mistake of assuming that “observation” means direct observation. This is not, however, how science works. Which is why we are perfectly comfortable using forensic science to reconstruct a murder scene and sentence someone to death on the results of science.

  244. pk47tech wrote:

    Since no one is omniscient except God, we have to allow for changes in our understanding of the material world through the scientific method.

    pk47tech,

    Are you a PI?

    Have you ever been “scooped”?

    You would know this, but maybe others don’t. AIG’s peer reviewed journal is Answers Research Journal. Last I was told, they have an ever growing list of reputable Scientists (some identified and some who choose not to make their name public) who review and make themselves available for consultations when needed.

    I’ve enjoyed reading your comments. You did a nice job summarizing the peer review process.

  245. Gram3 wrote:

    I thought that creationists believe that “kinds” were created and from them we have what we see today.

    Your thought was correct. “Kinds” are referred to/taught in about everything you read and hear from all the major creation groups.

    There are two men you might find interesting. Kurt Wise and Todd Wood are known for their involvement in the development of baraminology; a creationist system of biological study and classification. Their academic family trees are quite impressive.

    Kurt Patrick Wise (b. 1959) is a young earth creation scientist with a background in paleontology. He earned a B.A. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago, followed by an M.A. and Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University in Cambridge, MA. At Harvard, he studied under the direction of renowned scientist Stephen Jay Gould.

    Todd Charles Wood, Core Academy president and professor of biochemistry. Dr. Wood is a graduate of Liberty University and the University of Virginia. He worked for thirteen years at Bryan College before starting Core Academy of Science. Dr. Wood authored or co-authored more than 40 technical papers, and he currently serves as president of the Creation Biology Society.

  246. @ dee: it is shocking, but I’ve been expecting this ever since 9/11.

    I’m not surprised that it’s a Charisma thing, either.

    Lord, have mercy.
    Christ, have mercy.
    Lord have mercy.

    * Note: some of the kindest and most thoughtful people I’ve ever known are Muslims. What does that say about supposed followers of Jesus – the ones who call for genocide???!

  247. Kay wrote:

    Todd Charles Wood

    So far no mainstream peer reviewd articles for him. He publishes only in his own conferences and journals. If he wants to be taken seriously he MUST get his results into the establsihed, peer reviewed journals for his field.

  248. oldJohnJ wrote:

    So far no mainstream peer reviewd articles for him. He publishes only in his own conferences and journals. If he wants to be taken seriously he MUST get his results into the establsihed, peer reviewed journals for his field.

    It’s the same for every last one of the creationist ‘scientists’. They may have earned a Ph.D., but their Ph.D.’s were all based on mainstream science. NOT ONE creation ‘scientist’ has defended the creationist view in any mainstream scientific journal or conference. Because of that, their creationist views are entitled to no more scientific weight than mine. What they propose as creationist ‘science’ is junk science and nothing more. In fact, I think they know that, which is why they don’t promote it in mainstream scientific venues. They only promote their creationist view as ‘science’ in order to con the layman into thinking it’s legitimate science.

  249. While I don’t believe holding to a YEC view should be made into a test of someone’s Christian faith I find the “science is all settled now” argument for an old universe unhelpful.

    Here are some interesting articles about the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils:

    http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

    By the way I haven’t spent any time on this site beyond this page, so I’m not advocating for the site in general.

    I also note that a scientist (Mark Armitage) who held YEC beliefs was recently fired for presenting evidence of soft tissue from a Triceratops.

  250. @ Kay:

    Thanks, Kay. That is helpful, and I’ll look into it. I certainly appreciate all the contributions you make, if you are the same Kay.

  251. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    we are perfectly comfortable using forensic science

    That’s a good point to remember. And the way we interpret forensic evidence is affected by (or should be) by results of directly observing a subject and recording what happens under certain conditions. Thinking of the Body Farm which is a gross idea, but it seems it has been be very helpful.

  252. oldJohnJ wrote:

    The “Big Bang” cosmology affirms a beginning to the universe. The initial data supporting this lead to the 1978 Nobel Physics prize for its discoverers. The 2011 Nobel Prize was given to the astronomers who showed that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing thus indicating there will be no end to it. Essentially current cosmology states the universe is a one time thing.

    And time is linear, progressing from beginning to end.

    The guy who proposed the Big Bang was a Jesuit. He promptly got piled on by everybody for “introducing RELIGION into a scientific subject.” And Fred Hoyle deliberately proposed Steady State (itself similar to Aristotle’s Eternal Cosmos) as a counter to the Big Bang. (But then, Hoyle was well-known for proposing outrageous theories and daring everyone to “Prove Fred Wrong”.)

  253. Gram3 wrote:

    Who funds the basic research?

    Everyone is competing for funding.

    PI’s spend a great deal of time writing proposals and looking for research money. In our world, Grad students may start with a stipend, researching and often teaching for the university. However, PI’s love their grad students to bring in their own funding, freeing dollars for other areas in their budget.

    Students are looking for funding. Universities often have their own scholarship/grant opportunities from generous donors, but may be only a few thousand dollars and highly competitive. NSF, with several different types of funding, requires an extensive application process as do most fellowships/grants/scholarships. A three year NSF fellowship package that we are acquainted with, gave approximately a $60k/yr to the university for education, and $30k/yr for grad student stipend for a total of 3 years. There was a review panel at NSF that provided evaluation and a critique before deciding to award the fellowship. Other fellowships that we are becoming acquainted with are Fulbright,Marie Curie and Humboldt among others.

    Government contractors like the NSF grants. They are also competing for the $’s.

    The National Labs, (DOE has 17 I think) all need money. Some are really hurting. One we know of keeps job positions posted for post docs even without funding to avoid the time delay in posting again should funding arrive.

    Industry is an important part of funding. For example, Pantex (Amarillo TX and Oak Ridge TN, keepers of the nation’s nuclear material) funded a safety study by VPI recently to study a theoretical incident, the “falling man” high explosive accident. Industry money is out there, but from our experience, they want research in a field that will benefit their company. That makes sense.

    Politics and bias are everywhere – could probably write a book or at least a pamphlet. =) You can probably imagine it is on every level from the little back office in the university to the purse string holders. The PI’s learn to play the game.

    With the earlier mention of rightwingers and the TX Gov., I might add, I’m sure many conservatives would question dollars spent for the 4 year study at Yale on “Sexual Conflict, Social Behavior and the Evolution of Waterfowl Genitalia”. No surprise it was not funded by industry, but by NSF.

  254. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Kay wrote:
    Todd Charles Wood
    So far no mainstream peer reviewd articles for him. He publishes only in his own conferences and journals. If he wants to be taken seriously he MUST get his results into the establsihed, peer reviewed journals for his field.

    old John J, He is published and peer reviewed, just not where you want him to be. He is taken seriously especially in evolutionary circles. I’m sure he is published from days gone by too as you might be. I doubt he would have a PhD from UVA without publications nor been named Director of Bioinformatics at the Clemson University Genomics Institute without evidence of his expertise.

  255. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Kay:
    Thanks, Kay. That is helpful, and I’ll look into it. I certainly appreciate all the contributions you make, if you are the same Kay.

    It’s me! Thank you Gram3. I wish they had thumbs up buttons or something here, I’d be clicking all your posts. I appreciate your talent for writing, your critical thinking skills and your gift of expression. You have a great sense of humor too!

  256. dee wrote:

    There is a problem with this for many people. if God created the new to look old, and then tells us that man is without excuse when looking out at all God has created, then God could be viewed as a cosmic trickster.

    I haven’t really thought much about this as I said before, but somehow I got to thinking that if God is The Ancient of Days, then I can imagine that aspect of his Being reflected and within the Creation. Seems likely to me it would be part of the whole thing, not to trick us, but to reveal something to us of his eternal nature.

    It’s true, the bible says man is without excuse because we can all see there’s a big world out there and its magnificent. It’s a big, huge proof if there ever was one. Yet, even so, there’s no power within the Creation itself to save us from our sins and bring us to the knowledge of the truth. If there was, and science were a pathway, that to me would reflect a duplicity in the nature of God.

    Anyway, just a few reflections. I find it an interesting discussion!

  257. Gram3 wrote:

    Thinking of the Body Farm which is a gross idea, but it seems it has been be very helpful.

    My dad, who sold and installed telephone systems pretty much all his working life, told me once, wistfully, that he wished he could have been a forensic entomologist. He had watched a trial where entomology played a huge role in getting a conviction and was totally fascinated.

  258. Anonymous wrote:

    I meant to say the “Believing Scientific Community” would recognize their assumptions.

    I am not an expert, but in the debates that I have seen over the years, much of the atheistic scientfic community is not propositional when it comes to their assumptions. They spend most of their time identifying and attacking the assumptions of believers, but not identifying and explaining their own assumptions.

    That’s also true. There are some among them who are (as someone has all ready said) the mirror image of Ken Ham.
    We all need to let the, ahem, the Yahoos, go shout alone someplace while the rest of us are over here behaving ourselves (mostly).

  259. Hmmmm..I most certainly don’t have the knowledge to answer a post like this but I look too often at what I do believe in: A God I cannot see, a spiritual battle that constantly rages around that I cannot see, an unseen Heaven, an unseen hell, a spirit that resides inside my body that somehow will be in the Presence of God when I die. A God that uses the circumstances of others lives and can coordinate that smallest of events that eventually draw me to Him and He’s done this billions, and billions, and billions of times for thousands of years? Angels, demons, all that is seen and all that is unseen? Sorry folks – I’m willing to go on a little faith here.

  260. @ Kay:
    I was speaking and thinking only of his baraminology work.

    By peer review I am referring to mainstream biology and genomics publications.

  261. Gram3 wrote:

    Sorry I missed your comment above before I posted mine. Could you elaborate on the point about the laws which God created being amoral.

    In retrospect “amoral” was the wrong word. The idea I was trying to convey is that the created world other than our species is morally neutral, perhaps is a better phrase. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. By God’s design our species seems unique in having a moral sense, the concepts of good and evil.

  262. Andy wrote:

    Sorry folks – I’m willing to go on a little faith here.

    All of us that believe do so on faith. To help others make this step don’t add unnecessary impediments to such faith in the form of severe requirements voiding much of established science.

  263. Kay wrote:

    pk47tech wrote:

    Since no one is omniscient except God, we have to allow for changes in our understanding of the material world through the scientific method.

    pk47tech,

    Are you a PI?

    Have you ever been “scooped”?

    You would know this, but maybe others don’t. AIG’s peer reviewed journal is Answers Research Journal. Last I was told, they have an ever growing list of reputable Scientists (some identified and some who choose not to make their name public) who review and make themselves available for consultations when needed.

    I’ve enjoyed reading your comments. You did a nice job summarizing the peer review process.

    PI? Principal investigator? Not sure either about being scooped 🙂

    I’m a research engineer so I have a fair amount of background in the process. It’s been a good career and one that’s required a lot of (intellectual) discipline.

    I know of AIG and their journal but have not read it. I did see issues of the CRS Quarterly in the 80’s or early 90’s.

    Thanks for the kind words!

  264. oldJohnJ wrote:

    At some past time He endowed a single species with a sense of morality which we have badly squandered.

    I can understand arguing for an old universe and earth if you consider Genesis doesn’t ‘date’ their creation as being recent, that not being its purpose.

    I do have a problem with this statement though, as to me you cannot reconcile it with special creation of man, the first Adam, as stated in Genesis and elsewhere. No view on this subject is without its problems whether theological or scientific, but if evolution (the non change within species sort) is by definition a process that is purely natural and so doesn’t require a God for it to happen, i.e. unguided and without a purpose, then God is relegated to a being a deistic God who started it all off, but then left it alone to ‘evolve’. For practical purposes such a God might as well not be there.

    Now I understand biologos affirm the supernatural, for example in answer to prayer, but doesn’t this then militate against thinking creation as we now see it simply evolved naturally?

  265. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Andy wrote:

    Sorry folks – I’m willing to go on a little faith here.

    All of us that believe do so on faith. To help others make this step don’t add unnecessary impediments to such faith in the form of severe requirements voiding much of established science.

    I’m over here nodding my head.

  266. Dee, There has been no attempt to solve my posted problem using what has been written in the OT (or NT for that matter). I think you can add the other half of my post anytime you want.

  267. Nancy wrote:

    But we are the church, and we have to get through this. My real problem is not as much with the thinking of the people whom I fail to comprehend (though that is a biggie) as it is with the assumption of “I am right (compared to you) and I am a good christian (compared to you) and I have a right and a duty to God to convince you of that no matter what I have to do to get that done.

    This was really good, thank you Nancy I agree. It’s problematic when it becomes such a divisive issue, so its natural to search for answers.

    It’s like with the whole complementarian connundrum. It’s a divisive issue, and there’s very helpful scholarship available which I believe helps resolve the problem. Yet, even when confronted with sound, biblical exegesis, there are some complementarians who will dig their heels in and hold fast to their own interpretations, and even make it a hill to die on.

    I’m not a scientist although I appreciate the work of scientists. We all do. And there are certainly things within science that are established. How that all plays into the debate we’re dealing with here I cannot say, but there are definitely two camps in regards to the age of the earth from what I can tell, and there are Christians in both camps. Does the bible provide any answers to what is viewed as a science-based issue? Things like the age of the earth?

    I’m sure this is irrelevant to the discussion, but where this all effects me personally is where it becomes difficult to me to reconcile with science has determined (i.e. age of the earth) and the Gospel. And here’s why:

    In my view, and over above the magnificence of the created order of things, is the fact of God dying for our sins. That in order to accomplish our redemption, such a huge, cataclysmic disruption took place within the Trinity that God actually came to earth in the form of a man, lived and died and was raised from the dead…all because he loves us.

    Also, it is my belief that the passion of Jesus Christ is for the Church, which is the summation of all God’s purposes in both Creation and Redemption. It is his Bride. After he returns, everything else will simply be rolled up like a scroll. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the church will remain with God throughout all eternity. Everything else is temporal.

    As such, I believe the church is at the forefront of history, and all of creation, in my view, should support this truth. Where I get uncomfortable is when the church, within all we think and say about God’s creation, takes a back seat to things like the age of the earth. I think when Christians focus on things that place the Church as a mere blip within the whole grand scheme of things, then I think the amazing truth of God’s word and the love he has for us becomes far less glorious, amazing and comprehensible than it actually is.

  268. Andy wrote:

    Sorry folks – I’m willing to go on a little faith here.

    So, since i do not believe in a YE, do I not “go on faith?”

  269. @ Flat Top:
    A couple of things: Have you read any of the other critiques of Armitage? Things are not as simple as they seem.

    One other point, in the article, they discuss the discovery of soft dinosaur tissue at NCSU. The woman who did the discovery is both a Christian and believes ardently in an old earth and is not so pleased about the claims that YE are making based on her work.

    When you hear one claim, especially by a YE scientist, it is important to read the whole story. Unfortunately, Christians like the conspiracy….”He was fired because he is a Christian and can prove the dinosaurs are 4,000 year old.”

  270. Ken wrote:

    I do have a problem with this statement though, as to me you cannot reconcile it with special creation of man, the first Adam, as stated in Genesis and elsewhere.

    It depends on what you mean by the creation of Adam. The Mormons make a mistake when they claim that God looks like us-2 arms, legs ,etc. The biology does not differentiate us from the animal.

    What differentiates us is the imbuing of an immortal soul. Genesis 2
    “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

    It was that breath that made man different. It does not say that he breathed the life into animals. Also, the dust…could that be the DNA-the elemental building blocks?

    I contend that man was not man until the breath of life- the soul-was given.

    There is no problem with the creation of Adam and evolution.

  271. Kay wrote:

    AIG’s peer reviewed journal i

    I’m afraid that you are in error. It is not peer reviewed by objective individuals. It is peer reviewed by a limited selection of scientists who adhere to Ham’s beliefs. This is not science. In fact, it has been his peer review claim that has brought much derision on AIG. Ham has no guts to put his science up for objective review. And if I were him, I wouldn’t either.

  272. JeffT wrote:

    What they propose as creationist ‘science’ is junk science and nothing more. In fact, I think they know that, which is why they don’t promote it in mainstream scientific venues.

    There are many Christians who agree with you.

  273. dee wrote:

    I’m afraid that you are in error. It is not peer reviewed by objective individuals. It is peer reviewed by a limited selection of scientists who adhere to Ham’s beliefs.

    AKA Peer-reviewed(TM) by Ham’s sock puppets and handpicked yes-men.

    (Well, he’s not lying. Technically, they ARE his peers.)

  274. @ Paula Rice:

    Welcome back, Paula! This was a beautiful post, I’ve not thought of something that profound before – that the church takes pre eminence over all this stuff about the earth.

    Please post more regularly. I miss your wonderful thoughts!

    Your not so secret fan,
    Marie2

  275. dee wrote:

    Also, the dust…could that be the DNA-the elemental building blocks?

    I believe – and, as I’m sure you’re aware, I’m always right – that you’re along the right lines there. To my mind, the “dust of the earth” refers to physical matter, as distinct from spirit. Certainly, though, DNA is a physically material means whereby human beings can reproduce after their own kind. Thus, forming the man from the dust of the earth, and then breathing life (spiritual “matter” * ) into him, prefigured Jesus himself: perfectly God, and perfectly man, the first cause and final purpose of all of creation, and in whom God has reconciled all things – physical/earthly and spiritual/heavenly – to himself.

    * For want of a better word

  276. Kay wrote:

    In my opinion, Michael dished it out pretty well with some sarcasm and degrading statements over the course of the last few months (blog posts and comments). He managed to insult a lot of people, call a fair number of folks crazy and wrote about the Ark story in such a condescending way.

    I think Michael Gungor handled it much better than “sarcasm and degrading statements.” He stated some scientific truths which people were unable to take because they have a huge presupposition that everything in the Bible is factual (except when it’s not) sitting in front of them.

    My father (RIP) told me many years ago I was not allowed to discuss religion with my mother because I’d upset her. What had I done? I’d explained that I could show the Noah’s Ark story to be physically infeasible with the use of a fish tank and some freshwater and saltwater fish. It probably didn’t help that I finished up my proposal with a cheery “But the fish are going to die, you know.” And that was the point of the experiment. A worldwide flood would have mixed both salt and fresh water, killing off a significant chunk of the ocean’s flora and fauna. But that didn’t matter to my mother. I was undermining a story she believed in and I was being casual about it.

    So we don’t discuss religion at my mother’s house.

