Hey love the edits to my post! I agree, the emoticons were vital. Consider this full written permission to edit my posts from now on… By the way, I sleep with a night light on and I love watching Friends re-runs 
I also think @BradKramer is the coolest person ever. Brad for president!!
3 Likes
Wow, I guess I should have qualified that 
…
1 Like
If the phrase “science denier” is causing problems, then let’s replace it with “person who remains unpersuaded by evidence that is regarded by the scientific community as overwhelming,”… or something like that (additional details are no doubt needed, but we’ll have to do without them for now). That way there is no suggestion that all scientific conclusions are being questioned, and no one is claiming that science=evolution, but the claim that young-earth creationists are doing something very improper with regard to science is still being made.
Or we could just use the phrase: “evolution denier” or some more specific variants: “common ancestry denier” or “deep-time denier”. That leaves aside all polemics about whether or not such things are “proper” science, thereby also leaving it up to the bias of the hearer. It removes the polemic sting that some no doubt want the phrase to carry, but has the advantage of being totally accurate. The hearer can do with it what they will; some reacting “Oh --so they are a science denier, eh?” and others reacting “Oh --they are only questioning evolution … their science is probably still good…”.
But because this promotes light over heat, I predict these phrases have near-zero chance of catching on. People want heat, even if just to inflict it on others.
Given the musical theme of the blogpost and this heat and light comment, I can’t help quoting a verse from one of the really good Christian musicians of the 80s, Mark Heard. From his song, “I just wanna get warm”:
The colors here are monochrome
Studies in one shade of grey
The good times and the hard times
Cut from the same grey cloth
And all the fires that crackle here
Consume but do not burn
All light and no heat
And I just wanna get warm
I just wanna get warm
3 Likes
Hmmm…I attended a concert of theirs at my home church when I was…younger.
1 Like
There was a parallel universe of music in the 80s that was also my music: Christian rock music. And we Christian kids were strongly encouraged to stay away from “secular” music—remember, that was the era of backward masking that contained subliminal messages contrary to Christian values.
The British rock band Led Zeppelin was considered to be part of that backward masking era that contained subliminal messages. Instead of focusing on the nonsense of playing the record backwards the individual should focus on the symbolic subliminal messages contained in the song itself. Accordingly, for me (I’m sure there are others), the lyrics for what is considered one of the greatest rock songs of all time, “Stairway To Heaven,”—from their fourth album titled, Led Zeppelin IV—specifically speaks to the Christian revelation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW_7XBrDBAA
“Stairway To Heaven”
There’s a lady who’s sure all that glitters is gold
And she’s buying a stairway to heaven.
When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed
With a word she can get what she came for.
Ooh, ooh, and she’s buying a stairway to heaven.
There’s a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
In a tree by the brook, there’s a songbird who sings,
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder.
There’s a feeling I get when I look to the west,
And my spirit is crying for leaving.
In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees,
And the voices of those who stand looking.
Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder.
And it’s whispered that soon, if we all call the tune,
Then the piper will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long,
And the forests will echo with laughter.
If there’s a bustle in your hedgerow, don’t be alarmed now,
It’s just a spring clean for the May queen.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There’s still time to change the road you’re on.
And it makes me wonder.
Your head is humming and it won’t go, in case you don’t know,
The piper’s calling you to join him,
Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow, and did you know
Your stairway lies on the whispering wind?
And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul.
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything still turns to gold.
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last.
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll.
And she’s buying a stairway to heaven.
One would never even imagine that Led Zeppelin had any Christian message in their music to communicate (well, think again) because as you said, “Christian kids were strongly encouraged to stay away from “secular” music.” Well… this Christian kid here delved right into it.
Here’s my interpretation for the main parts of “Stairway To Heaven”—you could ask Jimmy Page or Robert Plant for confirmation—if you would ever be fortunate enough to meet up with either of them:
The lady who is sure that “all that glitters is gold” is none other than Revelation’s Woman who rides the beast—Babylon the Great.
These verses are citing the problems with semantics—“'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings”… and… “sometimes all of our thought are misgiven”.
