1

Joe,

Excellent post! I'm very interested to see where this is headed.

One interesting analysis of verses 3 and 14 I've heard is that the Day and Night in verse 3 are actually Good and Evil as opposed to 'physical' light and dark. This is borne out by the fact that God did not create any sources of light until verse 14.

Keep up the good work.

2

David,

"God did not create any sources of light until verse 14."

That's counter, however, to the point Joe is making here (and that Hugh Ross has made). Ross's important observation is that God had created "lights" (i.e. stars) in Genesis 1:1, but that from the surface of the earth (which is where the perspective shifts starting in Genesis 1:2) one would not have seen the lights until the cloud cover thinned (verses 14 and 15).

3

OK. Clue me in. Why is it important to have a "testable creation model." How does this enhance our spiritual lives? Hasn't applying the scientific method to religion been the main problem with 20th century Christianity, sucking the life out of it, until it only an empty shell of its former self? Truth must be lived, not merely observed.

4

Genesis 1.5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years

5 And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
8 And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
31 And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England

If God intended to convey literal 24 hour days, how could He have been more specific? Our interpretation of Genesis carries hermeneutical implications for the entire Bible.

5

OT

Following the previous thread (Of Panda's and Peers) this week's Nature has a rather huffy article noting the publication of Meyer's piece. It's available at:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/431114a_fs.html

You'll probably need a subscription, but I can mail the pdf to you if you like. Money quote "Peer review isn't a guarantee of accuracy," he adds. "That is especially true of review articles."
Ironic, given that the commentary is not peer reviewed and the rebuttal that they mention is published on the Panda's Thumb website.

Great blog, BTW.

6

Joe
If you have time, read "The Beginning of Wisdom" by Leon Kass. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Mark

7

One of my former profs, who was also an editor of the ESV, was teaching the framework hypothesis and evolution 10 years ago, while the seminary dean was telling the General Assembly that that wasn't happening.

There are a number of serious problems with the framework hypothesis (when applied to Genesis 1&2, it seems to work well for Revelation). Andrew Kulikovsky discusses this in his paper at:

http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Framework.pdf

8

Amen to what Rod said.

Joe, I think you're completely missing the point of Davey's post. When she said, "Indeed, I am of the opinion that in trying to make Genesis a scientific work, many Christians have missed the important message of the book altogether", she meant that you shouldn't claim that the ancient Israelites thought that Genesis 1:6 meant "Formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle." Doesn't that violate one of your "fundamental hermeneutical principles: read from the perspective of the original audience"?

Your post started off promising, but then it veered back into the same cliche that the Bible must be scientifically accurate in order to be true. If it is "true knowledge though not exhaustive knowledge", why must it be scientifically plausible? Are scientifically plausible things the only things that are true? Of course you don't think that, since, for example, Christ's resurrection is not scientifically plausible, but you believe in its truth. In your attempt to argue that "there is no final conflict between the knowledge we glean from general revelation (studying the natural universe) and that which is conveyed in the special revelation of the Bible", you are inverting the ontological (if that's the right word) hierarchy. The truths of Genesis are 'higher', if you will, in the hierarchy - they don't need to conform to the 'lower' truths of science in order to justify their truths. Seeking to conform them to the truths of science merely distorts the message, and gives the impression that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Here is the key statement by Ross,

"If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can, indeed, discern there a scientifically plausible, objectively defensible account of creation."

I submit that objectively defensible and scientifically plausible are not one and the same. Read Polkinhorne's "The Faith of a Physicist" or Stephen Barr's "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith", if you haven't already. Those are examples of objective defenses of Christian faith that don't depend on asserting that Genesis has some kind of hidden scientific meaning in it.

P.S. I haven't read Kass's book, but from a review of it that I read in First Things, I infer that it would support my point that the wisdom of Genesis is not dependent upon a scientific interpretation of it.

9

David: One interesting analysis of verses 3 and 14 I've heard is that the Day and Night in verse 3 are actually Good and Evil as opposed to 'physical' light and dark.

I think the obvious flaw in that interpretation is that in verse 31 God calls all of creation “very good.” Unless we assume that this one word is an exception from the rest of the creation story, this would mean that God called evil “very good.”

Rod: OK. Clue me in. Why is it important to have a "testable creation model." How does this enhance our spiritual lives?

Not everything that is written in the Bible is intended to enhance our spiritual lives. While I don’t believe having a “testable creation model” is an absolute necessity, I do think that this chapter plays a vital role in apologetics and worldview formation.

Hasn't applying the scientific method to religion been the main problem with 20th century Christianity, sucking the life out of it, until it only an empty shell of its former self? Truth must be lived, not merely observed.

I agree. But I don’t see where anyone has advocated applying the scientific method to Christianity.

Bevets: If God intended to convey literal 24 hour days, how could He have been more specific? Our interpretation of Genesis carries hermeneutical implications for the entire Bible.

Yes it does, which is the key to answering your question. If God intended the term “day” to only convey a literal 24 hour period then one way he could have meant it to be understood in that way is to have the term be limited in its usage to that timeframe. But the Bible uses the term to refer to parts of a day as well as to long periods of time.

Mark: If you have time, read "The Beginning of Wisdom" by Leon Kass. I can't recommend it highly enough.

I agree. I’m reading it right now and so far I've been very impressed. In fact, my next post in this series will discuss his ideas on differentiation in the text.

Mike S. Your post started off promising, but then it veered back into the same cliche that the Bible must be scientifically accurate in order to be true.

I’m not claiming that the Bible is “scientifically accurate” since that would require that we judge the text by the standards of science. What I am saying is that there will be no real conflict between the two.

In your attempt to argue that "there is no final conflict between the knowledge we glean from general revelation (studying the natural universe) and that which is conveyed in the special revelation of the Bible", you are inverting the ontological (if that's the right word) hierarchy.

I’m not sure where you get the idea of an ontological hierarchy of “truth” but it certainly isn’t biblical. All truth is God’s truth. Something is either true, partially true, or false. There are no higher and lower truths (though some truths can be more important than others.

10

Genesis 1.5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years

5 And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
8 And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
31 And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. ~ James Barr Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England

If God intended to convey literal 24 hour days, how could He have been more specific? Our interpretation of Genesis carries hermeneutical implications for the entire Bible.

Joe: Yes it does, which is the key to answering your question. If God intended the term “day” to only convey a literal 24 hour period then one way he could have meant it to be understood in that way is to have the term be limited in its usage to that timeframe. But the Bible uses the term to refer to parts of a day as well as to long periods of time.

First, you have ignored the expert opinion of James Barr regarding original intent.

Second, When 'yom' is associated with an ordinal number it refers to a 24 hour day.

Third, the immediate context clearly indicates literal days:
called the light "day,"
separate the day from the night,
signs to mark seasons and days and years
there was evening, and there was morning-the nth day

11

Ed Jordan:

"Ross's important observation is that God had created "lights" (i.e. stars) in Genesis 1:1, but that from the surface of the earth (which is where the perspective shifts starting in Genesis 1:2) one would not have seen the lights until the cloud cover thinned (verses 14 and 15)."

Joe:

"I think the obvious flaw in that interpretation is that in verse 31 God calls all of creation “very good.” Unless we assume that this one word is an exception from the rest of the creation story, this would mean that God called evil “very good.”"

And yet, in verse 4 God saw that the light was good and separated it from the darkness. There is definite meaning in God calling the light good, but saying nothing of the darkness and then separating the two from one another.

I don't want to take this post that far off topic, but at some point God had to create good and evil in this universe, otherwise we humans would not have the capacity for free will or the capacity to chose to do good or evil.

This does not negate at all what Ross says. It merely implies more than one meaning to the passage. Joe, you said yourself that the depth of this book is baffling.

12

"I’m not claiming that the Bible is “scientifically accurate” since that would require that we judge the text by the standards of science. What I am saying is that there will be no real conflict between the two."

So how do you intepret Ross's statement that:

"This situation stems from Christians' failure to apply the scientific method to their interpretation of Genesis."

I guess I see your claim about no conflict as begging the question: obviously there is conflict between modern scientific findings and certain interpretations of the Bible. If there should be no conflict, where does this existing conflict arise? Is it a misunderstanding of science (or nature)? Or of Biblical hermeneutics? Or both?

And how do you reconcile this statement with your support for the ID movement, which explicitly foments conflict between science and religion?

"though some truths can be more important than others"

That's what I was getting at.

13

I think it's fair to say that the folks who wrote the Bible didn't give a hoot about "scientific truth."

Why would anyone expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate?

The only reason the issue comes up is because leaders of certain Christian sects, for reasons known only to them, decided that sect members should be required to take the Bible *literally*.

When you read the Bible as if it is literally true (and not as metaphorical expression of supernatural events which can't be described with mere words), then you throw yourself automatically into the dilemna of having to reconcile what was written thousands of years ago (when people believed all sorts of ridiculous crap) with what we have come to know about the world through science. That in itself is not such a huge problem. What IS a problem is when members of these sects choose to solve the dilemna which they created by attacking science and rational thought, as if the scientific method of understanding the natural world had any relevance to a Christian understanding of the supernatural world (e.g., Gods, miracles, resurrected Messiahs, etc).

I'm mentioned this before and it's worth mentioning now but the creation part of Genesis is so-so poetry but relative to other creation myths it is remarkably boring and uninformative. If you've never read the Popol Vuh, go to your library and bookstore and check it out immediately (there are different translations out there, courtesy of some rather open-minded Christians who invaded Guatemala many many years ago)!!!!!! Or read it online.

14

"While Genesis is indeed a brilliant apologetic masterpiece, it's not just a story limited to the ancient near east. The first chapter is not just a response to the false creation stories of the Hebrew’s pagan neighbors but a response to all false creation stories throughout human history. "

What about the remarkably similar Sumerian creation and flood stories such as Adapa, Atrahasis, Enuma Elish, etc?

15

we should not be surprised to find that there is no final conflict between the knowledge we glean from general revelation (studying the natural universe) and that which is conveyed in the special revelation of the Bible.

You're absolutely right. However, I think it's clear that the natural sciences and biblical narrative are barely even addressing the same subject (viewed in the proper scope that is).

One of the most obvious overarching themes of Genesis is the supernatural origin of the universe. Creation and human history are depicted as governed by an all-powerful God. When I was younger I was fascinated by Hugh Ross's writing, as it really forced me to address the whole science/revelation issue. But one nagging thought remains; If Christians such as HR really believe that the world is supernatural in origin, why are they so bothered when scientific extrapolation gives a different explanation (as it must)?

Just as the Genesis account is not a scientific text, natural sciences are silent on spiritual and supernatural subjects. I note that Christians are not bothered by the lack of scientific explanations for the resurrection. Why the fuss over creation? Methinks it is lack of actual belief.

16

Joe writes

"The first chapter is not just a response to the false creation stories of the Hebrew’s pagan neighbors but a response to all false creation stories throughout human history."

But the early Hebrews on the ground could not have known about "all false creation stories throughout human history." What happened to the frame of reference?

17

Great post! I confess I am a (much maligned ;]) YEC and AnswersInGenesis.com fan, but I do enjoy Hugh Ross's works.

A brief thought on the "Light vs. no light sources" issue from a YEC model. (And I don't recall reading this, so I either have forgotten the source (likely), or it is my own.)

In a 3D expanding universe centered "near" but not on the earth, where the earth is protected from that expansion, and matter is provided similar to the "common" understanding of the big-bang (as opposed to the 4D actual big bang theory,) I am thinking that the expanding gas would emit light. Given the concentration of the proto-milky way gasses that would have been in that area of the sky, this would provide a distinct day and night to a rotating earth. Also given that time is not constant, galactic time would vary and provide whatever "billions of years" where stars are forming, but from the Earth’s surface only days would pass due to its near-central location. There would be an initial light source (gas expanding from a point) that would provide initial daylight, and in 3 earth day's time, that gas would experience its own relativistic time to the point of reaching star formation / starlight reaching earth.

I know it is a concept in earliest straw man stage and not even a theory, but I am fascinated by the behavior of time and find it curious most origin theories appear to either treat time as constant across all creation, or move the clear “perspective” of Genesis away from the Earth’s surface.

[I know parts of this thought comes from (I forget his name) a gentleman scientist who remarked that from the perspective of the "center of the 3D big-bang" only about 6 24-hour periods have passed. His interpretation theory was based around that observation -"Literal 24 hour days from the universe center, billions of years at the earth's surface"- which I find as nonsensical from a Biblical Integrity standpoint, since the Bible was written to explain, not trick, confuse, or encode secrets.]

18

Quadko, just out of curiosity, do you share any other beliefs which the "mainstream" would consider to be pseudoscientific? In addition to YEC "science," are you a "fan" of UFOlogy, extraterrestrials on earth, paranormal events (poltergeists), communicating with the dead, or Sasquatch research? Again, I'm just curious where you draw "the line" regarding your interesting beliefs.

Do you think the TV entertainer John Edwards is a charlatan? Or do you think he has some special powers?

Do you believe that any people who were physically incapable of walking or seeing were "cured" of their diseases on the stages of televangelists?

If you could answer these questions honestly and seriously, I'd be interested in knowing.

19

Bevets & Puzzled,

2 Peter chapter 3, "by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed ... But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."

Daniel 9:25, "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."

Now, if this means literal weeks, Daniel wrongly predicted the coming of the Messiah. If, however, you consider his week to be 7 years, then you have 483 years. Cyrus decreed that the Jerusalem could be rebuilt in 457 B.C. This means that Daniel predicted the Messiah would come in the year 26 A.D. The original calender was about 4, maybe 6, years off, so this means that Daniel predicted that Messiah would come when Jesus was about 30 years old. From all that we know, Jesus began his ministry at about age 30, which would put Daniel spot-on. In this instance, most Christians do not count a week as a literal week, but a metaphysical week.

If a week can be metaphorical in these two instances, why can it not be true in Genesis?

20

JBP "In this instance, most Christians do not count a week as a literal week, but a metaphysical week."

Actually, to be fair, the vast majority of Christians don't care one way or the other (and why should they)?

"with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."

In other words, with the Lord, you just never know. Period. End of story.

21

Lary,

Short answer would be "nope, pretty mainstream on those":

No UFOlogy silliness, don't believe in extraterrestrials on earth (well, any of the Biblical God, Angles, or Demons I do believe in would be arguably extraterrestrial but are not usually lumped under that heading), no paranormal(poltergeists) or ghosts (though again, biblical spiritual beings), Communing with the dead is generally impossible and quite Biblically forbidden (ie. Witch of Endor), I believe "Sasquatch research" goes on but think it will be as fruitless as SETI so I am happy they spend less money on it.

J.Edwards is a charlatan as far as am concerned, manipulating and making money in the old fashion "gypsy grandma" carnival techniques, though I do not have any experience directly with him nor find him entertaining.

I think most televangelists are interested in money and showmanship with lots of fakery, but I do not completely discount the possibility that the miraculous may have occurred or may someday occur in some revival meetings. However, a miraculous healing along the line of Jesus' ministry would have the hallmark of being for God's glory rather than the evangelists, which pretty much excludes televangelists as far as I am concerned. I would look to missionary work in non-first world countries if I were looking for true miracles, not TV.

I wish the Loch Ness monster existed and was a recognizable dinosaur, but think it unlikely until more proof appears. I have no reason to believe there is life on other planets, though God could have created it there. I am confidant it did not evolve from nothing, based on the current state of hard science.

I do believe all of the supernatural miracles in the Bible, and that the miraculous does happen today at God’s discretion. That rarely appears to happen under laboratory conditions, unless one profligately invokes a miracle for every gap in scientific knowledge. (i.e. The mechanism of gravity, for which we only have several theoretical guesses, TTBOMK) :)

I am a great fan of empiricism in science, and could be called a “conservative scientist” – as in, trust repeatable hard science as far as it goes, but I don’t tend to embrace every theory that comes along, past or present. To the best of my ability, I would rather “not know” than “know wrong stuff,” which is the category I think most of evolutionary historical biology and long-age geology fit into. I think it is highly improper and unscientific in the strictest sense to attempt to stretch the rules of empiricism into a realm it does not work; that of history. One has to assume it works without verification, which essentially breaks the empirical rules one is trying to apply. The resultant modern naturalistic philosophy then contends with religion on religious grounds while claiming not to be a religion; which is just sophistry, AFAIAC.

I love talking about radioisotope ratio data measured from rocks, I hate talking about “radioisotope dates” which wraps a huge amount of unverifiable assumptions on top of the actual lab-measured ratios. The better the machines get, the more varied the measurements get. I am happy to talk about current processes operating in the past, but by that I mean data gleaned from Mt. St. Helens research, not 150 year old uniformitarian “knowledge” that seems to be the basis of much geology. (In some books it seems like history stopped in Lyle’s time!) It takes a catastrophe to form a fossil, so I am always happy to discuss large and small catastrophes. “Weird” things happen in nature, and science is a lot of fun. I think it is no mistake that historical “soft” sciences based on philosophical assumptions are controversial rather than the laboratory “hard” sciences of chemistry, organic chemistry, non-historic biology, etc. I think scientists should shout where science is clear, whisper where science is shaky, and shut up where science does not speak, but headlines are shouted where I think science does not speak: the big examples being macroevolution and radioisotope dates.

I believe God is powerful, and more complex by far than humans. At minimum, any problems one would have proving the existence of humans would apply to the existence of God. If a relevant God exists, I think the only way we can know about that God would be through God’s intervention in history. (I think science will ‘prove’ the need for a first cause once the current philosophical avoidance of that is removed and hard science prevails.) For my own spiritual journey and seeking that God I have read many (and will read many more) of the religions that purport to be God intervening in history, including the Bhagavad-Gita, the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and Joe’s previously mentioned Atheist book (but I forgot it’s title :P). Before too many more years I plan to read the scriptures of the Buddhists, and the more modern Talmudic/Rabbinic Judaism.

I find the Bible (and Judeo-Christian Biblical belief) unique and uniquely trustable, and am staking all on it. Organizations of humans based around the Bible I do not necessarily trust, any more than I trust myself. I particularly distrust organizations that attempt to modernize or harmonize the Bible with something else, like Hugh Ross’s harmonization of today’s science with Genesis, or the mid 19th century’s German Liberal thought attempting to harmonize the Bible with “modern liberalism” (or whatever it was called at the time) that has lead to most of the left/liberal churches and doctrine today. Besides, “today’s scientific knowledge” is a moving target; the only guarantee for a harmonizer is that they will get a paycheck along with textbook writers for doing the same work when “tomorrow’s new improved scientific knowledge” appears and invalidates today’s work. Science in these controversial areas do not seem to build knowledge incrementally, but churn knowledge as false facts are disproved and “new” facts (sometimes also false?) take their place. Along with the hoaxes, bad science, bad process, and just plain incorrect conclusions (like the recent revelation that the famous light/dark moth population study was improperly conducted and the pictures were faked with glued-on dead moths,) I find it much more profitable to understand science for what it is and remain conservative regarding its knowledge.

I find the current accepted definition of science (ie. Naturalism) does not fully overlap reality as I believe/know/understand (ie. A God/The Supernatural exists, but science excludes them.) That gap creates a huge credibility gap for “modern” science AFAIAC, and the poor science that goes on within that crack just widens the credibility gap.

I do think that God is working through history, generally getting more involved and giving more information to mankind over time, including in the future a phase where Jesus will be physically here on earth again and available in repeatable ways to answer (and maybe demonstrate!) what we would consider miraculous. I expect that you and I will not see that time, though. :) We have to seek our own experiences and study the eyewitness events and historical records of the past for information. At that future time, I expect many will still reject God and disbelieve, which would make disbelief a condition of free will rather than simply a lack of information.

Hopefully that gives a snapshot for your mental model of “Quadko”. :] Sorry for the length, I just wanted to answer the question I though you were really asking, rather than the little “are you a kook” details. If you feel I am a crackpot, let’s at least be clear on what kind! [toothy grin]

22

"with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."

This is a very fuzzy discussion of 1d = 1000y. :)

Mixing blatantly poetic sources with prophetic metaphoric sources with historic sources isn't likely to produce the truest understanding no matter if you are talking about various Bible books, Tennyson or Shakespearian sonnets vs. history text books and Nostradomis(sp?), or A.A. Milne, horoscopes, and a McDonald’s Menu.

If we are serious about discussing the quotes, let’s talk about context, language use, and the sources of the quotes, as well perhaps as parallel examples of other words and phrases that see potential multiple uses. :] ie. Be Scientific About It. ;)

23

Quadro

Well, it's fascinating. You seem to take pride in your "skepticism" and "knowledge" of the science of radiocarbon dating, but simultaneously you say "I find the Bible ... uniquely trustable, and am staking all on it" which sort of puts in the True Believer camp where your ability to objectively evaluate scientific evidence is subject to impeachment (let me know if you don't understand why).

I'm also curious about your peppered moth anecdote, which kind of came out of the blue. Are you suggesting that patterns of coloration in animals don't change in response to environmental pressures/selection, i.e., that birds don't have an effect on melanism frequency in peppered moths?

24

Quadko

"Mixing blatantly poetic sources with prophetic metaphoric sources with historic sources isn't likely to produce the truest understanding no matter if you are talking about various Bible books"

Well, geez, Quadko, in case you haven't noticed, everyone has a different interpretation of the Bible. I would LOVE to see someone "important" attempt to document (with citations and support) which Biblical passages are merely poetry, which are merely historical, and which are literally prophetic versus metaphorical. I've noticed a great reluctance on the part of Christians to produce this kind of information as it would ten to, er, eliminate 95% of their rhetorical strategery.

"I find it much more profitable to understand science for what it is and remain conservative regarding its knowledge."

It looks to me like you came to your understanding of "what science is" from reading hardcore creationist propaganda. Can you give me examples of ten "hoaxes" in the area of molecular or cell biology in the past, say, quarter century? Also, please let me know who identified the hoaxes? Thanks.

25

'It looks to me like you came to your understanding of "what science is" from reading hardcore creationist propaganda. Can you give me examples of ten "hoaxes" in the area of molecular or cell biology in the past, say, quarter century? Also, please let me know who identified the hoaxes? '

christians like to bring up the quark, since it isn't proven directly, only indirectly, this somehow porves the exixtence of god, and their god at that. not a woman, or a diety like ganesh, but the white guy on throne.

the hoax thing is pretty amusing. i had to sit through this hoax crap in christian school 'science' class when i was a teenager. i knew these people where charlitans even then when they attempted to indoctinate me 24/7 with the chatning and memorizing of scripture. didn't know they would take over the white house though. orwell was onto something.

26

tommythecat,

Wow you sure do know a lot about Christianity! I could have sworn that God the Father isn't bound to any particular manifestation, but is a transtemporal existance....

27

I admit I don’t see how my “True Believer” statement of chosen faith from the results of my own study of religion and philosophy renders me incapable of exercising and operating within the guidelines of empiricism that lead me to reject the . I am not making the claim that empiricism lead me to my faith choice. Nor am I stating that my faith choice renders me incapable of accepting long ages. (Hugh Ross seems to combine the two in a way I currently find.) Certainly my faith choice gives intellectual support to the outcome of my empirical reading, but if you contend that only people who believe the way you do can be objective, you misrepresent philosophy and science. It does take hard work at times to strive for objectivity, and I would claim the scientific establishment is in the bad state I see it precisely because the philosophical naturalists do not think they have to work for objectivity. Instead, they appear to act as though they intrinsically are objective, and are the only objective perspective. If you have rock containing many grains measured by several different isotope elements, and the results vary from a future time to an absurd (by the oldest-old agers!) past time, and there is no correlation beyond that expected of a random sample, how can one claim a given radio-isotope age? Putting aside all other problems, how does one select the right grain to measure (or method of statistical measurement) empirically, without any prior expectation? If all the rocks we know were volcanically created recently cannot be measured accurately because they register “very old” (ie. With similarity to the above scatter problem), how can one claim the model is correct? Even putting aside all other problems, how does one calibrate measurement scales when the only empirical measurements we can make are all rejected? At the moment I do not question my ability to be suitably objective because of the response I see to questions like these.

***

As for the peppered moth anecdote, that was just the latest example of poor but famous science in the realm of general evolution. Since it supports micro-evolution, the results are not even in question. Do you contend that faking results and images and presenting them as true is acceptable scientific process, especially if “everyone knows it is true?” :) I hope not. The more of this kind of bad process presented as good that goes on, (and I’ll work for more examples, but I don’t have a hit list to pull out- :) ) the more I am confirmed to be cautious and conservative. The same is true for any of the creation proponents, naturally. I am sick of seeing fraudulently poor science presented as good to prop up conclusions, whether they are right or wrong. One purpose of science is to see what we can definitively know from observing the world around us; propping up a conclusion betrays that. All sides have been guilty of different poor science over time; and we cannot accept that. But what are our choices? Reject everything because it is all tainted? Reject the side you don’t like, and ignore the problems with the side you choose? Nope; one of the best things to do is to stick to the empirical rules of science, punish those who stray a bit to carelessness or a lot to fraud, and press forward to good science. The best way to do that (for me, at least, as a passionate intelligent amateur) is to read and question. I am encouraged that the creationist scientists seem to generally welcome questions and provide backing or expose bad science. Most evolutionist scientists I have seen avoid questions, ridicule the questioner rather than address the question, and otherwise avoid the topic. I think evolutionary background has become an assumption rather than an area of discussion for most specialists (who are much better in their own expertise) and, as any human does, they get defensive if their assumptions are questioned. It is a part of human nature, but certainly not objective.

***

As for everyone having a different interpretation of the Bible, naturally! But I take it you reject the book level granularity traditional observation that puts Genesis-Esther as historical; the Wisdom books including Psalms as poetic; and the prophetic “This is what God says is going to happen” as prophecy? It would be a good rough-cut for discussion, I would think. In part that is why I brought up extra-biblical sources; we don’t tend to have that much trouble telling a historical textbook from Tennyson. Of course the 1d=1000y comment is NT in 2Peter, and is exhortation, which is harder to apply in this context. In part that’s why the = is problematical, since the word ‘like’ is being used by the discussion as ‘the same as’. Off the top of my head I had thought it was a poetical Psalms reference, but was wrong. But I guess I’m not “important” so I won’t waste your time when I am writing so many words on other issues. ;] (Though my favorite book touching on this subject and others is “The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict” by Josh McDowell; the big one, not the abbreviated small one.) (My 1d=1000y comment was not aimed at you, Lary, either, but the full discussion. It is a bigger can’o’worms.) Honestly, I am happy to eliminate all false rhetorical strategies on all sides. Truth and reality is the goal, after all, rather than sophistry and self-adulation. No point chatting otherwise.

***

“…from reading hardcore creationist propaganda…”

I read many things. :] I do not have a pre-prepared list of ten hoaxes; nor, alas, enough time tonight to do such a list tonight, but I will attempt to research it and present it in time. I notice you restrict your request for “hoaxes” to around 1975, ignoring 100-150 years of contra-creationary “scientific” writing that still may serve as a foundation for “modern” understanding. Also, that you are not interested in any of the evolutionary sciences outside of the molecular/cell biology you list. Does this mean you grant me as given that Old Dead Scientists and Other Evolutionary Fields are hoaxers and cheats? :P Cheap shot, sorry ‘bout that. Seriously, though, why do you restrict your question in such a way? Paleontology has certainly had more than it’s share of hoaxes and poor process as I recall, but you have defined all that away.

Just to forward something relevant in the field, though not a hoax: I am troubled by the assumption in DNA analysis that “similarity is always explained by inheritance, thus similarity is proof of relationship.” That is oversimplified (injected DNA as an example), but though parentage is empirically one source of similarity between related beings, to claim relationship solely on the basis of similarity is building on the assumption of evolution as reality. So far, so good: we have a theory and dependent theory. However, to turn about and claim an empirical proof evolution is this relationship turns into question-begging. Since you brought up that previous article, I would be interested in your input.

28

"...this hoax crap in christian school 'science' class...indoctinate..."

:) Well, except for the true and admitted non-crap hoaxes.

Besides, one can argue all modern school teaching, including creation and evolution, is indoctrination. Wheather you're a pot or kettle, you're gonna be black. How do you get beyond indoctrination to truth?

The quark thing is more a god-of-the-gaps thing than a hoax argument, and I sure thing GOTG is a weak and question-begging argument much of the time. (First cause argument being an exception. ;] )

29

Excuse me, Quadko, but I'm having difficulty understanding your position again. Are you claiming that techniques for dating objects using radioactive decay are useless? And that the scientists who publish papers using such techniques aren't as intelligent as you or are "deluded" by their "devotion" to "philosophic naturalism"? Is that what you're saying?

If I take a piece of charcoal from my fireplace to the campus and ask a researcher to use decay techniques to determine whether the charcoal is 1 year old, 20,000 years old, or 20 million years old, are you telling me that the researcher's instruments are equally likely to give me any of the three answers?

"Do you contend that faking results and images and presenting them as true is acceptable scientific process, especially if “everyone knows it is true?” :) I hope not."

Of course I don't contend that. But in case you haven't noticed, scientists don't publish their original research in high school textbooks. And I have no idea what "fake" results you are talking about with respect to the peppered moth. Again I ask you: do you claim that melanism in moth populations is not affected by bird predation?

"I am encouraged that the creationist scientists seem to generally welcome questions and provide backing or expose bad science."

Where have "creationist scientists" exposed bad science? Point me to three instances where a scientist was forced to retract a paper because a creationist discovered the data in the paper was falsified. I'll make it easy on you and let you have the entire 20th century in which to look.

"Most evolutionist scientists I have seen avoid questions, ridicule the questioner rather than address the question, and otherwise avoid the topic."

Who can blame them? Imagine if Christians got it in their heads to attack the sun-centered solar system "theory" (again)? Do you think astronomers would relish those "debates"? Scientists have better things to do than address creationist cranks -- or haven't you noticed? I suggest picking up an issue of Nature or Science sometime.

From your post, I gather that the reference which details for me the poetic versus metaphorical versus prophetic or literally historical passages in the Bible doesn't exist. I didn't think it did.

"I notice you restrict your request for “hoaxes” to around 1975, ignoring 100-150 years of contra-creationary “scientific” writing that still may serve as a foundation for “modern” understanding."

I restricted my request to the last quarter century, Q, because you implied that hoaxes and bad science precluded you from making any judgements. Do you honestly believe that scientists today accept everything that was ever published at face value? If so, you're incredibly naive about how science works. Erroneous conclusions in previous works are discovered EVERY DAY. But guess what? For every erroneous conclusion discovered, you can bet that a hell of a lot more conclusions are VALIDATED. That is why, contrary to what you have read in your science-smearing creationist literature class, the central tenets of evolutionary biology (mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift) rest on rock solid foundations.

I mentioned those other areas of pseudoscience for a reason. The reason is that creationism is pseudoscience in every respect. There is no distinction to be drawn between a belief that scientists have been deluding themselves about evolution for the past 100+ years and the belief that scientists have been deluding themselves about the existence of ESP or communication with the dead.

You can believe in Sasquatch, God and ESP and wear a raincoat in the sunshine and drink poisonous water all you want. But when you start attacking science without articulating an alternative theory or providing any evidence to support that alternative theory, you become a crank. You join the ranks of people who believe that fluoride is a communist mind control plot and who believe that George Bush is an alien. Do you doubt that such people exist? Do you doubt that you sound like those people when you say that you can't trust scientists -- not SOME scientists, mind you, but thousands upon thousands of genuine working scientists who have tested evolutionary theory for over a century and found that, lo and behold, it *works*.

With respect to your confusion about the relevance of homologous DNA sequences between organisms, I have to ask: are you serious? Here's some great advice: if you have a question about a scientific issue, do NOT go to a website that cites Biblical passages on its home page. It's like going to the dentist to have your appendix removed.

The simple fact is that the use of homologous DNA sequences to evaluate the relatedness of organisms isn't applied in a vacuum, as you imply. Scientists made determinations of relatedness using other techniques prior to the discovery of DNA. The vast majority of those determinations were validated by subsequent comparisons of the nucleic acid sequences (as everyone suspected they would be). Do the exceptions prove that evolution is a fraud on the public? Of course not. They prove that life is amazing and complex. A generous Christian 9of which there are quite a few) might praise his/her God for the wonderful world in which we live, a world which never ceases to challenge and surprise us. Meanwhile, other Christians would rather take a piss on scientists. What do you suppose Jesus would do?

"How do you get beyond indoctrination to truth?"

Open your eyes and look around.

30

'Wow you sure do know a lot about Christianity! I could have sworn that God the Father isn't bound to any particular manifestation, but is a transtemporal existance....'

i know enough to know that christians today have nothing to do with christ.

31

Larry
"The simple fact is that the use of homologous DNA sequences to evaluate the relatedness of organisms isn't applied in a vacuum, as you imply. Scientists made determinations of relatedness using other techniques prior to the discovery of DNA. The vast majority of those determinations were validated by subsequent comparisons of the nucleic acid sequences (as everyone suspected they would be)."
I'm sorry Larry. Do you have some literature to back up this somewhat large elephant you appear to be hurtling ? (Vast majority?)

Lets look at a recent science paper from Nature.
Maria C. Rivera and James A. Lake, “The ring of life provides evidence for a genome fusion origin of eukaryotes,” Nature 431, 152 - 155 (09 September 2004)
'To this day, biologists cannot agree on how often lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis have occurred in life’s history; how significant either is for genome evolution; or how to deal with them mathematically in the process of reconstructing evolutionary trees.'

lets See. It isn't a phylogenic 'Tree' anymore...Well good thing the 'vast majority' agreed with expectations.
We have no agreement on the frequency of lateral gene transfer (Can you say Ad Hoc explanation to mash the tree, err Ring, into shape?)

What I love is... If it matches expectations - 'See, we are right!' and if it doesn't match expectations - 'See how wonderful and complex nature is... Oh, and we are still right'.
Ignoring contrary evidence seems like a good career for you larry.

32

Stay relaxed, Mate!

***

Techniques for dating objects using radioactive decay have a number of problems. Three major ones are: 1) Unknown starting conditions. Since the actual measurement being taken is the volume of parent and child decay isotopes, assumptions have to be made regarding initial quantities, environmental factors affecting decay rates (i.e. Heat and pressure), and retention of source and resultant materials (i.e. Does the child process bleed off into the environment). Assumptions have to be made about each of these, and adjusting those assumptions adjusts the “date” interpreted from the measurements, assuming that the starting conditions and environment have not completely contaminated the rock. 2) Measurement difficulties. As our technology has increased, our ability to make accurate measurements on smaller rock segments (even the rock grains) has increased. Rather than solving problems by centering in on a value and reducing measurement error as expected, the range of ratios has increased drastically, rather than centering around an obvious correct ratio for a rock. As the raw number of measurements increases and the equipment becomes more accurate, the numbers become more randomized, drastically reducing the confidence level of radioisotope tests for dating, since a date range is an expression of a single ‘correct’ ratio for the rock +- some error. 3) Calibration. One of the scientific difficulties of dealing with any tool or measurement ruler, scale, spectrometer, whatever) is getting it correctly calibrated. With invented measures like feet, cm, grams, and pounds we have agreed-upon standards that tools can be calibrated against. So how does one calibrate a given isotope ratio to time? Two obvious ways: the theoretical: what is the half-life of the isotope (ignores starting condition problems); and the practical confirmation: what does a ‘newly’ created rock from laboratory or volcano (Mt. St. Helens, Hawaii.) (Note: both these methods ignore problem 2’s measurement difficulties- at this point we have ‘one’ ratio number to work with- well, measurement numbers of parent and child elements.) As with all theories, you can plug the numbers and have an answer that is as confident as your measurements and your theory. The problem is verifying this in real life with ‘new’ rocks: they come out with the same problems that ‘old’ rocks have, and they certainly do not come out ‘created 0 million years ago.’ (The same problem happens with new fossils, and there are all sorts of weird initial-condition problems dating carbon lifeforms.) Generally, the rule of thumb is that ‘dating only works for old things, not new things.’ I hope you see the problem with this: if we cannot date anything we empirically know about, how do we calibrate the process and obtain empirical confidence in the dating theory? Currently, AFAIK from reading, it is dated against evolutionary theoretical expectations and previous ‘decisions’ about the age previously discovered fossils.

If evolution as we understand it is true, and the pre-radioisotope dates are correct, then radioisotope dates (assuming the measurement problems, etc. are worked out) can be used with confidance. If evolution is false, the dates are a complete waste of paper and time. There is no empirical content; to scoff at someone who distrusts dates is to scoff that “they don’t assume what I assume, the fools.” Science really doesn’t come into it.

As to: am I smarter than them? Do I consider them misguided fools? 1) These are not empirical questions regarding the method I am questioning, and really are irrelevant. They are also attempts to appeal to authority: “Who Is Quadko To Question Establishment PHDs?” Answer: I’m nobody but a guy who has read stuff asking questions genuinely seeking information. What’s the problem? ;] Are PhD’s only ever right? Of course not. 2) No, I do not measure relative intelligence or decide on superiority, though I do consider myself smart enough to attempt to understand the problem and ask relevant questions. 3) In my questions and stated problems I ask about, did I express myself in a way to be understood? Are the problems I stated above relevant issues, or perhaps based on a misunderstanding of mine, or perhaps new to you? Do you have answers, or can you point me in the right direction? If so, great! If not, here is what I know, and we can discuss or drop the topic.

***

“...researcher's instruments are equally likely to give me any” recent-ancient date?

I do not know specifically about dates related to charcoal, but you will have that kind of problem if you vacation in Hawaii and bring back a newly cooled lava rock. Same problems with modern fossils, lab created or nature created.

***

It is true, Melanism in moth populations as affected by bird predation theoretically is an exercise in microevolution, and as such certainly is possible. However, the famous study that raised “Melanism In Moth Populations and Darkened Tree Trunks in England” to popular knowledge is a fraud. The famous picture was faked. The data is suspect. The attempts to reproduce the study and rescue the common-knowledge factlets, have AFAIK so far failed- the study is not reproducible to date. Therefore, while genetic ratios in the population between light moths and dark can theoretically and empirically be affected by predators selectively killing off one of the colors before mating season, it can no longer be stated that “Tree bark darkening via soot deposits in England during the Industrial Revolution (or whatever) altered the genetic makeup of moth populations as natural selection in the environment now serves up white moths against dark tree trunks to predators.” Fake science. Change the textbooks, revoke the headlines, purposeful fraud, fake science. Horrible no matter which side it happens to.

***

Q:"I am encouraged that the creationist scientists seem to generally welcome questions and provide backing or expose bad science."

L:“Where have "creationist scientists" exposed bad science?”

I misspoke my intention- what I was trying to convey was that when challenged, I have seen some creationist organizations (as represented by their scientists) withdraw faulty science. The original “speed of light is slowing,” paper for example, which was a manipulation of the data for publishing purposes. Oddly, others have resurrected that idea and are pursuing it in different ways, but the original paper that I know about was gone.

As for retractions, I really couldn’t produce any “forced retractions of papers” by creationists or otherwise. That is my own lack of knowledge, though. Those pesky evolutionist scientists will not give up their ground. :] For that matter, genetics disproved much of Darwin’s “Origin Of Species” book – definitely those parts related to inherited traits – but to my knowledge it has not been retracted. :]:]

***

Q:"Most evolutionist scientists I have seen avoid questions, ridicule the questioner rather than address the question, and otherwise avoid the topic."

L: “Who can blame them? Imagine if Christians got it in their heads to attack the sun-centered solar system "theory" (again)? Do you think astronomers would relish those "debates"? Scientists have better things to do than address creationist cranks -- or haven't you noticed? I suggest picking up an issue of Nature or Science sometime.”

I am not completely unread in Nature and Science, though it’s close. I love their “creationists are idiots” articles, backed by such “strong” arguments like “creationists are idiots”. Humor aside, you have gotten to the point of the issue. “Creationist cranks” can say no good thing, thus can be ignored. If you feel this way, why have you engaged in this and other similar discussions? More to the point, though, it breaks the scientific guideline that ideas are important, not source. Source can be considered for practical filtering, but if a YEC like me asks a question about the empirical problems with radioisotopes and an evolutionarily committed PHD asks the same question, they are equally valid. To act otherwise is to leave the empirical table for a discussion of philosophy, religion, and opinion. That is fun to do, valid to do in life, and has little or nothing to do with science. The biggest problem currently IMHO is that creationists are asking for the empirical data supporting evolution because they doubt its existence, while evolutionists respond by attacking the fact that they would dare doubt. Sun centered solar systems, gravity, general relativity, etc. have the empirical backing. I can research it. I can (given resources) repeat the proof experiments. I can drop the theory, start from scratch, and reproduce the theory essentially identically. When I question the theory and equations related to gravity, someone helpful can point me to Newton, and those who would laugh at the original question will generally agree with my search if I say “I want to REALLY know about gravity, and REALLY understand it from the ground up.” Honestly, none of this happens when evolution is questioned, either in my experience or in the writings of others I have read. It is the question you cannot ask. Asking the question results in political “don’t question my beliefs” type responses, and “ignore the silly creationist.” Somehow, it never results in science. Thus, creationists never go away, but just keep asking “Why” and “How do you Know?”

One of the best things about “real” science – empirical science – is that the chain of knowledge can be questioned and reduced to measurements, equations, and theories, with the occasional assumption thrown in. That does not happen with evolution.

Now I have expressed my frustration! :]

***

From your post, I gather that the reference which details for me the poetic versus metaphorical versus prophetic or literally historical passages in the Bible doesn't exist. I didn't think it did.

Here is a simple traditional breakup: http://www.gty.org/bible_faqs/bible_content.php?qa=chrono.htm
Naturally, the issue gets more complex from there. But you are right, “document, document, document, and always ask where and why.” I would hate to be hypocritical.

***

"...the central tenets of evolutionary biology (mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift) rest on rock solid foundations.”

Among your rock solid foundations is no method for increase in information, unless you mean to hang that on the much discredited (not just by creationists) mutation peg. Mutations happen, they do not add new information. Thus, you have biology, sans-macro evolution. Micro-evolution happens, no discussion. You have stated rock solid foundations for genetic biology, but are in trouble with “evolution,” i.e. macro evolution. Micro is empirical. Macro is not. As far as empirical science is concerned Macro evolution is miraculous and supernatural; and the origin (hi)story that goes with it is will miraculous and supernatural point events. There exist kooky creationists, but there also exist conservative creationist scientists demanding empiricism and trying to reduce the credibility gap between their perceived reality and naturalism.

***

“...when you start attacking science without articulating an alternative theory or providing any evidence to support that alternative theory, you become a crank.”

Common idea, but false. It is equivalent to “You cannot call someone a liar unless you know the whole truth,” which sounds good on the surface but is not true. I can know that someone did not walk from New York to Los Angles in a day, even if I do not know where they walked, or what alternate transportation they took. It is quite valid to say “You cannot get there from here by this method in this frame of reference.” Besides, this ignores the theories put forth by creationists (good or bad- you just indicate different, not necessarily a good alternative theory), the simplest being “Intelligent First Cause Setup Universe and Injected Knowledge, processes continuing to today, and knowledge corrupting and disseminating from initial state.” Lacks detail, solves some problems in generic evolutionary theory overview. Trivial correct predictions confirmed by empirical evidence: “biology does not result from abiology,” “Additional Information is not generated,” “Universal laws remain same at different loci given same conditions,” “Information is generally being destroyed.” Can holes and objections be picked in this? Yes. Does this make it different from evolution? No.

***

“tested evolutionary theory for over a century and found that, lo and behold, it *works*”

Except when it doesn’t. ;] It is getting late, sorry if my responses are becoming terser. A great deal of science, biology included, goes on that is orthogonal to the theory of evolution and would be completely unchanged if (and when) macro evolution were supplanted by another theory. In what way does evolution *work*? Empirical genetics would be the same, just would have a different theoretical research push to explain . Geology as a process or a practice would be unchanged with a different theory about geologic history and age of the earth. Physics, Chemistry, medical biology and genetics have produced lots of “things” and our knowledge has increased. Non-empirical, historical, macro-evolution and the stories that go with it have given us little if anything, and creationists believe it hinders proper research into real science. (Fighting words, I know – keep a sense of humor as you read!) All it has really given us is a litmus test to artificially separate the “in crowd” from the “way-out crowd” in our society, and to paraphrase a famous quote (I forget who’s :]) “Intellectually satisfying Atheism.” Meh. Not worth the money, definitely not worth the opportunity cost of pursuing the other avenues that line up with reality as discovered by appropriately applied empiricism.

***

“...the use of homologous DNA sequences to evaluate the relatedness of organisms isn't applied in a vacuum, as you imply. Scientists made determinations of relatedness using other techniques prior to the discovery of DNA.”

The concept of evolution has been around since at least the Greeks. Darwin made his scientific career on external observations of similar shape and features. Genetics through many of his ideas out the window, but provided a new understanding and ways to compare similarities. It also started showing the limitations of similarity. DNA discovery lets us dig even deeper. But morphology is dependant on DNA, and the variety of sub-DNA molecules. We have come a long way since then and science has a lot more to discover. But similarity in the external gross features generated by the similar DNA does not provide independently verification of each other, because features depend on the genetics. Shared ancestry does result in similarities on every scale, but still in this lack of vacuum, similarity, be it in morphology or the underlying genetics, does not simply imply ancestry. Ancestry is just one of many options for gaining similarity, and empirically cannot cross the Macro-evolutionary boundaries.

***

“Meanwhile, other Christians would rather take a piss on scientists. What do you suppose Jesus would do?”

Is this a good time for the phrase, hate the sin, love the sinner? For the evolutionists who do reject God, do you see Jesus as validating their belief while He loved them, or as correcting them? But the big question: is energetically and respectfully engaging in empirical debates over facts, their relevance, the framework theories, and the assumptions that the theories are based on equivalent to pissing on scientists? Certainly not.

I would say, at best, the standard evolutionary theory is just like the canonical flat earth, the earth-centric solar system, cycles and epicycles of planets, etc. etc. etc. Believed by the masses, believed by the establishment, believed by the elite (however you might define them,) and extremely difficult to replace with (“better?”) truth. However, like the canonical examples, I think Macro Evolution et al is fated to be replaced for the same reasons: empirically insufficient to explain the real world. I think it has seen its best days, and will die a slow death fighting every inch of the way until the “generational change” that sees it replaced. I think this is why many varieties of creationists and ID-ists are gaining momentum over the last few decades. I expect to live quite a while longer, given normal expectations, and I do not know if I will get to see the change, but it could happen soon, and I think it will happen. I also think it is a good thing: scientific progress through empirical work driven by contra-establishment thinking and radically different theoretical overhead – for science this is a great thing, but as humans the establishment resists.

***

“"How do you get beyond indoctrination to truth?"
Open your eyes and look around.”

And ask questions. Engage ideas contrary to you current knowledge and belief systems. Ask questions like “Why” and “How do you know.” Fear no knowledge. Mock no strange ideas, but be cautious. Examine your own beliefs and consistencies. Value truth over personal vindication. Don’t allow or be swayed by the false argumentation techniques that distract from the facts: personal attacks, tangential argumentation, straw men, argumentation from authority, and the rest. Explore logic, philosophy, science, religion. Take responsibility for your own beliefs, and distrust and examine assumptions.

33

Joe Carter

2 Peter chapter 3, "by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed ... But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day."

Daniel 9:25, "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."

Now, if this means literal weeks, Daniel wrongly predicted the coming of the Messiah. If, however, you consider his week to be 7 years, then you have 483 years. Cyrus decreed that the Jerusalem could be rebuilt in 457 B.C. This means that Daniel predicted the Messiah would come in the year 26 A.D. The original calender was about 4, maybe 6, years off, so this means that Daniel predicted that Messiah would come when Jesus was about 30 years old. From all that we know, Jesus began his ministry at about age 30, which would put Daniel spot-on. In this instance, most Christians do not count a week as a literal week, but a metaphysical week.

If a week can be metaphorical in these two instances, why can it not be true in Genesis?

You have not directly addressed a SINGLE point I have made in this thread. Your argument can be summarized: 'Genesis could be interpreted this way (If I stand on my head and juggle raisins with my feet)' There are many creative interpretations that might seem plausible to some (especially after Darwinian mythology became so popular). I want to know the CORRECT interpretation.

34

Ed, Ross? The Chardanist heretic?

Ross is a lousy 'scientist' and a worse theologian.

Quadko, Larry and some others here are just trolls. Please don't feed them.

35

(Oops, in previous post, that segment was not supposed to be bold! That's not emphasis or shouting, but a mistake - sorry about that! :]) Arr, matey! Troll! ;P Not trying to be one, just got involved in the tangent.

36

The short version of your post, Quadko, is that you are completely full of crap.

"I misspoke my intention- what I was trying to convey was that when challenged, I have seen some creationist organizations (as represented by their scientists) withdraw faulty science."

You "misspoke your intention"??? Bogus. You were reciting from your creationist script and I called you on your baloney. Now we can watch phase two of the creationist argument: dissembling. Thanks, Quadko, but the fact that creationists propogate bad science all the time and retract it a small fraction of the time is well known and hardly relevant to whether evolutionary biology is akin to a "flat earth"!!!

So, Quadko, please answer my questions in my previous post to you which were straightforward and direct, many of them requiring simple yes or no answers. What are you afraid of?

After you make an effort to answer some of my questions, we can move forward with the discussion.

37

Rikk Watts at Regent has done some interesting work on understanding Genesis 1 in it's context
There is a paper at:
www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html
which adds some interesting layers to the original context. Of particular note is the correlation between the events of day 1 and day 4, 2 & 5, 3 & 6, as well as connections to the exodus story, and Egyptian culture (which is what the Israelites had been immersed in).

38

Quadko, Ross has a different fall and a different 'gospel', his science is full of holes *from an evolutionary standpoint, including his astronomy*, which is interesting, since he claims to be an astronomer, though I'm unaware of any actual research he might have done before he earned his living through his 'ministry'.

JBP, I am familiar with those old arguments, and you are quoting 2nd Peter out of context in a way that completely distorts its meaning. For shame. The papers I cited earlier specifically deal with the linguistic, grammatical, and literary issues that you and Joe and other are bringing up in hopes of please "Christianity's "Cultured" Dispisers" as Bultmann tried to do.

Quadko, SFAIK, the difference between inherited code and code re-use isn't something that can be tested. So for the philosophical naturalists to claim that, for example, humans share roughly 50% of their code with bananas, does not show inheritance, or common decent, but that you have to use the same templates to produce the same molecules.

Indeed, Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are going to be put in the bin with other 19th century pseudo-sciences such as phrenology, Freud and (belief in) phlogiston.

I wasn't calling you a troll, I was addressing you about the trolls that come up from under the bridge to raise the noise to signal level as much as they can.

We should hold to L'Abri's maxim and give honest answers to honest questions and not give lying liars like Larry the time of day, until his attitude changes in response to prayer.

39

Good point, Alan. Especially thanks for the reference.

Larry, for the sake of making “an effort to answer some of [your] questions, [so] we can move forward with the discussion” I have listed the questions in your previous post as indicated and address them as concisely and accurately as I can. If these are not the questions you mean, please re-indicate the questions stopping this discussion of facts, science, and ideas from going forward. Please feel free to address the unanswered issues and direct statements I brought up in my last few posts, such as my listed problems with radioisotope measurement for dating purposes.

###

L: “Are you claiming that techniques for dating objects using radioactive decay are useless?”
I “claim” that techniques for dating objects using radioactive decay is intrinsically problematic for the above post’s specific details you have not yet responded to. I “claim” that the problem is getting worse as technology and methodology improves in measurement accuracy. I “claim” these problems are either ignored in publications, or more to the point, are filled in with assumptions based on the pre-existing truth/knowledge of evolution and the timescales over which it happens. I “claim” these assumptions disqualify confidence in radioactive dating and its usefulness as a proof for evolution for at least 2 reasons: 1) The assumptions are covering gaps in the empirical data, and therefore introduce non-empirical “cracks” in any conclusions drawn from or built upon any derived dates, and 2) the assumptions are drawn from the theory of evolution, and so cannot be used as a proof of evolution because it would introduce circular reasoning, resulting in the proof “evolution is true because evolution is true”. If one accepts evolution and its timescale as true one has no argument with the assumptions and can assume the data is true. If evolution is independently proven, then that turns the assumptions into empirical assertions. However, there seems at present to be no empirical proof of evolution, and discussions such as this one often result in the evolutionist proponent attacking the creationist proponent instead of continuing to engage in factual, if energetic, discussion. I hope we can avoid that. Anyway, evolutionists who share the assumptions built into radioisotope dates can communicate using them. That communication or agreement should not be confused with being a proof or the factuality of the assumptions. Evolutionists communicating with creationists who do not share the assumptions should not be surprised at a discussion of those assumptions and requests for empirical data.

L: “And that the scientists who publish papers using such techniques aren't as intelligent as you or are "deluded" by their "devotion" to "philosophic naturalism"? “
Answered in my previous posts.
L: “Is that what you're saying?”
Answered in my previous posts.
L: “If I take a piece of charcoal...researcher's instruments are equally likely to give me any of the three answers?”
Answered in my previous posts.
L: “Again I ask you: do you claim that melanism in moth populations is not affected by bird predation?”
Answered in my previous posts.

L: “Where have "creationist scientists" exposed bad science? Point me to three instances…”
The instances will require research, and that will take some time. I will however, endeavor to do so. Obviously the topic under discussion is not available as one of my answers, nor are you likely to be entertained by my claiming Newton as a creationist source. However, in the meantime, the verification process whereby one scientist requests empirical data, attempts to repeat experiments, and seeks weak and faulty reasoning for the purpose of seeking scientific fact and truth is what exposes bad science, no matter the creato/evolutionary orientation of the scientist. This is what many creationists and creationist organizations do, though there certainly are creationists who do not, just as there are crackpot evolutionists.

Q: "Most evolutionist scientists I have seen avoid questions, ridicule the questioner rather than address the question, and otherwise avoid the topic."
L: “Who can blame them? “
Rhetorical question I assume, but how much do you really support ridicule as an appropriate response by scientists? That response is emotional yellow journalism, not intellectual and factual engagement. Especially when “creationist fool” is the ridicule response to “I have empirical XYZ problem with this part of evolution theory, can you clarify?”

L: “Imagine if Christians got it in their heads to attack the sun-centered solar system "theory" (again)?”
By “again” I assume you mean Galileo, and are invoking the simplified Galileo myth. If you would like to get in to that, please feel free to explicitly bring up the points you feel are relevant for discussion.

L: “Do you think astronomers would relish those "debates"?“
No, but I think astronomers would be able to point to Kepler’s measurements, Galileo’s writing, and the various NASA data as empirical proof. From their responses, evolutionists do not appear to have equivalent documents and sources of data.

L: “Scientists have better things to do than address creationist cranks -- or haven't you noticed?”
How about the non-crank creationists? Those better things do not always appear to be improving the theory in the areas it is open for attack. Those better things do appear to sometimes be collecting paychecks without contributing a lot to the bottom line of science, but I guess that is true of many jobs.

L: “…I gather that the reference which details for me the poetic versus metaphorical versus prophetic or literally historical passages in the Bible doesn't exist. I didn't think it did…”
Answered in my previous posts.

Q: "I notice you restrict your request for “hoaxes” to around 1975, ignoring 100-150 years of contra-creationary “scientific” writing that still may serve as a foundation for “modern” understanding."
L: “Do you honestly believe that scientists today accept everything that was ever published at face value?”
No

L: “But guess what? For every erroneous conclusion discovered… a lot more conclusions are VALIDATED.”
And always, a lot of assumptions that stand in the place of empirical data go unexamined.

L: “...science-smearing creationist literature class...”
Not a question, but in this context by science you appear to mean the “scientific establishment”, and by smear you appear to mean “disagree with”. Taken that way, your objection appears to be that one is not allowed to disagree with the scientific establishment, no matter how respectfully, no matter the disagreer’s process or data. The human hierarchy rules, the observational data must submit. Is this what you intended to say?

L: “Do you doubt that [cranks] exist?”
Of course they exist. However, I would personally include people who believe “biology DID come from abiology contrary to all current scientific knowledge” in that list, and would exclude “Intelligent First Cause capably creates.” However, I would have mercy and compassion on the cranks, figuring that many of them simply have been indoctrinated from youth with “factoids to believe” rather than having been taught good scientific process and independent thinking. Societally, I hope you would agree it is easier to be an evolutionist that a creationist.

L: “Do you doubt that you sound like those people [ie, cranks] when you say that you can't trust scientists”
Honestly, I think I sound more like Galileo, standing up in the face of opposition and waving the empirical facts in the face of established but weak theory. You are right though, the establishment (of myth at least) considered him a crank, and it was only history that justified him.

L: “lo and behold, it [evolution/science] *works*.”
This is one of the places we disagree. Computers, physics, chemistry, they work. Evolution, not so much- at best we have quite a ways to go to point at an equivalent work as “putting a man on the moon” or Teflon. At worst, it just does not work at all. Of course, we can discuss this. I am interested if you have examples of Evolution working.

L: “[A]re you serious?”
Yes, but I also have a sense of humor.

L: “if you have a question about a scientific issue, do NOT go to a website that cites Biblical passages on its home page.”
Three points: 1) For today at least (9/10/2004), one of my favorite creationist websites (answersingenesis.org) does not have a Bible passage cited on the home page; bad analogy. 2) If religion and science are separate and non-overlapping areas as I am getting the impression you feel (feel free to correct me) then a Bible citation would be completely irrelevant to the quality science presented. 3) The previous two tongue-in-cheek answers aside, we have already established in discussion that I, as a creationist, should reasonably expect to be ridiculed rather than answered, so from that expectation why do you recommend I should ask a “real” science source for an answer? It is precisely the asking of non-creationist sources that causes the controversy.

L: “Do the exceptions prove that evolution is a fraud on the public? Of course not.”
A rhetorical question, I know, but since I draw the parallel between evolution and previous genuine flat earth and earth-centric solar systems, it should be evident that I do not think of evolution as a conspiracy between scientists to defraud the public of truth, but that is incorrect with occasional regrettable fraudulent incidents committed in its support, and that evolution needs to be replaced by good empirical science.

L: “What do you suppose Jesus would do?”
Answered in my previous posts. And in short, I expect He would claim to be the Creator they deny exists, but love them anyway and try to bring them in His flock so He can save them the way He says He wants to. Just like He did in context 2000 years ago. :-) This is a tangent very different from factual and scientific discussion of the validity of creationary and evolutionary theories or scientific practice.

###

As to “You "misspoke your intention"??? Bogus.” I can only tell you the truth of my intent, I cannot make you believe. Though horribly mangled and confused when originally typed, my statement was intended to convey the idea that “creation scientists, like all practicing scientists, admit to and withdraw previously presented empirically faulty conclusions and theories” my example being the original “speed of light slowing down” paper. They do also seek to challenge the science within both creationist and evolutionist organizations; the same challenge to confirm the good science and expose the bad science that all scientists theoretically are involved with. I said this to contrast the very faulty stereotype that “creation scientists” are degreeless deaf people shouting unchanging statements from a history book without standard scientific habits or methodologies that some anti-creationists seem to hold.

###

I hope this clears the blockage to discussion. If I missed relevant questions hampering you from continuing a discussion, please re-indicate them. :-)

And if you could address my points on the problems with radioisotope dating, that would certainly facilitate the conversation.

Also, a favor you might be able to do me would be to recommend a few better evolution books and essays. I have read and recommend the creationist books “The natural sciences know nothing of evolution” by A. E Wilder-Smith and “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing” by William A. Dembski and John Wilson, and found them excellent, factual, scientific, and scientific. I am looking for something similar from an evolutionary perspective, but have failed to find anything so far. I have read the highly promoted evolution books “Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate” by Tim M. Berra and “Defending Evolution: A Guide to the Evolution/Creation Controversy” by Brian J. Alters, Sandra M. Alters, and found them poor, lacking in facts and scientific approach, and mostly rah-rah evolution discussions pointed at conditioning evolutionists to ridicule creationists rather than refute them. (Tim Berra was pretty obnoxious about it, but the Atlers wrote nicely and politely on the topic.) I do have a copy of Darwin’s “Origins” I will get to soon, but since I know that evolutionary scientists disagree with most of what is in it, I expect it to be more of a historical curiosity than a challenging read. Of course, I also see a full variety of essays, information and misinformation online.

40

"occasional regrettable fraudulent incidents committed in its support"

Quadko, you are truly lost. Your lies about your answers to my questions are breathtaking. Those are simple yes and no questions. You didn't answer them. You dissembled. You spouted out bullcrap.

Following up on the quote above, please share with me one fraudulent paper relied on by evolutionary biologists today. Thanks. And then please let me know what was the "respectful" point you were trying to make by pointing out the existence of that paper. Thanks again.

Honesty, Quakro. Genuineness. That is what is at issue. "Energetic and respectful" is more bogus dissembling. A joke.

41

I agree that Ross is off base, but I do enjoy his books and show. If nothing else, it is always a pleasant way to test my own knowledge. I would say that everyone who harmonizes today’s science and the Bible will fall into the trap he has and have difficulties on both sides. He does seem gently sincere and to have a genuine faith, which is everything I could want in someone I disagree with. Interesting point about his pre-ministry research.

(“phlogiston” – Thank you! I was trying to remember that name last night.)

Thanks, Puzzled! Sorry I mistook the Troll comment.

I find it amazing how little the time scales and outline of the evolutionary/uniformitarian geology has changed in the last 150 years given all of the technological breakthroughs, new sciences, increased measuring and information processing capability, and effort that has occurred in science in that time. Even the terminology (for the broad discussions at least) has gotten less and less descriptive of the current understanding of today’s world (i.e. ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ evolution; vastly different concepts broken from the original concept of observed change) and I wonder how long it will hold out before it gets radically changed.

BTW, I think I have been reading EO for about a month now, and this is my first big discussion posting (for good or bad!), and I wanted to say how much I enjoy both the blog and the community comments. Best wishes to all, and many thanks Joe!

42

Larry, for your convenience, and since you did not like my lengthy discussion, I have abbreviated and approximated the above answers from a continuous scale to a digital Yes, No, and Unanswerable as Y or N (i.e. In the “Have you stopped beating your wife” category, the “Please explain and Provide”, or the Not a Question category) (and seriously – these really are the answers.)

YUNYNUYUNNNNUUNYNYUUU

That’s your second post without any informative content, just alternating wit and, dare I say, the “indoctrinated ridicule of the evolutionist”. I certainly would appreciate the answers to my questions, the book recommendations, and continuing conversation, but at the moment you are not holding up your end of the discussion. :) Given the huge number of topics we have opened up, I was looking forward to a genuine discussion, and still am if you are up for it. On the other hand, if you are out of ideas or interest, we can drop it, though I was having fun when we were talking about facts and comparative interpretations. I remain quite willing to put some work, energy and time in having the conversation and providing answers to your requests to the best of my ability.

43

Joe C,

A serious question (maybe back on topic).

You said, in paricular:

"The beauty and power of Genesis 1 is that God’s true communication is completely embedded in its narrative. Like the Hebrews, we can’t know it’s meaning exhaustively, though we can know it truly. While the literary form is not that of a scientific treatise, we should not be surprised to find that there is no final conflict between the knowledge we glean from general revelation (studying the natural universe) and that which is conveyed in the special revelation of the Bible.

That is why we should boldly apply the apologetic power of Genesis 1 to respond to the false idealogies of our culture. As astrophysicist and apologist Hugh Ross argues:

One reason we evangelicals have had so little impact on secular society with our creation teachings is that we try to teach Genesis without presenting a testable creation model."

I can go easily with everything you wrote up to the part about Hugh Ross. Certainly Genesis, as it is written (without assuming or denying Divine authorship)has a lot to say about the human condition. In that sense, if I understand you right, it is "true" whether or not it is scientifically accurate. I think the vast majority of evolutionists would have no quarrel with you on that point at all. And, if that's what you are saying then nobody could reasonably disagree with applying the power of Genesis to confront false ideologies. (There could be disagreement with identifying the "false" ideologies, however, but let's pass on that for a moment and focus on the undisputed parts.)

The problem comes with Hugh Ross quote. I think the quote is exactly 100% wrong as a matter of fact. The real reason why evangelicals have had little impact on secular society is because they have in fact repeatedly and obstinately offered Genesis as a testable scietific hypothesis, exactly contrary to Ross. That's exactly what the Scopes trial was about. And, on that basis--scientific accuracy--testable creation model--Gensis gets creamed.

And what is lost? The truth of Genesis, as you described it. Evangelicals would be particulary effective to decouple Genesis from scietific accuracy completely, and present it for the Truth it contains. It should not be fobbed off as some kind of science.

You see some of the comments above from those who castigate you from apparently backing off the literal truth of Genesis. These commenters have nothing to offer to secular society. They will be treated as the butts of jokes and fools. I think you know that, too. Don't you think that a presentation of Genesis decoupled from science would be a better tool of evangelization in the long run?

44

"If there should be no conflict, where does this existing conflict arise? Is it a misunderstanding of science (or nature)? Or of Biblical hermeneutics? Or both?"

Both.

Man is fallible. God is not. The conflict arises from errors in our interpretative filters. If we see apparent contradictions between the revelations (general -vs- special), then we know that one or both of our filters needs calibrating. The problems are entirely on our side.

All truth is God's truth.

Nice post Joe.

45

"The first chapter is not just a response to the false creation stories of the Hebrew’s pagan neighbors but a response to all false creation stories throughout human history."

Well, no, actually it isn't, Joe. It is a reimagining of ancient near eastern creation myths in response to the Hebrew experience of Yahweh. As such, its content has no immediate relevance to modern myths of origins. In other words, Genesis is not a revelation of new material from which we might expect close (though unintended by the human author) correlations with actual events. It is instead a reworking of previous material -- which is already accepted already by the Hebrews as foundational to their image of