  277. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    I have always felt there was a certain elegant art to math that seems to get overlooked. The numbers in music – the art in physics….anyway…

    Jeannette, you speaka-my-language. There is indeed an elegant art and magic in the soul of Mathematics. You might enjoy this short vignette concerning Pi and the Bible over at Elizabeth Stapel’s Math site. In it she does a masterful job of highlighting the problem of error propagation in measurement and the mistaken notion that the ancients were ignorant rubes regarding the mindset of Science.
    Here’s the link:
    http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

  278. OldJohn J wrote “It’s the same for every last one of the creationist ‘scientists’. They may have earned a Ph.D., but their Ph.D.’s were all based on mainstream science. NOT ONE creation ‘scientist’ has defended the creationist view in any mainstream scientific journal or conference. Because of that, their creationist views are entitled to no more scientific weight than mine.”

    John … you know it as well as I, NO (ZIPPO) mainstream journals or conferences would EVER (read that NEVER) let a creationist post, let alone defend, ANYTHING from a creationist point of view. It’s a part of their belief system to not even have the discussion. The editors/conference leaders would be DESTROYED if they even gave a line of print to creation scientists.

    OldJohnJ also wrote ” What they propose as creationist ‘science’ is junk science and nothing more. In fact, I think they know that, which is why they don’t promote it in mainstream scientific venues. They only promote their creationist view as ‘science’ in order to con the layman into thinking it’s legitimate science.”

    I was born in 1962. I have been taught the “facts” of evolution from my early childhood education through college. What I always find hilarious about the scientific facts of evolution is that they have CHANGED (and dramatically so) over time. How can scientific facts change OldJohn J? I think the speed of light is a scientific fact correct? I still think that it’s 186,000 miles/sec right? Has that changed?

    If evolution is a scientific “fact”, one would think that the fact would never change. Talk about “junk science”. I think evolution fits the bill perfectly.

  279. Somewhereintime wrote:

    If evolution is a scientific “fact”, one would think that the fact would never change. Talk about “junk science”. I think evolution fits the bill perfectly.

    I’m sorry to have to say this, but you simply have no clue what science is and how it works. Science is provisional – that is its strength.

    Yes, some of the details of evolutionary theory have changed, grown, etc., but the broader idea has not.

    Calling evolution ‘junk science’ only reveals your lack of understanding of evolution and science.

  280. Somewhereintime wrote:

    I was born in 1962. I have been taught the “facts” of evolution from my early childhood education through college.

    I was born in 1934, and we were taught origins ideas both in school and at church in a far less dogmatic or dramatic way. By the time you were in school, I am thinking, the cultural revolution of that time had given birth to a lot of drama and some drastic philosophical positions among other things. At school the approach was “the current evidence shows” and at church the approach was “the bible says.” Neither of those statements is nearly as radical as the “facts” approach they dumped on you.

    “Science,” understood as a body of knowledge, changes constantly because it is dependent on the ever changing findings of “science” as understood as a methodology. This does not make it untrue. Example: in my childhood the only available immunizations were diphtheria and smallpox. Other than that we just caught what used to called “the usual childhood diseases.” Now there are scads of vaccines for scads of infectious diseases. The idea that vaccines can be developed has not changed, but the knowledge about how to do that has increased. That does not make the diphtheria and smallpox vaccines of my childhood fraudulent or part of some lie or conspiracy. It only means that there is increased knowledge and refinement and expansion of what is known about vaccines.

    But when people change “the bible says” to “the bible says and what that means is and you better understand it exactly as I do” which is what seems to be happening in some religious circles, then this creates some really big problems. If those who practice that approach go so far as to think they have all the answers the run smack in Paul who said no we don’t. And into Jesus who clearly said that there were things he was not telling us. And those who think that understanding does not change also run smack into Paul telling us about how the thought differently as a grown man than he did as a child.

    I don’t see how one can require of either science of religion that there be no further information/understand but that everything be frozen in time and set up in concrete.

    Your conclusions are your own responsibility and none of my business, but I do suggest that you might want to rethink the whole immutable facts approach. They did not do you any favor when they took that approach with you, and it was bad science teaching if they let you believe what you say they did.

  281. roebuck wrote:

    Oh noes! Did I just feed a troll?

    Maybe you did, and maybe so did I, but so what if it provided an opportunity to get some information out there in the general conversation.

  282. Somewhereintime wrote:

    NO (ZIPPO) mainstream journals or conferences would EVER (read that NEVER) let a creationist post, let alone defend, ANYTHING from a creationist point of view. It’s a part of their belief system to not even have the discussion. The editors/conference leaders would be DESTROYED if they even gave a line of print to creation scientists.

    If those claiming to have scientific evidence supporting creationism were to come out of hiding and present their findings to mainstream science like legitimate scientific claims are, they would be welcome to state their case before mainstream science. The fact that they would likely be derided is only a feeble excuse for why they won’t participate in the discussions in mainstream scientific forums. The real reason is that creationists know their claims cannot be supported by the evidence. It’s all a ruse to give the public a false impression that it’s legitimate.

    Many scientific breakthroughs in history have initially been rejected by many of the mainstream scientists of the day. This didn’t stop the proponents from continuing their research and participation in discussions with the scientific mainstream. In fact, many of the discussions of important scientific theories have resembled academic cage matches more than civil discussions.

    A recent such issue involved the concept of sea floor spreading, or continental drift, a huge step on the way to the theory of plate tectonics. The claim was made that there was evidence to support the fact that there were places under the ocean where the ocean floor was growing wider. Initially, there were many in mainstream geology of the day that ridiculed the notion, particularly among geologists in the U.S. Stephen Jay Gould, in his essay The Validation of Continental Drift, describes his observations of this debate:

    As the new Darwinian orthodox’ swept through Europe, its most brilliant opponent, the aging embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, remarked with bitter irony that every triumphant theory passes through three stages: first it is dismissed as untrue; then it is rejected as contrary to religion; finally, it is accepted as dogma and each scientist claims that he had long appreciated its truth.

    I first met the theory of continental drift when it labored under the inquisition of stage two. Kenneth Caster, the only major American paleontologist who dared to support it openly, came to lecture at my alma mater, Antioch College. We were scarcely known as a bastion of entrenched conservatism, but most of us dismissed his thoughts as just this side of sane. (Since I am now in von Baer’s third stage, I have the distinct memory that Caster sowed substantial seeds of doubt in my own mind.) A few years later, as a graduate student at Columbia University, I remember the a priori derision of my distinguished stratigraphy professor toward a visiting Australian drifter. He nearly orchestrated the chorus of Bronx cheers from a sycophantic crowd of loyal students. (Again, from my vantage point in the third stage, I recall this episode as amusing, but distasteful.) As a tribute to my professor, I must record that he experienced a rapid conversion just two years later and spent his remaining years joyously redoing his life’s work.

    The fact that a particular scientific proposition may receive a hostile reception is part of the scientific debate process, and has not scared off proponents in the past, so why are creationists afraid of it?

  283. Somewhereintime wrote:

    It’s a part of their belief system to not even have the discussion. The editors/conference leaders would be DESTROYED if they even gave a line of print to creation scientists.

    Goodness! So all the mainstream scientists, including your brothers and sisters in Christ, are involved in a vast conspiracy to prevent publication? That insults a great many scientists, most of whom you do not know. It insults your fellow Christians, some of whom are in positions of leadership in many universities.

    Conspiracy theories can be quite destructive. It argues for an unprovable negative. So, if I say that much of what is YEC science is bunk and that is why it is not published, the other says “They won’t publish good science because there is a conspiracy to silence it.” How am I supposed to prove a conspiracy that is hidden from the public and the only ones who “know” are YEC. This is a bad argument and is destructive, questioning the motives of many people.

    Somewhereintime wrote:

    If evolution is a scientific “fact”, one would think that the fact would never change. Talk about “junk science”. I think evolution fits the bill perfectly.

    Well,. that just proves it! No scientific argument, nothing. Merely a claim of a vast conspiracy and junk.

  284. ISTM in general that people that are truly confident in their theory/ worldview/position are willing to hear other points of view or at least do not get overly defensive when someone brings up an opposing view. In my church I went from a founding member holding roles as deacon, trustee, treasurer and Sunday school teacher to a third class member who can only bring cookies and clear toilets. My fall from grace was the result of not signing a newly minted Positional Statement which included a statement on the literal 6 day creation. The document ended with a statement that it was ok to have a different belief, you just could not talk about in church or church functions.

    My question, has anyone ever been given the “left hand of fellowship” because they were YE proponents in a church where that was the minority view? Are old earthers more tolerant?

  285. Old earthers is a poor choice of words. I mean any view on the origins of the earth that is not YE.

  286. Somewhereintime wrote:

    What I always find hilarious about the scientific facts of evolution is that they have CHANGED (and dramatically so) over time.

    Facts do not change over time. What actually happens is that more and more facts are discovered that provide a clearer picture of what did happen or what is happening. New evidence has resulted in changes in the way the mechanisms of evolution work, but the understanding that evolution has been taking place on earth since life began has never been in doubt in mainstream science.

    The belief that the earth and life on earth began as a seven day process with all life created instantaneously in same form it appears today, was the original scientific concept in the Judeo-Christian world going back more than a thousand years. What I find hilarious is the creationist claim that science has been going down the wrong path for the past 150 years, and all of the scientific findings during this time evidencing an old earth and evolution are to be trhown on the garbage heap and we need to go back to the original view. Has there ever, in the history of human learning, been a case where 150 years of scientific learning has been discarded only to go back to it’s original departure point? Maybe we ought to junk the germ theory and go back to the miasma as well.

  287. Kathryn wrote:

    My fall from grace was the result of not signing a newly minted Positional Statement which included a statement on the literal 6 day creation. The document ended with a statement that it was ok to have a different belief, you just could not talk about in church or church functions.

    Are you saying that they wanted people to sign even if they disagreed with the statement? Did they actually put it in writing that “it is OK to lie to us, just so we get your signature?” If they did, they have bigger problems than just origins issues.

  288. roebuck wrote:

    @ roebuck:
    Oh noes! Did I just feed a troll?

    I didn’t read that as a trollish comment. Provocative, no doubt. The idea of evolution is rather broad and accommodating, if I can use that word to describe it. But the naturalistic evolutionist would say that theism is rather broad and accommodating as well. I don’t think that an atheist who made a comment here in that vein would be necessarily a troll.

    Evolution can be made to mean many things, which is not to say that the intent of any individual or group of individuals is to make it fuzzy or gelly. But as a practical matter, evolution is regarded as the default to be disproved. A provisional fact with the emphasis on fact rather than provisional.

    It used to be so easy when the options were “6-day creation with a gap theory variant” or “matter/energy has always been and ever-changing into something else.” We have a lot more positions being discussed now, and I think a little precision in terms is always helpful, though I am frequently hypocritical in practice.

  289. Nancy wrote:

    roebuck wrote:
    Oh noes! Did I just feed a troll?
    Maybe you did, and maybe so did I, but so what if it provided an opportunity to get some information out there in the general conversation.

    Yes, indeed.

  290. dee wrote:

    Kay wrote:
    AIG’s peer reviewed journal i
    I’m afraid that you are in error. It is not peer reviewed by objective individuals. It is peer reviewed by a limited selection of scientists who adhere to Ham’s beliefs. This is not science. In fact, it has been his peer review claim that has brought much derision on AIG. Ham has no guts to put his science up for objective review. And if I were him, I wouldn’t either.

    For many scientific journals, they use a process of pre-publication peer review. Many of those are a “closed” peer review process meaning the peer reviewers are not identified. Some have a single blind peer review, the reviewers know the author, but the author will not know the reviewers, which is the process most common in science discipline journals. Some use a double blind peer review in which the author and reviewers are not identified to each other and the reviewers will not be identified in the published article. This is the method used often in the humanities and social science journals. Some use open review where identities of the reviewer and author are available in the published work.

    The AIG Journal uses a double blind method of peer review. This means you have no way of knowing who is reviewing the publications. You have no way of knowing if the reviewers are currently publishing in scientific journals from their particular disciplines, there is no backing for your statement that I am in error, and I’m not here to prove a point at the expense of giving you more info that is not mine to share.

    By definition, they are peer-reviewed and the process they use is also used by other major scientific journals.

    The scientists you consider to be objective individuals could always do their own post-publication peer-review of a published paper.

  291. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:
    Thanks. I look forward to checking it out.

    Nancy wrote:

    Are you saying that they wanted people to sign even if they disagreed with the statement? Did they actually put it in writing that “it is OK to lie to us, just so we get your signature?” If they did, they have bigger problems than just origins issues.

    Yes, that is what it said. You had to say you would not propagate (I think that was the actual word) any other view. To be a elder you had to believe all the statements. For other roles you just had to act like you did. I could not believe that anyone would sign that document even if you believed all the statements. But those folks, great people, loved Jesus, many college educated signed it like sheep. I know there are other creation views, but an’t nobody talkin’.

  292. oldJohnJ wrote:

    @ Somewhereintime:
    Please cite the comments or posts where I said what you claimed. Thank you in advance.

    Turns out he got you and I confused – he was actually quoting me, so I offered up replies.

  293. Kay wrote:

    dee wrote:

    AIG’s peer reviewed journal i
    I’m afraid that you are in error. It is not peer reviewed by objective individuals. It is peer reviewed by a limited selection of scientists who adhere to Ham’s beliefs. This is not science. In fact, it has been his peer review claim that has brought much derision on AIG. Ham has no guts to put his science up for objective review. And if I were him, I wouldn’t either.

    Kay wrote:

    For many scientific journals, they use a process of pre-publication peer review. Many of those are a “closed” peer review process meaning the peer reviewers are not identified. Some have a single blind peer review, the reviewers know the author, but the author will not know the reviewers, which is the process most common in science discipline journals. Some use a double blind peer review in which the author and reviewers are not identified to each other and the reviewers will not be identified in the published article. This is the method used often in the humanities and social science journals. Some use open review where identities of the reviewer and author are available in the published work.

    The AIG Journal uses a double blind method of peer review. This means you have no way of knowing who is reviewing the publications. You have no way of knowing if the reviewers are currently publishing in scientific journals from their particular disciplines, there is no backing for your statement that I am in error, and I’m not here to prove a point at the expense of giving you more info that is not mine to share.

    By definition, they are peer-reviewed and the process they use is also used by other major scientific journals.

    The scientists you consider to be objective individuals could always do their own post-publication peer-review of a published paper.

    Just because the reviewers and authors are not aware of each other’s identity doesn’t mean that the editor doesn’t select the reviewers and make choices. In the creationist and old earth journals they select reviewers who hold to anti-evolution, young earth beliefs. In other words, the ‘peers’ are not the full range of scientists working in the field but people with a priori conclusions. They may be religious peers but they are certainly not scientific peers.

    In normal science, they don’t select reviewers based on pre-existing beliefs but rather on their degrees and successful publication records in the field. The reviewers will look for mistakes and limitations in methodology, failure to consider alternate explanations, or statistical errors.

  294. Kay

    It only uses Ken Ham approved reviewers. They must take his narrow view. This is not peer review. It sounds good but it isn’t. It is frankly embarrassing to me to have to explain Ham’s methods to real scientists.

     

  295. For those of you who will be polishing silver or cleaning the garage and need some mental stimulation, here’s a youtube debate between Naturalistic and Theistic origins that is refreshing. It is vigorous yet respectful. And both actually mention the gaps and challenges in their respective approaches!

    What struck me is that it seems that the core issue between these two ultimately comes down to the question of evil/suffering on the part of the Naturalist and the cybernetic/information problem on the part of the Theist.

    The other thing that struck me is that even the Naturalist who diligently studies the world trying to explain it without regard for a Creator brings great glory to God by showing God’s image in action.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CnZ3n8I5b8

  296. pk47tech wrote:

    Kay wrote:
    pk47tech wrote:

    PI? Principal investigator? Not sure either about being scooped
    I’m a research engineer so I have a fair amount of background in the process. It’s been a good career and one that’s required a lot of (intellectual) discipline.
    I know of AIG and their journal but have not read it. I did see issues of the CRS Quarterly in the 80′s or early 90′s.
    Thanks for the kind words!

    PI – Principle Investigator, lead scientist or engineer

    Scooped – the grad student’s (and their PI’s) worst nightmare. Their research, sometimes already in the process of publication, is published by another lab and in the case I was reading yesterday, by one of the collaborators. Of course the first publisher of a discovery will get credit, possible funding….and the person whose work was stolen… like I said, a nightmare.

    This presents a challenge for scientists who present their research at National Conferences. They have to decide how much of their research to present and what to keep to themselves not wanting to jeopardize future publications. They have an audience of potential scoopers. Q&A following the session can be very interesting.

    Nigel Hawkes of Straight Statistics is quoted:

    “It’s a good thing scientists are mostly honest, because peer review
    offers the greatest possible temptation to steal ideas, to show favour to
    former students, to boost favoured theories, or to do down rivals.
    Honest they may be but they aren’t saints, so we must expect all of these
    things to happen from time to time.”

    You wrote: It’s been a good career and one that’s required a lot of (intellectual) discipline.

    I can imagine. My favorite Scientist has so much respect for the engineers and so do I.

  297. dee wrote:

    Kay
    It only uses Ken Ham approved reviewers. They must take his narrow view. This is not peer review. It sounds good but it isn’t. It is frankly embarrassing to me to have to explain Ham’s methods to real scientists.
     

    Ken Ham is not the editor and the editor(s) have the freedom to seek reviews from non-creationists. You have no way of knowing who the reviewers are.

  298. Gram3 wrote:

    I didn’t read that as a trollish comment. Provocative, no doubt.

    When I saw evolutionary science dismissed as ‘junk science’, I thought ‘troll’.

    I really should probably ‘out’ myself at this point: I am an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, and have taught both at the college level. If someone doesn’t want to ‘believe in’ evolution, it would be nice to see some evidence that they at least know what it is they’re not believing in.

    And yes, that goes for ‘new atheists’ too 😉

  299. roebuck wrote:

    I really should probably ‘out’ myself at this point: I am an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, and have taught both at the college level.

    Do I need to send you a gospel tract or can you make it OK without that? Be glad to do it if you want.

  300. Nancy wrote:

    Do I need to send you a gospel tract or can you make it OK without that? Be glad to do it if you want.

    Heh heh. I reckon that my line of work is one of the toughest demographics for Christianity in general, much less YEC 😉

    One really needs to keep one’s epistemological ducks in a row to be a Christian Biologist…

  301. JeffT wrote:

    Turns out he got you and I confused – he was actually quoting me, so I offered up replies.

    Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I’m glad I didn’t get too snarky. Still if he/she used the “Reply w/Quote” button it would have taken care of the citation part of the reply.

