Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

phil_five
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 29

Posted 2/27/2003 3:31 PM (GMT -6)

Hello all I am new to this board and just wanted to ask what you all thought of something. (Sorry if it had been talked about before)
I was just wondering what you thought of the creation accounts?
See I think (I may be wrong) that the word for day can mean a 12-hour period, a 24-hour period as well as "an age."
I think thats good to start out the conversation.
thanks all
Phil

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/27/2003 6:40 PM (GMT -6)

*enter SeanG into the thread*

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/28/2003 9:28 AM (GMT -6)

He, He, funny, funny guy A_Theist, At least we can all laugh at these issues

Ultimately, it is a fun pastime… better than gambling, smoking, and drinkin [is all that I do now - Ozzy].

Phil_Five, I will respond with a cut n’ paste from another post… let me say first though, that with what we know about the slowing of the earth’s rotation, that about 6 to 7,000 thousand years ago, a day would have been about 23-and-a-half-hours long. Think of a basketball on a person’s finger, the only way the basketball could keep its speed is if the person slaps it in its rotating direction. All things in the universe are losing energy (using it up), the earth is no different. Long ages are hard pressed to extrapolate the measurements of the loss of rotation to the ancient past. So when you hear me defend a “24-hour” period at the day of creation… know that in the back of your mind I mean 23-and-a-half-hours.

quote:

Dr. Ross explains that the “days of Genesis” were not only long periods of time, but, long enough periods to make up for the billions and billions-of-years that the universe requires. He also explains that each “day” overlapped onto the days before it and/or after it. This “overlapping” still does not help the order of events, for example, the Bible (I will post the Biblical first followed by the evolutionary) clearly states that the earth was created before the sun and stars; evolution says that the stars and sun came first. Oceans before land; land before oceans. Land plants were the first life forms created; marine organisms were first (in other words, fruit trees before fish; fish before the fruit trees). Land vegetation before the sun; sun before the land vegetation. Birds before land reptiles; reptiles before birds, etc.

Lets take the example of land vegetation and the sun. Trees, plants, and the like need energy from the sun to survive. However, the Bible gives an exact order of what was created when. Long ages or gaps don’t help the situation much, why not? Vegetation could last a day or two without the life giving sunlight, however, it couldn’t last without the sunlight for much longer, especially not millions of years… this would require God supernaturally keeping the vegetation alive for a long period of time. Hebrew scholar E. J. Young, in an excellent commentary on Genesis, Studies in Genesis One, says that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day, not the first or before (Genesis 1:14-19).

Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the se and all that is in them…” Dr. Ross teaches that prior to the creation week, approximately 10-15 billion years of stellar evolution occurred. Believing thus, that the stars were not created instantaneously; rather, they evolved by the physical laws of nature put into place by God. I bring up Exodus for a reason, and it has to do with God placing his finger (“days of old,” a mysterious pre-incarnate appearance?) on a slab of rock, making sure that we would understand what a day is, especially in context with Exodus. The fourth commandment reads (Exodus 20:8-11 [KJV]):

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
For those who wish a different version (Exodus 20:8-11 [NIV]):

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.)

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

Edited by - SeanG on 02/28/2003 2:29:09 PM

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 2/28/2003 1:14 PM (GMT -6)

To Sean:

quote:

...with what we know about the slowing of the earth’s rotation, that about 6 to 7,000 thousand years ago, a day would have been about 23-and-a-half-hours long.

Unfortunately this is false. The earth's rotation is indeed slowing at present, due to gravitational tidal drag, but at nowhere near the rate this assertion implies. Furthermore, from science's ordinary understanding of such drag, the deceleration is not expected to be uniform, making linear projection back into the past problematic anyway (ie, slight variations in the slowdown rate are to be expected over long time intervals). I would guess that your assertion is probably based on a classic creationist misunderstanding of the meaning of leap seconds, which misunderstanding results in a figure roughly similar to what you give.

Instead, numerous direct observations over time agree in showing a deceleration in the earth's rotational period at present of approximately 0.002 seconds per day every century. For example, if we assume for sake of simplicity that earth's period today is exactly 24 hours, then 100 years ago it was 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59.998 seconds; 200 years ago it was 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59.996 seconds; etc. Projecting this linearly back in time gives days hardly different in length to our own a mere 6000-7000 years ago. Continuing the projection back into mainstream geological time (which we must do with a grain of salt, knowing such projection to be an invalid procedure for deriving exact results, due to the slight variations in deceleration which are expected, as I already mentioned), we arrive at days of approximately 22 hours in length in the Devonian period (300-odd million years ago). These estimates converge reasonably well (considering the expected nonuniform variations in deceleration) with independent estimates based on growth patterns observed in fossil corals from the same time period. Similarly these estimates agree reasonably well (ie well within an order of magnitude) with other such paleontologically-derived estimates (eg from stromatolites) in other geological eras.

So mainstream science again holds together in this. See, for example, the US Naval Observatory (http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eo/leapsec.html) for more information.

To the originator of the thread:

I recommend the works of Paul Seely (Westminster Reformed seminarian) in understanding the creation accounts. To wit: when read historically-grammatically, they cannot be made to naturally concord with modern science - including not just evolution and an ancient universe, but also such uncontroversial basic cosmology as our world being a planetary globe, covered with land and seas, orbited by the moon, itself orbiting the sun along with the other planets, and all of this embedded along with the stars in deep space. Instead the accounts are theological vessels for communicating salvation truths in language accommodated to the natural revelation of the time. Thus creationist attempts to draw concordance between science and the creation accounts - whether more literal such attempts (young-earth) or more figurative (old earth) - are futile. I can recommend specific papers, books and authors (besides Seely) for more information.

Scott

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 2/28/2003 9:11 PM (GMT -6)

Sites show that 18 hour days were once possible… and that the Devonian day was about 21.8 hours long (see: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199607/0052.html ). However, I do not believe the earth is that old, and a global flood would have slowed the day down quite a bit. Also, if we extrapolate back into time using these old earth estimates, when the earth was a molten mass, the spinning of the earth would have been too fast, and the earth would be oblong, or simply flown apart. I believe that man and dinosaur co-existed, some sites use evidence to promote the idea that man is many - many - millions of years old (see for example: http://www.mcremo.com/index.htm & http://www.geocities.com/tasosmit2001/evidences.htm )

Man made items have been found in the Precambrian:

A refutation of these, although week, is found at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html

But another example (there are many) shows where stone tools, spearheads, and human bones have been found

There have been items found also that would show man and dino coexisting. Dr. Javier Cabrera was professor of medicine and head of his department at the University of Lima. He has retired from that position and is presently the Cultural Anthropologist for Ica, Peru. In the early 1930's, his father found many of these ceremonial burial stones in area's numerous Inca tombs. Dr. Cabrera has continued his father's research and has collected over 1100 of them. Almost one third of the stones depict specific types of dinosaurs, like those seen below, as well as Triceratops, Stegosaurus and Pterosaurs. Several diplodocus-like dinosaurs have what appear to be dermal frills. These stones do not depict skeletons but live, active dinosaurs, most of whom are seen interacting with man. The obvious implication is that ancient Peruvians saw and lived with dinosaurs.

The Bible clearly states literal days; evolution says that there were shorter days in the past, I would concur… but the past isn’t that far past. To wit, fresh dinosaur bones, so fresh in fact (non-mineralized), they are still stained brown (old blood) in spots (some of them have the ligaments still attached) [see: Journal of Paleontology 61(1):198–200, 1987] (See for example: http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/freshbones.html )

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

Edited by - SeanG on 03/01/2003 02:20:49 AM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/28/2003 9:46 PM (GMT -6)

*sigh*

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/3/2003 11:31 AM (GMT -6)

Sean,

My first response to you in this thread was directed to your assertions about earth's rotation rate, which were several orders of magnitude too high, as I explained. Sticking to my defense of mainstream science in that regard, at least for the moment, I notice only one relevant disputing comment in your followup:

quote:

Also, if we extrapolate back into time using these old earth estimates, when the earth was a molten mass, the spinning of the earth would have been too fast, and the earth would be oblong, or simply flown apart.

This is also false. Mainstream science is not inconsistent in its understanding of early earth history and rotation rates, as you suggest.

First, as I earlier said, I must disclaim that technically it is invalid to linearly project mainstream rotation-rate estimates indefinitely into the past anyway. From my understanding, mainstream science expects them to vary over time (in fact, to increase far back in earth history). But the effects of the variations are expected to remain within an order of magnitude. Thus rough estimation isn't totally invalid in principle, so long as we keep in mind the estimates are only approximate within an order of magnitude.

Taking up your point then, you imply that if the mainstream estimates are projected back into the past, at least approximately, the result is a model of an early earth spinning so quickly as to be absurd, leading to a perpetually-molten or even flung-apart earth. In other words, a rotation rate of mere seconds or at most minutes is what you seem to have in mind.

The fact is that the mainstream estimates do not come anywhere near such absurd rates in early earth history. In my previous response I quoted present-day estimates of rotation deceleration of 0.002 seconds per modern day every century. What (necessarily approximate, as I've already explained) rotation period would that give earth 4.5 billion years ago or so? Let's calculate it.

First, note we cannot just calculate how many centuries would have gone by in 4.5 billion years, then take off 0.002 seconds from today's 24-hour rotation period for each century. Why not? Because it would be a logically-invalid calculation to do, once projected far enough into the past that days become noticeably shorter than modern days. Why is this? Because such a calculation takes a rate expressed in modern days (0.002 seconds per modern day per century) and projects it back into the past - but, more and more as time goes back, days the length of modern days no longer exist! So such a calculation is useful for getting estimates of the day's length within the last few tens or hundreds of thousands of years only (ie, during which the length of a day is very similar to today), but after that this erroneous method breaks down.

So instead, we must convert the deceleration figure into something more static, not expressed in modern days. I'll use seconds per year per year, since it makes the eventual calculation easier. Since there are 365.25 modern days in a year, and 100 years in a century, the converted figure of deceleration per century is:

0.002 second/modern-day * 365.25 modern-day/year = 0.7 second/year

In other words, earth presently does 0.7 seconds' worth of rotation less, at today's rate, per year every century. And since a century is 100 years, that is the same as earth doing 0.007 seconds' worth of rotation less at today's rate per year every year. Put another way: every year into the past we go, earth makes as many more rotations as it would today if given an extra 0.007 seconds.

OK, now we have this rate, how do we proceed with it? First, we calculate how many seconds' worth of rotation extra there would have been in a year 4.5 billion years ago:

0.007 second/year * 4,500,000,000 year = 31,500,000 seconds

In other words, 4.5 billion years ago, each year would have had 31.5 million seconds' worth more rotations, at today's rate, than we have in a modern year. Note this is not to say the year back then had 31.5 million more seconds than today - indeed, the number of seconds in a year has not changed (since it is the rotation, not revolution, that is slowing down). Rather, the figure means that the earth, in one year back then, did however many rotations it manages today in a year, plus however many more rotations it could do today if given 31.5 million extra seconds.

And how many rotations is that? Well, there are 86,400 seconds in a rotation (ie, modern day) today (60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per modern day). And there are 365.25 modern days in a year. So the number of rotations (ie, ancient days) in a year 4.5 billion years ago would be:

The number of days per year today, plus
The number of extra days we would have per year today, given the extra seconds of deceleration over the last 4.5 billion years.

