Creationists fail in bid to offer ‘science’ degrees

_{Mario Lopez

April 30, 2008

Creationism}

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

From Nature:

A religious group has had its application to offer Master of Science degrees rejected by Texas authorities. The Institute for Creation Research— which backs a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation of Earth in six days — was seeking a certificate to grant online degrees in science education in Texas (see Nature 451, 1030; 2008). But the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously last week not to grant the institute’s request, following the recommendation of Raymund Paredes, the state’s commissioner of higher education. “Religious belief is not science,” Paredes said in his recommendation. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.” The institute has 45 days to appeal or 180 days to reapply.

Religious belief is not science? Does Paredes feel that “religious” people can’t teach adequate science? He’s right, “religious belief is not science,” but should creationists be barred from teaching/offering degrees because of their beliefs? EXPELLED!

Comments

I went through a period of about 10 years where I accepted the YEC model. Eventually the angst of trying to shoehorn all the evidence of an old earth and an old universe into a 6-10 thousand year-old earth exceeded my confidence in the exegetical skills of those trying to convince me that Genesis I had to be interpreted as literal, scientific truth, or in the traditions or historical views of the same. That was over 20 years ago, and I've seen nothing in the evidence revealed in God's Creation since then that has come even remotely close to changing my mind.SCheesman_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Jonathan Sarfati:
This means that the creation debate is unlike the debate over baptism, Sabbath, the Millennium, forms of church government etc. All these views presuppose biblical authority, and debate what it means. But the debate over creation is really about whether the Bible is authoritative, or should uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology stand magisterially over Scripture?
I would counter that your assertion that all scripture is authoritative, where "authoratative" implies scientifically accurate is overreaching what scripture says about itself. Timothy says "All scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness". These could all remain true with an allegorical understanding of the first chapter of Genesis. Allegories can still be inspired, and profitable for instruction. Where does your certainty that all the Bible must be interpreted the same way come from? Does that certainty exceed any possible demonstration from science/nature that the universe is old? What would it take to change your mind?SCheesman_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

All the same, try deriving an old earth from the propositions of Scripture. All the non-YEC interpretations (gap, framework, day-age) are the result of trying to fit Scripture into millions of years. This means that the creation debate is unlike the debate over baptism, Sabbath, the Millennium, forms of church government etc. All these views presuppose biblical authority, and debate what it means. But the debate over creation is really about whether the Bible is authoritative, or should uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology stand magisterially over Scripture? See End-times and Early-times and chapter 1 of Refuting Compromise.Jonathan Sarfati_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Thanks Scordova. I hope my comments didn't sound snippy. I have Aspergers.PannenbergOmega_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

PannenbergO: I'm reluctant to tell people what is right or wrong. If they ask me, I can explain why I believe something, and I've been delighted to help atheists and agnostics into the Christian faith. I've been delighted to show fellow Christians that Darwinism is false based on the physical evidence alone. I can't recall that I ever told a believer "Darwinism is wrong because God said its wrong." If the evidence says Darwinism is wrong, its a moot point to even worry about arguing theology. There is no need to argue theology because the physical facts are so obvious. Yes there are issues with common descent and biological similarity, but the evidence shows that man could not have been the product of mindless processes. That is a significant enough fact for most.... I have my opinions, I go to a church which shares my opinions (a PCA church). I prefer that people have the freedom to believe what their conscience leads them. Faith from free choice and a clear conscience is probably more pleasing to God in the end.... Let's say hypothetically the world is young, and God delights that someone is a YEC. Would it not be more precious in His eyes that his profession of belief that God created the world recently came from his deepest convictions rather than being pressured to sign a creed or from fear of being labeled a "compromiser" by his peers? I can say at this time I think there is the possiblity of YEC. I'd go so far as to say it is a promising area for serious research....I could not say that 7 years ago. On the other hand, there are still problems that distrub me. I don't need every question to be answered to find YEC believable, but right now there are some pretty big obstacles. I think ID is on much more solid ground scientifically. But this is not surprising. ID's claims are far more modest than YEC. But with respect to the ICR grad school. Legally they are entitled to be acredited. But personally, I have felt the ICR's decline in their influence on YEC research and ID is a good thing. It's a bit disturbing, but the one individual who has been pretty good at damaging the YEC case came from the ICR, namely, Glen Morton! How many from the ICR grad school (excluding their faculty) have made a stellar contribution to ID or YEC theory? I don't think the anemic track record will change until they allow a bit more freedom to dissent and express doubts. I hold dearly this verse in Jude 1:22: "Be merciful to those who doubt." I can understand a church asking an elder who doubts to leave the church. But surely there should be places in Christendom where a doubter can find merciful treatment. I think a research university is one of them. Showing doubters the door in the very institutions where they might have a chance for their doubts to be cured does not seem very merciful to me.... As I said, research institutions and research universities should not be run like churches. Furthermore, I don't think the enterprise of science should be run through the process of creeds. If God made the world to testify of Him, we should be confident the facts will prevail in the end...scordova_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Hi Scordova, Thank you for that information. You are probably right. I am allowed my own view though, right?PannenbergOmega_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