  302. Update to Friday’s Post. Even if physics isn’t your thing, there is some interesting information.

  303. Kay wrote:

    By definition, they are peer-reviewed and the process they use is also used by other major scientific journals.

    I’m sorry, it’s not peer review if you have to run everything through the six-day creation account first. That’s a presupposition that every one of these creation “scientists” has pass through before their work is published in Ham’s “scientific” “journal.”

    I’m not sure which is worse, “pay-to-play” journals (in which there might be some real scientific research) or the creation “science” journal, where it doesn’t get published unless it fits the six-day creation theory.

    As far as I am concerned, creation “science” is faith-based, has no evidence and its proponents are just this side of telling falsehoods for profit. And I certainly do not want my tax dollars being spent to teach creationism of ANY stripe in the schools. I still remember how we skipped over evolution in the biology textbook 39 years ago, because in Texas, that’s just what you did.

  304. roebuck wrote:

    really should probably ‘out’ myself at this point: I am an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, and have taught both at the college level. If someone doesn’t want to ‘believe in’ evolution, it would be nice to see some evidence that they at least know what it is they’re not believing in.

    I think there is a temptation, regardless of our expertise, to forget what it was like not to *know* what is now self-evident. If I’m not a scientist, I may well make statements which seem silly or ask for evidence which is already in the consensus knowledgebase of science.

    In my experience in other venues, that is sometimes is met with a dismissive attitude as if I’m a stubborn child when actually I’m just ignorant of the science. Or I don’t know how to interpret the science or validate the conclusions. Or I may just be displaying my desire to hold on to what feels right and comfortable. I don’t think that anyone disputes that there is “junk science” or junk thinking in any domain.

    Trolling, in my understanding, is a matter of injecting comments which can in no way contribute to the discussion. I’m inclined to say “not troll” in this case if only to grant the benefit of the doubt.

    From my perspective on the ignorant end of the spectrum, that comment provided an opportunity for more information. That’s a good thing, I think. I have certainly benefited by the exchange here!

  305. mirele wrote:

    As far as I am concerned, creation “science” is faith-based

    But isn’t faith necessary at some point in any belief system, even Naturalism? Maybe we should make our points of faith explicit so that we can talk about them and why they help us to make sense out of what we know. Or think that we know.

  306. mirele wrote:

    I’m sorry, it’s not peer review if you have to run everything through the six-day creation account first. That’s a presupposition that every one of these creation “scientists” has pass through before their work is published in Ham’s “scientific” “journal.”

    Marsha wrote:

    In other words, the ‘peers’ are not the full range of scientists working in the field but people with a priori conclusions.

    The editor(s) have the freedom to seek reviews from non-creationist scientists. They use a double blind process which some other major science journals use. You have no way of knowing who the reviewers are.

  307. @ Gram3:

    Sorry, Mirele, messed up and left out the rest. Do creation scientists produce any valid results from their research that is useful in any respect, or are you saying that what they do is purely science theater? It’s probably just me, but I’m having trouble at times figuring out what we are really talking about.

    Can and do non-creation scientists debunk what the creationists publish in their journals? Theistic evolutionists believe that God was involved somehow but I’m not clear exactly what their point of departure is from Naturalists (other than the obvious point that they are invoking God’ agency). Hope that question makes some sense.

  308. @ Gram3:

    ‘Trolling’ to me is to post something simply to rile things up. ‘Junk science’ is a rile-up word. A thought-stopper.

    I don’t dismiss people for not knowing stuff – there is no dishonor it that! There’s an awful lot of stuff I don’t know about. The trick is to know what you do and don’t know/believe, and why you do or don’t know/believe it.

    In other words, I don’t have any problem with people not knowing the science – it’s when, not knowing the first thing about it, they call it ‘junk science’.

    That remark, and the whole tenor of the comment, did not say ‘teaching opportunity’ to me. It said ‘contemptuous, smirking dismissal of the barest possibility that there could be anything whatever in evolutionary thought’. I’ve experienced this in my classroom, and there really is a difference…

    Whatever, onward.

  309. roebuck wrote:

    ‘Junk science’ is a rile-up word. A thought-stopper

    I’m not disputing that it is a rile-up word. Maybe it’s just me but thoughtstoppers aimed at me make me want to respond with information until the troll demonstrates that they are unwilling to engage meaningfully.

    I totally understand how that sounds if someone says that about you and your area of knowledge. But, for the sake of us who are trying to make sense out of what makes sense to you already, please press into the conversation with more information. That’s all. Trolls are usually unmasked sooner rather than later.

    Again, I appreciate what so many have contributed here.

  310. Gram3 wrote:

    Maybe it’s just me but thoughtstoppers aimed at me make me want to respond with information until the troll demonstrates that they are unwilling to engage meaningfully.

    I will try to implement this in future – I feel it is a good approach. I’ve just faced so much of this in my career that occasionally I get a bit quick on the draw…

  311. Gram3 wrote:

    For those of you who will be polishing silver or cleaning the garage and need some mental stimulation, here’s a youtube debate between Naturalistic and Theistic origins that is refreshing. It is vigorous yet respectful. And both actually mention the gaps and challenges in their respective approaches!
    What struck me is that it seems that the core issue between these two ultimately comes down to the question of evil/suffering on the part of the Naturalist and the cybernetic/information problem on the part of the Theist.
    The other thing that struck me is that even the Naturalist who diligently studies the world trying to explain it without regard for a Creator brings great glory to God by showing God’s image in action.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CnZ3n8I5b8

    Thank you for the link. I’m an hour into the video and will pick up later! I’m really enjoying Michael Ruse. He reminds me of some of the atheist professors we had dinner with recently. I have to say, I do enjoy exchanging ideas and information with them. They are often a bit eccentric, opinionated, but amazingly brilliant. (Side note: They didn’t call us yahoos, sock puppets, mirror images, crazy, (insert your insult here) nor label us as belonging to a certain ilk. 🙂 I would enjoy a dinner conversation with Michael Ruse.

    By the way – I like your questions posted earlier in the discussion.

    Gram3 wrote:

    Can we say that people who are skeptical of a particular conclusion of science can still be supporters of the scientific endeavor and not science deniers? IOW, can we grant the intellectual space to have a different way of reconciling the claims of the scientific community with the claims of the theological community without being labeled anti-science?
    Can we say that scientific conclusions result from a chain of inferences that have assumptions that should be made explicit and tested for reasonableness? That science has its own axioms that are essentially points of faith?

  312. Just chiming in re: ancient Near Eastern units of measurement.

    This may be obvious, but of course ancient Near Easterners had the ability to do some pretty complex arithmetic. They undertook some pretty complex building projects that required fairly precise measurements and calculations. There are extant Akkadian texts, for example, that display a fairly in-depth use of fractions, algebra, and a number of other mathematical endeavors, including the Pythagorean theorem (1000 years before Pythagoras’s time), and a surprisingly accurate demonstration of the square root of 2.

    All of that to say – ancient Near Easterners, ancient Israelites included, were able to express fairly complex mathematical concepts when they needed/wanted to. If an author of Scripture chose not to do so, then it is probably a pretty good indication that the document(s) he composed were not intended to be scientific documents. (Duh).

  313. Dee I failed to remove the link in the quote. Please ignore my comment in moderation. I’ve made the edit.

    Gram3 wrote:

    For those of you who will be polishing silver or cleaning the garage and need some mental stimulation, here’s a youtube debate between Naturalistic and Theistic origins that is refreshing. It is vigorous yet respectful. And both actually mention the gaps and challenges in their respective approaches!
    What struck me is that it seems that the core issue between these two ultimately comes down to the question of evil/suffering on the part of the Naturalist and the cybernetic/information problem on the part of the Theist.
    The other thing that struck me is that even the Naturalist who diligently studies the world trying to explain it without regard for a Creator brings great glory to God by showing God’s image in action. (see post for link)

    Thank you for the link. I’m an hour into the video and will pick up later! I’m really enjoying Michael Ruse. He reminds me of some of the atheist professors we had dinner with recently. I have to say, I do enjoy exchanging ideas and information with them. They are often a bit eccentric, opinionated, but amazingly brilliant. (Side note: They didn’t call us yahoos, sock puppets, mirror images, crazy, (insert your insult here) nor label us as belonging to a certain ilk. 🙂 I would enjoy a dinner conversation with Michael Ruse.
    By the way – I like your questions posted earlier in the discussion.

    Gram3 wrote:

    Can we say that people who are skeptical of a particular conclusion of science can still be supporters of the scientific endeavor and not science deniers? IOW, can we grant the intellectual space to have a different way of reconciling the claims of the scientific community with the claims of the theological community without being labeled anti-science?
    Can we say that scientific conclusions result from a chain of inferences that have assumptions that should be made explicit and tested for reasonableness? That science has its own axioms that are essentially points of faith?

  314. dee wrote:

    When you hear one claim, especially by a YE scientist, it is important to read the whole story. Unfortunately, Christians like the conspiracy….”He was fired because he is a Christian and can prove the dinosaurs are 4,000 year old.”

    I for one will follow this imbroglio with avid interest:
    1)Armitage is no frothing at the mouth Ken Ham.
    2)He’s a published and peer reviewed mainstream scientist.
    3)So why did he get the sack?

    It’s almost predictable on how this thing will go back and forth. On the one hand his discovery of soft tissue that should not be there does raise some inconvenient questions. And on the other, it might just as well be a one time anomaly which is easily accounted for in the current model. The scientist you’ve cited, one Mary Schweitzer, has already posited that iron in the hemoglobin may have acted as a kind of preservative (nullentropy?).
    Here’s the source:
    http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5107/20131127/iron-preserves-ancient-dinosaur-soft-tissue-fossils.htm

  315. @ roebuck:

    This made me think of the amazing professors I had when I was a know-it-all in freshman seminars. Those were the days when John Houseman would have been onsidered a cream-puff. When one of us would go into a self-important display of our ignorance, he would just pause, take a long, slow drag on his cigarette and look thoughtfully off into the distance as if pondering a Great Thought. Then, after exhaling the smoke slowly into the small seminar room, he would say something like, “Well, that is very interesting, … and, strictly speaking, it’s not the *most* ridiculous thing I’ve heard this week.” We all dreaded that pondering pause, and we all took our turns. But he did us a great favor.

  316. @ Gram3:

    Great story! Imagine, smoking in the seminar room… I don’t recall smoking being allowed anywhere on University property – but then, I’m only 60 years old 🙂 For that matter, I don’t believe any of my professors smoked anyway.

    But some of them could deliver some pretty deflating comments from time to time. A great favor indeed…

  317. @ Muff Potter:
    Muff

    I long ago, after becoming friends with a really smart Mormon guy who swallowed some of the nonsense like people living on the moon, that all brilliance can be overcome by a leap of faith.

    Do you remember this post?

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/06/27/doug-wilson-and-the-american-family-association-hivaids-conspiracy-theorists/

    Pay particular attention to the section “Dr Peter Duesberg published his book, Inventing the AIDS Virus, and causes an uproar.” Here is a brilliant, noted scientist taking a walk on the wild side.

    As for Mary, she is a great scientist, evangelical Christian, and old earth advocate. I know the church she attends. She is not pleased how some of her fellow Christians are mooching in on the discovery, trying to make it say something that it is not.

  318. Mr.H wrote:

    All of that to say – ancient Near Easterners, ancient Israelites included, were able to express fairly complex mathematical concepts when they needed/wanted to. If an author of Scripture chose not to do so, then it is probably a pretty good indication that the document(s) he composed were not intended to be scientific documents. (Duh).

    Good comment.

  319. Mr.H wrote:

    All of that to say – ancient Near Easterners, ancient Israelites included, were able to express fairly complex mathematical concepts when they needed/wanted to.

    Thanks for a fascinating comment. If you can provide a link I’d be grateful.

  320. mirele wrote:

    My father (RIP) told me many years ago I was not allowed to discuss religion with my mother because I’d upset her. What had I done? I’d explained that I could show the Noah’s Ark story to be physically infeasible with the use of a fish tank and some freshwater and saltwater fish. It probably didn’t help that I finished up my proposal with a cheery “But the fish are going to die, you know.” And that was the point of the experiment. A worldwide flood would have mixed both salt and fresh water, killing off a significant chunk of the ocean’s flora and fauna. But that didn’t matter to my mother. I was undermining a story she believed in and I was being casual about it.

    I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one to have come up with that rebuttal to the worldwide flood myth. It always concerns me when I come up with something that seems just too clever… because I’m almost always proven wrong. But of the limited number of proofs I know, that’s the simplest way to explain to a lay person why a global flood just couldn’t work. It beats trying to explain population bottlenecks and why the geologic column is not “hydrologically sorted” as young earthers claim.

  321. Gram3 wrote:

    For those of you who will be polishing silver or cleaning the garage and need some mental stimulation, here’s a youtube debate between Naturalistic and Theistic origins that is refreshing. It is vigorous yet respectful. And both actually mention the gaps and challenges in their respective approaches!
    What struck me is that it seems that the core issue between these two ultimately comes down to the question of evil/suffering on the part of the Naturalist and the cybernetic/information problem on the part of the Theist.
    The other thing that struck me is that even the Naturalist who diligently studies the world trying to explain it without regard for a Creator brings great glory to God by showing God’s image in action.
    (see link in earlier post)

    Ah! Just finished the video. Very interesting. Loved this statement from Dr. Ruse, an agnostic scientist, at 2:19:23 “Were I a Christian, I would look at the cell and the sorts of things that Dr. Rana’s been talking about tonight and I would be just absolutely amazed at what a wonderful thing this is and what a testament this is to the abilities and glories of my God.”

    Evil/suffering is most certainly a roadblock for him.

  322. dee wrote:

    @ Flat Top:
    A couple of things: Have you read any of the other critiques of Armitage? Things are not as simple as they seem.
    One other point, in the article, they discuss the discovery of soft dinosaur tissue at NCSU. The woman who did the discovery is both a Christian and believes ardently in an old earth and is not so pleased about the claims that YE are making based on her work.

    When you hear one claim, especially by a YE scientist, it is important to read the whole story. Unfortunately, Christians like the conspiracy….”He was fired because he is a Christian and can prove the dinosaurs are 4,000 year old.”

    Being an old earth believer Mary Schweitzer hypothesized that the iron-rich blood of the dinosaurs, and just the perfect conditions may have allowed for the preservation of the soft tissues, and together with her colleagues performed an experiment over a two-year period which supposedly indicated the plausibility of this. But there is a huge difference between 2 years and 145 million years, and no one is arguing that this tissue could have been preserved for at least 2 years. Also this doesn’t explain the preservation of delicate structures like osteocytes with dendrites. So it remains quite a stretch. Her belief system led her to carry out this experiment to explain away uncomfortable findings. YEC scientists are similarly guided by their own biases.

    As for “When you hear one claim, especially by a YE scientist, it is important to read the whole story. Unfortunately, Christians like the conspiracy….” etc. A lot of sweeping generalization here. Truth is everyone likes a good conspiracy. What we are seeing a lot of these days, I would call intolerance, not conspiracy. Intolerance towards anything but an increasingly narrow set of acceptable views.

  323. dee wrote:

    Pay particular attention to the section “Dr Peter Duesberg published his book, Inventing the AIDS Virus, and causes an uproar.” Here is a brilliant, noted scientist taking a walk on the wild side.

    Point well taken dee but I think there’s a fundamental difference between Duesberg and Armitage. Duesberg endangered the public health knowing full well that his impressive credentials would give him a pass to widespread currency, and as a consequence hundreds if not thousands of people died in abject misery. Armitage’s gaff on the other hand hurts nobody other than the egos of those who will brook no dissent on anything that even remotely challenges their belief system. If it is indeed true that he got canned for his YEC beliefs, it gets my Jeffersonian dander up just as much as the case in my area of a Chem teacher with 20 years faithful service who got the sack from a mega-church k-12 school because she would not sign on to the YEC belief system.

  324. dee wrote:

    There is no problem with the creation of Adam and evolution.

    If Adam was the result of evolution from matter to bacteria to the innitial primate eventually to man, God did not create him directly. You can only say God created the process that happened to lead to man. I find this difficult to square with Genesis.

    More of a problem is that those unbelievers I have encountered who espouse this kind of evolution do so for the very reason that it makes God redundant. They see no evidence of a Creator, the process was unguided and as it were ‘random’. I think this is where a lot of the resistance to evolution from YEC comes from – a source of authority outside the bible and propagated by unbelievers to boot is used to determine how Genesis should be understood.

    The universe cannot simultaneously demonstrate it arose through natural processes only and declare the glory of God in ordered design and purpose. Supernatural origin of natural processes yes, but not God using godless processes to form the world. (Hope you see what I am getting at here!)

    I think it would be helpful in the discussion if those who take the old earth view would more clearly affirm that they are indeed creationists, but they differ with the YECers in the process and time God used to bring about what we see today, that is, they have more in common with Ken Ham (gulp!!) than Richard Dawkins. To not believe that God created the heavens and the earth is to have abandonned the faith.

    I do take the point in the initial challenge that the bible is not a science textbook. It is not intended to solve problems of physics, simple or otherwise. Nevertheless, it does make assertions regarding the origin of the universe and life which we are obligated to believe as Christians. It may not explain physics, but it does explain where the laws of physics came from in the first place!

  325. Muff Potter wrote:

    Duesberg endangered the public health knowing full well that his impressive credentials would give him a pass to widespread currency, and as a consequence hundreds if not thousands of people died in abject misery.

    I know and that is precisely my point.There are many scientists who are willing to suspend logic, and the concern for health, in light of belief. That belief will transcend just about everything, including good research.

    I think the real issue lies just beneath the surface. There are some people who, while denying it, believe that the age of the earth is an issue of primacy. If they didn’t, Ken Ham would not get his panties in a wad every time someone disagrees with him.

    There is an inability to live and let live in this discussion. Let me give you an example. There is a scientist I know who is an ardent YEC. He carries around material with him in order to whip out proof at any moment as to the age of the earth. We had a discussion one day. i asked him if he was willing to let both sides be taught at a local church. He said he would fight it tooth and nail-and he has.He is the leader of a creation group and is well known to Ken Ham and crowd. He is one of Ham’s boys.

    My own children were taught from his material We, of course, countered it at home and eventually left the church in which kids are given yearly 6 week courses on YE for all of there years in Sunday school. That is 72 weeks of Sunday school lessons emphasizing YE. Two young men were kicked out of the Sunday school class when they told the teacher he was using 40 year old, discredited science. They we being “disruptive” by asking questions.

    I do know this. A number of kids who were force fed only YE have walked away from the faith. And, as one guy told me, “They lied to me.”

    So, this goes a little deeper than just a POV. It has been a crusade and my own family, as well as others, have been on the receiving end of “I never said you were a heretic” rants.

  326. Ken wrote:

    To not believe that God created the heavens and the earth is to have abandonned the faith.

    Nobody has. OE/TE/CE are just as committed believers as YE. As I have said, you do not get brownie points with God because you believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old. he is not impressed with the pronouncement. He is more interested in the process.
    Ken wrote:

    I think it would be helpful in the discussion if those who take the old earth view would more clearly affirm that they are indeed creationists,

    Why don’t you spend some time at Reason to Believe, Biologos, and OldEarth.org. They have affirmed, clearly and loudly. I think a minuscule group of people do not want to hear them.

  327. Flat Top wrote:

    Her belief system led her to carry out this experiment to explain away uncomfortable findings. YEC scientists are similarly guided by their own biases.

    No one in the scientific world is at all uncomfortable with YE findings. YE has been dismissed as a valid scientific theory. YEC should try to understand that there is virtually no one in the scientific realm, and that includes Christians, who really care about anything that YEC groups say.

    It is difficult for many to accept that support for YEC is held by a tiny group with little support outside of a small group of Christians. So, when a new finding is announced by YEC, no one in the scientific community feels “uncomfortable” because most people do not believe, or care, about YEC.

    I support their right to express their POV. I do not think anyone should be fired for their POV unless it interferes with the functioning of a department due to loud arguments.

  328. dee wrote:

    A number of kids who were force fed only YE have walked away from the faith. And, as one guy told me, “They lied to me.”

    Exactly! Which is why this is such an important issue if we are to be believed when we talk about our faith to others. Proclaiming the virtues of Christianity while telling people something about the natural world they know not to be true is not a new problem. St. Augustine saw the danger of this in the early 5th Century. I think I’v posted this before, but I’ll post it again just in case. In Book I of his book The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine said:

    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 nonsense 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 assertions.

    This was said 1500 years ago, too bad so many failed to heed it. Simply put, this is not ‘science trumps the Bible’, it’s truth trumps your interpretation of the Bible.

  329. For all who don’t fully understand that the important issues in OE/YE are not simple science questions.

    Perhaps the best example of what is wrong with subjects collectively referred to as YEC is the Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth project sponsored by several young Earth organizations. The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is an association of science and related professional who profess to be Christians. Joining requires accepting their statement of faith. I am a member as is Dee’s husband. The ASA has done an extensive analysis of the RATE project and its conclusions are available at: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm#i which contains extensive references both to the RATE project and the ASA analysis. Randy Issac is the Executive Director of the ASA and during his primary career rose to upper management in the IBM T. J. Watson Research Laboratory. His science credentials are impeccable. I call your attention to the link “Integrity in Science”. In it under filters check Integrity of Science if it is not checked. The displayed text should start with “Age of the Earth”. The point of all of this is simple. When those of us going by Christ’s name don’t show total integrity in our dealings with each other (abuse topics covered extensively here on TWW) and in our dealing with those outside the faith (Science) we are taking His name in vain.

  330. dee wrote:

    A number of kids who were force fed only YE have walked away from the faith. And, as one guy told me, “They lied to me.”

    They did lie to him. I had a similar experience of “they are lying to me” except it was a different issue. Realizing “they lied to me” is different from simply finding out “they were mistaken.” They lied to me includes the realization that they knew (or deliberately refused to know) that what they were saying was not true. And it includes the realization that “they” care more about the lie than they care about the “me” who is being lied to. It also includes the realization that up to the point of the aha realization, “I” had not realized it was a lie, so now I realize how vulnerable I am and how much of a threat these people are to me.

    Of course kids leave “the faith” over “they lied to me.” May I add that the experience of having been lied to in a major issue, with all the attendant things one recognizes in conjunction with that, is long lasting and does not go away. It impacts a person’s thinking in huge ways forever.

  331. @ oldJohnJ:
    @ oldJohnJ:

    Incidentally, Old John, belated apologies if I appeared to be hijacking the thread with a flippant side-track. My reference to the neutron star example was really intended as a nod to the extraordinary wonders out there; aspects, I am convinced, of God’s creation that we would never have dreamed about, let alone discovered and modelled, without the scientific method.

    And I didn’t imagine my (rusty) science degree ranked particularly highly among TWW educations; I just meant that those without a science background might have found the challenge (purely as a physics question) just hard enough to be interesting.

    Of course, I have not found a way of working out the power output of a hydro scheme fae scripture. I haven’t worked out the biblical cause of leprosy or the tides either; and I’m sure you could add a great many other immensely useful, but (as it were) unbiblical information.

  332. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Thanks for a fascinating comment. If you can provide a link I’d be grateful.

    Hi OldJohnJ,

    Unfortunately, most of my “sources” come from monographs and course lectures from grad school. Not conducive to sharing over social media. I did a bit of searching and found a few academically reputable websites:

    Simplified Overview from Oxford of the Old Babylonian period (ca. 1850 – 1550 BC):

    http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=mathematics

    Here is a partially-available digital copy of a survey-style monograph from PUP that covers Mesopotamian mathematics from 2100 BC to 1600 BC:

    http://goo.gl/Lhl9Au

    A short paper:

    http://akira.ruc.dk/~jensh/publications/babylonian_math.pdf

    And, lastly, here’s a nice website from Oxford with lots of goodies to dig into:

    http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=mathematics

  333. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Thanks Bridget! Hopefully a creationist is as welcome at Warburg as is an evolutionist.

    If they tolerate a Pelagian heretic and Jeffersonian infidel like Muff Potter, they’ll certainly allow you. TWW is a lot like Al Andalus of old (google it up) before the Inquisition took over. Virtually anything is permitted here except loud-mouthed stridency, bad taste, and incivility toward others. And by the way, if it’s any consolation, I too reject the evolutionary paradigm.

  334. Ken wrote:

    If Adam was the result of evolution from matter to bacteria to the innitial primate eventually to man, God did not create him directly. You can only say God created the process that happened to lead to man. I find this difficult to square with Genesis.

    Leaving the timing and nature of earth’s, and humanity’s, origins aside for a minute, there is a lot of value in grappling with how God goes about Doing Stuff. We’ll never be able to go back in time 100000 years to see whether there was anything there. But we are alive today and it makes every sense to explore what it looks and “feels” like to be around when God answers prayer, or otherwise acts, in our midst.

    One might say that God did not directly part the Red Sea. Rather, Moses held out his staff over it (albeit and God’s instigation) and God sent a strong east wind. I can envisage other process he could have used; for instance, a sudden uplift of the sea-bed. Or, he could have commanded the water itself to assemble into walls – but it seems that he didn’t. On the other hand, it seems that he did just that at a town called Adam when Israel crossed the flooded Jordan into Canaan; the waters piled up in a heap, though the account in Joshua is rather light on detail.

    As Jonathan said to his armour-bearer, The Lord is not constrained to save by many or by few; I think Jonathan had good evidence on his side, and that this principle is more generally true.

  335. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Of course, I have not found a way of working out the power output of a hydro scheme fae scripture. I haven’t worked out the biblical cause of leprosy or the tides either; and I’m sure you could add a great many other immensely useful, but (as it were) unbiblical information.

    I’m not surprised by the lack of sinple science in the Bible.

    My point was that if you are going to start with science you have to start at the beginning. The astronomy profession is enjoying a marvelous renaissance considering all the large recently constructed earth based telescopes and an even more capable space based instrument than Hubble in the pipeline.

    An aside having nothing to do with the post but I enjoy the Scottish local color you add. For the record my mother was a MacMillan married to a MacDougall from southern Ontario province. My father’s root trace to the southern end of your island.

  336. @ dee:
    I think you didn’t get what I was (unsuccessfully?) trying to get at above. When YEC comes up here, Mohler and Ham come in for a lot of criticism. That’s not so much a problem, but Christians who do so have more in common with them than they do with unbelievers who believe in purely natural evolution, even if scientifically there is some area of agreement. Unbelievers think science has disproved the bible, and believers need to be careful not to be seen condoning this.

    I have looked at Hugh Ross’ site and one or two others, but the issue doesn’t grab my interest enough to get too bogged down in it – for my entire Christian life people have been sniping at each other over this. I’m not so keen on biologos from what I have read as they seem too willing to compromise on biblical authority. I’ve re-read Genesis, and I hope my mind is not so made up I am unwilling to change and expand my understanding of it, but I’m not going to let what others claim science says be the determining factor in this, and that goes for TE, OE and YEC.

    God alone knows the absolute truth of this, and I want to be careful not to submit his revelation to incomplete science, that may in principle be changed or even totally discarded in the future, produced in some cases by those ‘who by their wickedness suppress the truth’, in context being the truth that God is indeed creator and creation clearly reveals this.

  337. Nancy wrote:

    They lied to me includes the realization that they knew (or deliberately refused to know) that what they were saying was not true. And it includes the realization that “they” care more about the lie than they care about the “me” who is being lied to. It also includes the realization that up to the point of the aha realization, “I” had not realized it was a lie, so now I realize how vulnerable I am and how much of a threat these people are to me.

    You know, this is huge. As a kid growing up in the SBC— the now strident “woman” verses (when they were mentioned at all)— were usually presented as “there are several interpretations for this”, blah, blah. But that was before the Conservative Resurgence. There was plenty of room for good decent people to disagree.

    Now, you either pledge allegiance to thier interpretations or the Gospel is lost and so are you. They ARE lying to people. And they are indoctrinating. Not teaching and enouraging people to be Bereans. The pastor is your Holy Spirit and gatekeeper for “correct doctrine”.

  338. Ken wrote:

    t Christians who do so have more in common with them than they do with unbelievers who believe in purely natural evolution, even if scientifically there is some area of agreement. Unbelievers think science has disproved the bible, and believers need to be careful not to be seen condoning this.

    When I agree with anyone, it is not based on their Christianity or lack thereof. If someone speaks the truth, then I agree with them. Not every issue should be put into a category of “us vs them.”

    I have more in common with a Christian who believes that we should pray for healing than with an unbeliever who does not. But, when it came to a neurosurgeon for my daughter, I went with an unbeliever because we agreed on the approach to my daughter’s care. I did not need to make it clear to him that I disagreed with his stance on praying before I let him loose in my daughter’s brain.

    I am not in the business of checking everyone’s faith credentials before I celebrate a discovery of the truth.

    Also, most unbelievers do not base their unbelief on science. They base their unbelief on things like genocide in the OT, the problem of evil, and also the insistence on a 6000 year creation. Go over to ExChristians.Net and let them tell you why they are unbelievers. I spent a number of years doing that before I started to blog.

    Ken wrote:

    I’m not so keen on biologos from what I have read as they seem too willing to compromise on biblical authority

    They do believe the Bible is authoritative. In fact, that is my favorite word which describes how I view the Bible.

  339. dee wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    I’m not so keen on biologos from what I have read as they seem too willing to compromise on biblical authority
    They do believe the Bible is authoritative. In fact, that is my favorite word which describes how I view the Bible.

    Can you further elaborate on this? I don’t like the term “Biblical authority.” The Bible cannot force anyone to do anything. We can read it and be persuaded by what it says and the Holy Spirit can be at work in us at the same time, or apart from reading the Bible, to reveal what God intends for us. I know people who believed apart from having access to the Bible or being told about Jesus.

    So, the Bible is authoritative vs. Biblical authority?

  340. Bridget wrote:

    dee wrote:
    Ken wrote:
    I’m not so keen on biologos from what I have read as they seem too willing to compromise on biblical authority
    They do believe the Bible is authoritative. In fact, that is my favorite word which describes how I view the Bible.
    Can you further elaborate on this? I don’t like the term “Biblical authority.” The Bible cannot force anyone to do anything. We can read it and be persuaded by what it says and the Holy Spirit can be at work in us at the same time, or apart from reading the Bible, to reveal what God intends for us. I know people who believed apart from having access to the Bible or being told about Jesus.
    So, the Bible is authoritative vs. Biblical authority?

    I have no idea, but it feels like a dog whistle term when used by the vehemently pro-Conservative Resurgence SBC folks with whom I’m acquainted. While “The Authoritah of Scripture” includes the concepts of infallibility and inerrancy, it seems to carry a broader meaning. This meaning includes the concept that a “clear reading of scripture” (as opposed to your or my interpretation, which is obviously wrong) clearly shows that the Bible mandates whatever position the speaker has proposed. I usually get “Biblical authority” thrown in my face whenever I dare to suggest that women teaching in church, or caring for the environment, or being nice to LGBT people, or whatever, are not forbidden in scripture. So, Bridget, I’m with you in not liking the term “Biblical authority” or its common variations.

  341. @ Josh:

    I get the impression that the people who flock around that term actually mean that the bible is authoritative when it says what they want it to say. And then, in order to get it to say what they want it to say they alternate between “clear reading” and “the original Greek actually means” and “this verse must be understood in light of verse B but certainly not in light of verse C because the bible is its own interpreter.” All of this only if you read the correct translation and none other, of course.

  342. Bridget wrote:

    We can read it and be persuaded by what it says

    Bridget wrote:

    So, the Bible is authoritative vs. Biblical authority?

    The word authoritative simply means reliable, able to be trusted and obeyed. It means it can substantiated by documentary evidence. It does not force itself on someone but one can freely decide to trust in its words due to its historical reliability.

    I like it better than using the word inerrant. Inerrancy means without error. So, what do we do with the section on the woman caught in adultery which has been shown not to be included in the earliest manuscripts? It absence or presence does not change the Scriptural narrative whatsoever. The Bible is still authoritative without the inclusion of the story.

  343. Bridget wrote:

    So, the Bible is authoritative vs. Biblical authority?

    OK, I’ll stir the pot here, because there isn’t enough controversy on this thread. Maybe I can provide some information, or at least a perspective, and we can nail down what we’re talking about.

    There is some bit of confusion, intentional or unintentional, surrounding the authority of Scripture and what that means. I think that the meaning has shifted from a fairly simple meaning that spiritual authority resides in the text given by the Holy Spirit rather than in a man or a magisterium. The original manuscripts are considered without error, and the manuscripts that we have are reliable. Of course people have different opinions on all of these points, but that is my understanding of the historically “conservative” meaning of Authority of Scripture.

    The “meaning” of the text requires exegesis of the actual words and grammar, including placing non-existent-in-the-text punctuation which can change the “meaning” of the same words in the same order.

    Then to further determine the “meaning” we need to take into account the genre of the text and various contexts, including history, culture, author, audience, and of course the context within the text itself. This should be done in community with other Christians, allowing the Holy Spirit to work in the Body to illumine the meaning.

    The shift, I think, has occurred toward making a particular interpretation of the “meaning” authoritative, which is the opposite of locating the authority in the text. If one takes this approach, it is not proper to call this conservative. This is actually radical because removes the conservative hermeneutic which is designed to remove as much subjectivity as possible from the interpretive process. This makes the text stand naked before a particular person or magisterium who can then apply his/her/their own proprietary hermeneutic making the text say whatever it needs to say.

    Because these “conservatives” advocate traditional positions on cultural issues, they claim the high ground of Biblical authority while actually undermining it while using it to establish their own authority.

    If you require that they use a consistent hermeneutic that is clearly identified ahead of time, then you are in for a lot of accusations of being liberal, ruled by culture, etc. It is nothing more than a pose by the self-appointed Authorities to garner the support of people who are concerned about Biblical authority or to silence those who see through their hermeneutical pose.

    I’m not interested in attempting to convince someone to believe that the Bible is a supernatural book or that it is authoritative. Each of us needs to make what amounts to a faith or philosophical decision of how our life will be ordered. Classically, “liberals” either rejected the authority of Scripture entirely, or claimed that the Bible is something more like interesting piece of inspirational literature. That is not the same as a vigorous discussion among people about what “yom” means in Genesis 1-2. Or what the purpose of Genesis is.

    But what really gets me irate is so-called “Conservatives” who use a de facto ad hoc hermeneutic while pretending they are using the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. At least liberals are clear about what they teach.

    It’s something like referees in a sports game deciding to change the established rules as the game goes along. No one would consider that there is anything rational or “conservative” about that. If looked at from that perspective, the new “conservatives” look a lot more like the classical “liberals” in how they actually handle Scripture, appearances notwithstanding.

    Now for some chocolate. Hopefully this can help us to at least define what we mean when we say “Authority of Scripture.”

  344. dee wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    We can read it and be persuaded by what it says
    Bridget wrote:
    So, the Bible is authoritative vs. Biblical authority?
    The word authoritative simply means reliable, able to be trusted and obeyed. It means it can substantiated by documentary evidence. It does not force itself on someone but one can freely decide to trust in its words due to its historical reliability.
    I like it better than using the word inerrant. Inerrancy means without error. So, what do we do with the section on the woman caught in adultery which has been shown not to be included in the earliest manuscripts? It absence or presence does not change the Scriptural narrative whatsoever. The Bible is still authoritative without the inclusion of the story.

    But, this doesn’t negate the inerrancy of scripture. While the Church hasn’t made a magisterial pronouncement on this passage, it doesn’t conflict with the faith and morals taught by the Church. The inerrancy of scripture isn’t in question.

    But then again, we have different sources of authority. 🙂

  345. Bridget wrote:

    I know people who believed apart from having access to the Bible or being told about Jesus.

    Amen! You don’t NEED the Bible to live a holy life! We aren’t the People of the Book, like Muslims, we are people of the incarnate word of God, Jesus.

  346. THC wrote:

    The inerrancy of scripture isn’t in question.

    Hmmm, when we say Scripture, we are saying that which we hold to be Scripture. But, what if we must delete one story since it wasn’t there in the first place. The only Scripture that we had at the time the discovery contained an error.

  347. THC wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    I know people who believed apart from having access to the Bible or being told about Jesus.
    Amen! You don’t NEED the Bible to live a holy life! We aren’t the People of the Book, like Muslims, we are people of the incarnate word of God, Jesus.

    If there was no Bible would Christianity still exist? Seems like many fundies wouldn’t believe it with no Bible to idolize, but Jesus would still have lived, taught, died, and been resurrected.

  348. dee wrote:

    There is a scientist I know who is an ardent YEC. He carries around material with him in order to whip out proof at any moment as to the age of the earth. We had a discussion one day. i asked him if he was willing to let both sides be taught at a local church. He said he would fight it tooth and nail-and he has.

    We are not as far apart as it might seem. I too consider this to be abhorrent. Not because of what the man believes, but because he is willing to suspend free inquiry and establish the autocratic rule of only one view.