In numbers:

365.25 days/year +
31,500,000 extra seconds / 86,400 seconds/day =
729.8 days

So a year 4.5 billion years ago would have had 729.8 days. How long would each such ancient day be? Well, all those ancient days would have to fit into a year of the same length as today (as previously noted, it is the rotation, not revolution, of the earth which is slowing). Today's year is 8,766 hours long (24 hours per modern day, 365.25 such days per year). So the length of one of those ancient days, 4.5 billion years ago, would have been:

(8,766 hours/year) / (729.8 days/year) = 12.0 hours/day

Thus the length of a day 4.5 billion years ago, when the earth was new, was around 12 hours. And thus the creationist contention that the rotation rate would be absurdly fast, and that mainstream science is therefore sadly inconsistent, turns out itself to be completely without warrant.

Now, as I said, this is just a rough approximation since it's based on an assumed-constant deceleration rate (0.002 seconds per modern-day per century, ie 0.007 seconds per year per year) which we know to not be constant. In matter of fact, I believe mainstream science theorizes that the day 4.5 billion years ago would have been around 8 hours in length, due to those other non-constant factors. But still the creationist claim is way off-base.

Incidentally, I'll say again - as I did in my first response - that these calculations line up fairly well with the fossil record. Of course, 4.5 billion years ago there is nothing in the record to cross-check the calculation - but getting into mere hundreds of millions of years ago, certain organisms begin to appear (eg, corals) which leave growth marks behind that, reasonably interpreted, vouch for daily lengths in-line with what the above calculation would yield if run with those dates before present instead of 4.5 billion years.

Best regards,

Scott

PS. As to the "shotgun" of other claims presented in your posting, ranging from the global flood to Inca pottery: as I've previously said, it takes far too much time to investigate and (in my experience) inevitably cast doubt on every creationist claim to justify the effort on my part. Researching and writing these 2 responses has taken 3 hours of my time alone. So I encourage readers to research these things fairly for themselves, using mainstream resources and not just creationist ones. When all is said and done, I think most people will conclude that mainstream science is right in its view of prehistory.

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 3/3/2003 5:31 PM (GMT -6)

From what I can tell, the calculations you presented are at current rates of slowing with the moon in situ, if you will. However, with what we know about the moon’s recession, and considering the current effect the tides have on the earth’s slowing rate of spin, extrapolating this effect into the past… tides would have been higher, covering the entire earth twice a day; if in fact the earth is millions of years old. The moon was quite a bit closer even 6,000 years ago, and this would (and did) have a direct bearing on the amount of slowing the earth has experienced. And from what I have read – both published and unpublished papers by Dr. Walt Brown – he is one of the few that allows for all the parameters to be included. Which your post excluded.

I have read everything you posted Scott, nothing has dealt with the moons effect, and, it’s effect being stronger in the past? I would love for you to post something on this and how this would effect the slowing of the earth – if extrapolated into the past.

Also, would you expand on this for me… maybe just reword it so I can get a grasp on what you are ssaying, thanks: …but getting into mere hundreds of millions of years ago, certain organisms begin to appear (eg, corals) which leave growth marks behind that, reasonably interpreted, vouch for daily lengths in-line with what the above calculation would yield if run with those dates before present instead of 4.5 billion years.”

The Moon, Its Creation, Form and Significance

"Secular Effects of Tidal Friction Upon the Earth's Rotation," Jour. Geoph. Res

Take note that I have read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html - but I am curious if you have read the response? http://www.trueorigin.org/moonmb.asp (another good article can be found at: http://www.trueorigin.org/moonjs.asp )

I appreciate the time and effort by the way, you may feel it is a waste of time, but I have likewise spent many hours preparing some of my posts… it is (at the least) nice to see another gentleman willing to do so.

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/4/2003 10:36 AM (GMT -6)

Sean,

I am going to have to keep this general and without detailed cites as I finish up things with which I am busy, prior to leaving on vacation this weekend. If that is not good enough for you, I apologize, and encourage you to research the literature yourself for more information.

First, you are absolutely right that the calculation I related was strictly invalid because it assumes the present rotational deceleration. It is strictly invalid because there is good reason to believe that the tidal drag - the common source for both the earth's rotational deceleration and the moon's recession - has changed over geologic time, meaning the earth's deceleration (and the lunar recession rate, for that matter) has also varied. I admitted all this - in fact I spent a whole paragraph disclaiming it prior to my calculation, and then repeated the disclaimer afterwards. So I don't really know why you are pointing it out.

If it was a strictly-invalid thing to do, why then did I bother with the calculation? First, because you had said that (and I quoted you then, though now I am paraphrasing), projected into the past, these estimates would result in absurdities such as the earth spinning so fast in its early days that it never could have formed. The calculation I related demonstrated the falsity of that.

Second, I gave the calculation because, although known to mainstream science to be strictly invalid, the variance in tidal drag which makes it strictly invalid would not have been - according to mainstream science - so much as for the calculation to be outside of an order-of-magnitude's accuracy. In other words, the calculation is still valid for a ballpark figure.

How does science know this? Because of the convergence of evidence from geology (plate tectonics), physics (dynamical models of the earth-moon tidal system), and paleontology (organic and inorganic fossils reflecting such things as length of the day and tidal frequency). From plate tectonics (which is itself supported by both current observation and various stratigraphic and paleontological evidences), the mainstream model expects the configuration of the continents and adjacent shallow seas - their size and location on the globe - to have changed over time. In fact, from the geological and paleontological evidence, the mainstream has reason to believe that fewer widely-distributed continents and more shallow seas than are present today was a rather common configuration in the past. From physics' dynamical models of the earth-moon system, the mainstream further expects these ancient continental configurations to have resulted in reduced tidal drag at times and increased drag at other times. From a whole host of different geological and paleontological evidences, the mainstream model further has a rough understanding of what actual continental configurations were probably realized at different points in time through earth history.

And when these rough configurations are ranged within the dynamical models, they show neither a too-high ancient rotation rate of the earth, nor a too-close ancient orbit of the moon. What they show instead is a rotation rate faster than today's, but not too fast, in-line with the rough-order-of-magnitude calculation I gave, and in-line with other independent paleontological evidences too (ie corals and stromatolites whose fossils bear witness to the length of an ancient day - see "PS" below). They also show a lunar distance and recession rate less than today's, but not too much so, in-line with yet more paleontological evidences (ie tidal rhythmites which bear witness to ancient tides). And all of this is, of course, consistent with an ancient earth (something buttressed by the convergence of many other independent fields we haven't even talked about).

I write the above with some discouragement, because I know that young-earth creationists despise and dispute all mainstream interpretations of geological and paleontological data, which much of the above relies upon. I know young-earthers take issue with the evidences I report above, which indicate that, yes, plate tectonics was a force throughout our planet's history, and that such-and-such were the likely rough contintental configurations at times during that history. But I am not willing to get into defending it all, for it is truly a Pandora's box of many independent lines of evidence that I'm sure you take exception to, and as I've said, I just don't have the time. Yet for others' benefit, I report it here anyway.

By the way, this is how science works. Convergence of evidence. Its not that every and any one line of evidence must be rock-solid. Certainly some are less solid than others - and anyway, in science, anything is subject to overturn in the future - the more so the more narrow and specific the particular line of inquiry is. So rather, it is the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence from across fields, toward a single, unified, general theme or conclusion, that builds confidence in mainstream science. Picking at each line of evidence, as creationism does, with mutually-unrelated, muturally-unreinforcing, and ad-hoc critiques just doesn't cut it. That's not science - that's the same epistemology at work in Holocaust denial or the O.J. Simpson trial (I'm assuming you're old enough to remember that).

Regards,

Scott

PS. You asked me to elaborate a bit more on coral fossils. Briefly, and as I recall - not having taken the time to re-research it just now - when corals grow, they secrete calcium carbonate (their exoskeleton, the stuff that builds-up the reef) daily during daylight hours, stopping at nighttime. By the time they start up again next morning, the previous day's secretions have solidified to the point that there is a discernible interface between secretions day-to-day. Now, since daylight lasts longer in the summer than in the winter, summer day secretions are thicker than winter day secretions; so looking across hundreds of secretions investigators can see the summer-winter progression and hence identify where a year begins and ends. From that it is a matter of counting up the secretions (days) and dividing the length of a year by that to get the length of a day. Now, just as modern corals follow this pattern, paleontologists occasionally find exceptionally-well-preserved fossil corals which also show the same pattern of secretions. Making the reasonable assumption that when it looks like the same pattern, it is the same pattern, the results are estimates for the length of an ancient day which readily fall within the same approximate range as I've reported on above. This has been done on coral specimens preserved from various different eras - its not just a few data points - and furthermore the whole procedure has been similarly applied to stromatolites - very different organisms - with similar ballpark results. Convergence of evidence.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 3/4/2003 4:20 PM (GMT -6)

The latest data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which is a NASA satellite, pegs the age of the universe to 13.7 billion years old - an unprecedented accuracy of 1 percent.

This article can be found in the February 15, 2003 Vol. 163 edition of Science News (www.sciencenews.org).

Of course, we must remember the relativistic effects of large gravitational fields. It is only looking back from OUR perspective that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. From God's perspective at the very beginning of the universe looking forward I have seen some calculations suggesting a very much younger age. I assume we have all heard that a person traveling near the speed of light will experience a single day while a person on Earth will experience a thousand years. The time dilation effects of a very, very large mass (the early universe) are much greater than this. I believe this is documented in the book "The Science of God".

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 3/4/2003 5:38 PM (GMT -6)

A while back I asked Kenneth Miller what he thought of Gerald Schroeders book. Here is what he said:

I assume you mean Gerald Schroeder, author of The Science of God.

I have not read any of his books. I have leafed through The Science
of God in a bookstore, and found it to be a book that picked verses out
of scripture that he thought anticipated relativity, quantum mechanics,
continental drift, etc . . .

I'm not impressed by such exercises, because I have never thought that
the Bible should be held to the low standards of science. I believe it expresses
a higher, non-scientific truth. Therefore I found this book uninteresting, and
left it on the shelves.

I realize Kenneth Miller isn't the final authority on matters like these, but I personally think trying to use matters of science to work with the bible isn't a good practice. But then again, that is my opinion. I just thought it was a good opportunity to show the world that Kenneth Miller emailed me back. Yay!

Blessings,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Edited by - A_Theist on 03/04/2003 11:14:49 PM

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/4/2003 6:08 PM (GMT -6)

Paul,

You wrote:

quote:

I realize Kenneth Miller isn't the final authority on matters like these, but I personally think trying to use matters of science to work with the bible isn't a good practice.

I agree. The basic approach of looking into the Bible for correspondence/corroboration with science and history is called "concordism". Concordism is problematic because, the further back into the Biblical record you go, the more and more divergent from a modern understanding of science and history you get. And if you go all the way back to Genesis 1-11, you reach a point where the divergence from well-established science and history is so great that, frankly, concordism just can't be made to fit. You either end up re-interpreting swaths of science and little bits of Genesis 1-11 to make them fit (this is what young-earth creationism does), or you end up re-interpreting little bits of science and swaths of Genesis 1-11 to make them fit (this is what old-earth/progressive creationism does).

To elaborate, in the young-earth case, the huge swaths of science that get re-interpreted are virtually everything having to do with prehistory (from Big Bang and the cosmological timescale, to the geological ages and evolution) and some parts of contemporary science too (eg radioactive decay theory - which gets right to the heart of physics' strong and electroweak forces - and the speed of light - which gets right to the heart of physics' relativity theory). The little bits of Genesis 1-11 that get reinterpreted are those dealing with aspects of cosmology that even young-earthers can't take literally - such as the earth (dry land) being suspended on and undergirded by the seas, and the sky (a semi-solid firmament) having all the astronomical features placed in it, with waters above it.

In the old-earth case, the science only gets (relatively) slightly reinterpreted - essentially everything except macro-evolution and the sufficiency of "natural" processes (natural selection and mutation) to account for it. But Genesis 1-11 get much more re-interpreted than in the young-earth case: with the plainly 24-hour days of the creation narrative being taken as overlapping ages; with the "whole earth" of the flood and Babel being taken as referring to ancient Mesopotamia only; etc.

Concordism (whether of the young-earth or old-earth variety) is, in my opinion, a failure. And it is a failure because it is not what God intended from the Bible or from science. God's revelation in the Bible is for salvific benefit and thus deals with matters of faith and practice and has thus been communicated in a way that best allows unhindered, undiverted comprehension: by being accommodated/conformed to the scientific and historical precepts of the time. God's intent for science and history, meanwhile, is that - like other fields not of salvific benefit, from math and engineering to cooking - we learn them empirically ourselves.

My thoughts,

Scott

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/4/2003 6:11 PM (GMT -6)

Oops - when I wrote just now:

quote:

In the old-earth case, the science only gets (relatively) slightly reinterpreted - essentially everything except macro-evolution and the sufficiency of "natural" processes (natural selection and mutation) to account for it.

I should have said:

In the old-earth case, the science only gets (relatively) slightly reinterpreted - essentially everything is accepted except macro-evolution and the sufficiency of "natural" processes (natural selection and mutation) to account for it.

Serves me right for not proofreading before hitting the "post new reply" button :-)

Scott

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 3/4/2003 6:13 PM (GMT -6)

Any book suggestions on on the failings of concordinism? I would like to pick up one if there is such a thing.

Blessings,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 3/4/2003 9:38 PM (GMT -6)

Have a good trip… I will reply in a few days.

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/5/2003 9:05 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Any book suggestions on on the failings of concordinism?

Sure. Note all the following are by evangelical Christian authors.

I'm currently reading Inerrant Wisdom: Science and Inerrancy in Biblical Perspective, by Biblical scholar Paul Seely. It is a wide-ranging treatment of the issue, in that it not only deals with concordism, but actually spends most of its time advocating a replacement for it (the accommodationist view). This book is hard to find at retailers but is available from the publisher, Evangelical Reform.

Another good book is Portraits of Creation: Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World's Formation, which is a collaborative effort by Calvin College scientists Howard Van Till and Davis Young, Biblical scholar John Stek, and (I think) philosopher Robert Snow. This book discusses the failings of concordism in geology and astronomy (Young's and Van Till's fields) and also discusses the ancient 3-storied cosmology and creation mythology of the ancient Near East, viewing Genesis 1 in light of that (Stek's chapter). This book is also difficult to find, but I was able to get mine a couple years ago through Amazon.

Both Van Till and Young, by the way, have authored separate books showing the extreme confidence that mainstream astronomy and geology warrant. The books, hence the science in them, are 10-15 years old by now, but nothing they address has changed in astronomy and geology so they are still reliable. Young's books especially track how concordists have historically tried to fit geology and scripture together as geology developed, concluding that concordism has failed. By Van Till, see The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens are Telling us about the Creation, readily available through online retailers like Amazon and BN. By Young, see Christianity and the Age of the Earth and The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (again I got both my copies through online retailers).

Actually, both Seely and Young have published numerous papers in the American Scientific Affiliation's journal, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and in the Westminster Theological Journal, dealing with concordism. Some of these papers are online. Before investing in the books above, you may wish to read these papers. In fact, the Seely papers are excellent and delve into greater detail on their specific subjects than any other source. (Concordists, generally young-earth creationists, have responded to Seely - if you search on the Web you'll find their responses - but I think you'll find them to be generally weak as I did.)

Some of these papers are:

Davis Young, "Scripture in the Hands of Geologists":
Part One,
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/young_davis_a_1.html
Part Two,
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/young_davis_a_2.html

Paul Seely, "The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context",
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF6-97Seely.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science

Paul Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above":
Part One, "The Meaning of raquia",
http://www.gordon.edu/bible/Hildebrandt/BiblicalStudiesTAH/OTJourney/Articles-Journal/Genesis%20Articles/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.htm
Part Two, "The Meaning of the Water Above",
I don't have a URL for this but I have a copy of the papers.

Paul Seely, "The Geographical Meaning of 'earth' and 'seas'",
Parts One and Two: Again I don't have a URL for these but I have copies of the papers.

Hope this helps,

Scott

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/5/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6)

FYI to all, this is the last I'll be looking at this forum for the next week or two. I'll check back when I'm back and things have settled down enough to give me the time.

Regards,

Scott

PS. As a final thought, in giving up on concordism, a survey of alternative approaches to Genesis 1 in particular wouldn't be complete without mentioning the literary framework view. Theologian Meredith Kline is perhaps best associated with this. Many books and papers on the framework view are available; see the American Scientific Affiliation web site (http://www.asa3.org) for some online. Note the framework view is compatible with the accommodationist view I mentioned earlier; but the framework does only cover Genesis 1, so is silent on dealing with the historicity of the subsequent "legend"-type accounts in Genesis 2-11 (garden, fall, flood, and Babel).

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 3/5/2003 1:16 PM (GMT -6)

Scott,

You will be pleased that you have again made an impact – somewhat. Correcting some bad info I received in part, and, for my misunderstanding of the argument. I asked a well-known young-earth cosmologist to better explain the link you posted for me, as I am a layman in regards to math and physics. He did, and I will post his response to me in regards to leap seconds:

“Hi Sean:

I suppose that what you mean by using leap seconds (one second inserted about every 18 months) in the context of the age of the earth is that this shows that the earth is slowing its rotation and thus could not be that old. I would not suggest that you use this. The earth's rotation is slowing, and as a result the moon is slowly spiraling away from the earth. Many people erroneously believe that leap seconds are the result of this tidal evolution of the earth-moon system. Actually, the slowing of the earth's rotation due to tidal evolution is called a secular change. Superimposed on the secular change is a nearly unrelated periodic change. As the name suggests, the periodic change alternates between speeding up and slowing down of the earth's rotation. Right now we are in a slowing down portion of the periodic change, but in the past and in the future the earth has been/will be in speeding up portion of the periodic change. At those times we would need to subtract seconds. The secular change is all one direction (slowing) and is measured by historic eclipse data. From that data we determine that the day is lengthening by about 0.0016 seconds per century. At that rate few billion years ago the day would have been a few hours shorter, but that in itself would not be a problem. However, recall that as the earth slows, the moon spirals away. Running this effect backwards shows that the moon would have been in contact with the earth about 1.4 billion years ago. That is a problem with a 4.5 billion year old earth-moon system. There have been attempts to explain this away, but I find them wanting. This whole topic has not been well discussed in the creation literature and needs a good treatment. The best that I've seen is the one by Don DeYoung in one of the early ICC, I think that it was the second one in 1988…

Danny [Faulkner].”

The Bible still explicitly states that a day is a day, is a day, as far as genesis and its link in the Ten Commandments are concerned. However, I would love to discuss a few main young-earth “proofs” (if you will), to see where it leads. I am sure you can see I am an honest man when it comes to my use of bad argumentation. However, I promise to clean up my Microsoft Word and its collection of young-earth arguments. Bear in mind that even though a few arguments are lacking, this does not reflect on the whole. For instance, the earth-moon relation and the old-earth assumption. By the way, creationists (young-earth ones) do not disagree with operational science, it does however, disagree with origin science. The two are vastly different.

Another item I wish to speak of is the fact that even though I believe that origin science and science, when devoid of the presupposition of philosophical naturalism, shows that creationists are in fact more in line with the findings in their respective scientific fields. But, I first believe the Bible over all other items of proof. And I say this to make my beliefs known to others here. When the Bible says that King David was a historical figure who really existed, I do not consult archaeology to believe this. And for a long, long time, “science” said that because it did not find proof of King David that he was in fact a mythological story invented as a political tract to embolden the Hebrew community at a time they needed it. Later though, archaeology proved in fact that David existed. This has happened time and time again, the Hittites, Abraham’s conquest, Daniel, etc. So when the Bible states that the earth was made in a certain amount of time, I agree with it. Its called a Biblical worldview.

Again though, I believe science has proven that there are vast problems with the old-earth assumption. And while you may go to Infidels.com or Talkorigins.com for rebuttals founded in naturalistic science (scientism), I will go to creationists writings founded in what I call, open science.

I will explain more in a previous paper I did discussing an interview with Dean Kenyon

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The following interview was held with Dean Kenyon, the professor of biology at the University of San Francisco, quite a few years ago. Dean Kenyon was a staunch evolutionist; he wrote the book Biochemical Predestination (McGraw-Hill, 1969), which was the best-selling advanced level book on chemical evolution in the decade of the 1970’s. One of Dean Kenyon’s students gave him a copy of a book written by Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who holds three earned Ph.D.’s) entitled The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. In this book by Dr. Wilder, Dean Kenyon’s book is critiqued.

Instead of Kenyon saying – “Well, Dr. Wilder is just a creationist, who would listen to him?” – Dr. Kenyon read the book and tried to answer the arguments in it against his own book. When he couldn’t, he began to investigate where the evidence led to… outside of his previous presuppositions, which were based on naturalism (evolutionary thinking).

One of the questions asked of Dr. Kenyon in an interview were: “What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life?” Dr. Kenyon responded:

“Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process.

The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.

Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment.

If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but your going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [it] come ~~in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.”~~

This is what the fervor was over in Kansas. Besides the Kansas Board leaving microevolution mandatory, but making the teaching of macroevolution optional (for the local districts discretion); the part that caused the biggest “stir” was changing one word in a definition. The original drafting commission defined science as:
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
The Kansas Board defined science as:
“Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
This simple word change, and the subsequent fervor it caused, illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science (materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you want to call it).

This is what caused Richard Lewontin to plainly state (Dr. Lewontin is a geneticist and professor of biology at Harvard University):
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories; because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Plain and simple, this is not science, but a philosophical paradigm.

SeanG!
"I quote others only the better to express myself."
Michel de Montaigne

Edited by - SeanG on 03/05/2003 6:18:28 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 3/5/2003 1:19 PM (GMT -6)

Again, have a wonderful trip, I hope you are caught up in your relaxation level when you return.

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/12/2003 2:33 PM (GMT -6)

Sean,

I'm back. Reading your last posts I don't find anything concerning the earth-moon issues which I need to address anymore. Everything your young-earth cosmologist's statement touched-upon agrees with what I was reporting, except that he finds "wanting" mainstream solutions to the moon-recession problem. I previously briefly outlined those solutions, reporting they were based on many other discoveries in geology and paleontology about continent/shallow-sea configuration over the earth's history, and acknowledging that young-earthers dispute all those other discoveries. So I'm aware of what your friend is getting at. But I will not be digressing into all those other contentious areas, for all the reasons I've discussed before (basically, personal time management in an area that is now settled for me). Again everybody: look this stuff up, chase it down; I assure you it won't persuade any better than the few things we have gotten into.

As usual, Sean, you also commented on many other things besides the earth-moon issues. I will leave them mostly unaddressed too, for the same reasons. However, one thing you said did relate to something else I was saying in this thread - namely, one's application of the Bible to science. You say it follows from having a Biblical worldview:

quote:

But, I first believe the Bible over all other items of proof. And I say this to make my beliefs known to others here. When the Bible says that King David was a historical figure who really existed, I do not consult archaeology to believe this. And for a long, long time, “science” said that because it did not find proof of King David that he was in fact a mythological story invented as a political tract to embolden the Hebrew community at a time they needed it. Later though, archaeology proved in fact that David existed. This has happened time and time again, the Hittites, Abraham’s conquest, Daniel, etc. So when the Bible states that the earth was made in a certain amount of time, I agree with it. Its called a Biblical worldview.

I of course disagree. What you are describing follows specifically from the doctrine of inerrancy - total reliability of every statement of fact the Bible makes, including in mundane matters of science, history, geography, etc. But inerrancy does not follow necessarily from having a biblical worldview. I commend to you Paul Seely's book Inerrant Wisdom (see my earlier post in this thread) for just one take on why inerrancy, defined as total factual reliability of Scripture, is a false doctrine - one both falsified by the evidence and never well-supported by Scripture in the first place.

Scott

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 3/13/2003 6:40 AM (GMT -6)

Scott, with all due respect, science is the “Bible” to some, as, they take the presuppositions therein and make it infallible. Evolution is a fact, no matter what evidence is shown. Scientists may not know the whole story as to the how and why of evolution, but it is a fact! Blind allegiance lies on both sides, and I freely admit my bias. All scientists come to the table with the same, bias. (I hope my illustration works - disclaimer)

They are hard pressed to explain such items as these, human footprints in layers they aren’t suppose to be:

Or the blood cells found in a T-rex:

Actual Photograph of what appear to be red blood cells inside a blood vessel. These are within an unfossilized section of bone from a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

The tyrannosaurus in question was found in the United States in 1990. The bones were then brought to the Montana State University's lab. Scientists soon discovered that "some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized". This is the first clue that might indicate that our Trex is not as old as many would have us believe. To claim that bone could remain intact for millions of years without being fossilized stretches credibility.

Looking for DNA in such a specimen was obviously tempting, but very difficult to prove when there is nothing to compare Trex DNA with. The Montana State University scientists found DNA from fungi, insects and bacteria, and unidentifiable DNA sequences. However, they were unable to show that these were not just jumbled sequences from present day organisms. So a series of tests were done to establish the presence of hemoglobin, which would not have the same problems as DNA. Hemoglobin is the protein which makes red blood cells and carries oxygen. If the substance that makes the red blood cells is present, then the possibility of red blood cells is further established. These carefully controlled tests all showed that hemoglobin was present.

Now to find red blood cells complete with hemoglobin in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of recent creation.

1. M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, "The Real Jurassic Park", Earth, June 1997 pp. 55-57.
2. Geological Society of America Proceedings abstact 17:548 also K. Davies in Journal of Paleontology
61 (1):198-200.

These burial stones depict everyday life of those who made them. Some stones even depict amazing accomplishments, such as successful brain surgery confirmed by scarred skulls which demonstrate healed recovery. The first photo is some people worshipping the sun. The second stone depicts brain surgery. The thirds stone is an anatomically correct (as much as a stones surface can allow) Triceratops. And the third stone is that of what appears to be a T-rex. There have been some hoaxes involved with some fakes (sold to tourists), however, the one’s shown here have been thoroughly gone over. For links to some of the evidences that they are genuine, just ask.

Native Americans here in North America also copied what they saw on cave walls. The first picture is from the Grand Canyon. Others also made Clay figurines in the America’s. The rest of the pictures will be first the current drawing of the dino; the second is the figurines dated at 800 B.C. to A.D. 200. Most of these are found at a Museum in Mexico.

The following is a natural find that is said to be the explanation for the next photo. However, any sane person can see that one is man made, and the other is not. Man made and coming from the 2.8 billion range in our “sacred” geological column.

How about 100-million-year-old man?

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

Edited by - SeanG on 03/13/2003 11:51:33 AM

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/13/2003 10:10 AM (GMT -6)

Sean, it is so easy to cast sensational claims, and yet so much harder to investigate for the truth. It is so easy to make smoke, and yet so much harder to stamp it out. Everything you cite has better and more prosaic explanations completely in-line with mainstream science (an ancient earth and common descent). Yet to show that item by item would take many, many times more effort (in investigation, report and debate) than it takes you to simply reach into your grab-bag of aspersions for more chaff. (Creationism has much in common with all kinds of pseudoscience and pseudohistory in this regard, from Holocaust denial to flying saucers. Just as those are falsified, yet still ever-persist with their grab-bags of glib factoids, so too creationism.) Though the outcome would not be in doubt (I can say this with some credence based on my track record), I unfortunately don't have time for this.

To anyone reading Sean's creationist claims and thinking to themselves, "Gee, maybe creationists are onto something after all" - I urge you to go look into it fairly and fully. When you do, you'll eventually learn the somewhat ho-hum truth: that hundreds of thousands of researchers with nothing in common really haven't been in sinful collusion with one another over the past 200-250 years to suppress God's Truth, but rather are reliably in consensus to the best of anyone's understanding today. And it won't threaten your Christian faith to acknowledge this, if you are humble about it.

As for me: shall I get into the details - what - a third or fourth time with Sean, picking randomly one of his claims and reporting how mainstream science takes it apart in detail? No. That is an exercise left for the reader

See ya,

Scott

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 3/13/2003 6:04 PM (GMT -6)

As the anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger admits:

“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical process but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.”

Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and professor of biology at Harvard University, recently wrote this very revealing comment (I will underline where Lewontin originally italicized). It illustrates the implicit philosophical (dare I say religious) bias against creation – regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories; because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Speaking of smoke screens…, when you said, “…you'll eventually learn the somewhat ho-hum truth: that hundreds of thousands of researchers with nothing in common really haven't been in sinful collusion with one another over the past 200-250 years to suppress God's Truth, but rather are reliably in consensus to the best of anyone's understanding today.”

---“No informed scientist believes in creation anymore, that went out with the flat earth theory!”

---“How can so many scientists who have done years of research be so wrong?”

---“The only people who believe in creation nowadays are wildeyed fanatics, old people, and the weak.”

“Broad is the way that leads to destruction, but strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it.”

It isn’t that I believe that there are thousands upon thousands of scientists in collusion with each other. However, all these scientists accept a philosophical paradigm that is taught in lieu of retribution. For instance:

“The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade”

“Letting poetry loose in the laboratory,” New Scientist

Many others understand this war, whether they be a fundamentalist Christian or not, for instance:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

“The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist

The collusion isn’t done in secret, smoke filled rooms, it happens in the openness of the university classroom. And it isn’t foisted on people, it is accepted by them, and is called a worldview.

SeanG!

"I quote others only the better to express myself."

Michel de Montaigne

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 3/14/2003 7:29 AM (GMT -6)

Sean,

First, the worldview commitment common throughout all science is (a) merely methodological, not metaphysical and (b) is so basic and reasonable (eg, the world is real, things happen in it according to regular patterns, those patterns are comprehensible by human intelligence, etc) as to warrant everyone's assent. The worldview of science is the same as the worldview of plumbing. The Phillip-Johnson-inspired idea that science is uniquely and fundamentally (ie metaphysically, not just methodologically) atheistic is baloney. Please read anyone from Howard Van Till to Eugenie Scott on this; I can recommend titles.

Second, the Lewontin quote is a favorite of creationists. You yourself have used excerpts from that same article of his several times on this forum in one thread or another over the last few months. No wonder - his opinion is blatantly atheistic and thus wonderfully charged with sensation (something he fully intended in writing a literary opinion piece for a popular magazine). It has been roundly criticized by fellow scientists and philosophers, has been of course disavowed by all theistic evolutionists, and does not Speak For Science anymore than anything else does.

Third, the Rensberger quote is not pertinent. Its well-known that scientists proceed by individual insight, inspiration, and intuition. That is not to say that the community of 100,000 scientists all follow a-priori one-and-the-same insight, inspiration and intuition. Precisely because they have no common commitment to anything other than methodological empiricism, and such basic human traits as wanting to be right, that is why the consensus judgement of the community as a whole is generally reliable. The community acts as a leveling factor that ensures individual passions don't rule. I think Rensberger's whole article in context would have made quite clear that he was not endorsing your view by extending the gut-feel drive of individual scientists to the whole institution.

Fourth, the doctrines of the historicity of Adam, the fall, and original sin (ie, not just that everyone is in sin - which is essential to Christianity - but that this is because the first man and woman in history sinned in history and thus passed it down, eg genetically, to everyone) are not essential to Christianity. You will not find them in any of the basic Christian creeds or confessions, compared to such true essentials as "there is one almighty, personal, just, merciful, loving creator God", "everyone is estranged from God by their will of rebellion", and "Jesus was and is the God-man by which everyone can become reconciled with God". Fundamentalists and some conservative evangelicals like to think Adam, fall, and original sin are essential, because that agrees with their understanding of the Bible as totally factually inerrant (another non-essential). Atheists like to agree with fundamentalists on this point, as it gives them an easy and concrete target to pound. But more-moderate Christians, including some evangelicals, recognize there are other ways of understanding creation and sin, and Biblical passages relating to them, than by total factual inerrancy. Incidentally, we more-moderate Christians are your brethren in Christ and thus by our very existence disprove the claim that mainstream science is necessarily fatal to Christianity.

Fifth, the argument that our fallen human nature distorts us to the truth is not clearly applicable anywhere outside of the moral and theological realm - ie those areas where we need revelation to gain knowledge. There is no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that areas where we gain knowledge by empirical investigation are likewise corrupted in our understanding.

Basically, science is akin to the process we all go through when investigating and fixing a burned-out light bulb. We have a-priori commitments to basic reasonable propositions about the universe: the light bulb is real; my observation that it isn't working is also real; a proximately-natural cause probably exists for the light bulb's failure to operate; such causes are regular and not capricious and undescribable; I am intelligent enough to discern them; the way to discern them is to empirically investigate; the way to confirm my conclusions is by sharing and reviewing them with others; etc. There is nothing about science's investigation, of current events or deep history, that is any different than this in quality, only in magnitude/degree.

Let me ask you this. Why do you have confidence in anything that is endorsed by the longstanding consensus of many thousands of diverse, relevant experts applying these same, very basic, reasonable methodology and presuppositions? Why do you have confidence, for example, in medicine? As Christian Scientists have long noted, the Bible provides no endorsement for medicine, let alone the idea that illness and disability have proximately-natural causes that can be investigated and treated via the scientific method. Why don't you join Christian Science and dispute that? And what is the consistent rationale by which creationists can agree with the consensus in nearly every single other area, yet criticize mainstream science's view of prehistory and defend that criticism by discounting the reliability of massive diverse expert consensus per-se?

Anyway, I'm not sure we should continue this discussion. It certainly has gone away, since the very beginning, from the thread initiator's question, and has been going on for a long time since. I'll let you respond if you wish. If you do, I will give one more response, then sign off.

Scott

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 3/14/2003 11:07 AM (GMT -6)

Scott: just a quick note: saying something is baloney doesn't make it so. Johnson is not the only one who makes the accusation. Dembski does as well, and I can quote several others. The Lewotin quote isn't the only one from a major scientist with an such a view. Again, there are many that can be quoted.
Finally, perhaps for you the creation account of Adam isn't needed. But for many it is for various reasons. So while you may not think it important, many do.

33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:44 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual