BarryA Interviews Dr. David DeWitt

_{Barry Arrington

June 2, 2008

Creationism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Dr. DeWitt will appear on my radio talk show tomorrow to discuss his book, “Unraveling the Origins Controversy.” The show begins at 6:00 Eastern and will stream live on KRKS.com.

Dr. DeWitt is the Director of the Center for Creation Studies and a professor of Biology at Liberty University. He is a young earth creationist. While I respect YEC’s, I do not count myself among them, so the give and take should be interesting.

Comments

Noremacam, You seem to only be reshuffling your problem with entropy, for entropy holds that the entire universe is subject to decay, and with the finding of a "flat universe" this can be extrapolated over extremely long periods of time. Thus how can any physical life as we understand it possibly exist without stars and planets to exist on.(Thus it seems de^ath was preordained far before the fall of man.) Dr. Dembski's paper deals with all these paradoxes by taking into account God's eternal "timeless" nature, which is a far different perspective on time than we have. Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Christian+Theodicy+In+Light+of+Genesis+and+Modern+Science&fr=yfp-t-313&u=www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf&w=christian+theodicy+light+lights+genesis+modern+science&d=BDoD5JzfQzF9&icp=1&.intl=us As well YEC's must in effect deny the integrity of the fossil record itself since animals are found to have died long before man appeared. (Thus before the fall again) As well, I point out that Theists already have an extremely powerful apologetic tool in the Anthropic Principle in which the fine-tuning and balance of ALL the "unchanging" universal constants warrants compelling inference to Almighty God: Chances of Life in our Universe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidVyQe7NCo If YEC's are demanding that some constants fluctuated in order to accommodate their 6000 year creation date, then this will, by necessity, dictate that all of the other balanced universal constants would also need to be precisely varied in order to sustain a universe which will be able to support life. The anthropic principle dictates it to be an all or nothing proposition in regards to relatedness of universal constants. i.e. you can't just cherry pick a few universal constants to mess with to bring the age of the universe to your preconcieved date.bornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: I absolutely believe in decay(and 2nd law thermodynamics) in a prefall world. Just as an example: Without decay how could digestion possibly work? This is why I asked you to define decay, as there are different contexts. Also, from a philosophical standpoint, the argument I would say is that the human body has incredible restorative power to heal wounds. In a "perfect" uncursed creation, with a "perfect" uncursed body, I would say entropy(in the sense of degradation, falling apart) is real but that it could have no effect, because the world prior curse, was designed to handle it. Of course, what is "perfect" is left for the imagination since I doubt anyone here has seen "perfect".Noremacam_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

OECs and YECs would both agree that the Work of God and the Word of God ultimately unite. The disagreement is over final authority: When there is apparent conflict do we compromise the 'Works' or the 'Word'? This is the heart of the matter.bevets_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Although the ID movement is fighting naturalism in biology, it is actually tolerating or even promoting naturalism in geology and astronomy — which is not a consistent strategy — thus undermining its potential effectiveness. ~ Terry Mortenson
I don't have high opinion of Moretnsen's comments. It's not an issue about whether ID tolerates this or that, but whether the arguments put forward have suffient evidential basis... There has not much need of refuting naturalism from astronomy and geology. If one wants to argue for a Young Universe, one needs to start first by re-formulatong Maxwell's equations to reflect temporal and spatial variation in electrodynamics. Such a feat would probably put one on the level of Einstein and Maxwell (a creationist), but that's what needs to be done to prove the YEC case... Mortensen would do better to solve the physics problems with YEC than advocating greater intolerance toward those who disagree with him.... I say this as someone who is actually sympathetic ( but not fully convinced) of YEC.scordova_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Noremacan, Hope I don't drift to far from a scientific foundation but it may be necessary. Decay, (Entropy) is clearly not part of God's eternal perfect character. i.e. do you think that things fall apart in heaven? i.e. that entropy exists in Heaven?. In fact I believe that entropy as a foundational scientific cause can be persuasively argued to be tied to de^ath itself. i.e. if entropy did not exist it is very feasible that de^ath itself would not exist. Thus we are back to square one on Theological problems for YEC as to why de^ath precceded the fall of man, which is why I remind once again, that this is topic addressed by Dembski in a excellent manner in his linked to paper in post 6.bornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Point well taken Allen and DLH, I will try to put scientific facts in front of my philosophical position from now on. To do otherwise, especially on this site, is to invite all sorts of disagreement.bornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 - I usually enjoy your posts, but here I must protest. Your pleading are mere "conclusions of law" and ultimate material facts to the contrary will show you are jumping large to conclusions less salient than usual for you I think. Should I quote Job for illustration? Do I need to explain (to you) how and why and in what forms God "sends strong delusion" Do you think materialism / naturalism is something short of evil -"all the deception of wickedness"? Do we not get a tingle to our ego when we think we've got a corner of the creation figured out? Not trying to get too whatever here, just aware that in every way possible we humans will pull the "instead of God (Anti-Christ) card in our meager attempt to "save our own life". Might an "Angle of Light" come in the form of a "scientific fact"? My apologies to all for not being "scientific" in this post. Be careful out there will ya! Grace, discernment and wisdom to all and especially me of course.alan_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