    I get equally annoyed when somebody like Bill Nye the Science Guy (who should know better) tries to establish a causal relationship between the teaching of creationism and the minting of second rate scientists and engineers.
    I close with a quote from one of my favorite thinkers which pretty much sums up my sentiment on both accounts:

    “I have sworn upon the altar of God,
    eternal hostility against every form of
    tyranny over the mind of man.”

    ~ Thomas Jefferson ~

  349. @ dee:

    I think we may be arguing over semantics when I use the expression ‘bibical authority’. I simply mean that it being the word of God defines what God is like, and reveals his will for us, Jesus being the supreme and final revelation. This is not in detail knowable without the bible. Where our will and the bible clash, the bible decides the issue. Using the expression biblical authority to give my own teaching and interpretation authority, i.e. to bind believers to do what I think they should is an abuse of the bible. The bible itself has a higher authority than that claimed by anyone teaching it. I like your word authoratitive, but I don’t think we should abandon the word authority just because some people have misused it for their own unsavoury ends. fwiw I was converted out of a likewarm wishy-washy liberal church background where tradition and ‘my opinion’ had more authority than the teaching of scripture.

    The whole creation issue needs wisdom when dealing with unbelievers, unfortunately not always forthcoming with some over-zealous believers. God as creator is non-negotiable, but anything else is less than secondary in sharing the gospel itself. On a secular forum I am on, if this is brought up (never by me!), I always emphasise that Christian views of this encompass YEC, old earth and theistic evolution sometimes in varying combinations, robbing them of the excuse that they can ignore Christian truth claims because science has disproved the bible. ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and a young earth and you will be saved, you and your household’. Not!

    I have dabbled in some ex-believer forums, and atheist comboxes, but this is rarely that enlightening. I think you need something of a calling if you want to get involved with ex-believers or those militantly opposed to the faith. I do agree the church needs confronting with the effect its rank disobedience can have on outsiders. Genuine problems with the bible need to be taken seriously. That said, if someone claims the OT sanctions genocide, for example, they have probably never read the text itself but have gone to hostile and ill-informed internet sources such as the Sceptics Annotated Bible for their information.

    I don’t think we should ever give the impression that unbelief is ever excusable, that they can cite what religious people did as a defence when they stand before God. That is just as irrelevant to their own need of forgiveness (and God’s willingness to grant it) as the age of the earth.

  350. Gram3 wrote:

    OK, I’ll stir the pot here, because there isn’t enough controversy on this thread.

    Oh yes there is … 🙂

  351. Muff Potter wrote:

    “I have sworn upon the altar of God,
    eternal hostility against every form of
    tyranny over the mind of man.”
    ~ Thomas Jefferson ~

    Here is the heart of part of this issue/these issues. Who gets to tell people what to think, and subsequently what to do, and on what would someone base their claims to be the ones who get to do that?

    THC above has basically quoted from the catechism of the catholic church in one comment. First look at the catholic church claiming to be The Church, and basing such claim on apostolic succession, and then stating that the church has the authority to interpret scripture as led by by the Holy Spirit (I just re-read the section on scripture in the catechism) and then requiring adherence in thought and action by catholic persons to that.

    Now look at fundamentalist/evangelical protestantism as clearly seen right not in the calvinist neo-puritan movement and behold there are people who are doing basically the same thing. They believe that the true church (not capitalized–not a specific organization) is characterized not by apostolic succession but rather by specific (true) doctrine and they claim the right to interpret scripture (led by the Holy Spirit) and then require adherence in thought and action from their followers.

    So they are both saying the same thing: We are the church, we proffer this claim to that position, we retain the right to interpret scripture, and the followers must comply.

    Then Jeffersonian thinkers (Muff) or scientists (as we are talking about here) come along and say, “No.” You people are not the only source of truth and neither do you have the right to require my compliance to something I do not believe. These assertions strike right at the heart of some people’s understanding of what is the church, and where is truth to be found. And historically we have seen this play out in many ways; we just happen to be talking about origins right now.

  352. Ken wrote:

    to bind believers to do what I think they should is an abuse of the bible.

    What do you mean by bind believers? I have always had difficulty with the meaning of that word. What does it actually mean in real life?
    Ken wrote:

    I have dabbled in some ex-believer forums, and atheist comboxes, but this is rarely that enlightening

    I would assume that you mean it is rarely enlightening for you. It was highly enlightening for me. They taught me a lot.

    Ken wrote:

    if someone claims the OT sanctions genocide, for example, they have probably never read the text itself but have gone to hostile and ill-informed internet sources such as the Sceptics Annotated Bible for their information.

    Actually, this is not true for everyone. Our own Eagle struggled with this question. The answer to the question of God and the slaughter in the OT is not as easy for many although you seem to have solved it adequately for yourself.

    There have been countless books written by Christian theologians on the subject, attempting to address this question. For many, myself included, this is one of those areas in which I struggle and I can assure you that I do not go to the Skeptics Bible.

    Ken wrote:

    I have dabbled in some ex-believer forums, and atheist comboxes, but this is rarely that enlightening. I think you need something of a calling if you want to get involved with ex-believers or those militantly opposed to the faith.

    I have done more than dabble. I have hung out in some for years, even corresponding with some outside of the forum. I have always loved the story that Jesus told of the shepherd who runs after one sheep that has strayed. Some of these folks have been in stupid churches that couldn’t even engage them on simple doubts as they arose. Or, even worse, beat them over the head with secondary doctrine and condemned them for their doubts and questions. And when they didn’t respond to our pat answers, we drove them out and shunned them.

    Matthew 6:18 is a verse that has challenged me throughout the last 20 years.

    “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

    That verse is often misunderstood as the church being protected from hell. In fact, if you read it, it shows the church, bearing Peter’s confession of the Christ, marching to the very gates of hell and beating them down. And guess who gets thru?

    I believe that God calls us all to pound on the gates of hell. I think many people do not like engaging the militant atheists because their 6 week course on “How to witness to the atheist” doesn’t cut it. Many of the “pat” answers are challenged and if we don’t have the “handbook” on how to do it or someone challenges the socks off us, we run and hide in our comfortable group where we can discuss the date of Jesus’ return or the evils of the world (not evils in the church).

    Finally, I do not like the us vs. theism paradigm. In the end we are all deeply loved children of the Father and we need to treat those outside of our group as just that. We need to be friends, without agendas.

    That is precisely what Francis Collins did with Christopher Hitchens who would fit your “militant atheist” category (But could he write!) Hitchens called Collins his good friend! Collins was by Hitchens side during his fight with cancer. I admire Collins, found of Biologos and head of the NIH as well as the Human Genome Project. He is a role model for me although I wish I had 1/100th of his brain power.

  353. Nancy wrote:

    Then Jeffersonian thinkers (Muff) or scientists (as we are talking about here) come along and say, “No.” You people are not the only source of truth and neither do you have the right to require my compliance to something I do not believe. These assertions strike right at the heart of some people’s understanding of what is the church, and where is truth to be found. And historically we have seen this play out in many ways; we just happen to be talking about origins right now.

    If this was the ending comment (it’s not and I hope there are many more) this would be an excellent conclusion. Thanks for your insight.

  354. Lydia wrote:

    Now, you either pledge allegiance to thier interpretations or the Gospel is lost and so are you.

    Party Line or GULAG, Comrade.

    They ARE lying to people. And they are indoctrinating. Not teaching and enouraging people to be Bereans. The pastor is your Holy Spirit and gatekeeper for “correct doctrine”.

    Not “correct doctrine.”
    PURITY OF IDEOLOGY.
    Just like Soviet Union & Democratic Kampuchea.

  355. Nancy wrote:

    “…this verse must be understood in light of verse B but certainly not in light of verse C because the bible is its own interpreter.” All of this only if you read the correct translation and none other, of course.

    “Let the Bible interpret itself” was a favorite phrase of Herbert W Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong in their house-organ magazine The Plain Truth. And their Bible “interpreted itself” into some really WEIRD theology and doctrine.

  356. @ oldJohnJ:
    Well, you’ve done it again. Look at the number of comments!

    I am so grateful to you because this is a subject that is near to my heart. That is one of the advantages to having your own blog. You get to indulge yourself on occasion even if a few readers wish I didn’t!

    I want this subject to be debated, even if it is uncomfortable. I believe that we can break the “You must believe in YEC to be a really, really good Christian” meme by continuing to discuss the issue and presenting the deep faith of those who are not YEC.

    Thank you for taking the time to write this and offering it to us. You obviously have a knack for striking a chord. Well done!! I bet, and hope, we will be hearing from you again.

  357. @ dee:
    Thanks again for you kind words. You mentioned the possible next topic. What follows is a comment that I didn’t see a replying one for.

    Under item 6) of Eagle’s evangelical discernment post he included “when science starts to debate and look at issues such as human cloning” a topic that also believe is much more significant to us than YEC.

    Dust off your Christianity Today archives and look for the Feb 7, 1986 issue. On page 22 you will find the start of “Genetic Engineering: Promise & Threat” by Dennis Chamberland an article that discusses a topic that should increasingly provoke spiritual and moral questions. The computing and communication revolution of the last 50 years simply changed our toys, The genomics revolution has the potential for changing us or more likely some of our descendants by modifying our DNA. While the science discussed by Chamberland is dated his consideration of the moral issues about genetic engineering is even more relevant given the progress being made towards editing embryonic genomes. While so many of our conservative theologians are still fighting about the age of the Earth we are about to be blindsided by a much more significant and morally dangerous development.

    Deebs. Chamberland has a website: http://dennischamberland.com/ I sent him an email a while ago that he did not reply to. Perhaps if the one of the proprietors of a famous blog contacted him he would be willing to write a guest post.

    I’ve scanned and OCRed the article from my old CT issue and could provide a copy via email if you so desire. Please indicate what word processor format is most suitable. Since you like tower of Babel illustrations (TWW Aug 22 article) you might appreciate the cover art for the issue that relates to the Chamberland article in a curious way, a DNA double helix representation in the form of a Tower of Babel. I can send a copy of it also. If you can deal with all the copyright issues, CT has the same draconian approach to copyright as any other money making media organization, the original article would still make a useful addition to TWW.

    I’ve been collecting references and making notes that possibly could lead to a guest post on this subject but it is very much out of my expertise and I’d gladly defer to someone more expert in this area.

  358. Ken wrote:

    Where our will and the bible clash, the bible decides the issue. Using the expression biblical authority to give my own teaching and interpretation authority, i.e. to bind believers to do what I think they should is an abuse of the bible.

    I agree with the caveat that we not make the Bible a static collection of words to be manipulated. I think you would agree with that. The problem is that people who claim to uphold Biblical authority are actually seizing that authority themselves.

    The real authority of the Bible is held by the Holy Spirit, the author of the texts. So for any man or group of men to claim that they have the authority of Scripture backing their idea, then they need to show very, very good evidence for that claim.

    Also, a little clarification to my essay-comment above: Inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts which we do not have. No doubt people would worship the “Holy Book” just as relics and bones have been historically if we did have the originals. So that’s a good thing, I think.

    The reliability of the texts that we do have–and there are textual variants among them–means that what we do have is sufficient for us to know and do what God wants us to know and do. As Dee has said, there are things which appear to have been either added to or omitted from the text. But those parts are not essential to the faith and practice of believers.

    I think it is also an error, however, to try to separate the Jesus we worship from the Bible. To do that is to separate one Person of the Trinity from the words of another Person of the Trinity. The Bible reveals the Jesus we worship, just as he said the Holy Spirit would do. That does not mean that we worship the Bible, but it does mean that it is authoritative since it is from the Holy Spirit.

    From a logical standpoint, this is circular, and is thus a point of faith to be determined in the heart of every person.

  359. Kay wrote:

    The editor(s) have the freedom to seek reviews from non-creationist scientists. They use a double blind process which some other major science journals use. You have no way of knowing who the reviewers are.

    I don’t see how this can be true given the following:
    https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

    The key statement is:
    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts our reading of 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.

    Well actually the statement is:
    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.

    The key point is they reserve for themselves how to interpret scripture and that anyone in the AIG must agree with their interpretation.

    This just blows away the concept of independent scientific review.
    Because as they state at the beginning of this page:
    In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly.

  360. oldJohnJ wrote:

    The genomics revolution has the potential for changing us or more likely some of our descendants by modifying our DNA. While the science discussed by Chamberland is dated his consideration of the moral issues about genetic engineering is even more relevant given the progress being made towards editing embryonic genomes. While so many of our conservative theologians are still fighting about the age of the Earth we are about to be blindsided by a much more significant and morally dangerous development.

    That would be a great topic to discuss, and I really like how you contrasted the importance of a creation position with the difficult ethical decisions which we will face. Just to give a couple of examples, should we genetically modify rice to supply children with Vit. A (I think it’s A, but I’m not sure) or should we genetically edit mosquitoes so they are not vectors for malaria? These would reduce human suffering, but what might be the unintended consequences and how do we account for those?

    Also, I just want to say how helpful your practical illustration of the problem of science vs. the Bible is. It’s made me want to look at the issues more closely and consider some other issues I had not even thought about.

  361. @ dee:
    Thank you for your lengthy reply!

    When I say misusing the bible to bind believers, I mean using its authority so I can tell others what to do, to command obedience to my teaching. Using ‘submit to your leaders’ as an excuse to lord it over them and meddle in their private lives in a way scripture never intended. Shepherding.

    Some of my post was particulary badly worded. I’ve not spent much time with ex-believers it’s true, but a considerable time amongst some militant atheists. It’s not very enlightening in the sense that the same stock objections keep being repeated, often unthinkingly.

    With the atheists – and I did have some sensible interaction with them at times despite their hostility to all things religious, I did learn an enormous amount over a fairly lengthy period. If you are unremittingly pleasant, they can’t always keep the hostility up (some of it is group think). I learned in particular the need for wisdom, of knowing when you don’t have an answer or are getting out of your depth, of feeling the need to have an answer to every problem raised or being scared to admit when you have got something wrong. Above all, never to hit back in kind, tempting as it was at times.

    Regarding OT genocide, I know the passages concerned and don’t claim they are easy to deal with. But ‘genocide’ was not commanded as understood today. I’ve not yet encountered an atheist who has attempted to get at what the text actually says, or read any conservative commentary on what it actually means.

  362. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    JeffT wrote:
    If there was no Bible would Christianity still exist?
    Well, they were doing all right on the day of Pentecost, by all accounts.

    Who’d a thunk they could do all that with no Bible!

  363. JeffT wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    JeffT wrote:
    If there was no Bible would Christianity still exist?
    Well, they were doing all right on the day of Pentecost, by all accounts.
    Who’d a thunk they could do all that with no Bible!

    Apparently, they thought they could ‘do all that’ because of what Jesus did and said.

    I think that many since then have been selling a bill of goods which declares something different. I am thankful we have scripture, even though I reject how many people try to use it.

  364. @ dee:

    What do you mean by bind believers? I have always had difficulty with the meaning of that word. What does it actually mean in real life?

    This seems related to the idea of “binding the conscience” to me. “Binding the conscience” was explained to me as taking your interpretation of the Bible based on your conscience (i.e., a Romans 14 issue that isn’t an absolute moral black-and-white), and trying to make Christians conform to it even though they don’t share your moral difficulty with the issue at hand.

    How this worked IRL for me and my family, was that an Adventist who thought that illusion/magic tricks were sinful (both because of the word “magic” being involved and because she processed them as “lies”) tried for several years to make sure that a teenage magician did not participate in our homeschool group’s talent show. Finally she underhandedly distributed Adventist anti-magic material at the co-op. She was in a leadership position in the group so this was a problem. When this was pointed out to her, she began behaving in an abusive manner and the entire leader board had to get involved. The person who pointed out that she was binding others’ consciences was an elder at the PCA church I attended at the time. It was a very good description of what she was doing. She, of course, didn’t understand. In hindsight, she definitely fits the profile of an abuser to a tee.

  365. Josh wrote:

    So, Bridget, I’m with you in not liking the term “Biblical authority” or its common variations.

    No, no, no: it’s a really useful term. It means the Bible’s under my authority. What’s not to like?

  366. @ dee:

    Thanks. I get what you are saying. I think I have/had a different working definition of authoritative and what that implies. I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant but haven’t fallen off the deep end into the abyss as some seem to believe will happen if inerrancy is not part of your “statement of faith.”

  367. Bridget wrote:

    I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant but haven’t fallen off the deep end into the abyss as some seem to believe will happen if inerrancy is not part of your “statement of faith.”

    Unfortunately the “deep end” is differently defined by various groups. But as to not believing that the bible is inerrant, there are large major christian denominations (traditions) who do not believe or teach inerrancy. I really did not know that for a long time.

  368. Bridget wrote:

    I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant

    Did you know that the SBC did not stress inerrancy until the Conservative Resurgence? According to one history of that event, men like Patterson and Mohler used the word “inerrancy”, knowing full well that there are some issues with the term. But they used it as a rallying cry to get rid of those “who didn’t believe the Bible.” I was shocked by this revelation.

    I, too, am not an inerrantist-I can’t be, knowing that things were in the Bible that are no longer in the Bible like the woman caught in adultery. The Scriptures that people had 50 years ago, with these verses in it, had a Bible with verses in it that should not have been included. It does not change the meaning of the Bible one iota but it was still inserted in error.

    However, I know many have come to the Lord through the Bible, even with an errant passage included. Therefore, the Bible, along with the Spirit, accomplishes what it needs to accomplish. That is why I prefer terms like inspired, authoritative, and infallible in purpose.

    One other point: God is perfectly capable of preserving a Bible in perfect form. For some reason, He chose not to do so. I always smile when people say the Bible is “inerrant in the original manuscript.” Well, what the heck does that matter if we don’t have it?

    I better shut up before I get myself into real trouble.

  369. Josh wrote:

    This meaning includes the concept that a “clear reading of scripture”

    This sort of thing really irks me, as well. For a number of reasons. One of which is, as you you point out, the fact that one person’s “clear reading” might not be the same as another person’s, in which case we are suddenly talking about hermeneutics and exegesis, not “the plain meaning of the text.”

    Another reason this sort of mentality bugs me is that in many cases, Scripture itself isn’t trying to be clear. Let me say that again: Scripture isn’t always trying to be clear. The assumption that Scripture’s ideal is to communicate clearly-delineated and rigidly-structured thoughts and concepts is generally more of a Western mentality.

    Scripture, written in the ancient Near East by ancient Semitic peoples, reflects more of an “Eastern” approach to communication and learning. One of the main characteristics of biblical literature is intentional ambiguity. Often this is accomplished with an artistic flourish and a flair for the dramatic, and its goal was to provoke thoughtful reflection and discussion, and to challenge assumptions. This is especially the case in prophetic literature, but also narrative.

    Sadly, Western Christians have done much damage to the originally significance of the text by attempting to clear away ambiguity and discover some sort of hypothetical “true meaning.” In contrast, one has only to read some Jewish commentaries to get a glimpse of the very different Eastern approach – debate, discussion, exploration, and ultimately even agreeing to disagree and attempting to reconcile very different concepts that appear to be present in a single text. In other words, learning to live with the tension in the text.

    Sorry for the long post. I highly recommend Robert Alter’s two books: “The Art of Biblical Narrative” and “The Art of Biblical Poetry.” They provide a wonderful introduction to the concepts I have been referring to, and of course Alter is master at explaining and providing examples from the text itself. His approach will open your eyes – and potentially blow your mind – in regards to the tremendous artistry and complexity of biblical literature, most of which Westerners – and especially Christians – completely miss out on.

  370. Ken wrote:

    Regarding OT genocide, I know the passages concerned and don’t claim they are easy to deal with. But ‘genocide’ was not commanded as understood today. I’ve not yet encountered an atheist who has attempted to get at what the text actually says, or read any conservative commentary on what it actually means.

    Well, I have done so-I have read a lot as you can well imagine and I am still not settled on the matter. We discussed this in a Sunday school class that I attend in which the pastor challenges us like crazy. Eagle visited it with my husband and I and said he couldn’t find anything like it in DC.

    The pastor effectively cut down each and every argument for justifying the slaughter in the OT and he is a strong believer. On that day, I realized that my “comfortable” explanation was not a good one after all.

    And, he did not offer us a good explanation for it as well. He is comfortable in saying “That’s one I haven’t quite got figured out at this time.”

    There is a place for questions and doubt within the faith. The longer I am a believer the more I realize that I don’t understand.

  371. NC Now wrote:

    Kay wrote:
    The editor(s) have the freedom to seek reviews from non-creationist scientists. They use a double blind process which some other major science journals use. You have no way of knowing who the reviewers are.
    I don’t see how this can be true given the following:
    https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
    The key statement is:
    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts our reading of 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.
    Well actually the statement is:
    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.
    The key point is they reserve for themselves how to interpret scripture and that anyone in the AIG must agree with their interpretation.
    This just blows away the concept of independent scientific review.
    Because as they state at the beginning of this page:
    In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly.

    You are reading the statement of faith for the organization. I am giving the process for peer review for the scientific journal. Take it or leave it – that’s what the process is and it’s a double blind process so you have no way of knowing, just like most authors published in major scientific journals have no way of knowing the reviewers officially. (In some cases the reviewer might figure out who the author is if their discipline of science has a small community of researchers.)

  372. dee wrote:

    However, I know many have come to the Lord through the Bible, even with an errant passage included. Therefore, the Bible, along with the Spirit, accomplishes what it needs to accomplish. That is why I prefer terms like inspired, authoritative, and infallible in purpose.

    One other point: God is perfectly capable of preserving a Bible in perfect form. For some reason, He chose not to do so. I always smile when people say the Bible is “inerrant in the original manuscript.” Well, what the heck does that matter if we don’t have it?

    I better shut up before I get myself into real trouble.

    First of all, I think you would be one of the last people to worry about whether something gets you into trouble. 😉

    You brought up a word from before 1970 or so: infallible. That used to be the word used, as I recall, to describe the texts as we have them. Not translations or interpretations, but just the manuscripts we have available. My understanding at the time was that infallible meant that the Bible could not fail to accomplish what God had intended for it to accomplish.

    I well by wrong about this, but I don’t recall inerrancy being claimed for anything except the original manuscripts, which as you pointed out, we don’t have. I do think that the doctrine of inerrancy, whether one believes it or not, is important to the doctrine of Scripture and even the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. But, as a practical matter, we don’t have those originals, so we work with what we have.

    That, in my understanding is where the infallibility of Scripture comes in. That is, what we have is reliable for all matters touching on faith and practice (those are something like the words that used to be used. I think the Resurgents thought that infallible left room for errors in the texts that we have or differences between manuscripts and they emphasis shifted to inerrancy and away from infallibility.

    It just seems to me like this whole thing has become muddied, and it would be good to sort it all out so that we are using terms with meanings that are agreed upon even if what is asserted by a given term is not believed. I’m learning a lot from this discussion, and maybe you or Nancy or someone else can recollect and correct my memory on those points.

  373. Gram3 wrote:

    I well by wrong about this

    should be “I may well be wrong about this.” And the parenthesis int the second to last paragraph should be closed after “used.”

  374. The following is to provide a differing point of view.

    “If the champions of YEC or others who want to treat the Bible as essentially a science text but do not or cannot offer Biblical based quantitative solutions to these simple problems, the absence of such solutions will be understood as an admission that there are none.”

    In classical logic, the above statement is an example of committing the ‘fallacy of special pleading’ (a double standard – the arguer has applied a standard which is not also applied to the arguer, i.e., show through the arguer’s worldview the basis for providing quantitative solutions [this doesn’t mean the arguer has not provided answers to the physics questions]), also the ‘fallacy of bifurcation’ (the arguer implies that one uses either science or the bible), and the ‘fallacy of false cause’ (i.e., quantitative solutions arise from the non-advocates of “Bible as science”).

    The solution to the proposed physics questions is not a YEC question, or an old earth question, or an evolutionary question, a naturalist question, or a super-naturalist question.
    The bible is the basis for why an answer can be found to the proposed physics questions. In fact, the bible is the basis for why the questions can even be formulated in the first place.

    The bible is not a comprehensive book of knowledge. For example, it does not contain a chapter on why DOS-based Windows systems crash so frequently, or why the iPhone interface is so smooth, or what the answer is to a simple math problem such as 4 divided by 2. The bible does, though, teach us the ‘why’ we can have knowledge of such things, which naturalism, evolution, or any other view in which one relies for his ultimate authority, cannot.

    YEC’s, as well as all others of differing belief systems, can answer the physics questions because the questions themselves do not require a belief in a particular worldview or interpretation of the bible; but rather, the answer is contingent upon knowing certain absolutes in this world, such as laws of physics, uniformity in nature, and mathematics.

    I married into an engineering family. My father-in-law, an aerospace engineer, is known as “the Doctor” at one of the nation’s largest defense contractors because he is a master of physics and calculus (he speaks them more effectively than the english language – no joke). His one son is a transmission engineer for a car manufacturer, and the other son is a chemist who works in the space program for one branch of the military. All three of them are YEC’s, yet none of their work requires any of them to have any knowledge of the bible. At the same time, none of their work and the reason why their work “works”, can be explained apart from the bible.

    The bible offers the reason why there are absolutes, such as 1 + 1 always equals 2, no matter where one is in time or space, even though mathematics is abstract. Sure, all people of all world-views know 1 + 1 = 2, but only the bible can provide the basis for why it equals the same thing every day, every time.

    The bible is the basis for all human reasoning, not just science, computer programming, mathematics, reading, psychology, morality, theology, logic, music, etc.

    When discussing science, it is the bible that provides the basis for inductive reasoning, which is the foundation for all science – test, observe, repeat. Apart from the bible there is no logically consistent explanation for science and the principle of inductive reasoning. As philosophers Bertrand Russell (20th c.) and David Hume (18th c.) candidly admit, there is no scientific foundation for taking past experiences (observations), and repeating them in the future, while expecting consistent results.

    For example, the best one could hope for is that it would be ‘probable’ an apple will drop to the ground when it falls from the tree; and it is probable that 1 + 1 will equal 2, today as well as tomorrow.
    Spend a few moments dwelling on the philosopher’s statements, below, and then consider why the bible is the basis for solving the proposed physics questions.

    Here are a couple of truth claims from scripture. All knowledge resides in God. (Colossians 2:3) Either this is true, or it is not. If true, we can only attribute our knowledge of anything to God since that is where all knowledge resides. If false, then we cannot know, with any certainty, that we actually know anything. Next, God cannot deny himself. (II Timothy 2:13) Either this is true or not. If true, then: he is wholly righteous, who cannot contradict himself, mislead, or lie (see Numbers 23:19); he is who he claims to be, is everywhere at all times, knows all things, more powerful than anything, and is, thus, above all things in creation, which makes him the basis for why we have knowledge and absolutes, including laws of logic, laws of physics, laws of mathematics, uniformity in nature, morality, etc.

    Praise the Lord, though, that he loves us so much, that no matter where we are in life he wants all of us, to save us, to complete us, and to heal us with his grace. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8), and “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

    Here are the philosopher’s quotes I referenced above:

    Bertrand Russell –

    “The inductive principle, however, is equally incapable of being proved by an appeal to experience. Experience might conceivably confirm the inductive principle as regards the cases that have been already examined; but as regards unexamined cases, it is the inductive principle alone that can justify any inference from what has been examined to what has not been examined. All arguments which, on the basis of experience, argue as to the future or the unexperienced parts of the past or present, assume the inductive principle; hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question [arguing in a circle]. Thus we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all justification of our expectations about the future. If the principle is unsound, we have no reason to expect the sun to rise to-morrow, to expect bread to be more nourishing than a stone, or to expect that if we throw ourselves off the roof we shall fall. When we see what looks like our best friend approaching us, we shall have no reason to suppose that his body is not inhabited by the mind of our worst enemy or of some total stranger. All our conduct is based upon associations which have worked in the past, and which we therefore regard as likely to work in the future; and this likelihood is dependent for its validity upon the inductive principle. The general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event must have a cause, are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life. All such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed.

    David Hume –
    “We have said that all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect, that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience, and that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. To endeavour, therefore, the proof of this last supposition by probable arguments, or arguments regarding existence, must be evidently going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question.” [begging the question]

  375. @ Kay:
    It is peer reviewed by only those who agree with them.

    Here is it in their own words from the journal.

    “Furthermore, people want to know they can trust what is published on the Internet, which is why papers in our journal will be reviewed by the best experts we have available to us through a large network of well-qualified creationist researchers, scientists, and theologians who are the best thinkers in their fields of creationist research. Thus, we can give you absolute assurance that the papers we will be publishing in our Answers Research Journal are of the highest scientific and theological standard.”

    https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/about/

  376. Virgil wrote:

    YEC’s, as well as all others of differing belief systems, can answer the physics questions because the questions themselves do not require a belief in a particular worldview or interpretation of the bible; but rather, the answer is contingent upon knowing certain absolutes in this world, such as laws of physics, uniformity in nature, and mathematics.

    The point of the post was to say that we do not trust the Bible to solve a simple science problem. Why should we trust the Bible to solve a complex problem like the age of the earth? That is a compelling question in my mind.

  377. Gram3 wrote:

    It just seems to me like this whole thing has become muddied, and it would be good to sort it all out so that we are using terms with meanings that are agreed upon even if what is asserted by a given term is not believed.

    It is muddied and that was the intent of those who introduced the term. It was a game on winning in the Conservative Resurgence and many people realize the game that has been played.

  378. @ NC Now:
    Here is my answer to Kay.

    It is peer reviewed by only those who agree with them.
    Here is it in their own words from the journal.

    “Furthermore, people want to know they can trust what is published on the Internet, which is why papers in our journal will be reviewed by the best experts we have available to us through a large network of well-qualified creationist researchers, scientists, and theologians who are the best thinkers in their fields of creationist research. Thus, we can give you absolute assurance that the papers we will be publishing in our Answers Research Journal are of the highest scientific and theological standard.”
    https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/about/

  379. Kay wrote:

    You are reading the statement of faith for the organization. I am giving the process for peer review for the scientific journal. Take it or leave it – that’s what the process is and it’s a double blind process so you have no way of knowing, just like most authors published in major scientific journals have no way of knowing the reviewers officially. (In some cases the reviewer might figure out who the author is if their discipline of science has a small community of researchers.)

    Yes I am. Especially this phrase.
    it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly.

    Are you saying this journal is in no way related to AIG? Unless this is so then the statement of faith applies per the AIG web site.

  380. In other news, Stephen Hawking says the Higgs Boson Bubble (which sounds even worse than The Blob) may be headed our way. I have no idea what this article is saying, obviously, but it sounds like things *may* have already started to go kablooie and we don’t even know it. This is going to make prepping a little beside the point, ISTM.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/stephen-hawking-fears-higgs-boson-doomsday-hes-not-alone-n198766

    “But I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto him against that day.”

  381. dee wrote:

    It is muddied and that was the intent of those who introduced the term. It was a game on winning in the Conservative Resurgence and many people realize the game that has been played.

    It certainly seems that way in retrospect, at the very least, though some no doubt saw it at the time.

  382. Nancy wrote:

    Then Jeffersonian thinkers (Muff) or scientists (as we are talking about here) come along and say, “No.” You people are not the only source of truth and neither do you have the right to require my compliance to something I do not believe. These assertions strike right at the heart of some people’s understanding of what is the church, and where is truth to be found. And historically we have seen this play out in many ways; we just happen to be talking about origins right now.

    That’s pretty much where I’m at Nancy, but in the same vein, it does not mean that I am in lockstep with all things Jeffersonian. There are three things I believe up front as axioms which are NOT negotiable:

    1) Jesus’ conception by the supernatural power of the Almighty, no human male sperm involved.
    2) Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead after being murdered by a corrupt religious system in collusion with the Roman military.
    3) Jesus’ bodily return to Earth at some point in future.

    Jefferson believed none of the three and in his writings he repudiates the supernatural agency of the Almighty, I affirm it.

  383. dee wrote:

    There is a place for questions and doubt within the faith. The longer I am a believer the more I realize that I don’t understand.

    Personally, when it comes to faith, I’d like to get on a first-class bullet train that can’t derail and ride it straight to glory not having to worry about a thing.

    But I think the walk of faith is more like a walk along a dense mountain trail with lots of steep ups and downs, very narrow muddy and slippery places with steep drop offs, winding through briars with roots to trip us, having some amazing vistas but also some dark woods with truly scary things.

    I don’t think we will understand the scary things, like why there is evil and suffering, until we understand everything face to face. I haven’t heard any good explanations, or at least ones that are satisfying to me.

  384. Kay wrote:

    dee wrote:
    @ Kay:
    It is peer reviewed by only those who agree with them.
    Here is it in their own words from the journal.
    “Furthermore, people want to know they can trust what is published on the Internet, which is why papers in our journal will be reviewed by the best experts we have available to us through a large network of well-qualified creationist researchers, scientists, and theologians who are the best thinkers in their fields of creationist research. Thus, we can give you absolute assurance that the papers we will be publishing in our Answers Research Journal are of the highest scientific and theological standard.”
    https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/about/
    Dee – Read the instructions and information for submitting a paper – it says exactly what I’ve been saying.

    and it says what I know. Take it or leave it. You don’t know me nor do you need to take my word for it.

  385. Virgil wrote:

    The following is to provide a differing point of view.
    David Hume –
    “We have said that all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect, that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience, and that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. To endeavour, therefore, the proof of this last supposition by probable arguments, or arguments regarding existence, must be evidently going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question.” [begging the question]

    (Edited by Dee )
    Virgil – I really enjoyed your post. I was done here, but am glad I came back for a sec. =) Thank you for taking time to write all of that. I’m going to print it off and keep it.

  386. @ Virgil:

    I take your point about the basis for expecting outcomes in the future based on past outcomes. I do think that one can believe in a Physics/Chemistry/Math Lawgiver without believing the Bible. That may be the point of Romans 1. I do agree that there are axioms and presuppositions that should be made explicit, but I have never seen any explanation for origins that is not, in at least some sense, circular.

    I have never understood how a Naturalist accounts for order arising from randomness. I do understand that random processes can produce results that appear ordered. But that doesn’t seem to be what we are really talking about. That is not to say that order from randomness cannot be accounted for, but it goes against all of my experience.

  387. To our readers
    Please do not repost lengthy comments. It is fine to repost a paragraph or a few lines or to encourage others to reread the entire comment.

  388. Kay wrote:

    and it says what I know. Take it or leave it. You don’t know me nor do you need to take my word for it.

    I quoted directly from the journal website. I figure the best place to go is to the source. So, is the journal website, written by Ham, in error? Could you get him to correct it?

  389. Muff Potter wrote:

    it does not mean that I am in lockstep with all things Jeffersonian.

    Oh, yeah, Muff. I did not mean to label you, but I thought I remembered hearing you use that term to describe yourself on more than one occasion. If I left the wrong impression, that was certainly not my intent. When I talked about “scientists” I certainly was not saying that all scientists think alike about every thing. I should have said “Jeffersonian thinkers to whom Muff may be similar” or some such. I will be more careful in the future.

  390. dee wrote:

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/06/27/doug-wilson-and-the-american-family-association-hivaids-conspiracy-theorists/
    Pay particular attention to the section “Dr Peter Duesberg published his book, Inventing the AIDS Virus, and causes an uproar.” Here is a brilliant, noted scientist taking a walk on the wild side.

    People have died because of AIDS denialism. In the AIDS denialism article on Wikipedia, there’s a discussion of that. I’d especially note the section on “AIDS Denialism in South Africa.”

  391. @ Gram3:

    My takeaway from that article was:

    1) Depending on whether our math is right, which we won’t know until we find out some other things we don’t know, this is either totally possible or not possible at all.

    2) If this thing hasn’t happened yet, once it did happen it would take billions and billions of years to get to you.

    3) If it already has happened, you won’t know what hit you anyway if it does get to you in your lifetime, so go about your daily life.

    So I’m not losing sleep. If they seriously thought we were all going to die tomorrow, they wouldn’t be asking for funding for new particle accelerators. 😉

  392. @ Nancy:

    No harm no foul Nancy, no way did I take any offense. I think we all believe what we believe on the basis of what we’re predisposed to believe and what we find resonance with in our own human experience. It’s a very natural desire to want others to agree with us and to try and convince others of our own respective points of view, it’s one of the hallmarks which makes us human. But failing that and if others are not convinced, what then? We no longer burn, flay, flog, and hang others (on these shores anyway) for not believing a certain brand of theology and in that respect, the world is a far better place than it was, and we have indeed learned from the mistakes of the past.

  393. Hester wrote:

    3) If it already has happened, you won’t know what hit you anyway if it does get to you in your lifetime, so go about your daily life.

    Right. I’ve lived through duck and cover and lean-to fallout shelters waiting for Fail Safe. I just thought the timing of the article was interesting WRT this thread topic. Sort of a reverse Big Bang. Does give a whole new meaning to bursting your bubble, though.

  394. dee wrote:

    It is difficult for many to accept that support for YEC is held by a tiny group with little support outside of a small group of Christians. So, when a new finding is announced by YEC, no one in the scientific community feels “uncomfortable” because most people do not believe, or care, about YEC.
    I support their right to express their POV. I do not think anyone should be fired for their POV unless it interferes with the functioning of a department due to loud arguments.

    Again the sweeping statements, no one believes this, no one cares, little support except for a small group of Christians, most people don’t believe, or care, etc. The point remains that soft tissue in dinosaur fossils remains a conundrum for an old earth view. Proof that they care is that Schweitzer’s super iron-rich dino blood hypotheses is frequently brought up to explain the persistence of soft tissue.
    YEC scientists have also been carbon dating a lot of dinosaur bones and other organic material getting very young dates. These are also dismissed by evolutionists as all being contaminated samples, or that the specimens are so old that carbon dating can’t be used. Again if they didn’t care they wouldn’t need to come up with these arguments. So, let the debate rage on.

  395. Creationists pretend there’s a debate. If you understand radioactivity and the concept of precision in measurement, it becomes apparent that dino bones can’t be dated with Carbon-14, because it has a half life of 5730 years, which means that in very old bones, the carbon-14 will have decayed to levels that are below what can be detected to a level of precision required to make a reasonable estimate of their age. I personally find it reprehensible that creation scientists choose to ignore this fact that is obvious even to a person not trained in the field (that’d be me) just because the method gives them funky numbers that appear to contradict the evolutionists.

  396. Flat Top wrote:

    YEC scientists have also been carbon dating a lot of dinosaur bones and other organic material getting very young dates.

    Now articles about this with facts I’d like to see.

  397. Muff Potter wrote:

    We no longer burn, flay, flog, and hang others (on these shores anyway) for not believing a certain brand of theology and in that respect, the world is a far better place than it was, and we have indeed learned from the mistakes of the past.

    Amen to that!

  398. dee wrote:

    Dust off your computer and think about doing it. I like the way you explain things!

    I’ll consider it. But don’t hold your breath. The genetic engineering article I feel is needed will probably take more work than all of my generous allotment of guest posts to date.

  399. Kay wrote:

    Ken Ham is not the editor and the editor(s) have the freedom to seek reviews from non-creationists. You have no way of knowing who the reviewers are.

    I have experience on both sides of the peer review process. Your description of the general process is fine but it can easily be subverted.

    I partially peer reviewed two papers on the AIG site in a previous post on Fraud. One paper has been replaced by AIG with a less detaailed one since the post. I was able to verify the ages the authors assigned to their samples based on the data given. I am not a geologist so I could not comment on the applicability of the particular dating systems to the actual samples. These ages verified and generally confirmed the ancient (1-2 billion) year ages for the samples. The failure of the papers was to not use standard statistical methods to compare the different dating efforts. The AIG papers then claimed since the discrepancies were so great the entire radiometric dating method could not be trusted. By my calculations the statistical agreement between AIG and the references from other sources was good. The lack of basic statistical comparison with the other reported work is sufficent to disqualify the AIG papers from publication.

    I hope you read the brief review by Isaac that I referenced upthread. The issue is not one of science. After all, the AIG results confirmed the ages for the particular rock samples in question. The issue is a lack of integrity by the AIG authors. If during my working career I received a memo from an upper manager equivalent to what Isaac wrote I would polish up my resume and start looking for work elsewhere.

  400. Flat Top wrote:

    So, let the debate rage on.

    It only rages on within a minuscule group of people. For the vast majority, the science is settled.

  401. oldJohnJ wrote:

    he failure of the papers was to not use standard statistical methods to compare the different dating efforts. T

    This is the hard part that many do not understand. Science is complex and many Christian people accept without question, the “conclusions” because Ken Ham is a “Christian” and he would never mislead people, right? Well, TWW exists to show that a number of Christian leaders mislead on a regular basis.

  402. dee wrote:

    The point of the post was to say that we do not trust the Bible to solve a simple science problem. Why should we trust the Bible to solve a complex problem like the age of the earth? That is a compelling question in my mind.

    Hmm…I don’t disagree with the general premise. But maybe the word ‘trust’ is not the right one to use? To me, saying that you do not “trust the Bible to solve” something suggests that the Bible attempts to solve it, but does so inaccurately, in your view. I don’t think that’s what you mean (although I could be wrong).

    For me, I would say, “The Bible does not set out to solve simple or complex physics (or other science) problems. To attempt to use it for that purpose, especially to the exclusion of things that were designed for that purpose, is to misuse it.”

    Something I believe is: when we study the bible with the goal of proving we are right and everyone else (or they) is wrong, we are behaving, at best, like spiritual 2 year olds, and at worst like spiritual sociopaths.

  403. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Something I believe is: when we study the bible with the goal of proving we are right and everyone else (or they) is wrong, we are behaving, at best, like spiritual 2 year olds, and at worst like spiritual sociopaths.

    Dee, in re-reading this, I want to make sure you understand that this was not directed at you. I do not think that is what you do. It is a general statement on the state of the use, or misuse, of the bible.

  404. OldJohnJ said the following in the initial post for this topic …

    “The inability to show that the Bible can deal with simple quantitative science problems is definitive evidence that it says nothing about science.”

    I take OldJohnJ to be a very intelligent individual with an extensive background in science and mathematics. I’m also assuming the OldJohnJ is a Christian as well. But, to make this statement is either from a point of ignorance or I am misinterpreting his quote.

    As Virgil discussed, the Bible is not going to help me pass my Astronomy exam, but it surely discusses many aspects of astronomy. But to say it says nothing about science is silly.

    It would be like me saying that Bible says nothing about sex because the Bible doesn’t explain how a sperm fertilizes an egg.

    OldJohnJ is right in saying that the PRIMARY purpose of the Bible is about God’s love of mankind and his redemption. However, the Bible can be used for the base discussion for everything.

    The other day I was rereading Psalms and came across the passage in Psalms 8:8 “”The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” It’s a well-known verse written by King David (who most likely never saw anything but the Mediterranean Seas) that describes the currents of the world’s oceans … oceanography. It was a Navy Officer, Matthew Maury, who believed the Bible to be true at it’s face value, that followed up on this verse and hypothesised that there must be “paths” in the seas … because the Bible is truth, and one can use it to seek truth and many ways, shapes and form. Maury went on a mission to find the “paths of the seas” and he indeed found them! His scientific hypothesis, based upon scripture, proved to be correct.
    Now, did the Bible specifically talk about the Gulf Stream or the temperatures of the water and how quickly it took for the paths to cycle through around the oceans? No. However, it can and WAS used to find out something that ONLY God knew at that time. That there were paths in the sea.
    So, I disagree with OldJohnJ that the Bible says nothing about science. The Bible says MUCH about science. Where I think OldJohnJ is misled is that the Bible doesn’t talk about the exact specifics of hydrology, but it surely discussed hydrology.

    The Bible does not tell me the exact age of the earth. To be honest, I don’t really care how old it is accept that when evolution is invoked in to the discussion. I personally believe that the Bible clearly articulates that God created EVERYTHING. The core of the problem with evolution is that the vast majority of evolutionists can not even begin to consider that they may be wrong. That God indeed created everything from nothing. Why? Because their idol is evolution. Even when their idol has been reshaped and reformed decade after decade, they still BELIEVE in it.

    I stated before in a previous blog on evolution in thewartburgwatch that Christians that BELIEVE in evolution has serious issues to resolve in scripture. Most importantly the basis behind the billions and billions of years it takes to turn a fish in to a bird. Instead of taking God at His very own word that He created them both on the fifth day of creation as seperate and individual species.

    So OldJohnJ, I do understand that you are a Christian, and that you are extremely smart, however I would hope that you wouldn’t be as blind to the obvious references and inferences to science all throughout the Bible and make a statement as you did at the beginning of this discussion.

    I realize I’m not going to convince any of you to what you already believe about evolution. However, if God’s word is true, and it was and can continue to be used as truth for everything in our lives, including science, why not consider that the world MAY be 100% wrong in their belief of evolution?

    FYI … I’m not a troll. I’ve been reading TWW for years. I’ve posted at times for other issues as well. I AM a YEC. I DO believe that the Bible is the FINAL authority on everything in life, including science and sex for that matter. I really don’t like John Piper, but I do understand his comments that started this disucssion. Hate me if you’d like, but I’ll still read TWW and hopefully be able to comment more in the future.

  405. @ Somewhereintime:

    Since I will quote several parts of your comment I have set them off with quotes rather than use the reply button.

    “So, I disagree with OldJohnJ that the Bible says nothing about science. The Bible says MUCH about science.” The first thing I want to do is to be clear about definitions. I agree that the Bible includes many observations about the environment and the physical world in general. However, science is much more than a collection of observations. The essence of science is to look for underlying commonalities in collections of observations. These commonalities (in the hard sciences) are usually expressed in the form of mathematical relationships called theories (unfortunately another much overused word). Since theories are mathematical they have predictive power when applied to different, but similar, situations. In this sense the Bible does not say anything about science and is the primary reason I offered this post.

    “That there were paths in the sea.” Sea routes were well known in Biblical times so perhaps this passage is better understood as an analogy to land routes. There is no need to invoke an analogy with a modern science to explain this passage.

    “I personally believe that the Bible clearly articulates that God created EVERYTHING.” Without trying to be flippant consider our current “smart phones”. These marvelous devices represent the results of literally armies of scientists, engineers and programmers working together for decades. To say that God created such things would require totally accepting the hypercalvinist doctrine of God controlling every microscopic decision made anywhere and anytime by everyone. My own understanding is that God created the underlying laws that govern the physical world and gave us the ability to make choices. He also gave us the ability to determine what these laws are, science.

    “I stated before in a previous blog on evolution in thewartburgwatch that Christians that BELIEVE in evolution has serious issues to resolve in scripture.” I think this is the main part of your comment and objection to what I wrote in my post. Following up on the last sentence in the previous paragraph I believe what we call evolution is one of the processes intended by God. I accept that He can intervene in these processes. I suggest that the Golden Rule, do unto others as yourself, which is the essence of morality coming directly from God is counter to evolution. That is, counter to the survival of the fittest paradigm that generally is used to describe evolution. Evolution as currently understood is a very slow process. YEC provides an easy argument negating evolution by denying it time to work. However that does not justify YEC beliefs. Some of the extremely severe problems with YEC have been discussed up thread in the comments. These essentially call into question the integrity of many of the YEC advocates.

    “I really don’t like John Piper, but I do understand his comments that started this discussion. Hate me if you’d like, but I’ll still read TWW and hopefully be able to comment more in the future.” I hope Piper is a misprint as I quoted Albert Mohler at the beginning of the post. The essence of the Golden Rule is respect. Respect in this context is taking your comments seriously and I hope you interpret my responses that way. Hate is neither Christian or respectful. Disagreement is not disrespect. I agree that you are not trolling but I won’t make a blanket statement that includes some other commenters to this post. I’m sure you can continue to comment on TWW as it is Deebs policy to only ban comments that descend into nastiness.

  406. dee wrote:

    Hmmm, when we say Scripture, we are saying that which we hold to be Scripture. But, what if we must delete one story since it wasn’t there in the first place. The only Scripture that we had at the time the discovery contained an error.

    I don’t believe we need to delete it. First, there hasn’t been any formal pronouncement one way or another. Secondly, it is free from error in faith and morals.

  407. Nancy wrote:

    First look at the catholic church claiming to be The Church, and basing such claim on apostolic succession, and then stating that the church has the authority to interpret scripture as led by by the Holy Spirit (I just re-read the section on scripture in the catechism) and then requiring adherence in thought and action by catholic persons to that.

    Amen!

  408. THC wrote:

    irst, there hasn’t been any formal pronouncement one way or another

    Who would be in charge of a “formal” pronouncement? Plus, every version of Scripture I have all have notes saying this not in the earliest manuscripts.

    THC wrote:

    it is free from error in faith and morals.

    I would agree with you but there are issues. There are those who interpreted it to restrict interracial marriages and to support racial segregation.

  409. dee wrote:

    But, what if we must delete one story since it wasn’t there in the first place.

    If we continue to laud the accuracy of the original manuscripts (and that is a supposition) and if we continue to say that the original manuscripts are not available, then we do not have any way of knowing what was or was not actually there “in the first place.”

    I have, as I have noted, been reading Bart Ehrman. I have not read everything he has written but before it is over I suspect I will have read most of it. That said as a disclaimer, I am hearing him say at this point that they really can’t be sure, 100% of the time, just why scribal changes were made in early manuscripts. They seem pretty sure of some of the reasons and/or possible reasons, but until the scholars get from pretty sure to sure, and from “most” to “all” there is still uncertainty.

    I am not for keeping or throwing out anything, not as an official pronouncement, without some serious evidence of the accuracy or lack of it of the passage in question.

    In other words–how do we know?

  410. @ Nancy:

    As to who should make that kind of decision, I have no problem with it being an official pronouncement of some authority structure of the church, even though I do not credit such authority structure with infallibility. That would be if, and only if, that authority acted on the best available scholarly evidence at the time. I see three things at work here, (a) somebody has to stop the constant quarreling, (b) decisions have to be based on solid evidence and good argumentation, and ( c) the conclusions have to be subject to later amendment if new information becomes available.

    I was enormously impressed by something Joseph Ratzinger said in “…dominus iesus..” in arguing for a specific conclusion. He said that they had no further revelation on the matter at this time and did not expect further revelation (such as to change their stated position) but that in the future there might be further understanding such as to lead to some moderation of the position (That is not a direct quote–that is the meaning of the statement as I understood it.) Well, yes, that is a seriously good approach to take, in my opinion.

    And here I am defending a catholic position when we all know I am a protestant. My word and gracious me.

  411. @ Nancy:

    Note: just in case an explanation is needed. “Gracious me” is an idiomatic expression in the same genre as “gracious sakes alive” or just plain “gracious.” It does denote anything about the person making the statement but is rather a mild statement of mild surprise.

  412. dee wrote:

    THC wrote:
    irst, there hasn’t been any formal pronouncement one way or another
    Who would be in charge of a “formal” pronouncement? Plus, every version of Scripture I have all have notes saying this not in the earliest manuscripts.
    THC wrote:
    it is free from error in faith and morals.
    I would agree with you but there are issues. There are those who interpreted it to restrict interracial marriages and to support racial segregation.

    All the earliest manuscripts contain diacritical marks which may indicate that it should be there.
    People do a lot of interpreting of scripture to make it say what they want it to say. That’s why I don’t believe that one can authoritatively interpret scripture outside of the tradition of the Church, the ancient Church, where the Bible came from. It’s like someone picking up family letters and trying to conclude everything about that family from these letters. The Family knows what those letters mean better than any outsider.
    So, the Magisterium of the Church hasn’t pronounced anything about it other than at Trent saying that the Vulgate was authoritative, and it contained the text.

  413. THC wrote:

    That’s why I don’t believe that one can authoritatively interpret scripture outside of the tradition of the Church, the ancient Church, where the Bible came from

    Hi THC, mind if I ask a question? When you refer to the church in the part I quoted above are you referring to the generic “church” of all Christians or are you referring to the Roman Catholic church? I feel like I’m missing something in the lingo you’re using here and just want to be sure I correctly understand what you’re saying.

  414. THC wrote:

    So, the Magisterium of the Church hasn’t pronounced anything about it other than at Trent saying that the Vulgate was authoritative, and it contained the text.

    I feel like I’m in a Twilight movie with the talk of ‘Magisterium’ and ‘Vulgate’.

  415. dee wrote:

    The answer to the question of God and the slaughter in the OT is not as easy for many although you seem to have solved it adequately for yourself.

    Sorry, I know this is going back in time and I’ve already commented on it, but this sentence bothered me when I thought about it again.

    What made you think I had so easily solved this issue for myself? It doesn’t follow from anything I said and I wondered why you assumed this. OK it’s ‘only’ a comment section, and I don’t mind in the least people disagreeing with me, but I do like them to disagree with what I actually think! I hope I don’t come over as more dogmatic if not opinionated than I really am. 🙂

  416. Ken wrote:

    What made you think I had so easily solved this issue for myself? I

    I didn’t say that. Read what I said again. I said it is not easily solved for many. I did not say that those who solved it did so easily, including you. I acknowledged that you seem to have solved it adequately for yourself. I do not know if it was an easy or a difficult process for you.

    I just wanted to emphasize that it is one of the most difficult questions raised in the Bible and many folks struggle-some for their whole lives. Others think they have it solved and later on life look at it from a different angle and realize they still don’t get it. That one represents me. I used to have my answers and decided that they were not sufficient for me. So, I am now still trying to put it together. Some days I think I have it and some days I don’t.

    However, what I have come to understand is that I do not agree with John Piper and others who think the answer is “God did it and that’s the end of it.” I wrestle and probably will until I meet Him face to face.

  417. Haitch wrote:

    I feel like I’m in a Twilight movie with the talk of ‘Magisterium’ and ‘Vulgate’.

    I would love to be called a Magesteria! As for Vulgate, doesn’t that have something to do with Mark Driscoll? 🙂

  418. @ Albuquerque Blue:

    Where did you get your Bible? How do you know what books to include? It was the Roman Catholic Church which gave the world the Bible. It authoritatively declared what books should be in it and what books shouldn’t. That’s where I get my authority.

  419. @ Haitch:

    Well, most people can’t think about the Bible unless it is the KJV or the NIV.
    At some point in history, the heavens opened up and a golden-edged, leather-bound copy of the King James Bible was delivered to your grandparents. They faithfully kept it so that you could have it and understand all the truths that God wants for your life. The Bible fell out of the sky and anyone who can read can understand what it means. If someone disagrees with you, they are wrong. Period.

  420. THC wrote:

    They faithfully kept it so that you could have it and understand all the truths that God wants for your life.

    THC, I must tell you that I think that statement is truer of “The Church” you refer to. I was a catholic until the age of 38, attended 12 yrs. of catholic schooling, made several retreats, one Cursista, served as a lay missionary in a Mexican migrant camp. My parents were devout catholics and I had two aunts who were nuns. All that is to say, I never once in all those years or in all those activities saw a catholic open a Bible nor encourage the reading of scripture (any version). In fact, it was discouraged along with singing “Away in a Manger” at Christmas and/or watching Billy Graham on TV. The bishop of our parish was a family friend who accepted a $10,000 donation from my father to build a shrine to the “Blessed Mother” in our back yard. Never in any of his visits to our home was the Bible ever mentioned.