I think you and John are correct about the dangers of OEC for Christianity.
PannenbergO: I do not think OEC is a danger of Christianity. That is a Ken Hamism...That is not my view. The major Creeds of Christianity do not mention the age of the Earth. I think it is plain wrong to be demonizing innocent Christians like Guillermo Gonzalez -- to be referring to them as people who are part of gang that are attacking the Christian world view (as Ken Ham does). I actually think ICR and AiG's method of doing business is a disgrace to the YEC cause and will actually impede the progress of YEC research. Not to mention Ken Ham's rather distasteful treatment of the CMI offshoot? Or how about the behavior of YECs like Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind? The model the Baraminology Study Group where problems are openly acknowledge and friendly critics of YEC are sought after and welcomed is the better way to do science, and in the end fosters more trust. Many of the BSG's top members studied in secular schools under Darwinists. Curiously, I don't recall seeing one graduate of ICR's grad school at BSG! Many of the best YECs came from OEC or Darwinist backgrounds. What does that tell you? One fairly respected contributor to YEC theory had this to say about his eventual frustration with the ICR grad school: Why I left YEC
This page is published with the full permission of a friend of mine, Steve Robertson who obtained his bachelor's degree from Christian Heritage College, the former educational arm of the Institute for Creation Research. Steve Robertson wrote a master's thesis which became an ICR Technical Monograph entitled, The Age of the Solar System: A Study of the Poynting-Robertson Effect and Extinction of Interplanetary Dust. This monograph was designed to show that the solar system was young because interstellar dust still remained. After school, Steve went to work as a geophysicist in the oil industry where he, like me, became intimately familiar with the geologic data that contradicted the young earth position. I have only seen Steve in person once in my life but we have communicated via phone often over the past 12 years and have become friends. Like me, Steve has anguished about the discrepancy between what he was taught and what he saw for years. This is because the ICR/young-earth approach makes a person feel that rejecting a young earth is equivalent to rejecting the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Steve has graciously allowed me to quote from an old letter he sent me nearly 11 years ago in 1987. Steve Robertson wrote: "It is sad to say that I am one of those CHC/ICR graduates who has had a severe crisis of faith as a result of their ministry." Letter, Steve Robertson to Glenn Morton Dated Feb 22, 1987. "My greatest beef with ICR is their polarization of the creation/evolution issue. If you are not entirely in their camp, by their own declarations you are entirely out of the camp of those who accept the Bible as a completely true and literal account of God's interaction with time, space and matter. There is no leeway for any other interpretation of the Biblical text since Henry Morris studied it and figured out what it really means. Now that he as found out exactly what God meant, all observations must fit within his (Morris') explanation of Genesis because God would not lie. It is not at all illogical to throw out interpretations/explanations of observed natural phenomena (biological, geological, astronomical, or what have you) even though there is no sufficient or reasonable alternative offered from their group. Petrified sand dunes in Utah CANNOT be subaerial, even though they show a complete set of characteristics that match present day subaerial dunes and the evaporite deposits in the lows between them demand a subaerial environment of formation, because they HAD to have been deposited in the flood and God doesn't lie. Varves CANNOT be annual features because they HAD to have been deposited in one year and God doesn't lie. Your example of the meander through carbonate rock CANNOT have been produced by eroding solid carbonate because it HAD to happen subaqueously and within minutes, hours or a day at most since the Bible clearly says that all geological formations except the basement rock and a thin upper veneer were laid down during the year of the flood. God doesn't lie! In ICR's logic, to ignore or deny problematic natural observations is not to be deceitful. (A perfect example of this is John Morris' statement that he has never seen a geological fact that did not fit equally as well or better in the flood model than any other model.) At worst, in their view, it would be glossing over what remains to be explained properly, and WOULD be explained properly if more scientists did creationist research. The problem, from ICR's viewpoint, is the vast, hidden conspiracy to interpret the world around us in a way to discredit the Bible, not that any of the data from the world around us is contrary to their explanation of what the Bible means in Genesis. This inflexible, dogmatic, self-blinding position is my bone of contention regarding ICR. Until a person begins to understand where they [the scientists--GRM] are coming from, and the rules of their game, he is incapable of realizing that he could question their dogma and still be a Bible believing Christian." He further wants to add: "I do not consider myself to have undergone a "severe crisis of faith" in the sense of struggling with whether to be a Christian or not. The struggle for me was to come to the point where I could accept that a Christian could disagree with Morris' interpretation and still believe in the literal truth of Genesis. For me, that crisis never wandered from within a Christian worldview. If it was a crisis, and I guess it would be fair to call it one, I look back now and believe it was a false one created by my naive acceptance of ICR's dogmatic presentation of their view as the only allowable Christian view. The result of this crisis was that I stopped actively participating in this debate and still consider myself to be mainly a passive bystander."
As for myself, I was effectively Expelled from Baylor and I'd be shown the door at ICR. Isn't school a place where you ought to have the freedom to express your questions and learn things you didn't know before. Same is true of scientific questions at a research institution.... Ironically, I feel far more comfortable at secular institution like Johns Hopkins, even though there are probably professors there that would gladly see me elsewhere. I have more confidence that I won't be tossed from the school because I refused to sign a creed of belief. I don't think universities and research institutions should be run like churches...churches should be run like churches.scordova_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Hi Sal, As I've mentioned before on this blog. I hope you're right about the possibility of a Young Cosmos. I think you and John are correct about the dangers of OEC for Christianity. As the decades go by, Christians really begin to "stretch" their interpetations of the Bible to make it compatible with Old Earth thinking.PannenbergOmega_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

thogan et al: I'd love to respond to all these questions, but this blog, and this thread, is not about YEC vs OEC. If Salvador posts some of these to Young Cosmos, I may take up the challenge in a few weeks...SCheesman_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Salvador, Re the 30,000 year old star: How do they know it's 30,000 years old? I presume they've divided 13 light years (the length of the tail) by 130km/sec (the estimated speed of the star). But what if the tail is not formed from matter left behind during the star's passage through space but is an electrical phenomenon? See here where, discussing a galaxy with a 200,000 light-year-long tail, the author states that
One of the hallmarks of plasma foci is that they glow in high-energy x-rays, gamma rays or ultra-violet, depending on how much current is available.
Mira's tail I've seen described as, "a wake broken into turbulent knots or loops," and, "two sinuous streams of material coming out of the star's front and back". If the tail is due to electrical currents would it take 30,000 years to form? I've no idea but maybe you have.Janice_{May 2, 2008
May
05
May
2
02
2008
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

thogan You mentioned historical sciences as irrational non-science. I pointed out that cosmology is an exception because we are literally looking at the past. If you want to refer to your work then either point to it or put a sock in it. I'm not interested in anonymous claims of credentials. The electromagnetic spectrum emitted by the universe at large covers a lot more than visible light, by the way. Ever heard of a radio telescope? Think you can fool electronic circuits and computer analysis into "seeing" whatever you want them to see? Let's see some of your "work". I dare you. DaveScot_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure why you brought up the point about seeing the stellar past in any case, since I didn't mention it before you.thogan_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

DaveScot When you look at a star from 200 million miles do you see the same image as at 2 light years? How about if the light is reflected from a series of mirrors and passes through filters and amplifiers? My physics work was in classical optics. I argued with a YEC astronomer about how with the right optics I could make him see whatever I wanted. The movie "Running Man" makes the same point. The teleological point of the old book about the stars is that their purpose was to give light on the earth. Draw inferences about stellar distances at your own risk.thogan_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

thogan When you look through a telescope you are looking directly at the past. Look at the moon and you're looking a few seconds into the past. Look at Mars and you're looking a few minutes into the past. Look at Alpha Centauri and you're looking a few years into the past. We can see billions of years into the past in this manner. If you don't understand that then your science literacy is woefully lacking. DaveScot_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: “What are you going to believe, a book thousands of years old packed full of absurd claims or your own eyes?” I suppose the science of ocean and wind currents, the water cycle, and spacial expansion mentioned in the thousands-year-old book are all absurd. When my eyes look far off into space I can't see as well as when I look near. I also find I have a problem varying perspectives significantly. When I try to look into earth's past, I find that I can see nothing. Maybe your eyes are magical, but mine aren't. I happen to accept methodological naturalism when doing science, but my demarcation criteria reject the oxymoronic "historical sciences" as irrational and non-science.thogan_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

Dr. Cheeseman, Perhaps you can explain the formation of the heavy metals found on earth (e.g., iron, lead, mercury, cesium) using accepted cosmogonical theories? Dr. Humphreys' model accounts for heavy metals on earth as well as finding organic compounds in meteorites. Its big advantage over competitors is that it has no lack of energy for heavy-metal formation or need for initial expansion. We are told, of course, that the expansion did occur at some point. Interesting that that the expansion of space is predicted by a scriptural framework without any measurements of space. "God stretched out the heavens." Do you know of any serious criticism of RATE? I don't consider Henke or the piece on the ASA site to be adequate. Has anyone measured the rate of helium loss from zircons under pressure? "All the dynamical systems we observe astronomically are built to last millions and billions of years" Solar comets--aren't they decreasing in number? My apologies, I have serious problems with regarding astronomy as a science, since the heavens are outside our realm of control. It is easy to imagine that undiscoverable systematic error (especially contextual error) can bias all measurements quite drastically towards a coherent, erroneous conclusion. Amazing how much hangs on the Hubble constant which keeps getting revised ad hoc and quite frequently in the not-too-distant past. I've barely dabbled in the lab, and that was long ago, but I've dabbled enough so that I have great respect for the knowledge and assurance gained by hands-on control with repeatability. The epistemological certainty of earth-bound science, cet. par., far exceeds that of astronomy, my apologies.thogan_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

DLH How is that any different from materialism? It isn't. When it comes to science I'm a materialist. In point of fact ID is not at all in opposition to materialist science so long as one grants that intelligence is, or may be, manifest in material form. DaveScot_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Noremacam, thank you for your generous comments on by books. Oh yes, the same old misinformation by Darwinists gets tiresome. But in some ways, even more worrysome are the church leaders who claim that evolution is just a side issue, or say, "I just believe in creation so it's no problem for me". They are too ostrich-like to know that it really is NOT a side issue and IS a problem for many people, as you have confirmed. The current Wikipedia article is about as good as can be expected under the circumstances. Wikipedia might be OK on non-controversial topics, but when it comes to anything controversial, it should be called The Abomination that Causes Misinformation. Anyone can edit that, or be promoted to administrative bullying powers so they can drown out debate, and there is the proven fraud Essjay. See also The Six Sins of the Wikipedia by Sam Vaknin Ph.D., 2 July 2006.Jonathan Sarfati_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

thogan Perhaps the fault is in the foolish eye of the beholder rather than God? If by that you mean to ask me: "What are you going to believe, a book thousands of years old packed full of absurd claims or your own eyes?" Need I really answer that?DaveScot_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: “If God created the universe just 6000 years ago he sure went to a whole lot of trouble to make it look like it happened many orders of magnitude farther in the past." Perhaps the fault is in the foolish eye of the beholder rather than God? Philosophically speaking, inferring a mechanism and conditions from a cause is irrational, yet such is done in all dating methods. "What is lacking cannot be counted." It's obviously true whether you believe the Bible or not.thogan_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Jonathan Sarfati: Let me just say thank you for your books. They have been a blessing to me. I always had a mental disconnect between the Bible and reality until I learned the absolute frailty of evolutionary theory. I had no reason to consider trusting the Word until then. Your work is doing wonders in causing people to consider the Word. Keep writing. One of the things I'm curious about: Do you regularly get frustrated by misinformation by Darwinists? More interestingly, how do you feel about your Wikipedia article? Sorry I don't have a much more intellectually stimulating question to ask, I'm just curious. :o)Noremacam_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Dr. Cheesman, You were my inspiration to go to grad school in physics at Johns Hopkins. It was either physics at Johns Hopkins or Engineering at Robert Mark's Evolution Informatics Lab at Baylor. Well, we all know what happened to my tuition offer at Baylor when the EIL was shut down....It seems God sent me to Hopkins rather than Baylor. I thought your Old Earth arguments were very potent and should not be ignored. The quietness at Young Cosmos is owing to the fact that some very basic research needs to be done for the stalemate to end. Basic triangulation and astrometry need to be revisited. I'm not far along enough in my studies to offer anything productive at this point, except an occasional polemic against the Darwinists... regards and God bless you, Salvadorscordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Salvador:
If this test fails, I think I’ll owe Dr. Cheesman a beer. If it succeeds, he can by me a beer [I don’t drink beer, but I would for that occasion.]
OK, now you've blown my feeble pseudonym cover. But I look forward to the beer. It's been quiet over at "Young Cosmos" for several months now, but this is a great opportunity to share some of the evidences of an old universe not mentioned above, and which might be new to some readers. Models of the origin of the moon, and its increasing distance from the earth due to tidal interactions, independently give an age for the earth measured in billions of years. I have read an internet account by YEC sources saying simple calculations show the tidal repulsion is in fact too large, and the earth-moon system cannot be so old, but tidal interactions are quite tightly coupled to continental configurations and ocean depth. What is remarkable is that the figure you get from a ballpark estimate is within a factor of two of the age estimated from radioactive decay. YEC explanations for the origin of craters on the moon are fantastical, and, from an earthly perspective, utterly deadly and inimical to the continuance of life. Many amazing processes such as stellar nucleosynthesis (creating the elements from which life is made) are extraordinary demonstrations of God's providence in an old universe, but utterly without utility in a new one. All the dynamical systems we observe astronomically are built to last millions and billions of years, and reflect their ages; from the distributions of velocities in globular clusters, to the resonances of panetary rotations and orbits, to the birth and death of stars in galactic arms. Large impact craters such as the at Chicxulub crater in Mexico, are devastating enough in an OEC framework. Imagine the concentrated affect of it and all the other recognized craters concentrated into the few thousand years leading up to and during the flood (because they sure didn't happen since then). Any theory of vast changes in the speed of light in order to avoid the creation of a universe with the mere appearance of age (e.g. what we see of distant galaxies is really just an illusion in light, created in transit) produces measurable affects in the measured movements of stellar objects. We can now measure directly (and I mean by their observed motion, relative to distant galaxies as measured on photographs) the revolution of globular clusters about our galaxy, as well as the actual motion of stars orbiting the centers of gravity of the clusters themselves. These movements are just what you'd expect if there were no "time distortion" introduced by changes in the speed of light. (By way of explanation, some, such as Barry Setterfield, have proposed that the speed of light was near-infinite at the moment of creation and decreased over time to its present value, thus explaing how 6000 years of light might fill a 15-billion year universe). Thats enough for now... maybe this will spur some of you reading out there to post some responses to existing threads on Young Cosmos. I love a challenge.SCheesman_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: "If God created the universe just 6000 years ago he sure went to a whole lot of trouble to make it look like it happened many orders of magnitude farther in the past. The same holds true for common descent. If God created all the kinds at once de novo from dirt 6000 years ago he sure went to a whole lot of trouble to make it look instead like common descent over hundreds of millions of years." I think God went to a lot of trouble to explain what He did in the Bible. He also put immense roadblocks in the way of faith in an old earth, such as radiocarbon in diamonds and blood cells and vessels in dino bones. He also went to the trouble of creating distinct groups with similarities that point to one designer rather than many, but with differences that thwart evolutionary explanations. I also dispute that the earth "looks old". It didn't look old to geological pioneer Steno for example.Jonathan Sarfati_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

What does YEC beliefs have to do with teaching modern, observable physics, astronomy, biology, electronics, chemestry, etc. How things got here is the domain of faith. How they work in the current, real-world, is the domain of science.
That is actually very very good question. For starters, if our geological models are wrong that affects our ability to successfully steward the planet's resource and deal with Earthquakes etc. If YEC leads to a correction to Maxwell's equations which allow faster than current speed of light communication or travel, then that is a significant technological development.... If accelerated nucler decay happened in the past, that will affect our understanding of atomic structure... If genetic entropy is real, it will influence medical advancement and treatment of disease... If YEC cosmology based on stochastic electro-dynamics and zero-point energy is true, then that may influence issues in building spacecraft of the future.... The stakes are not just for knowing about our past but potenetially influencing technology of the future....scordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Borne: "Are you aware that many of the old (long before modern cosmology) Jewish rabbis believed in an OEC interpretation of Genesis? That their view was Gap theory coincident?" The views of Kabbalists were hardly representative. Josephus and Ibn Ezra believed in a straightforward 6-day creation about 6000 years ago. I cover Jewish exegetes as well as Christian ones in Refuting Compromise ch. 3.Jonathan Sarfati_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

this paragraph
Lack of erosion where? Lack of salinization where? Are you saying that the grand canyon indicates a young earth? Those stones are hard and you simply can’t erode them in Before you go around accusing me of not following the evidence, perhaps you better answer some of those questions….
Should have looked like Lack of erosion where? Lack of salinization where? Are you saying that the grand canyon indicates a young earth? Those stones are hard and you simply can’t erode them in 6000 or 60000 years.
Before you go around accusing me of not following the evidence, perhaps you better answer some of those questions….
No edit function. Is that a design decision? :)Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

To Uthan: I think this "all evidence points to X" has been played out. It may point to X according adherents of the dominant paradigm, but sometimes it all fall down. Not only that, there are no such things as unbiased, everything is interpreted by people and people have their own subjective presuppositions. What is the deal with the guy trying to work on a YEC model? Let him try to finish the thing then he can compare it with the current models and see if it can compete on the market.MaxAug_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Dr. Sarfati: This new book is very good news, hopefully it will rock. I know there are criticisms of the Literary Framework Hypothesis, and I know it definitely needs some more working, but again: I still think it is a very good Biblical explanation. It is interesting some people attacking it because it is new, well, as far as I know, all this baraminology way of thinking is also new… Salvador: I agree with both your comments on Pv 25 and the museum (though I wonder if the money AiG is getting is not going to finance some research?). Currently I’m not bothered by the age of the earth / universe, on the other hand, the extension of the flood seems to me a way bigger problem. And you guys don’t get me wrong, I do believe scriptures (the originals) are inerrant and inspired, but unfortunately not written yesterday exclusively for me as a pdf file. There are a lot of things there that are really difficult to figure out.MaxAug_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Grace
How things got here is the domain of faith.
Luckily not everybody shares your lack of curiosity. I'm glad you've found an answer that saatisifies you, but personally I find a fable from the bronze age to be somewhat unsatisfying as an explnation.Uthan Rose_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply