Wow, this is a very demanding (or mean) forum. I try to correct myself, and the correction is not accepted, and I am painted as some kind of a horrible actor–“either intentionally dishonest or a gross misuse of vocabulary.”
So let’s start over. Walton spends 32.54% of his book, based on the text portion of the book itself, discussing in his words “metaphysical and philosophical questions” (as I clarified before.) Can we try to discuss so that we understand each others positions rather than to paint the other person as a bad actor? I am fully cognizant that it is unlikely that everyone on any thread will ever agree, but can we at least be respectful?
And by now we have lost the point of the illustration itself which is:
In this forum, there is a very strong emphasis by some BL folks that we must rely on scholars. But that is not applied evenhandedly. When Walton strays out of his lane (text analyst) into philosophy, no one calls him on that.
While I am dissing Walton, let me commit one more offense. He says, “This is the layer in which science has chosen to operate and where it is most useful.” (page 15 in The Lost World of Genesis One)
The context is hardly important at all. Science doesn’t “choose” anything. Scientists do. Nowadays when politicians and celebrities and others that pretend to speak with authority invoke the mantra of “science says” or “we follow the science.” Again, science is silent. Scientists speak, and when they speak nonsense, it is still nonsense.
This sure reads like an attempt to paint your discussant as a bad actor, not an attempt at being respectful. May not be your intent but that is the way I read it.
Sorry, I’m not trying to be mean or disrespectful, I’m trying to ensure that John Walton is represented fairly. You called me out for not quoting you correctly. I did reread the part I was referring to and it still said philosophical naturalism. I wasn’t aware there was an attempt to correct what you said about Walton, I thought you were just denying you ever said something inaccurate. I wasn’t painting you as a horrible actor, I was pointing out that either you were using philosophical naturalism incorrectly, or you were lying about what Walton said in the book, since he most definitely does not spend any time at all defending philosophical naturalism. If you are trying to clarify you should have said methodological naturalism, then all is well.
I think English speakers are capable of understanding this figure of speech, which is called metonymy. It’s like when we say, “No statement from the crown” or “The top brass is pushing for withdrawal.” Science is a stand-in for the scientific consensus of scientists or the agreed on methods of science. This is totally normal English usage and refusing to recognize figures of speech because of some kind of commitment to over literalism won’t help you communicate or convince people others are communicating poorly.
That’s kind of how science works. Science can’t work when you include the supernatural because you can explain any possible observation as “God did it that way.” Why do we find nested hierarchies of pseudogenes that were predicted by common ancestry? God just made it that way. It is very difficult to predict beforehand as to how God would or should have done something supernatural.
“We take this revealed framework of history as our basic datum, and then try to see how all the pertinent data can be understood in this context”
This commitment is fundamentally opposed to how science is done.
This is definitely not true. By default, early scientists of the 1600s or so held to two positions:
the earth came into existence approximately 6,000 years ago
Noah’s flood was global
It is a very interesting story of how scientists (who basically were all Christians) in England and the rest of Western Europe came to reject both of these ideas that they assumed were true by the mid 1800s (before Darwin mind you). Some had such a strong belief, that it led them to just assume evidence fit a global flood model like William Buckland in the early 1800s. He wrote at one point in his life:
“The grand fact of an universal deluge at no very remote period is proved on grounds so decisive and incontrovertible, that, had we never heard of such an event from Scripture, or any other, authority, Geology of itself must have called in the assistance of some such catastrophe, to explain the phenomena of diluvian action which are universally presented to us, and which are unintelligible without recourse to a deluge exerting its ravages at a period not more ancient than that announced in the Book of Genesis.“
But yet he ended up recanting this position as better evidence came in.
Here is a list of how prominent flood geologists of today try to explain the geological column. Do you happen to know how the boundaries between geological periods are defined? It really isn’t fair to ask flood geologists squeeze lots of history into a few major events.
Anything else with an appearance of antiquity can just be handwaved away with “oh the radiometric decay rates were faster in the past” or “oh, that wouldn’t destroy the earth or actually heat it to 22,000 degrees because there is a fifth dimension that opened up during Noah’s flood that the energy escaped through. However, Noah and everything on the ark would have needed to consume extra calories as they lost energy to this fifth dimension. Oh and by the way, I also solved all the outstanding questions of modern cosmology.” (these are actual paraphrases from Russ Humphreys from a few years ago- how is that for making things a “fair fight” when you get to invent extra dimensions and claim they solve mysteries of the universe but yet never need to bother doing experiments on them).
OK then. Let’s take a look at the crown jewels of YEC science. The RATE project.
When I first came across YEC in the late 1980s, it became apparent to me that just about every argument they were coming up with was weak. Their sample sizes were too small, and their error bars were too large, to support the conclusions they were claiming. But I was told that this was only to be expected, because they only had meagre resources and limited funding compared to the “evolutionists.”
Then along came the RATE project.
With a budget of $1.25 million and a lifespan of eight years, this was the most expensive, extensive and comprehensive scientific study the young-earth organisations had ever attempted. It was a showcase of what they could do given some serious money. If anything should have come up with smoking gun evidence for a young Earth, it was RATE.
So what did they come up with? A claim that nuclear decay rates were higher in the past. Much higher. A billion times higher.
Now that in itself is an extraordinary claim. It would have required the fundamental constants of physics themselves to have been different in the past. Demonstrating that would win you a Nobel Prize hands down, and make you rich beyond your wildest dreams into the bargain because being able to replicate the process would open up a world of new opportunities.
But extraordinary claims such as that require extraordinary evidence. It doesn’t take a “secular worldview” to see this, and you don’t need to have “been there to see it happen.” If such a thing had ever happened, we would expect to see gobs and gobs and gobs of compelling, in-your-face, high precision evidence for it. Evidence based on principles that could be explained to A level physics students. Evidence that could easily be replicated by multiple teams. Evidence that is completely unambiguous, only has that one interpretation as a reasonable possibility. Anything less, and you would be giving everyone a free pass to basically make things up and create their own alternative realities.
And what evidence did they come up with? Let’s take a look:
Helium diffusion in zircons: A very complex and (at the time) immature area of study requiring specialist expertise and experience to apply properly. In other words, easy to get wrong, difficult to get right, easy to fudge, and potentially difficult to check. Reviewers have pointed out numerous very serious failings of basic quality control, some of which can only be described as “fudging.” Fails to take into account significant factors such as pressure. Misidentifies rock samples. Uses an unrealistic model to calculate how much helium we should expect to find. Their study has never been replicated by anyone.
Polonium haloes in granites. Basically a case of “we know that the Earth is young because there are things that we don’t know.” In any case, the polonium is now known to have come from part of the decay chain of uranium, with the polonium having been generated by decay from radon gas which had migrated away from its uranium source through tiny cracks in the crystals.
Isochron discordances. I’ve dealt with this one already in this thread. A minority of results differing by a few percent (10-15%) do not justify claims that all results are consistently out by factors of a million. Furthermore, fails to account for the majority of cases where there is no discordance.
Radiocarbon in ancient coals and diamonds. The results were consistent with known, measured and well studied contamination mechanisms. Yet contamination is hand-waved away as a “rescuing device.” if you hand-waved away contamination as a “rescuing device” in any other area of science, you would kill people.
So basically, what they have given us in support of their extraordinary claims that would have won them a Nobel Prize if it had any merit, is … more tiny samples, right at the limits of detection, with huge error bars. At best highly ambiguous and at worst outright fudged. About as underwhelming as you can possibly get.
But it gets even more extraordinary than that. They also admitted that such accelerated nuclear decay rates would have raised the temperature of the Earth to 22,000°C. That is four times as hot as the surface of the sun, and hot enough to vaporise the Earth’s crust many times over. To get round that, they had to invent new physics involving ad hoc invisible fifth dimensions – basically, they had to make things up – to try and explain where the heat went. On top of which, there were other things that they didn’t even attempt to explain, such as how this could have cooled rocks faster than water, or how some nuclear decay rates were accelerated but not others, or how stable isotopes didn’t become unstable as well.
And what evidence do they give for this even more extraordinary layer of complexity? None whatsoever.
Now at this point, they just threw their hands up in the air and said, “God must have done it.” I don’t have a problem with God doing stuff. But I do have a problem with people who expect me to believe that God went to to extreme lengths to make the Earth look older than it really is in the most complicated and convoluted way imaginable for no discernible reason whatsoever, which is what their claims amount to. It is not consistent with the character and nature of God that I read about in the Bible, who tells us in Romans 1:20 that His nature and character are made clear even to unbelievers by what they see in creation. On the contrary, it is a combination of Omphalos, Harry Potter, Star Trek, and The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
Seriously, it’s stuff like RATE that makes me scratch my head and wonder whether I really am reading genuine creationist literature or some sort of parody of it.
The blog discussion has become far-ranging (far beyond my knowledge). I am unable to understand all the many topics of the YEC-OEC debates. As I have studied and listened I came across a Kent Hovind statement in one of his debates: I only need one solid proof to prove my point (or something like that). tI works both ways.
Turning this around, I have taken this to mean if I can find one solid proof that the earth is very old then all the arguments and technical books by those advocating a YEC position are wrong. If the earth is very old those arguments about genetic entropy, radiometric dating, sedimentry layers, fossils, etc. can be dismissed — even if they are from learned scholars. If there is ONE solid proof that the earth is very old, the YEC-OEC debate should be over.
Three simple ones for me to understand:
The varve layers in the Geen river and Lake Suigetsu areas (and many others). These are so clearly catstrophic to the YEC position that they have attacked with great effort — but have been clearly answered.
The White Cliffs of Dover and other chalk layers
Microscoptic shells always in their distinct layers
Now, before counter arguments are offered, consider the Flood and its theoretical conditions (from my collection of a few of PRO-YEC sources have suggested): 1. Heavy rain and water activity that makes anything modern people have experienced look trivial. Rain likely 60 inches an hour for over a month. 2. Super violent Tsunami driven waves over a mile high sweeping around the world. I cannot imagine any animal laying eggs or wandering about in such conditions. 3. Over 71 major meteor strikes in that short period. 4. Major (possibly 500) volcano eruptions all over the world. 5. Catastrophic tectonic places running rampant - .5 to 1 mile a year instead of one inch (thousands of times faster than measured today). The USA continent moved from Europe in half a year!) Imagine the incredible chaos and heat. 6. Radiation decay rates more than a million times higher than today. 7. The amount of silt in the waters would make a heavy slurry, combined with the above would kill anything (plant or animal). The entire earth would be in an incredibly violent washing-machine boiling mixture for a long period of time.
Now apply these to the above three simple age-related markers I mentioned. If these conditions proposed by YEC supporters existed NO life in or out of the Ark could have survived; There would be NO separation of any fossils, let alone microscopic fossils; NO sand or salt would be clumped together in any part of the world; Everything would be jumbled together, if not pulverized together.
I found it curious that even though the above conditions were suggested by various YEC advocates, they seemed to forget about them when they talked about the survivability of thousands of creatures on on an over-sized all-wooden boat packed with people, insects, and often fragile animals.
Thus, if indeed, the above (and many other findings) clearly point to a very old earth, the age game is over.
This doesn’t mean that I distrust the Bible. I now distrust the interpretation that was pushed on me and that I taught for so many decades.
@cewoldt, @DavidS: Here is another compelling piece of evidence for the antiquity of both the earth and the cosmos. And no, YECs, it is not about radiometric dating, it is about extinct radionuclides:
If the Earth is really 6,000 years old, why wouldn’t modern scientific methods measure that age?
The rocks geologists are measuring weren’t created during the six-day creation week. These rocks are found above fossils which means they solidified after the creation week. These rocks formed naturally. So why wouldn’t scientific methods measure the correct age? There is nothing in science that forbids scientists from concluding that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that species do not share a common ancestor.
No, they wouldn’t.
How could a young Earth and separate species groups not be considered? The tests we use for dating rocks and determining common ancestry are just as capable of measuring a young age or detecting a lack of common ancestry. The scientific tools scientists are using could detect a young Earth or unrelated species, but they don’t.
John 1:1-3 (NIV2011)
1 In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the Beginning.
3 Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.