    After my conversion, I bought my first Bible at the age of 39 and found truths I had never heard nor been taught. It just happened to be a NASB since I didn’t know one from the other and I still use that version today 30 yrs. later.

    All that’s to say that unless “The Church” has changed dramatically over the past 30 yrs., scripture isn’t for the most part the basis for faith among the laity. Unless they are born again believers, that is. And when I tried to share my new birth with that bishop, he arrogantly informed me that he studied in Rome so who was I to try to tell him something about faith??

    Just thought I add my experience.

  421. @ Victorious:
    Thank you for that testimony. It is the norm these days to think of the RCC as just another denomination. I’m afraid my encounters with it as an outsider leave me with the belief that although there may well be genuine believers within it, as an institution it lost the plot several centuries ago. It is not alone in that.

    This doesn’t make you popular these days, but I don’t want to get all sentimental in my old age and believe that there is no longer an irreducible minimum to being authentically Christian that nice and elaborate religious ceremonies have done away with.

  422. OldJohnJ,
    Here are my responses to your reponses to my original comments. Thanks again for the reply!
    Somewhere original : “So, I disagree with OldJohnJ that the Bible says nothing about science. The Bible says MUCH about science.”
    OldJohnJ response: The first thing I want to do is to be clear about definitions. I agree that the Bible includes many observations about the environment and the physical world in general. However, science is much more than a collection of observations. The essence of science is to look for underlying commonalities in collections of observations. These commonalities (in the hard sciences) are usually expressed in the form of mathematical relationships called theories (unfortunately another much overused word). Since theories are mathematical they have predictive power when applied to different, but similar, situations. In this sense the Bible does not say anything about science and is the primary reason I offered this post.
    Somewhere response: I would argue that you have defined “science” quite narrowly. I’m ok with that, but to be fair, “science” has a broader meaning beyond how you described it and are using it in your argument. There are many aspects of science that are not expressed in mathematical relationships. So, I would agree with you that the Bible does not express science as one would find in a science text book with mathematical realtionships, but the Bible does speak often of an emense amount of scientific topics to include the origin of the world. As a believer in the Bible, I really can only take God’s word for how it all came about. He created everything it says … and in only six days.
    ***
    Somewhere original: “That there were paths in the sea.”
    OldJohnJ response: Sea routes were well known in Biblical times so perhaps this passage is better understood as an analogy to land routes. There is no need to invoke an analogy with a modern science to explain this passage.
    Somewhere response: I disagree with you. I think the quote clearly shows a known scientific fact about the ocean currents that is found in a passage of scripture 3,000 years ol . I’m not sure why you would need to consider it an anology for land routes. Whether the knowledge was lost over time and rediscovered in the 1800s is anyone’s guess. I only used the Bible quote to show that it is a trustworthy source for true scientific facts. Why? Because God created them, He was there and He knows!
    ***
    Somewhere original : “I personally believe that the Bible clearly articulates that God created EVERYTHING.”
    OldJohnJ response: Without trying to be flippant consider our current “smart phones”. These marvelous devices represent the results of literally armies of scientists, engineers and programmers working together for decades. To say that God created such things would require totally accepting the hypercalvinist doctrine of God controlling every microscopic decision made anywhere and anytime by everyone. My own understanding is that God created the underlying laws that govern the physical world and gave us the ability to make choices. He also gave us the ability to determine what these laws are, science.
    Somewhere response: I’d agree with you on this to a point. Did God drop the smart phone from the sky and say “here you go!”? Of course not, but he did give man knowledge to build upon and to do amazing things. I personally believe that this is all done within God’s sovereign will and direction though. He has given us the ability to think, wonder and explore. He also is completely in control of what happens in the universe.
    ***
    Somewhere original : “I stated before in a previous blog on evolution in thewartburgwatch that Christians that BELIEVE in evolution has serious issues to resolve in scripture.”
    OldJohnJ response: I think this is the main part of your comment and objection to what I wrote in my post. Following up on the last sentence in the previous paragraph I believe what we call evolution is one of the processes intended by God. I accept that He can intervene in these processes. I suggest that the Golden Rule, do unto others as yourself, which is the essence of morality coming directly from God is counter to evolution. That is, counter to the survival of the fittest paradigm that generally is used to describe evolution. Evolution as currently understood is a very slow process. YEC provides an easy argument negating evolution by denying it time to work. However that does not justify YEC beliefs. Some of the extremely severe problems with YEC have been discussed up thread in the comments. These essentially call into question the integrity of many of the YEC advocates.
    Somewhere response: This is probably where we would depart in many aspects of our beliefs. I personally would accept evolution as a scientific fact if it could prove, without a shadow of doubt, the mechanisms to the underlying science to how it works (present tense and past tense). I have read and heard too many stories of evolutionary “scientific facts” that later are found to be flat out wrong, but it was defended previously (and vehemently) as a true fact of science. Evolution has built it’s entire story on these facts that have been proven wrong time after time by their own scientists. I don’t believe that the Bible teaches evolution in the least bit. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that God everything out of nothing. No need for evoluiton. The problem that Christians run in to is that they belive that evolutions is PROVEN by scientific facts. More importantly, ALL of sciences would agree with one another as the evidence would be without contention. If evolution were true then there should be hundreds of thousands of transitional forms of fossils for all to see that it happene over billions and billions of years of existence. If evolution were true than I should be able to hold and possibly pet a transitional forms of animal TODAY! Goodness, there should at least be ONE animal in this huge world of ours that we could see a transition in shouldn’t there? Regarding sexual organs, how did a male species of an animal continue to procreate time after time after time for millions of years without a female animal to reproduce with the male? Surely the species would have died out, correct? How did it wait for millions of years for the female to come about … for the reproductive system to evolve?
    I actually believe it takes MORE faith for an Christian evolutionist to BELIEVE in evolution than it does for one to BELIEVE in what the Bible teaches, a God who created everything in SIX days. Not Billions of years. Evolution, boiled down to it’s truest form, only requires TIME for their own “miracles” to occur. More importantly in this discussion, evolutionists (Non-Christian) will ONLY look at evolution as an answer for our origins. Christians who believe in evolution (many who are here on TWW) have attempted to combine a world-view of origins with the biblical view of how God created everything.
    ***
    Somewhere original : “I really don’t like John Piper, but I do understand his comments that started this discussion. Hate me if you’d like, but I’ll still read TWW and hopefully be able to comment more in the future.”
    OldJohnJ response: I hope Piper is a misprint as I quoted Albert Mohler at the beginning of the post. The essence of the Golden Rule is respect. Respect in this context is taking your comments seriously and I hope you interpret my responses that way. Hate is neither Christian or respectful. Disagreement is not disrespect. I agree that you are not trolling but I won’t make a blanket statement that includes some other commenters to this post. I’m sure you can continue to comment on TWW as it is Deebs policy to only ban comments that descend into nastiness.
    Somewhere response: Yes, I did mean to say Al Mohler … don’t like him either. I throw them in to the same CJ Mahaney-loving boat.
    Regarding respect, I agree with you. I will be honest though, being a non-evolutionist here, I really haven’t felt welcome on TWW when I do comment about evolution. That’s OK, I get the general “birds of a feather flock together” of this and many other blogs. I comment a lot on SGMSurvivors. I called them out last week for making a comment on an individual who was in the minority on one of their comments. I personally believe that we should always respect someone’s opinion, but that doesn’t mean believe in their opinion. But, we must respectfully agree or disagree. Thanks for the response.
    @ oldJohnJ:

  423. Victorious wrote:

    All that’s to say that unless “The Church” has changed dramatically over the past 30 yrs., scripture isn’t for the most part the basis for faith among the laity. Unless they are born again believers, that is. And when I tried to share my new birth with that bishop, he arrogantly informed me that he studied in Rome so who was I to try to tell him something about faith??

    Can’t speak about your bishop, but I suspect that your “sharing” of exodus to Protestantism was probably, and this is just my guess, to “rub it in his face.” Maybe not, but that’s how those meetings usually go.
    I am glad that you have a Bible and study it. Catholics actually are encouraged to read their Bibles, but remember, that Christianity survived for over 1,500 years without mainstream access to Bibles. They used to be chained to the alters because they were so expensive and therefore frequently stolen.
    You have to wonder if salvation is contingent on the Bible only, then the illiterate are out of luck.
    If you attend mass every day for three years, you will have heard the majority of the Bible read.
    I would just say that while you may have an infallible book, unless you have an infallible interpreter, then you have error. With over 35,000 Protestant denominations, with many teaching doctrines that are in direct contradiction with each other and disagree on matters that are essential to salvation, you have to ask yourself how comfortable you are with not knowing that your interpretation is the correct one. The idea of Sola Scriptura was an invention of Luther in the Protestant reformation.
    I love the Bible. It is the inspired word of God. It is profitable for teaching for salvation, but isn’t the pillar and foundation of truth. That’s the Church (1 Timothy 3:15)

  424. Ken wrote:

    This doesn’t make you popular these days, but I don’t want to get all sentimental in my old age and believe that there is no longer an irreducible minimum to being authentically Christian that nice and elaborate religious ceremonies have done away with.

    The Catholic Church teaches that the irreducible minimum is baptism. In which the Church recognizes those outside the Church who are baptized as separated brothers and sisters. If, by “elaborate religious ceremonies” you are referring to the Eucharist, then please blame Jesus for that because he is the one who instituted it, and the apostles followed faithfully, and the Church has continued it for the past 2,000 years. (1 Corinthians 11:26)

  425. THC wrote:

    Here are my responses to your reponses to my original comments. Thanks again for the reply!

    Thank you for the consideration of replying to my Sat. comment. However, I do not feel we have narrowed the differences we have over the subjects of YEC and evolution. Most, if not all, of what you have offered on evolution has been dealt with elsewhere. Considering these are secondary topics in our faith I’m not going to try to argue further.

  426. THC wrote:

    The Catholic Church teaches that the irreducible minimum is baptism

    It’s interesting the old division of baptism being essential versus personal faith in Christ as the bottom line is still ongoing. I suspect genuine believers amongst catholic congregations don’t actually put their faith in baptism. I might add, to be fair, there are a fair few Anglicans I have met whose faith is in baptism, i.e. a ceremony, than actually believe in Christ. They can go on to be confirmed (and even ordained!) and still be unbelievers. There is nothing necessarily wrong with the external ceremonies, but they are pointless if there is no corresponding internal workings of God in the person to which that person has responded.

    Do you fancy discussing this for another 400 years? … 🙂

  427. Ken wrote:

    Do you fancy discussing this for another 400 years? …

    Not at all. I think Protestantism will die out before then. 🙂

  428. THC –

    I have to say that I never thought there could be a Catholic fundamentalist. My view has changed.

  429. THC wrote:

    I love the Bible. It is the inspired word of God. It is profitable for teaching for salvation, but isn’t the pillar and foundation of truth. That’s the Church (1 Timothy 3:15)

    I wasn’t rubbing anything in the bishop’s face…that wasn’t my intention at all. I was hoping he’d rejoice with me and my new found faith. He obviously took my testimony as an affront to his “knowledge.”

    THC, when you reference “the Church,” I think you mean the Roman Catholic Church, but we could find more unity and agreement acknowledging that the “real” church is the Body of Christ. That is, those whose faith is in Jesus Christ as their Savior. That commonality brings unity regardless of the name of the individual church buildings we attend to worship.

    Hope you agree.

  430. Victorious wrote:

    I think you mean the Roman Catholic Church, but we could find more unity and agreement acknowledging that the “real” church is the Body of Christ. That is, those whose faith is in Jesus Christ as their Savior. That commonality brings unity regardless of the name of the individual church buildings we attend to worship.
    Hope you agree.

    I don’t agree. You cannot find any more disunity than in the 35,000+ Protestant denominations. They do not agree on the fundamentals. I don’t believe Jesus set up a church where one opinion was just as good as another and that you can’t have certainty in doctrines.

    This board is a small, very small, microcosm of what disunity looks like. It is what it is. You either like it or you don’t.

  431. Bridget wrote:

    I have to say that I never thought there could be a Catholic fundamentalist. My view has changed.

    You are certainly free to make up new terms, but I’m not convinced you understand what either means.

  432. THC wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    I have to say that I never thought there could be a Catholic fundamentalist. My view has changed.
    You are certainly free to make up new terms, but I’m not convinced you understand what either means.

    I can assure you I know. I as born and raised in the RCC. I’ve been a believer for over 30 years. The terms have multiple and changing meanings.

  433. THC wrote:

    @ Haitch:

    Well, most people can’t think about the Bible unless it is the KJV or the NIV.
    At some point in history, the heavens opened up and a golden-edged, leather-bound copy of the King James Bible was delivered to your grandparents. They faithfully kept it so that you could have it and understand all the truths that God wants for your life. The Bible fell out of the sky and anyone who can read can understand what it means. If someone disagrees with you, they are wrong. Period.

    Ummm que? None of my grandparents or parents grew up in ‘the faith’. My dad said he heard the call of God when he was fifteen, and subsequently put himself into indentured ministry slavery. I sit in the ‘reverent agnostic’ camp this week, and I watch undetached from the sidelines the bible translation arguments. I don’t understand your comments, I think I’ve missed the point completely. Why do I feel you are a Catholic hasbara?

  434. Bridget wrote:

    I can assure you I know. I as born and raised in the RCC. I’ve been a believer for over 30 years. The terms have multiple and changing meanings.

    It is interesting to me that most people who leave the Catholic Church didn’t really know it. “I didn’t get anything out of mass. I didn’t know my Bible. I didn’t know Jesus. I was going through the motions.”
    Protestants who become Catholic usually say, “I was on fire for God. I was studying my Bible. I was studying the fathers of the Church.”

    I don’t blame you really, because there were several decades where catechesis was severely lacking. It’s getting better though.

  435. @ Haitch:

    Yes, I guess you did miss my point. Most people don’t understand where the Bible came from, or what Martin Luther did to it. If one is going to set something up as the “ultimate authority”, then you better have the right one, and be an infallible interpreter.

  436. @ THC:
    Since you’re continuing to comment under this post perhaps you could give us the official RCC position on the age of the universe and evolution. Also interesting would be why it took the RCC approximately 400 years to exonerate Galileo.

  437. @ THC:I don’t identify as Christian and I don’t believe the bible is the ultimate authority, Catholic or Protestant. As my grandpa would say, “you’re talking to the chooks”.

  438. Somewhereintime wrote:

    I will be honest though, being a non-evolutionist here, I really haven’t felt welcome on TWW when I do comment about evolution. That’s OK, I get the general “birds of a feather flock together” of this and many other blogs.

    I think you’d be hard pressed to find a more tolerant place than TWW. In fact, where else would they tolerate a known socialist, recalcitrant-renegade-free-thinker, and Pelagian heretic like Muff Potter? For what it’s worth, I too reject the evolutionary paradigm and don’t feel unwelcome in the least.

  439. Josh wrote:

    Creationists pretend there’s a debate. If you understand radioactivity and the concept of precision in measurement, it becomes apparent that dino bones can’t be dated with Carbon-14, because it has a half life of 5730 years, which means that in very old bones, the carbon-14 will have decayed to levels that are below what can be detected to a level of precision required to make a reasonable estimate of their age. I personally find it reprehensible that creation scientists choose to ignore this fact that is obvious even to a person not trained in the field (that’d be me) just because the method gives them funky numbers that appear to contradict the evolutionists.

    My understanding is that there shouldn’t be any Carbon-14 left past 100,000 years. If a substantial amount is detected than it needs an explanation, such as contamination of the specimen, some lab procedure done improperly, or maybe the specimen is actually younger than 100,000 years.

  440. Flat Top wrote:

    My understanding is that there shouldn’t be any Carbon-14 left past 100,000 years. If a substantial amount is detected than it needs an explanation, such as contamination of the specimen, some lab procedure done improperly, or maybe the specimen is actually younger than 100,000 years.

    10 half lives is about the limit of any radiometric dating method. For C14 this is in the 50000 years BP range. Where is the Holzschuh paper going to be published? In particular, have any of the claimed C14 dates for dinosaur bones been submitted to and accepted by main stream science journals?

  441. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Where is the Holzschuh paper going to be published? In particular, have any of the claimed C14 dates for dinosaur bones been submitted to and accepted by main stream science journals?

    “Mainstream science journals” as in “propaganda rags for the Vast Evilutionist Conspiracy”? Because that’s the angle it’ll take once Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory kicks in.

  442. Haitch wrote:

    @ THC:I don’t identify as Christian and I don’t believe the bible is the ultimate authority, Catholic or Protestant. As my grandpa would say, “you’re talking to the chooks”.

    A better worded statement would be that you don’t believe the Bible to be ANY authority. Nor do you believe the Church to be ANY authority. If you aren’t Christian, then I wouldn’t expect you to. I guess my comments are geared towards the non-chooks.

  443. oldJohnJ wrote:

    @ THC:
    Since you’re continuing to comment under this post perhaps you could give us the official RCC position on the age of the universe and evolution. Also interesting would be why it took the RCC approximately 400 years to exonerate Galileo.

    The Catholic Church doesn’t hold an official position on the age of the universe. The only requirement is that one must believe in Adam and Eve. You are free to believe the earth is 7,000 years old or 7 billion.
    The RCC has not officially exonerated Galileo. There have been apologies from popes, but that is different than an official reversal of Canon condemning his teachings. Just saying. Check out the movie The Principle coming out this month in theaters.

  444. THC wrote:

    There have been apologies from popes, but that is different than an official reversal of Canon condemning his teachings.

    Thanks for the clarifications.

  445. THC wrote:

    The RCC has not officially exonerated Galileo. There have been apologies from popes, but that is different than an official reversal of Canon condemning his teachings

    …wonder why the “official” reversal didn’t happen. Seems only right to do so.

  446. oldJohnJ wrote:

    Thanks again for posting one of my efforts. I think this one had a pretty good ride.

    535 comments is a pretty good ride? It was a Maserati on the Autobahn! Just let me know when you have another idea!

  447. Off topic to the main thread here though this seems more appropriate than the current active discussions, apologies oldJohnJ, but I’m sure of interest to some readers, is the discovery off the West Coast of South Africa of a skeleton from more than 2000 years ago of a man with surfer’s ear!

    Apparently rock lobster (kreef), a delicacy for which the region is famous, was a favourite then, too. He must have been a hardy bloke to go diving without a wetsuit because that water is freezing.
    http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/skeleton-is-like-no-other-yet-found-1.1760988#.VDVdOUBEXJe

  448. nmgirl wrote:

    The most basic presupposition in modern science is that the processes we can observe and measure today have been the same since the big bang.

    Really? Haven’t heard of inflationary theory; have you?