This part refers to the Revelation of Jesus Christ and His millennial reign [the new day]—And it’s whispered that soon, if we all call the tune, then the piper will lead us to reason," is concerning the rapture through Jesus Christ [the Piper].
“And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof” [Revelation 5:5 KJV].
And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth [Revelation 10: 8].
And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings [Revelation 10:11].
“And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, And the forests will echo with laughter”—symbolizes the joy Christians will feel in their hearts when God’s Kingdom is fully and firmly established. The “spring clean for the May queen” concerns judgment coming from “God’s Church” through “His Throne” at the dawn of the Millennium [spring]—Revelation speaks of two women (Babylon the Great and the Bride of Christ).
And of course, “Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run there’s still time to change the road you’re on,” is alluding to the power of forgiveness through Jesus Christ and the straight and narrow road.
Furthermore, “And if you listen very hard the tune will come to you at last when all is one and one is all”—Babylon the Great the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth “is one and one is all” as a church and as a conglomeration of churches.
Finally, the chorus—“Ooh it makes me wonder, Ooh it really makes me wonder”—is a post hypnotic suggestion inviting the listener to think deeply and profusely.
P.S. Anyone who thinks my language is vulgar and that I am insensitive should open up their Bibles. Don’t get upset at me for the vivid details—your Bibles speaks it very graphically and distinctively clear—I have the absolute right to speak my mind:
“And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:” [Revelation 17:1 KJV].
“And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” [Revelation 17:5 KJV].
What do you think Jim?
This superficial examination of another Led Zeppelin song from the same Led Zeppelin IV album called, “The Battle of Evermore” will further demonstrate that the boys from England had a Christian message to communicate.
Original studio version — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-21AtiWV3TE
Live with Najma Akhtar — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCQiPXDZHcc
“The Battle Of Evermore”
The Queen of Light took her bow,
And then she turned to go,
The Prince of Peace embraced the gloom,
And walked the night alone.
Oh, dance in the dark of night,
Sing to the morning light.
The dark Lord rides in force tonight,
And time will tell us all.
Oh, throw down your plow and hoe,
Rest not to lock your homes.
Side by side we wait the might
Of the darkest of them all.
I hear the horses’ thunder down in the valley below,
I’m waiting for the angels of Avalon, waiting for the eastern glow.
The apples of the valley hold the seeds of happiness,
The ground is rich from tender care,
Repay, do not forget, no, no.
Dance in the dark of night,
Sing to the morning light.
The apples turn to brown and black,
The tyrant’s face is red.
Oh war is the common cry,
Pick up your swords and fly.
The sky is filled with good and bad
That mortals never know.
Oh, well, the night is long, the beads of time pass slow,
Tired eyes on the sunrise, waiting for the eastern glow.
The pain of war cannot exceed the woe of aftermath,
The drums will shake the castle wall,
The ring wraiths ride in black, ride on.
Sing as you raise your bow,
Shoot straighter than before.
No comfort has the fire at night
That lights the face so cold.
Oh dance in the dark of night,
Sing to the morning light.
The magic runes are writ in gold to bring the balance back.
Bring it back.
At last the sun is shining,
The clouds of blue roll by,
With flames from the dragon of darkness,
The sunlight blinds his eyes.
Remember it’s to be noted that a lot of the bands in that era experimented with subliminal messages and played around with words to disguise the true intended message of their songs reserved for the adept in esoteric considerations. To grasp the intended message here is simple if we begin with what we already know as fact—the same applies with the interpretation of scripture because in both cases we are dealing with individuals who have knowledge of the Arcanum—a profound secret or mystery known only to initiates.
The Queen of Light — Babylon the Great (the false church)
The Prince of Peace — Jesus Christ
Go — Gold
The dark Lord — The psychopath
The morning light — the rapture (revelation)
Side by side we wait the might — Side by side we wait the night
The night — the great tribulation and Day of the Lord
Waiting for the angels of Avalon — Waiting for the angels of Babylon
Waiting for the eastern glow — Waiting for the light of truth (the wise men came from the east)
The apples of the valley hold the seeds of happiness — the rich live high on up (for the most part) ordinary people live in the valleys below therefore… happiness lies with the ordinary people.
The tyrant’s face is red — the dragon`s face is red (the god of this world)
The drums will shake the castle wall — the revelation of truth will shake the dragon`s den.
The ring wraiths ride in black — who wears black?
The magic runes — sacred writings (the Bible, mystical writings, philosophical writings)
To bring the balance back — to restore justice, truth, and honor
At last the sun is shining — the rapture (revelation)
The sunlight blinds his eyes — the revealed truth blinds the dragon’s eyes
Perhaps you are OVER generalizing? There are PLENTY of Deniers who deny that speciation is even possible…
If you know Creationists who DO think speciation is possible… then the only thing to dispute is how old the Earth is … and I know NO good creationist model for explaining all the concurrent methods for demonstrating the age of the earth and the entire universe.
John,
I understand why you don’t believe that opposition to evolution equates with being “anti-science,” and I fully appreciate why you don’t want Christians to be labelled that way. I don’t want Christians to be labelled that way, either. Indeed, one of the talks I currently do on the lecture circuit is called “Why Christianity is Good for Science.” So far, we’re on the same page.
However, we differ substantially on what constitutes science. For centuries many Christians have strongly opposed the scientific status of the “historical” sciences. Originally geology was the main target of this type of discrimination; see my column about that: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/science-falsely-so-calledthe-infidelity-of-natural-history-in-the-early-american-republic
Somewhat later, especially in the early 20th century, evolution was the main culprit. Later still, the YEC folks put Big Bang cosmology into the “non-science” category. Today, the YECs reject the legitimacy of a whole range of sciences that deal with past events–events that cannot be repeated under controlled conditions, but events whose reality can nevertheless be demonstrated from the coherent picture we can construct of them, a picture in which so many diverse and otherwise “unexplained” facts cohere together. A lovely example is the “death star” hypothesis of dinosaur extinction, in which several salient uncontested facts about geology and paleontology are all accounted for so neatly, if a large extraterrestrial object slammed into what is now the Gulf of Mexico 65 MY ago. When that sort of coherence arises, I say, I think it’s incumbent upon opponents of the historical sciences to persuade me why I shouldn’t accept the hypothesis, at least until a better one comes along. IMO, simply saying that it’s contrary to the Bible doesn’t fly–I have no reason to believe that the Bible was ever intended to provide coherent pictures of natural history, especially not to audiences (at the time when it was written, but also almost down to our own day) with very little real knowledge of how nature works.
The historical sciences comprise more than a tiny sliver of the scientific pie, John. We can’t just arbitrarily classify them as non-sciences, either, without also calling into question the scientific status of lots of things we can observe here and now, such as specific spectral lines from distant galaxies (if the basic physical constants had different values in the past, we wouldn’t see exactly what we see now) or huge quantities of isotopes that are produced by radioactive decay, or the fact that we do not find in the universe any naturally-occurring isotopes that are short-lived products of radioactive processes that are not still occurring now. Nor can we just separate the Big Bang from General Relativity, as if the latter didn’t require something like the former to have happened.
So, I contest your statement that creationists accept 99% of science.
If accepting my points means that creationists are “anti-science,” then maybe it’s time to admit that and re-think the low epistemic status that creationists give the historical sciences.
9 Likes
I think you are right on both counts; this is a very good idea for diffusing some of the tension and on the other hand, it will probably never catch on.
I ultimately agree that “science denier/denialist” can be misleading and probably shouldn’t be used (hey, I didn’t bring it up!), but there is something to be said for it all the same. Not in the sense that the conclusions of science are being rejected across the board, but in the sense that it is the consistent application of the scientific method that is being rejected when it is decided that the pre-established “right” conclusions trump the means by which accurate conclusions are generally arrived at. When just because someone wants to see a certain scientific conclusion as wrong, they feel entitled to ignore, dismiss, select or fudge the evidence, finding ways to protect their own view from being tested by the data (like creating the category “historical science”, specially designed to protect the past from scientific scrutiny), they are denying science as a consistent method for getting at how the natural world works, and inadvertently treating its conclusions as a salad bar where they can reject any theories that don’t easily fit with their view of the universe.
3 Likes
False dichotomy. or a false analogy. Not being against Christianity could be true even for agnostics and atheists who tolerate Christianity. However, they deny Christian faith, without being “against” it, or at least not against those who believe. Some atheists even argue for the benefit of religion to society.
Anti evolutionists do not deny science, nor are they against science. Rather, they know they are using it and depend on it everyday. Quite a difference. A comparative analogy would be to say that someone who detests the scientific method, and detests all knowledge, would claim to not be anti-science.
Creationists give historical sciences lower credibility, just as many historical scientists want to give scripture lower credibility in the historical realm. But the historical sciences related to isotope ratios are not denied. That is, the measurements of the ratios is not denied. The conclusions and pre-condition assumptions are questioned. Isotope ratios interpretation of age dating is a very small aspect of science. Neither is the measurements to the stars contested. But neither of these is biological evolution. Considering that plant breeders, veternarians, astronomers, medical people, computer technologists, mechanical engineers, and civil engineers can carry out their entire careers without considering the questions of biological evolution, we can be sure that creationists accept 99% of science (even if you want to reduce that number to 90%… although obviously my number was not measured or quantified in any absolute terms).
That’s … terrifying. Just sayin’.
There’s a Bible-based tour operation of the Grand Canyon that take Evangelicals to show how the Canyon proves Creation !!!
I’m sure it’s quite an interesting presentation!
“Operating under the name A Different View Tours, Canyon Ministries provides land-based rim tours of the Grand Canyon along its South Rim. We find many Christians simply do not want to go to the rim and hear the evolutionary explanation of the canyon’s formation. A tour with Canyon Ministries will provide you with a succinct presentation on the geology of the canyon and the testimony it provides for a global flood and a young earth. Go to Rim Tours for more information and to register.”
JohnZ,
I think it’s more accurate just to say that creationinsts give historical sciences no credibility. This is true of the YEC view, which has been prevalent since the 1960s, after the publication of The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris. Indeed, in 1963 Whitcomb himself criticized concordism, which he called “the double-revelation theory,” because it “fails to give due recognition to the tremendous limitations which inhibit the scientific method when applied to the study of origins.” Note his use of the words, “temendous,” and “inhibit.” He led the way among creationists to rejecting the ability for us to have a genuine “science” of origins.
Prior to the 1960s, most creationists were not of the YEC variety; they held some type of OEC view. Those creationists had no quarrel with geological ages or the existence of dinosaurs long before humans. They saw evolution as “Science Falsely So-Called,” but not geology or paleontology. Basically, they were concordists; i.e., they held the kind of attitude that Whitcomb rejected.
3 Likes
I generally agree with this, JohnZ. Indeed, Henry Morris, the archetypal creationist, was an engineer. Many professions that use scientific information, related to medicine, engineering, or IT, are not actually sciences in the sense I normally have in mind in my columns. That is, practitioners in those fields don’t normally seek to contribute new knowledge about nature, as vs new ways to use it. I’m not saying that they don’t understand science–they usually do understand the areas of science they draw on. But, they don’t create science, and they might not in every instance really appreciate fully just how science is actually done. Science isn’t about “proving” things from observations; rather, it’s about creating coherent pictures of nature, based heavily but not entirely on observations. This is a major reason why the historical sciences are genuinely scientific. IMO.
As for astronomy, however, I suspect that the of astronomers who are committed creationists is low single digits, probably comparable to the of geologists who are creationists (I have some reason to think the latter number is no larger than about 3%). Perhaps you can think of more names, but I can presently name just three astronomers who are creationists–Danny Faulkner, Jason Lisle, and Gerardus Bouw. Of those three, Bouw is an outlier, in that he’s a geocentrist; I’ve talked about him at Galileo and the Garden of Eden: The Principle of Accommodation and the Book of Genesis - BioLogos
I personally know several dozen Christian astronomers/astrophysicists in all, none of whom are YECs.
To the best of my knowledge, It’s only in recent years that creationists have accepted the reality of cosmological distances. It used to be that they rejected them out of hand, since they imply that starlight from many galaxies originated billions of years ago. Now, they accept the distances but reject the inference to long ages by one or another creative hypothesis that other astronomers do not accept.
4 Likes
I would think that is less accurate, Ted. Historical sciences include literature, forensics, carbon dating, tree rings, which to my knowledge, creationists accept, at least within tthe limits of the capacity of the methods. But they also use one method to argue against another… so evolutionists do not use or accept historical science methods which do not agree with their own preconceptions, such as evaluating the amount of salt in the ocean, or the rates of erosion of cliff faces near the ocean, or documented ages of people in scripture, etc. Carbon dating is often thought to be accurate only for a few thousand years, and within those parameters is adjusted based on knowledge of pre-conditions, ie. nuclear explosions, etc. which adjusts the formulas. Problem with more past events is that we don’t really know the preconditions, and are guessing at them. The difficulty with that is not knowing if the formulas or the inputs/outputs should be adjusted or not. In any case, these methods are not rejected out of hand, but merely addressed with much much caution. And with disagreement on some of the conclusions for times beyond the known history. So in truth, it is reduced credibility, not total elimination.
“The Genesis Flood” is largely out of date, just like Darwin is out of date, and even neo-Darwinism is out of date. While some statements can be made about them, it is alsso likely that sub-theories, proposed mechanisms, etc., have changed. Nevertheless, Whitcomb is still right that there are large limitations in the study of origins. This is indisputable.
It is entirely possible to accept long ages, and a progression of life forms, without accepting biological evolution… I agree. But there is no harm in examining the problems with long ages, or with thee hypotheses about gradual evolution of species. The rationals proposed for example that large mammals would not survive with dinosaur predators, is a “just-so” story, and does not jive with the fact that large herbivore dinosaurs did survive, or that large mammals survive today even though predators are also abundant.
I’m wondering if you understand what these professions actually do… I mean a plant breeder is utilizing basic science, whether through selection for heritable traits, examination of genomes, genetic engineering, etc. One of the earliest plant breeders, Mendel did indeed discover principles of breeding, and they have been doing so since.
No one “creates science” other than in the sense of discovering knowledge. While it is true that not every scientist is a researcher, and the applied sciences utilize existing knowledge, it is important that in both cases, biological evolutionary theory is not necessary for many discoveries or applications.
In general, science does prove from observations, which however require controls and replication and repeatability to achieve the greatest credibility (and of course the added weight of the negative hypothesis…). Laws of science give a coherent picture of a particular aspect of nature, but science is about much more than that.
Well, depends what you mean by “recent years”. The idea that God created starlight in transit may or may not still be considered possible or likely, but I think most creationists accept and understand the way the stars are measured in distance, at least the creationists who are scientists.
I don’t accept literature as an historical science, but let’s not quibble over that. Carbon dating and tree rings certainly are. Tree ring dating is more precise and more accurate; we probably agree on that. It quits around 14K years ago, if my number is correct, and that is why some creationists do accept a creation around 12,000 BC. Carbon dating of some objects can be done to as far back as 50,000 years, and with other objects very reliably 20,000 years and more. Yes, it gets recalibrated from time to time, but that doesn’t negate its reasonable accuracy for ages much greater than most creationists are willing to accept.
Of course, if Genesis chronologies put the creation (say) ca. 60K years ago, carbon dating would not be controversial among creationists, even though everything we know about it now would be unchanged in that thought experiment. So if I rephrased my claim, to reflect your objections, it might say this: Creationists reject any conclusions of the historical sciences that imply the reality of processes that started more than ___ years ago. Fill in the blank with the number you like, which will probably have magnitude 10 to the power 4.
That’s the spirit of my claim, and I appreciate the opportunity make it more accurate.