I note that all of your thinking is based on Genesis, while Christianity is a New Testament faith. John 1 provides a NT version of Creation based on the Logos, the Rational Word of God, Jesus Christ.
John 1 does not contradict Genesis 1, but it does inform us that God’s word is Not to be treated as a myth, which means regarded as factually true even if it is clearly not. So the question is whether Jesus is the Logos as John says or the Mythos, as some people want Him to be. That would be a philosophical question. What do you think?
@llamapacker, welcome to the forum. I think you are on target with your conclusions. Finding a young rock doesn’t mean all rocks are young.
My impression is that to young earth creationists, observations and measurements do not matter, as their underlying difference is inscripural interpretation, not observational facts.
This is interesting. Thank you for sharing. Honestly, this subject is beyond my scope, so I don’t have a response to what you’re saying here. Ultimately, I am convinced the Scriptures and the Church Fathers taught a recent creation, and this makes the most sense of my theology. I believe there’s scientific evidence for recent creation, but it’s not about the scientific evidence for me. Since I believe this is what God says in the Scriptures, it must be true. Period. Of course, that’s my presupposition, but I stand by it.
There’s just one last thing I want to say about radiometric dating (and this is a philosophical point, not a scientific one). Today, radiometric dating is considered the best evidence for the long age of the Earth. But I find it quite telling that secular biologists and geologists were developing theories of deep time long before radiometric dating existed. According to my research, radioactivity itself wasn’t even discovered until 1896, and it wasn’t developed into a dating method until the early 20th century (at the earliest). I would say that supports my main point: The long ages proposed by secular scientists do not rely on radiometric dating. Their hypothesis precedes the data. Sure, radiometric dating usually concords with their deep-time beliefs - but their deep-time beliefs existed long before the “confirmation” that came from radiometric dating. This demonstrates that even if radiometric dating were proven to be faulty, it wouldn’t overturn the deep-time applecart. It wouldn’t cause the secular scientists to revise their belief in long ages. That’s because their hypothesis precedes the data.
Ok, sure. I didn’t say radiometric dating “never works.” But if it is shown to be so poor with rocks of known age, I am not going to trust it with rocks of unknown age.
Of course this is undeniable. But I don’t think they were doing it wrong.
True.
Of course, yes, I agree.
I disagree. Actually, I’m not aware of any case in which radiometric dating was accurate for rocks of known age. If I am wrong about this, please let me know. Even when the rock is of unknown age, radiometric dates often conflict with generally accepted dates for the surrounding rock / fossils / etc., and so that data gets thrown out as an anomaly.
Ok, fair point. Perhaps the K-Ar date can be explained by Potassium’s long half life and the poor sensitivity of our lab equipment. Still, I also mentioned that Mt. Ngauruhoe yielded a Sm-Nd date of 200 million years and a Pb-Pb date of 3.9 billion years. Those numbers are outrageous. 3.9 billion years is nearly the generally-accepted age of the Earth. Even if these false dates could be chalked up to measurement error, the point is that those dates should be close to the true age (60 years old) if our starting assumptions were correct. Obviously something went dreadfully wrong here.
Radiometric dates frequently disagree with results from other dating methods. In fact, radiometric dates of the same rock often contradict each other. I don’t buy the myth that there is some kind of fantastic concordance between various dating methods. There isn’t. Deep time is assumed from the start. Dates that contradict the already-accepted timeline are thrown out or judged to be anomalous.
Ah, there it is. Yes, thank you. My point exactly. Every dating method requires unprovable assumptions. Since these are assumptions about the deep past, they are necessarily unprovable. Sure, you might think your assumptions are reasonable. But they are still unprovable. It’s not the science at stake here. It’s a battle of worldviews.
True, every measurement requires assumptions (such as the distance from NYC to London or police speed radars). But these involve much more reasonable assumptions, since they are about phenomena in the present. Let’s consider your example of measuring the distance from NYC to London. Yes, this requires some unprovable assumptions. However, since we can repeatedly test the speed of light in a laboratory (in the present), we can demonstrate that the speed of light hasn’t changed. If we don’t care to measure the speed of light before every experiment, it’s not unreasonable to assume it hasn’t changed - since it was reliably measured in the recent past. Not only that, we have reliably calculated the distance to London already. We can safely assume our memories / records are reliable. Also, we can empirically measure the distance using other methods. Admittedly, these still involve assumptions. But those assumptions are much more sound than the assumptions secular scientists make about the deep past.
When it comes to the assumptions of evolution / deep time, we’re talking about things that allegedly took place millions or billions of years ago. The weatherman can’t accurately predict what the weather will be in two weeks. How can we be so sure of what the Earth was like 2, 3, or 4 billion years ago? Meanwhile, you can watch a NatGeo documentary right now and listen to a smart man in a lab coat say things like, “And then, 72 million years ago, the T-rex grew feathers” or “There was a great pandemic that affected all mammals exactly 61 million years ago,” or something highly specific like that. A lot of people will just nod their head in agreement because it’s something a scientist said. But to me, they sound ridiculous. Nobody knows what happened 72 million (or 61 million) years ago. You don’t either. We’re all making educated guesses based on how we interpret the evidence left behind in the present, which is based on our starting assumptions. Extrapolations are almost never right. The evolutionary picture of Earth-history is based on a lot of extrapolations and uniformitarian / naturalistic assumptions. At the end of the day, it’s an attempt to explain the world without God. It always was, and it always will be.
Yes, that is true. I could be a brain in a vat, and the world around me could be an illusion, conjured up by a mad scientist - but it is reasonable to assume that I’m not. We make all kinds of assumptions everyday, without even realizing it. We also assume the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. Still an assumption, but it is unreasonable to deny it. So yes, I agree - some assumptions are unreasonable to deny.
This is where we disagree: I believe assumptions about the distant past are reasonable to challenge. Especially since they are so worldview-dependent. A creationist has very different worldview assumptions than an evolutionist. We presuppose different things about the past. Nobody can say what happened in the distant past without making a number of shaky assumptions. These are the kinds of assumptions that are most reasonable to challenge. At least in the present we can observe and test these things. The past is forever inaccessible to us. Of course, I agree that there exist traces of the past. But these are only traces. We can only work with evidence as it exists now, in the present.
Ok. My apologies. I must have read you wrong. Thank you for clarifying.
Actually, I am aware of that. I know perfectly well that most of those “Dissent from Darwin” scientists are ID folks, who believe in intelligent design. Most of them likely believe in common ancestry, and most certainly believe in deep time. Those folks aren’t who I was referring to. I understand that “rejecting Darwinism” is not the same as YEC. However, there are a number of good PhD scientists who actually believe in six-day creation. I’m not talking about Ken Ham or Kent Hovind either (ew, gross). I mean there are many good, professional scientists who think the Earth is about 6,000 years old. They are certainly in the minority (I wouldn’t deny that for a moment). But they do exist. I could give you a pretty long list if you’re interested.
“I believe assumptions about the distant past are reasonable to challenge. Especially since they are so worldview-dependent. A creationist has very different worldview assumptions than an evolutionist. We presuppose different things about the past.”
Yes, reasonable to challenge. But now that you’ve said, “it’s not about the scientific evidence for me”, you’ve given away credibility entirely. Instead, a collaborative science, philosophy, theology (Orthodox) would enable you not to intentionally avoid scientific evidence. Why not seek a triadic conversation with science, philosohy & theology, instead of just downplaying science?
“I mean there are many good, professional scientists who think the Earth is about 6,000 years old.”
Many, meaning under 1%? Or what percentage of geologists think the Earth is about 6,000 years old, would you guess?
In fact, there are dating methods that arrive at dates consistent with recent creation. Having said that, all dating methods (even the ones that are cited by creationists, like the ones listed in that link) rely on unprovable assumptions about the past. All of them. We cannot objectively prove the age of the Earth, unless we have a reliable, trustworthy eyewitness (such as God). I believe Genesis is God’s eyewitness testimony to creation. I trust what Genesis says over the creation myth of unbelieving scientists (evolution).
Yes, those rocks formed naturally. According to my model, most of the fossil-bearing rocks were formed during the Great Flood. I would say the scientists don’t calculate the correct age of these rocks because radiometric dating relies on unprovable assumptions, and because their worldview assumes deep time. If they were creation scientists, they would not conclude deep time. Instead, they would explain the apparently large amount of daughter isotopes in another way (i.e. accelerated decay, contamination, etc.). In fact, that is often how creationists explain the inflated ages. As you can see, it’s a difference in worldview assumptions that determines our conclusions. Secular scientists do this sort of thing too, but the difference is they don’t appeal to the Scriptures. Rather, they are methodological naturalists (they refuse to accept supernatural explanations for anything). Secular scientists don’t have a problem with deep time. In fact, deep time is required for the evolutionary history of life on Earth. They need it to be true. So, while a scientist could theoretically say the Earth is 6,000 years old without contradicting methodological naturalism - he could say the universe and the Earth somehow evolved to it’s present state in only 6,000 years - they know this is far too short a time for cosmic evolution, geological processes, and biological evolution to get us here. Secular scientists could conclude that there wasn’t a single universal common ancestor, but they could never conclude that the first organisms were supernaturally created. Whether we have a single origin-of-life instance, or multiple, it must be the result of natural processes. Therefore, you can see why they choose to say there was one origin-of-life instance. Not because there’s any evidence for it - but simply because that’s the easiest explanation.
Ultimately, a person who operates via methodological naturalism could never conclude the world was supernaturally created by God only six-thousand years ago and that there was a Global Flood in the days of Noah - even if all the evidence supported it. As you can see, the creation / evolution debate isn’t about scientific evidence. It’s about starting presuppositions. The secular scientists will never conclude that creationists are correct. They literally couldn’t. But it is even worse than that, because if one assumes methodological naturalism, they have to assume life got here via natural mechanisms. Since supernatural design / creation are off limits, we are forced to conclude life made itself gradually, over long periods of time. We are forced to accept some version of evolution. Do you see how this is problematic? It’s a godless philosophy masquerading as science.
Yes, they would. Supernatural creation violates methodological naturalism, which is one of the fundamental tenants of modern science. If was assume (as secular scientists do) that life must have arisen via natural causes only, then we are forced to assume life gradually made itself. In essence, that is evolution.
If you don’t believe me, believe Dr. Scott Todd - immunologist (and staunch evolutionist) from Kansas State University:
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
I understand the context of this quote is ID (intelligent design). But the same point could be made about six-day creation. If God made the world in six days, it would be a supernatural act. Secular scientists would still conclude (some form of) evolution, even if all the evidence was against it. Methodological naturalism doesn’t allow any other hypothesis.
I would just reference you to what I wrote above. Both creationists and evolutionists are dealing with the same evidence in the present. We arrive at difference conclusions about the past because we are interpreting that evidence differently, according to our different presuppositions about the past. Evidence doesn’t speak for itself - it must be interpreted. Scientists don’t dig up rocks and fossils with birth certificates.
I don’t believe historical sciences like geology, biology or cosmology are on the same level as the observational sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.). The former rely on naturalistic assumptions about the distant past. The latter are observable and repeatable in the present day. I would say evolution isn’t scientific. It’s a godless philosophy that masquerades as science. I reject the accusation that I’m “denying science.” I agree that true science can never contradict true revelation. The problem is, evolution isn’t really true. That isn’t denying science. It’s denying an explicitly godless worldview (evolutionism).
I know of at least 60 PhD scientists who believe in 6 day creation. There are probably more. I could list them out for you if you want. I have no idea what the percentage is. In order to calculate that I would need to know how many scientists there are (I don’t know this number) and how many creationists there are (I don’t know this number either). Frankly, it doesn’t matter what the percentage is. If it’s 1% that’s fine. My point remains the same. Lots of knowledgeable, scientific, intelligent people think the world is a few thousand years old.
It was Christian geologists who were looking to prove the Noachian Flood that found evidence that there Earth was older than 6,000 years. And their initial estimates were not billions of years but only millions. With improvements in our knowledge of geology those dates were slowly expanded into the deep past. Radiometric dating was the final clock that let us truly date the origin of the Earth. So their hypothesis actually changed as new data was discovered which is the essence of the scientific method.
And BTW you don’t need radiometric dating to come up with an age of the Earth of more than 6,000 years. Simple physics will show that it isn’t possible.
Yes, evolutionism is a godless worldview. BioLogos actually admits this, though the fact that people here accept “theistic evolutionism” is highly problematic. It’s thus now caught in a contradiction of its own making, which you similarly point out.
The observational/historical divide is weak. It shows you don’t understand “science”, or only in a rather myopic way that the vast majority of Christians who are scientists won’t accept.
“I would say evolution isn’t scientific. It’s a godless philosophy that masquerades as science. I reject the accusation that I’m “denying science.””
Your views as a non-scientist don’t really matter though, frankly. Since you’re addressing scientific topics, trying to keep science out makes no sense.
You might want to try Fr. Doru Costache on this topic. He clarifies:
“Creation: (Who) a theological representation of reality
Creationism: (How) a supernaturalist ideology
Evolution: (What) a scientific description of reality
Evolutionism: (How) a naturalist ideology”
This is outside of BioLogos’ typical awareness and familiarity, as its written by an Orthodox Christian.
“I could list them out for you if you want. I have no idea what the percentage is.”
Yes, please do. That would help us understand the landscape together. Thanks for the suggestion.
I read your whole post and you brought up some compelling evidence. Ultimately, however, we cannot know what happened in the distant past. Everything relies on unprovable assumptions, because nobody was there to see it. I understand that the past leaves traces behind. But these are only traces. We can only work with the evidence we have in the present. Everyone is in the dark here.
I don’t have an answer for the three points you mentioned. But frankly, I don’t care. Because the scientific evidence is secondary for me. I believe that God teaches a recent six-day creation in Genesis. If I am right about that, then it must be true, since God can’t lie. You might be alarmed that I said “the scientific evidence is secondary for me.” But the truth is, if secular scientists were being forthcoming, they would admit to the same thing. The science is secondary for them, and the hypothesis comes first. What I mean by that is this: Secular scientists are not objective. They are people too. They come to the evidence with a number of worldview assumptions. Namely, methodological naturalism, which prohibits them from appealing to supernatural causes. This means, even if all the scientific evidence favored a recent six-day creation, secular scientists would literally be unable to conclude that it is true - since supernatural phenomena are off-limits. Sometimes one of them will admit to this very thing I’m talking about. Look at what Dr. Scott Todd (an evolutionist) says: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic ” (emphasis mine). Six-day creation is miraculous. It is thus excluded from science. Assuming methodological naturalism, we must assume that life arose gradually through purely natural causes. Therefore, we will have to assume some version of evolution. It’s literally unavoidable. Notice how the theory comes before the facts. None of this has to do with science. It’s a battle of competing worldviews. When I realized this, I dropped evolution and became a creationist.
It’s OK if I can’t explain everything. It’s OK if I don’t understand everything. I don’t know how to answer your three challenges. But I’m happy to trust in the plain reading of the Scriptures, interpreting the Bible the way it has always been interpreted. I trust God first, and I have little confidence in secular scientists who are antagonistic to my faith.
I would suggest that’s a naïve view of the history of modern geology. In fact, Charles Lyell was quite influential in the acceptance of long ages, and did not believe in the Global Flood. Not only that, he was antagonistic to Genesis. He once said he wanted to “free the science [of geology] from Moses.” His uniformitarian assumptions were in direct conflict with Genesis.
I understand that secular scientists appeal to other dating methods. However, my point remains. The strongest evidence that’s now alleged for long ages and evolution came after those ideas were first proposed and believed. The theory pre-dates the evidence.
Excellent, a list from Creation.com - creation(ist) ministries international. An evangelical Protestant organization, an apologetics ministry. Is this your top resource?
As you said you’re an Orthodox Christian, I’m curious if you know how many on that list are Orthodox Christians vs. evangelical Protestants?
It seems that you’re drawing for your Orthodox view of Creation from an evangelical Protestant apologetics ministry. Is this fair to say?
If you are drawing on any Orthodox sources, could you please list those also. Thanks.
