Evidence for evolutionary creationism

Faith & Science Conversation
56

You might think so, but you would be mistaken:

  • Trace the record of Burrawang’s entrance into this thread:
    • In his very first post in this forum, he posts a patchwork quilt of copy and paste quotes from Creation Ministries International, starting with Lisa Sanders. So, he’s dragging in a plethora of stuff, not distinguishing what he’s quoting from what he himself authors, and looking–sez he–for a serious exchange. And I say he’s just playing game of Faith and Science bumper-cars and Biologos folk are taking the bait.
  • Meanwhile, there’s an Australian Catholic, a Netherlands Calvinist, an Australian Pentecostal, and an Australian Seventh Day Adventist taking joyrides in their Young Earth Creationist bumper-cars, all claiming that the same Bible says Biologos Theistic Evolutionists are Syncretic heathen who need a whupping.
  • What’s wrong with that picture?
57

They have different motivations, but the root problem is insisting that the scriptures have to give 100% accurate scientific and historical information. That idea actually comes from scientific materialism, a very recent worldview historically.

58
  • You’re not telling me anything new. But, IMO, you’re still feeding 'em. I say: Starve them all.
2 Likes
59

If they understood how science worked that would make a big difference and be a huge offsetting factor. So the problem is at least equally shared between not understanding the literature and not understanding the science.

60

This comment caught my attention and tied into a remark you made earlier about the unlikelihood of an average person having an original insight.

First, I’d like to say that I have sincerely appreciated following your discussion about the science on this topic. I am an easily impressionable person and found some comments about the problem with dating persuasive.

As I have said many times here before, for any event that occurs there are only 3 possible explanations for that event: another event causes it and to which the same question applies, the event is uncaused, or the event is caused by something that doesn’t happen. The striking thing about the two latter explanations is they will appear exactly the same.

1 Like
61

Wise words. One I think I myself would do well to heed.

We need to bear in mind the question, to what extent should we assume good faith? We also need to bear in mind when answering it that anyone who self-identifies as a trained, professional scientist needs to be held to a much higher standard.

4 Likes
62

All, what can I say except that we will have to agree to disagree.
I am in very good company in my beliefs that contrary to many of the above comments are based on rigorous science, sound reasoning and trust in the authority of the Bible that it means precisely what it says.
Regarding others who also believe that evolution is a false description about how the diversity of life came to be on this planet and the period of time since the creation:
All the scientists listed below are alive today or recently deceased.

From: Scientists who accept the biblical account of creation

Note: Individuals on this list possess an earned doctorate in a field of science, or (for the rare person lacking a PhD) high level research achievements or academic status.

The list above is a mere fraction of the real number of scientists who accept the biblical account of creation as clearly and plainly written in Genesis. There are many more who for a range of reasons, (not the least of which is discrimination), don’t widely publicise their Biblical creation beliefs.
There are some notable scientific heavyweights in the list above too, for example, take the inventor of the greatest medical diagnostic tool ever invented that has changed medicine across the globe for billions of people, Dr Victor Damadian inventor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging the (MRI) scanner, OR
Dr John Sanford who with colleagues pioneered genetics research and invented the biolistic gene gun used to genetically engineer many crops that has greatly contributed to reducing world hunger in many third world countries. His book on Genetic Entropy is an eye opener and a must read that shows that natural selection cannot see the vast majority of mutations that are neutral or near neutral, so they just keep piling up and get passed onto the next generation of people. Suffice to say that our great grandparents had genomes that were closer to the original than we do with regard to the coded highly complex specific information written in the DNA, OR
Dr Jonathan Sarfati a physical chemist who has razor sharp intellect that few possess such that he can play chess against 12 opponents, whilst blindfolded and hold all the moves in his brain.
There are many more, but I have chores to do!

All the best,
jon

63

Is that accepting creation or young earth creationism?

For me personally, I was an old earth leaning creationist for most of my 20+ years of being Christian. Then a couple years ago I picked up a book from an evolutionary evangelical theologian and was immediately persuaded by how the Genesis account could be read in light of evolution. I was also impressed by how the chaotic sea preceded the fall but will not have a place in the new creation.

In the time since, I’ve also taken note of how those who seem the most qualified in ANE literature also have no issue with evolution. Michael Heiser and Tremper Longman being the ones who probably carry the most weight for me currently.

2 Likes
64

And then there is you who absolutely are avoiding the good science regarding the antiquity of the earth. Leave evolution alone, just deal with the truth about the Hawaiian Islands/Emperor seamount chain and the girdled rocks.

The length of your list of names and their associated credentials does not determine the truth nor is it compelling. There is a logical fallacy associated with that approach called an appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam. Just because there is a PhD after someone’s name does not inherently qualify them to judge outside their specialty (and lots of times even within them).

1 Like
65

One of the PhDs on the list seemed to pretty obviously imply that he would go either way on old earth or young earth creationism. He ruled naturalism out based on a typical intelligent design argument. And then said if God did it, why couldn’t he do it in 6 days or 6 seconds.

I do wonder how many of those on the list would reevaluate their epistemic commitment if physical death before the fall could be reframed.

2 Likes
66

Thanks for linking this

This reminded me of when I brought to a group of atheists my professor’s counterexample to the cosmological argument. I assumed everyone could agree that it is impossible to form an infinite series through successive addition. This was something my professor agreed with, and yet he proposed an intriguing possibility that gets around a universe with its beginning in the past.

Talk about a great case of honest weights and measures when considering whether an infinite series can be produced.

67

Hi heymike3, thanks for your interest and response.
As far as I aware, the scientists on the list accept the Biblical account of creation in Genesis that to me means that they accept that the duration clearly laid out from creation week to the present is a little over six thousand years. I am quite sure that if they did not agree with the majority view of CMI regarding the age of the creation in Earth years they would not have consented to being included on the list as they have all done.
It’s interesting about your personal journey, for me it was the other way around, for about the first 20 years of my Christian walk with the Lord, I believed that He used evolution over eons of time. I prayed for wisdom on this matter and some very good Salvation Army close friends gave me some Creation magazines and it didn’t take long for the penny to drop; I am now convinced that the Earth is around six thousand years old.
Best regards,
jon

1 Like
68

It is telling that claims such as this are made frequently, but very little of substance is actually offered in the way of specifics.
I would be most grateful if you would please provide specific referenced examples of your claim that “the evidence for the old age of the world AND life are overwhelming” AND how you can make the very strange statement that, “Evidence for a global flood does not exist.”
What possible information do you have that permits you to make such a blanket statement?

All the best,
jon

69

Getting back to radiometric dating, an excellent and I must say accurate article by Tas Walker an Australian Geologist explains the assumptions problem with the method, very well.
It can be found at:

and is also below:

How dating methods work

by Tas Walker

Images from stock.xchngSkull

Addressing the students, I used a measuring cylinder to illustrate how scientific dating works. My picture showed a water tap dripping into the cylinder. It was clearly marked so my audience could see that it held exactly 300 ml of water. The diagram also showed that the water was dripping at a rate of 50 ml per hour.

I asked, ‘How long has the water been dripping into the cylinder?’

Immediately someone called out, “Six hours.”

“Good. How did you work that out?”

“By dividing the amount of water in the cylinder (300 ml) by the rate (50 ml per hour).”

“Excellent,” I said. “See how easy it is to calculate the age of something scientifically? Every dating method that scientists use works exactly the same way. It involves measuring something that is changing with time.”

People began to relax once they understood that the science of dating is not so difficult. Then I surprised them, “The problem is that six hours is the wrong answer.”

They look puzzled and disbelieving.

“I set this experiment up and I can tell you that the water has only been dripping for one hour. Can you tell me what happened?”

Image from stockxpertSkull

After they had composed themselves, someone called out, “The tap was dripping faster in the past?”

“Perhaps,” I said.

“The cylinder was nearly full when you started?”

“Maybe. But can you see what you are doing?” I asked. “In order to calculate an age you made assumptions about the past. You assumed the rate had always been 50 ml per hour and that the cylinder was empty when it started. Based on those assumptions you calculated the time of 6 hours.”

They nodded.

“You were perfectly happy with that answer. Not one of you challenged it.” They agreed.

Scientific dating is not a way of measuring but a way of thinking.

“Then, when I told you the correct answer, do you realize what you did? You quickly changed your assumptions about the past in order to agree with the age I told you.”

Every scientist must first make assumptions about the past before he can calculate an age. If the result seems okay then he will happily accept it. But if it does not agree with other information then he will change his assumptions so that his answer does agree.

It does not matter if the calculated age is too old or too young. There are always many assumptions a scientist can make to get a consistent answer.

Suddenly the lights went on. My audience saw, in a nutshell, the way dating methods work.1 Scientific dating is not a way of measuring but a way of thinking.

How it works in practice

commons.wikimedia.orgHomo-rudolfensis

Reconstruction of skull KNM-ER 1470

A layer of volcanic ash in East Africa, called the KBS tuff, became famous through the human fossils found nearby.2

Using the potassium-argon method, Fitch and Miller were the first to measure the age of the tuff. Their result of 212–230 million years did not agree with the age of the fossils (elephant, pig, ape and tools) so they rejected the date. They said the sample was contaminated with excess argon.3

Using new samples of feldspar and pumice they ‘reliably dated’ the tuff at 2.61 million years, which agreed nicely.

Later, this date was confirmed by two other dating methods (paleomagnetism and fission tracks), and was widely accepted.

Then Richard Leakey found a skull (called KNM-ER 1470) below the KBS tuff, a skull that looked far too modern to be 3 million years old.

So Curtis and others redated the KBS tuff using selected pumice and feldspar samples, and obtained an age of 1.82 million years. This new date agreed with the appearance of the new skull.4

Tests by other scientists using paleomagnetism and fission tracks confirmed the lower date.

So by 1980 there was a new, remarkably concordant date for the KBS tuff, and this became the one that was widely accepted.

Which illustrates that, contrary to popular belief, the dating methods are not the primary way that ages are decided. The dating methods do not lead but follow. Their results are always ‘interpreted’ to agree with other factors, such as the evolutionary interpretation of geology and fossils.

First posted on homepage: 17 December 2008
Re-posted on homepage: 28 October 2023

References and notes

  1. For further information see: Sarfati, J., Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend, Creation 28(4):26–27, 2006; Diamonds: a creationists best friend, and Walker, T., The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating, Creation 24(4):20–23, 2002; The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating.
  2. For more information see Lubenow, M.L., The pigs took it all, Creation 17(3):36–38, 1995; The pigs took it all.
  3. Fitch, F.J. and Miller, J.A., Radioisotopic age determinations of Lake Rudolf artifact site, Nature 226(5242):226–228, 1970.
  4. Curtis, G.H., et al., Age of KBS Tuff in Koobi Fora Formation, East Rudolf, Kenya, Nature 258:395–398, 4 December 1975.

All the very best,
jon

70
  • You copy and paste quite a bit of stuff from the Creation Ministries International website, don’t you? I haven’t determined how much of each of your most loquacious posts are “copy and paste” products, but I may just try to figure out how much. However, your favorite source leads me to ask, are you retired? Whether you were or are, while employed, how have you earned your income?
71

There’s a big problem in that you don’t think others believe that very thing yet see room for evolution.

The issue is that YEC insists on forcing the scriptures to fit a modern worldview yet won’t recognize that this is what they are doing.

1 Like
72

It’s a little too obvious that you are not honest enough about scientific facts to reply to me, and probably not honest enough to yourself either to acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 4 and that appealing to the flood that can magically answer every question doesn’t.

73

Creation Ministries International is made up of a group of very dedicated Christians who place the Bible first.
I am reasonably sure I’ve identified in my own text each time I have placed CMI authored information in the post.
Regards,
jon

74

Dear St.Roymond,

You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

Furthermore, I disagree with your assertion that:

Best regards,
jon

75

Well that is a very simplistic view of the world. It appears you have appointed yourself as the judge of what Dr Jonathan Sarfati knows, based on what exactly?