Hi, Neil –
I’m usually just a semi-occasional lurker on this forum who rarely posts anything, but I thought I’d join in on the lively discussion going on here.
My own approach to discussing these sorts of issues w/ YEC advocates is to insist up front on an intellectually honest framework, because unfortunately my experience is that the standard-issue YEC arguments (some of which you’ve articulated here) usually fail that test. I can illustrate this by posing a very straightforward question.
First, let’s agree upon a number above which the age of the earth/universe is untenable from the YEC perspective. You’ve mentioned 6,000 years several times now, which is of course largely derived from Ussher’s work in the 17th century. He’s the guy who most famously did the tedious counting backwards to arrive at a 4,004 BC date for the creation of the world, and many contemporary YEC advocates such as AiG still assert that he’s in the ballpark of correct. A 7,000 year-old earth/universe implies a 16% aggregate math error in Ussher’s dating, so I doubt that many YEC’s would be willing to go much north of that. But you can choose the exact number…whatever you want. We’ll call this number “X.”
So this provides us with the basis for what I’ll call our Principal Question, and that is: would you, Neil, agree that it is possible that someone could present to you scientific evidence so overwhelmingly convincing that the earth and/or universe is older than X, such that you would recognize no choice but to concede that this is the only possible scientific conclusion, and that the YEC 6,000 year-old earth is thereby impossible? Do you, Neil – not Ken Ham, not Henry Morris’ grandchildren, not anyone else, just you – allow for such a possibility in your own thinking?
Your answer to this Principal Question sets the framework for the discussion. If your answer is “No,” the likely reason is that your position is that any non-YEC scientific claim violates the infallible truth of the word of God. You don’t know where or how the scientists got their conclusions wrong, nor do you feel that you have any obligation to figure that out. You just know that they’re wrong because they are approaching the issue from a worldview that has abandoned biblical authority, and therefore their conclusions are not to be trusted. Period…end of story. And you’re not budging because you’re committed to what you understand to be biblical truth on such matters.
That’s fine, and that’s certainly your right to hold to such a position. But recognize that it now takes the science aspect of the matter off the table. If scientific information must first pass through your theological filter before it can be accepted (or not), then the issue really isn’t about the scientific information. It’s about the makeup of that theological filter, and thus the whole question is now a theological one. And that’s fine, as well, because there’s certainly a rich discussion to be had from that approach. We can talk about such things as:
- What we (“we” being trustworthy Hebrew scholars) know about the original Hebrew texts, and the cultural context of the time and place in which they were written,
- The literary, chronological and thematic differences between the Genesis chapter 1 narrative and that of chapter 2; and we can throw in here the evidence that Chapter 1 may have been written centuries later and then added onto Genesis as a prologue of sorts, and what may have been behind all that.
- Why Jesus never bothered to set His disciples straight on any of these scientific truths – e.g., the actual relationship between the earth and sun, that leprosy is caused by a contagious microorganism that nobody can see, etc.
We can also have the philosophical discussion of why you and I both allow that when multiple Old Testament authors plainly describe the motion of the sun around the earth (also known as, the Bible verses that got Galileo in such hot water), that it’s okay to assume that they’re writing figuratively. And we know this, how exactly? And why it is then okay to apply one standard of hermeneutics to Genesis 1 but another to (for example) Ecclesiastes 1 (which states that the sun “hastens back” to the place from which it arose)? It ultimately becomes something of a discussion about what, precisely, scripture really is…i.e., God effectively dictating to an ancient author (though we do see that in places), or perhaps something a bit different, where such a dictation is not so obvious.
So again, there’s lots to talk about here, but none of it has anything to do with science, because you’ve admitted that you’re really not interested in that. So don’t bring up an article from AiG’s website discussing the fallacies of carbon-14 dating. Don’t demand that paleontologists find more transitional forms in the fossil record, because you’ve admitted that if they dug up a million of them next week, it wouldn’t matter. And don’t build/promote a museum in Kentucky that offers not one shred of verifiable scientific proof in support of the YEC position, but demands more proof from everyone else. The “science” of YEC is really all just window dressing, and you’ve admitted that you will dismiss any conflicting scientific evidence out of hand. Ultimately your position is a theological one.
However, if your answer to our Principal Question is “yes” – that is, given sufficient undeniable evidence, you, Neil would have to concede that the earth/universe is much older than X years – then the discussion is a scientific one. Now it’s about the burden of proof for an older earth, and whether that burden of proof has been met. And, like it or not, the heavier burden of proof falls to YEC advocates, because they’re the ones who have to demonstrate that everyone else is wrong:
- If the geology of the earth was radically re-shaped by a catastrophic worldwide flood that covered its entire surface with tens of thousands of feet of water for the better part of a year, and this happened within the past 4,500 years…submit the evidence.
- If the laws of physics governing radio-isotope decay were different a few thousand years ago than they are today…submit the evidence.
- If the “kinds” of animals saved on the ark then rapidly differentiated into multiple descendant species within a few generations…submit the evidence for how this may have happened, including, yes, the transitional form fossils thus mandated by such a model.
- Produce a falsifiable model for the physics of how we are able to see stars more than X light-years away.
And submit all of this to peer-reviewed scientific journals. If a paper submitted by ICR to a peer-reviewed journal is rejected by the editors, then have ICR publish the rejection letter on its own website. Let the rest of us decide for ourselves if there’s a godless multinational conspiracy suppressing biblical truth, or if ICR’s research methodology or statistical methods are just lacking.
Not to mention, if you’re going to challenge the principle of uniformitarianism as it applies to no less than the constant for the speed of light, across both time (which you did) and space (which you also did), then recognize that – in addition to questions of visible distant starlight and the age of the universe – you’re also putting the validity of Einstein’s theories of both general and special relativity on the table. Better really have your footlocker packed if you’re going there.
But what the question is not – if your answer is “yes” – is one of worldview. So stop with all the telling non-YEC Christians that their adherence to the authority of scripture is degenerate or otherwise lacking. Stop claiming that they don’t love God and revere the scriptures as much as you do. This is at best, unhelpful, and at worst, well…I won’t go there right now. Because you’ve admitted that if the scientific burden of proof were met to your own satisfaction, you would abandon the YEC position yourself. And if by abandoning the YEC position, you feel that your own faith in the risen Christ would thus crash down like a house of cards, that’s on you. Don’t assume the same is true for me or anyone else.
What I see from so many YEC advocates – and you’ve gone down this path yourself on this thread – is that they want it both ways; that is, the “science” of YEC is plain as day, if one only has the proper worldview. If one can’t accept YEC “scientific” claims, it’s because his or her worldview has abandoned biblical authority. So please know that I have no wish of being nasty here, but most of the folks on this forum aren’t going to let you off so easy with that impenetrable circular argument. It’s intellectually dishonest. And it’s ironic that often the only such challenges to scientific validity concern YEC-based arguments. Anytime you agree to a medical therapy, or bring a plant indoors because the weatherman on TV says it’s going to drop below freezing tonight, or drive your car across a bridge…you likely have no problem with the “assumptions” of the individuals involved. It’s only the non-YEC scientists who are “not even wrong” (in the words of Wolfgang Pauli).
So…”yes” or “no?” And, before you ask, my answer to the converse question is “yes.” I’ll let you or anyone else try to prove to me scientifically that the universe is 6,000 years old. Have at it.
Blessings, and Merry Christmas,
Scott
It’s part of the medium. No blood, no foul, though!