DLH, Instead of citations, I will first appeal to the heart of your reasoning. Do you believe that sedimentary layers, cratering on the moon, weathering of the appalachian mountains, continental drift, the constant of the speed of light etc..etc..etc.. all in harmony with one another, point to a very old earth? If you do agree that they do indeed give the appearance of a very old earth, Then I must ask you. Do you think God would create a world with all the appearances of old age, when in fact the old age does not actually exist? If you maintain that this appearance of old age is so and God created it as such, Then this seems to be bordering on heresy for me, for YEC's are in effect saying that God willingly misled us by creating an overwhelming illusion of old age. I firmly believe that overwhelming illusions are definitely not part of God's foundational Character. i.e. (No deceit is found in Him) As far as you accusing me of fevered rhetorical objections, I steadfastly maintain that universal constants have held exceptionally stable through many tests and that this fact is a primary prediction and position of the foundational Theistic philosophy. Transcendent and Stable universal constants is definitely NOT a materialistic position or prediction I can assure you!! As well I encourage you to read Dr. Dembski's paper which I have cited. You commend me on citing it but you still want to argue over many of the details that he does an excellent job of covering in the paper. I assure you that he does a much better job of making this case than I ever could.bornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

oops, in my previous post I said "after the fall" I meant "before the fall"...Noremacam_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 Thanks for the references from several critics. Note Greg Moore's:
The RATE team has raised some interesting issues and perhaps the accelerated decay hypothesis holds promise.
Does that support your assertion of "an egregious violation"? Please clarify where you see any reference to universal constants varying in your citations. Please review the proposals for "inflation" during/after the Big Bang in cosmology. e.g. "Beyond the Big Bang, Inflation and the very early universe", by Gary Felder How is appeal to "inflation" any different from appealing to changes in the rate of radioactive decay to model the data? Note Felder's comment:
We have never observed a kind of energy that acts like this, but according to our current theories of physics there is one.
DeYoung et al show numerous radioactive data which do not fit conventional timelines and models. Thus they to hypothesize a mechanism and models to reconcile the data. I encourage you to provide objective critiques similar to those you subsequently cited, rather than fevered rhetorical objections.DLH_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

In response to bornagain77, You said: "Young-earth creationists have consistently maintained decay was not part of the original creation, but something God instituted at the Fall (i.e., at Adam and Eve’s sin)." Define decay. This sounds like a variant of the misconception of "no second law of thermodynamics after the fall". I, as a YEC, have no trouble with radioactive decay prior the fall, or many other forms of "decay" for that matter, but I wanted to make sure I understood you clearly.Noremacam_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Here is a link to Dr. Dembski's paper: Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science http://cache.search.yahoo-ht2.akadns.net/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Christian+Theodicy+In+Light+of+Genesis+and+Modern+Science&fr=yfp-t-313&u=www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf&w=christian+theodicy+light+lights+genesis+modern+science&d=BDoD5JzfQzF9&icp=1&.intl=usbornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

DLH, AS well, Dr. Dembski addresses the Theological objections to a old earth in his paper: Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science I believe Dr. Dembski does an excellent job, in his paper, of reconciling our limited understanding of time with God's eternal nature.bornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

DLH, I believe this article, on Reasonstobelieve.org ,addresses this issue; Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/Rating_Article.shtml Conclusion Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old.111 This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old. Are the RATE findings sufficient grounds to reject mainstream science? What is known to science is radioactive decay would produce the quantity of daughter products on the Earth in a timescale of millions or billions of years. Unknown to science and lacking any independent verification is the idea that nuclear decay rates were accelerated in the past by five orders of magnitude (100,000 times) or more.112 Thus, we are faced with a choice: either we can accept the vast majority of radiometric data that indicates the Earth is very old, or we can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old based on a handful of anomalous results. Looking at the data objectively, the RATE research does not meet the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate that radiometric dating is fallacious. Some may contend that God accelerated decay rates supernaturally, so the evidence lies beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. That is possible. As the Creator, God is certainly capable of altering the laws of nature. However, such a claim is an argument from silence. The Bible says nothing about God changing nuclear decay rates during the Flood, or of God intervening in the world to safeguard His creatures from the lethal heat and radiation. Nor do the Flood chapters describe a cataclysm of the proportion required by the accelerated decay model, or that Noah found the Earth had been radically changed when he emerged from the ark. Thus, those who make such an appeal are reading something into the biblical text. For young-earth creationists, there is an additional problem. Young-earth creationists have consistently maintained decay was not part of the original creation, but something God instituted at the Fall (i.e., at Adam and Eve's sin).113 This is a bedrock principle of the "no-death-before-the-Fall" theology. However, according to the accelerated decay hypothesis, some accelerated decay must have occurred during the creation week, long before Adam and Eve were created. Therefore, young-earth creationists who support the accelerated decay model will have to abandon, or revamp, that theology. The RATE team has raised some interesting issues and perhaps the accelerated decay hypothesis holds promise. However, it is not only premature, but irresponsible, for young-earth creationists to claim RATE proves anything. Even the RATE team admits the hypothesis creates huge scientific and theological problems they are nowhere close to solving, and additional research is needed on nearly every issue they examined.114 Such a rush to judgment not only reflects poorly on the young-earth creationists making these claims, but also on the Christian community as a whole. To paraphrase the great Christian theologian Augustine, how can we expect unbelievers to trust our statements about spiritual things if we make outlandish statements about worldly things?115 Obviously, we can't. Thus, it is our public witness we should be most concerned about, not promoting our sectarian views of the age of the earth. Bio Greg Moore is a graduate of Washington State University and works as the Water Conservation Manager for the city of Everett. A certified RTB apologist since 2000, Greg was among the founding members of the Seattle chapter, which he now serves as president. His monthly newsletters may be accessed under the "chapters" button. Myself I side with reasonstobelieve and maintain that they are jumping through a lot of hoops to make the evidence fit the, IMHO, very selective bias to a 6000 year old earth. Many men fail to take God's Eternal nature into account and try to make the evidence fit their limited understanding of Time. In fact in Genesis account itself, The sun was not created until the third day. How in the world can there be 24 hour days without a sun? The violations of logic go on and on by YEC's, and again I remind you this is all done to make the evidence fit a preconcieved bias, thus the trap is the same that the evolutionists have fell into and does not rate as pure unadulterated science.bornagain77_{June 3, 2008
June
06
Jun
3
03
2008
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

bornagain77
Thus the YECists commit an egregious violation of . . . what is currently known to be true in science."
The instant violation appears to be your violation of logic.
. . .unchanging universal constants (which is what is actually at the very basis of all dating techniques)
See NIST's Constants in the category " Universal constants Which of those address dating methods? Please read up on dating methods. There are many more issues in dating different from changing "universal constants". Many are addressed in Don DeYoung's Thousands not Billions. 2005, ISBN 0-89051-441-0. DeYoung in Ch 9 suggests that actual evidence may fit with accelerating radioactive decay rate models. How do you see that as any "universal constant" varying. Some YEC may have proposed that some "constants" may be varying parameters. However, do not tar all with the same brush. Please detail, document and support your criticism rather than trying to start a flame war.DLH_{June 2, 2008
June
06
Jun
2
02
2008
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

For Id to maintain its stance on unchanging universal constants (which is what is actually at the very basis of all dating techniques) is not a naturalistic postion, for the primary position of materialism presupposed that some of the constants would vary, and in fact extensive tests were performed to find variance in many of the universal constants and ratios. The verdict has been that they have remained exceedingly stable. Yet the base Theistic philosophy would presuppose that when God established a transcendent constant (law) that it would be unchanging from His decree. Thus the YECists commit an egregious violation of both what is expected of Theism as a base Philosophy, and a violation of what is currently known to be true in science.bornagain77_{June 2, 2008
June
06
Jun
2
02
2008
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Although the ID movement is fighting naturalism in biology, it is actually tolerating or even promoting naturalism in geology and astronomy -- which is not a consistent strategy -- thus undermining its potential effectiveness. ~ Terry Mortenson Will there be a podcast available for download?bevets_{June 2, 2008
June
06
Jun
2
02
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply