And by opposing the lion’s share of the world’s scientific community that takes a position on the age of the Earth, by definition, you are anti-science.
Now, if you want to use science to show why you are right … we’d all be delighted in seeing your evidence…
After all, you wouldn’t want us to take the word of one anonymous individual, right? You have the evidence for a Young Earth right at your finger tips, yes?
Hi Greg,
Young earth evidence doesn’t get written off because it takes too literalistic a view of Scripture. It gets written off because It lacks the scientific rigour of old-earth evidence. Young-earth studies routinely rely on tiny sample sizes, cherry-picked data, unrealistic assumptions, very low precision measurements, and quotes taken out of context. The “rocks of a known age getting old dates” are invariably misunderstandings, misrepresentations or attempts to game the system.
To give just one example of many, in the RATE project’s work on helium diffusion in zircons, they changed another researcher’s data by a factor of ten on the basis of a phone conversation in which he suggested (was persuaded?) that there had been a typographical error. There was no documentary evidence – no audit trail, no lab notes – that such a correction was actually justified. Yet they report this in a very matter of fact way as if this kind of sloppiness were standard practice in science. It isn’t. Any responsible peer reviewer would insist that the experiment should be re-done.
The young earth peer review process only asks reviewers to check that the research concerned is on-message and adheres to their young-earth viewpoint. It doesn’t require any checks for rigour or accuracy. It doesn’t require any checks that quotes from the scientific literature actually say what they’re claimed to say. It doesn’t even require any checks for arithmetic errors. Reviewers don’t have to be experts in the subject matter concerned. It’s common for geneticists to end up reviewing papers on astronomy written by geologists, for example.
Furthermore, YEC researchers display a resistance to correction that you simply don’t see elsewhere in science. In most scientific studies, if arithmetic errors or faulty data processing are pointed out, the errors are acknowledged and corrected, and the paper is likely to be retracted altogether. In serious cases, the scientists involved can end up being sent to prison for scientific fraud. In YEC science, on the other hand, critiques of legitimate – and often serious – errors are routinely dismissed out of hand as being “pedantic and nitpicking” or even simply ignored outright.
Basically, the problem with YEC evidence is not ideology, but quality control.
What I find so bemusing here is that things like this get said in a way that itself lacks humility! …because you assume you understand both what people believe and the evidence on which they base their beliefs, when you clearly don’t understand either of these things. Doesn’t that suggest that maybe a bit more humility is needed?
I’d be cautious about suggesting that Greg lacks humility here. It’s clear to us that he doesn’t understand these things, but it isn’t clear to him. In fact, if anything, he probably believes that he does understand where scientists are coming from.
Thing is, there’s a lot of information about science on YEC websites. Much of it is wrong, of course, but you can read it in detail and end up believing that you know everything you need to know about science. However, it doesn’t give you any hands-on experience in the lab, or out in the field, and it doesn’t give you any mentored exercises in the mathematics that scientists use. There’s nobody marking you down if you take shortcuts, nobody giving you a failing grade if you get your calculations wrong, and nobody calling you out for sloppy thinking. (In fact, if anything, they actually encourage sloppy thinking, because they portray it as if it’s perfectly normal, and complain about objections to it as nitpicking and pedantic.) As a result, it’s all too easy to end up thinking that you understand the subject when you don’t – the Dunning-Kruger effect at work.
I appreciate your irenic posture here, James, really I do, but the problem is that people over and over again have told Greg that he doesn’t understand, and he refuses to read things they recommend he read, saying that he has already read enough in life and doesn’t need to read any more things, in order to understand. That is in fact the very definition of non-humility.
Complete lack of humility.
You’re absolutely right. It is becoming clear that he’s not actually listening.
However, what I have to say to him, I have to say to YECs everywhere: until and unless you have actually had some formal mentored training and experience in both lab work and the mathematics involved, and actually got some hands-on experience with the data, you are not in a position to make any judgment whatsoever about why scientists believe what they believe about the age of the earth or evolution. To ascribe it to materialistic or atheistic presuppositions when you lack that experience and understanding is simply being arrogant.
Well, I stand in the middle of a couple of groups…one that says that the earth absolutely must must must be 6000 years old and if you don’t believe it then you don’t trust the Bible etc and a group that could be characterized as one that suggests that if you don’t believe that the earth is billions of years old and that someone or something planted bacteria like substances that many years ago for the power of the sun to product complexity we see it today.
There must come a time when even rationalists like I tend must take a step back and say,“there are just some things that are going to remain unknowable.” (for the theistic evolutionists, all that it takes is the proposition that God intermingles into the natural stream of evolution that necessarily debunks the whole idea of science being completely useful and trustworthy-right? I already have a smidge of caution about science so for the theistic evolutionist who bases a worldview on science, if they do the same the worldview itself flounders. It is as if it is self defeating. In the cases of really young earth and really old above, there are huge amounts of evidence that would say otherwise to both. Humility says let’s take a look at these and pray through better understanding.
For me as a Christian, I take great care towards coming to grips with understanding the Scriptures. I have seen over and over again God taking corrective measures when it comes to a lack of respect for the plain reading of it especially in more of the major issues. Examples of correction are in regards to the health wealth perspective which is taking verses out of context to bolster a ministries right to enrich themselves…to “name it claim it ideas” in the word faith ideas that masquerade as agents of the Holy Spirit in the power of cheap psychology. The Holy Spirit is treated like a feeling in the air instead of a Person of the Trinity. Anyway, I have also seen how the honest scientist is willing to renege on previous thinking on subjects like evolution itself…for example many now believe that we evolve by mutant leaps instead of gradual steps. Come on. For this, I will remain more trusting in the plain reading of Scripture were God is so outstanding that there will always remain elements of mystery about His being and His works, and more an agnostic towards the perspective contrived by the observations and interpretations by man. And while I carry this humble perspective while not making a dime or gaining a following for its own sake, I will press on towards sharing the hope of the world to people with love, gentleness and respect.
Yes Greg, but my whole point is do you have any formal training in science? Do you even understand what you have a smidge of caution about? How do you know that your caution is not based on misinformation?
It takes only a couple of examples of dating known young ages of rocks that date really aged to warrant reserve in how we come up with billions of years. It takes one human skull fossil dating to after 150 millions for the same. It takes the huge leap of evolutionary ideology from a perspective that suggests gradual incline to complexity to an idea complete different of mutant leaps that should give theistic evolutionists the potential for switching to a “God created the kinds” with an inbuilt ability to survive within their dna a chance.
Dr. Kurt Wise? Many others like him who are brilliant brilliant chemists and palioantologists and geologists who understand carbon and radiometric dating…and who are wise enough to process thinking about discrepencies in observations by man (which is what science is) to warrant reserve towards what their conclusions are.
No it takes a lot more than that. For a start where are all these “examples of dating known young ages of rocks that date really aged”, and where are all the “human skull fossil dating to after 150 millions”? What you need to do is explain the huge mass of data demonstrating the earth is very old, using over 20 different methods of dating all of which point to the same conclusion.
That’s not actually how science works I’m afraid. You don’t completely overturn science that’s been established by hundreds of thousands of different studies using dozens of different methods on the basis of just one or two isolated examples. Studies have to be replicated by multiple teams and more mundane explanations for any anomalies explored before getting radical.
If you could overturn established science with just one or two studies, you’d be giving a free pass to cold nuclear fusion, superluminal neutrinos, anti-vaxxers, astrology, homeopathy, water divining, and reading tea leaves.
I thought Kurt Wise believed in a young earth despite the evidence, not because of it. Same with Todd Wood. He admits that there’s lots and lots of evidence for evolution, but he takes the line that there are factors at work that we know nothing about.
But that’s Kurt Wise and Todd Wood. I wasn’t asking about them – I was asking about you, Greg. What is your own level of experience and training in science?
How do those dating methods do when dating rocks of known young ages?
My level of expertise is a chemistry minor in college and A LOT of reading of the various viewpoints expressed by theists and naturalists alike. (and honestly too much reading on these topics considering that I should be focusing my time on running a business, supporting my family and loving my wife and children) With such a lack of time, I only have the ability to read scientific conclusions and these conclusions will indefinitely be skewed by preconceptions. That is fair.
I do not see what I consider “good science” from guys like Dr. Kurt Wise who believes more of a literal view of the Bible and who indeed even criticizes those in his camp over bad science any worse than the scientist who believes that we evolved over billions of years from bacteria by the power of the sun. The tendency in both conclusion making scenarios tends towards their corresponding preconception. If dating rocks of a known age turns out false, then the creationist naturally will suggest that perhaps the very basis of a dating methods is false where the naturalist will say that this is small relative to the plethora of tests.
For the naturalist, they have to admit that there is a possibility that the ultimate truth of life includes God but they can’t let Him in. For this, I refuse to side with biologos who just seem to side with their ideas on the basics of our beginnings and place some god lipstick onto the concept (maybe for the sake of drawing folks into Christianity -I don’t know) I for one as a person who came to know Christ and who was instantly changed in my core but nevertheless became a person of intensive study of worldviews thereafter would have smelled this strategy from a mile away. And we need to be careful that we don’t so try to be appealing to the world for easy convert making that we concoct a different version of God all together.
Groups which are self defined “theistic evolutionists” put the burr under my saddle that put me up to the sacrifice of monetary success and time away from my family. If ones claim is “naturalism” then I completely understand an evolutionary model because by definition, God is not allowed into the equation. If ones claim is “theist” then I completely understand ones belief that God is quite capable of creating, sustaining and interjecting His authority into every gambit of life including our existence. But if the combination concludes with a model not much different than that of the naturalist model, then I think that this is evidence of trying to entice the non believing world about God who sent His Son to die for us who is therefore beyond us by using the world’s terms.
When we look at the life of Jesus, according to the NT, He turned water into wine. If a person claims to be a theistic evolutionist who is more like a naturalist with a “God” label sees this in Scripture, what does he believe? When Jesus according to the NT takes a person’s shriveled hand and restores it, what does this same person believe? When the NT has stories of people dying and getting wrapped in 20 lbs of burial cloth to be placed in a tomb for enough time for the people at the time to necessarily believe that he would begin to smell…and for Jesus to bring him back to life, again what does the person with a naturalist form labeled “Christian” say?
If God is a God whose gospel of salvation does indeed incorporate a miracle of all miracles, then this same God can also create and sustain the universe that will add quite a bit of misdiagnosis of the reality of how life came to be as we know it. The idea of time being related to the rotation of the planets should be enough to rattle our thinking about how one comes to determine a date for the age of the earth!
Sorry for the length here…a sound bites can be equated to idiotic so clarification to me is important or don’t say anything at all. But in closing, if billions of years is absolutely necessary in a person’s worldview, then consider Sailhamer as a much better representation of theism combined with science in relation to long ages.
OK thanks Greg.
There’s one thing that you need to understand here, that I and others have tried to explain to you several times but you still don’t seem to quite “get it.” Evolution and miracles are not mutually exclusive, evolution does not rule God out of the equation, evolution is not a synonym for naturalism, and evolution is not meaningless and purposeless. Computer scientists and AI researchers at Google and NASA use the theory of evolution as a design methodology. They do it with clear intent and with a clear purpose in mind. If we can use evolution as a design methodology with clear intent and purpose, why should we rule out the possibility that God does likewise?
The only miracles that evolutionary creationism doubts are what you could call “omphalos” miracles — those whose only effect would be to create a deceptive appearance of history that never happened. For example, to claim that God created the earth mature with craters from asteroid impacts that never happened, or with clear signs of erosion or deposition that never happened, or with clear indications of common ancestry that never happened. Whenever I read about miracles in the Bible, they have a clear purpose and intent, specifically, God communicating with us. Generally, the more spectacular the miracle, the more important the message. Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19:1 also tell us that the created order of things provide us with a testimony to God’s nature, and therefore a reliable indication of how God operates. With that in mind, the idea that God would have created misleading evidence is one that we simply aren’t comfortable with.
Grog, I hope you are enjoying your family and resting well on this 4th Sunday of Advent. Just wanted to make a couple of comments. Regarding the age of rocks, dating methods do very well indeed when used appropriately within their limitations. Using them to measure young rocks is sort of like using your cars trip odometer to measure the length of your driveway. You are either going to get 0 distance which is nonsense or you will get 0.1 miles (528 ft) when you know it is 50 feet long. It is just not something you can measure with a method of that resolution, but used appropriately, it is a pretty good way to tell how far it is to Grandma’s house. Here is link to a bit dated but good article if you have time: Radiometric Dating
Regarding some of your other thoughts, I think perhaps you should step back and see that naturalism is not the same as theistic evolution. The premise that they are equivalent is a lie that has led to confusion and rejection of the gospel by many, particularly those who are led to believe that to accept certain scientific evidence means you must reject God.
Regarding humility, I agree that arrogance is something we all need to guard against. However, think of what it means to state, “My interpretation of scripture is the only valid interpretation that exists, and all others are incorrect.” Certainly, we may all be guilty of that at times, as we think we are right, but keep in mind that many Godly men and women have studied and given their lives to following God, and see things a bit differently.
May you feel God’s love, peace, and joy this day and those to come.
Do you mean “How do those dating methods do when used on a sample which is outside their dating range”? Well that’s easy. If you use them for the wrong purpose then you’ll get the wrong results. Thus.
Got it. I wonder sometimes if when God created matter including the earth if the dynamics of that very matter created by a snap of His fingers in and of itself causes all long age dating systems to be skewed. Regardless, long ages still is no excuse for naturalistic evolution models as this first of all is statistically impossible and irrational and it goes against the grain of not just Genesis but the whole of Scripture in general where plain reading suggest that God created individual entities including man. Some would say that, well evolution was the vehicle by which He does this yet I believe the intent of Scripture gets lost in this hypothesis and man, God’s crown jewel of Creation is less brilliant (not to mention that God is pictured as more weak and unable as Creator)
I would side with guys like Hugh Ross an old earth creationist before theistic evolutionist. I believe that someday when we find out for sure what went on in the beginnings, the first bit of information we may encounter from God will be that where we spent so much time arguing the details, we missed the headlines that God is real and such complexity and beauty is the proof. That afterall is the intent of Romans 1.
If I were to guess, the second bit of information that I think we might encounter is that God did indeed create kinds in an instant with evolutionary capabilities within their kinds (which all the views including yec agree) and that although the earth appears old, it is actually a lot younger. I respect YEC for their faith and not sure that I can completely fall in line with 6000 yrs…but I wonder if the earth is much less than billions of years the same…the very term “years” is even relative in the big scope of understanding our universe.
The God I serve is not a God who has ever given me the opportunity to exploit pattern of His miraculous interactions in my life. If I sensed pattern then I would use it that would result in highlighting my abilities. The only pattern I do see is that when I pray in accordance to His will, He responds with effect and most times not in a way I expect. This is so good because I have learned to have disdain of trust towards me of figuring life out on my own. Could this same principle translate toward the reason for such a wide array of viewpoints on how we exist in that perhaps He purposely confounds His ways going back to the beginnings to keep us humble? I don’t know and will probably never. He is a great God and I really look forward to this season that celebrates His Son
Thanks for the interaction.
Greg .
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.