I’m not sure her comment meant what you seem to be suggesting it meant… My read is that the DI tries to be a big tent whose sole rallying point is that they all believe design (by something or someOne) is detectable. That means that, as a group, they’re not against an old earth, though there are both YECs and OECs among them.
What she said was,
" we do no"teach" about young earth or old earth. We accept the standard dating."
Then when I said,
“Do you mean that the Discovery Institute publicly acknowledges an old earth?”
She replied,
“Yup. Old earth”
So I think that’s pretty clear. I was surprised. Usually they say they don’t have a position or that the age of the earth is irrelevant to design detection.
1 Like
I thought offering to assess everything they had was more polite.
The point is, “Do you have anything which you think is evidence for a young earth?”. Whether or not it’s cherry picked can only be determined after the alleged evidence has been presented. This is called giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
That makes absolutely no sense to me. When I ask for all the evidence for a young earth, I am not saying “I don’t want you to give me any evidence for a young earth”. A request for information is the opposite of trying to silence someone. If there’s a list of questions we’re not actually allowed to ask YECs, maybe that should be posted somewhere.
2 Likes
@beaglelady[quote=“beaglelady, post:83, topic:37120”]
So I think that’s pretty clear. I was surprised. Usually they say they don’t have a position or that the age of the earth is irrelevant to design detection.
[/quote]
To clarify: We don’t have a pledge we take, or an official position, nor is there a list of permitted beliefs. It’s just that everyone I know either accepts an old earth (mostly) or works within those parameters scientifically (a few).
1 Like
I should have stayed out of it. =) Sorry, Jonathan.
Fwiw, my point was not so much about cherry-picking, but about positive versus negative evidence. It seems to me that some creationists like merely to present a negative argument that aims to bring evolution down to the level of conjecture, at which point they can say, so if it’s a toss-up, let’s go with the “Biblical” account because it’s reliable and makes more sense to me. It would be a novel thing to me for someone to make the positive argument that scientific inquiry actually shows a 6,000-year-old earth. I thought you were encouraging folks to present such positive evidence for examination.
But anyway, carry on; sorry I butted in.
Yes I do understand what you mean, and I totally agree with that. But I find that when you put it that way to YECs and IDers they typically use it as an excuse not to present any evidence at all (“Oh look at you, so hostile, you’re going to just ignore anything I say anyway”). If you can at least encourage them to present all the evidence they genuinely believe will substantiate their case, then you can start the patient process of differentiating between positive and negative evidence, strong and weak evidence, and having an actual conversation.
1 Like
I was going by what you said.
This is not the full story in my experience. The ID community likes to say that they are science. And they also like to say they have a big tent, meaning both OEC and YEC views are welcome. That is fine and dandy–except there is no such thing as a “big tent” in science. The two are mutually exclusive. In science, OECs and YECs would argue the evidence. In the ID community I found out, first hand, arguing science with YECs will get you banned because of homage to the big tent.
Science and big tents don’t mix.
EDIT: typo
3 Likes
I attended a really good ID debate at the American Museum of Natural History some years back. Robert Pennock explained that science puts its cards on the table. “This is what we accept, this is what we reject.”
Replies to various, and then I must retire from the fray (although if you email me – nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu – I’ll try to provide additional background or resources, as time permits).
– First, to T.J. Runyon: another name for “provisional methodological naturalism” is ordinary reason. My wife Suzanne, a pediatric gastroenterologist, tells me that during their training, medical residents are taught that “when you hear hoofbeats, assume a horse, not a zebra.” Normally our first line of attack for any open puzzle asks if a natural process or regularity will account for it.
But the key word here is “provisional.” Here’s what Steve Meyer and I wrote about this in the new Theistic Evolution volume (Crossway, 2017, pp. 586-7, emphasis added):
“Many philosophical naturalists such as [Sean] Carroll, [Jason] Rosenhouse, and the others still insist, of course, that science works best by assuming naturalism (meaning the causal primacy of the physical/non-intelligent), and that methodological naturalism packaged in a more modest, pragmatic, or provisional flavor merely represents the successful track record of the naturalistic premise. But these commentators allow that evidence might turn up requiring us to suspend methodological naturalism, although in their judgment such evidence has yet to appear. Provisional or pragmatic methodological naturalism, however, is not really methodological naturalism at all. Recall the succinct formulation of the National Academy: “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes.” Now consider a provisional formulation of methodological naturalism, which we have synthesized from various statements by Carroll et al.: “The statements of science should invoke natural things and processes, because that is what has worked in the past—unless compelling evidence turns up to the contrary, in which event we may need to enlarge our explanatory resources beyond the strictly natural.” Whatever this might be, it isn’t a rule that excludes consideration of creative intelligence or the theory of intelligent design. Methodological naturalism supports undirected materialistic evolution as the only possible type of origins theory—that is, to the necessary exclusion of other theories— only if the imperative “must” and the logical modifier “only” raise an impenetrable logical wall around “materialistic causes” or “natural things and processes.” Anything less would be ordinary scientific disputation, contending about the best explanation for the phenomena in the light of every causal possibility, with the normal hurly-burly of empirical debate to follow—a competition modern proponents of the theory of intelligent design, for example, eagerly welcome.”
– To AMWolfe, Dennis V, and Steve Schaffner:
Evolutionary biologists who doubt universal common descent (e.g., the late Carl Woese, the very much alive W. Ford Doolittle, Craig Venter, Didier Raoult, Michael Syvanen, and many others) decidedly do NOT doubt the common ancestry of humans and chimps, or all mammals, or all chordates, or all Metazoa. Here’s what I just published in the TE book (sorry for the continual plugs for the book, but it’s really worth getting [and I don’t receive any royalties 
, just want folks to engage with the arguments]):
“Neither Woese nor Venter were motivated by creationism or intelligent design (ID), which they oppose, as do the growing number of evolutionary biologists who openly express their doubts about common descent. Rather, these biologists see the tree of life fracturing at its base, near where the thickest parts of the trunk—i.e., the major domains of Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya—emerge from the prebiotic soil. LUCA, they contend, never existed as a discrete cell that was the unique ancestor to these three domains: no single organism ever lived as the ur-parent to all life on this planet. Nonetheless, while these biologists see common descent in this universal sense as strictly false, they think that most groups of single-celled organisms, as well as fungi, plants, and animals, do share common ancestors higher up in the tree of life. Yet the same reasoning that leads skeptics of universal common descent to doubt the existence of LUCA can readily be extended to the supposed common ancestors of more recent branches in the tree of life. Doubts about LUCA arise from its apparent biological impossibility, under an important rule of biological inference known as the principle of continuity.” (p. 405, emphasis added)
The same mode of reasoning, namely, the continuity principle, which challenges LUCA, can be applied to (let’s say) the last universal metazoan ancestor. But you’ll have to read the chapter to get the detailed argument.
– To Jonathan Burke:
You really don’t want to hear about YEC from me, because I’m a theological YEC, and readily acknowledge that the scientific case for an old Earth and cosmos is far stronger (see my chapter in the book Three Views on Creation and Evolution). Moreover, the working position of Discovery Institute – in terms of our scientific research – is the standard chronology, I’m the only YEC there, and in my own research projects, such as looking at orphan genes, assume the standard time scales. BUT if you are truly curious and want to live dangerously, this book is worth a look:
Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (available at Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Stratigraphical-Record-Derek-Ager/dp/0471938084/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1511184672&sr=8-2&keywords=derek+ager).
Ager, until his death one of the UK’s leading geologists, opposed YEC, and his book is not an argument for a young Earth. The geological evidence he discusses, however…well, I don’t want to spoil your fun. Check it out.
That’s it for me, thanks to everyone in this thread. Off for Thanksgiving break. Enjoy your own turkey!
1 Like
I’ll let others weigh in on the principle of continuity and all that, but just to say:
I have a lot of respect for YEC folks who concede this. I may take issue with the theological ramifications of “apparent age” (not your term, or at least, not here) and with the hermeneutics of young earth creationism generally, but at least I respect their intellectual integrity and honesty.
1 Like
I’d really love to read about the difference between a theological YEC and a YEC of any other variety. Enjoy your Thanksgiving, Paul, and I hope to hear from you afterward.
1 Like
Tod Woods is one.
The truth about evolution
I hope this doesn’t turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I’m crazy or because I’ve “converted” to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I’m motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn’t make it ultimately true, and it doesn’t mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God’s creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don’t be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don’t idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that’s not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
I think that’s all I want to say today. Rant over.
3 Likes
If the Discovery Institute could bring themselves to say the same thing as Todd Woods, it would be a real step in the right direction.
3 Likes
Dr. Gauger,
First, if I buy and read the book, Science and Human Origins, will I find that you plainly state that you think Adam and Eve lived at least 450,000 years ago and were members of Homo Erectus?
Second, why is it that in your numerous articles about Adam and Eve at ENV, you have never bothered to mention that you believe that Adam and Eve lived at least 450,000 years ago and were members of homo Erectus?
Third, in the upcoming thousand page book against Theistic Evolution, do you mention that you believe that Adam and Even lived at least 450,000 years ago and were members of Homo Erectus?
Fourth, yes, it may have been observed at ENV that Behe accepts common descent. What is never mentioned there is that Behe argued for common descent by citing the similarity of pseudogenes in chimpanzees and human beings. Why do you think that is?
3 Likes
Not really trying to get in a discussion about MN. Just stating most scientists and all the ones in the departments I’ve been in would fit into group A and not B. Even my atheist colleagues.
I have not mentioned my thought about the age of Adam for several reasons.
- It is speculative, with no evidence except the fossil record and the large change in anatomy at the appearance of Homo erectus.
2)We are going to test the old vs young Adam using our model. Then it will be time to say something. - It really hasn’t been important to me except as a matter of curiosity. I have evaluated the evidence and come up with a hunch, but no more than a hunch. The argument wasn’t solid enough to write about. In fact, it never crossed my mind to write about it.
- I shared my speculations here mainly to show you that a young Adam was not my view.
- You asked if it was in the new TE book. Casey Luskin has a chapter called Missing Transition: Human Origins and the Fossil Record. He discusses the transition to Homo and the capabilities of Homo erectus and Neanderthals relative to humans. He acknowledges the long age of the earth, with Homo erectus appearing about 2 million years ago.
It would now seem you are imagining a conspiracy of some kind to deceive our YEC supporters. That’s foolish.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2016.3/BIO-C.2016.3
@heddle
I remember you. I bought your novel and read it–enjoyed it too. It captured the grad student experience well, as I recall.
You got banned for violating several cardinal rules of the group. Any group is entitled to establish its rules. Biologos does.
Dr. Gauger,
So you did not state your opinion in the book, Science and Human Origins, that Adam and Even lived at least 450,000 years ago. Neither do or anyone else state it in the forthcoming book against theistic evolution. Nor have you stated it at ENV. I am unable to see the full copy of the paper you linked to. Do you state it there?
Meanwhile, ENV just quoted J.P. Moreland as stating that ID supports the teaching of the Bible. A YEC reading that would immediately think that ID supports the view of a recent, special creation of Adam and Eve.
Why would ENV want to mislead YECs? Because the Discovery Institute is much more than an organization about ID. It is a politically conservative organization, that tries to persuade people to adopt and support politically conservative causes.
Now I haven’t looked, but I’m willing to bet that most YECs are politically conservative. So if you want to be on the same side with them, the last thing you do is mention that you think that Adam and Eve lived at least 450,000 years ago.
Now you can accuse me of harboring uncharitable views about the motives of the people at ENV. But then, I wasn’t the one who used the term “Kremlinologist.”
1 Like