Creationism Intelligent Design

Cocktails! The relevance of YEC to ID

Spread the love

Is the hypothesis of Young Earth Creation (YEC) relevant to ID? Most in the ID community will say, “NO”, but let me offer some reasons to think the answer could be, “YES”.

The hypothesis of a young Earth or young universe comes from religious beliefs rooted in a chronology constructed by taking the genealogies in the Bible (like Luke Chapter 3, 1 Chronicles or the Table of Nations in Genesis 10). YEC is not strictly an Evangelical Christian hypothesis but is accepted by some Jewish traditions. For example, see this commentary on the Jewish calendar by physicist Gerald Schroeder:

One of the most obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of the Bible, we come to 5700-plus years. Whereas, data from the Hubble telescope or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the age at about 15 billion years.

Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators’ description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.

Gerald Schroeder
Age of the Universe

[Gerald Schroeder was in the movie Expelled, and his writings were influential to converting Antony Flew from atheism to theism. He is obviosly on the pro-ID side of the debate.]

But, problematic for YEC-sympathetic skeptics like myself, most of the claims of a young cosmos proceed from religious beliefs, not hard empirical data, and worse, it is in conflict with mainstream accepted physics.

However, let us suppose that some future scientific discoveries begin to overturn mainstream views about the age of the universe. What if these discoveries cause us to seriously reconsider that the universe is substantially younger than it is today. And if not the whole universe, even demonstrating the Solar System, the Earth, or the geological column are young would have huge payoffs for ID.

One does not even need to revise long ages to 6000 years. Even demonstrating it is on the order of a few hundred million years, or demonstrating certain geological features are not more than 10 million years old vs. 500 million years old will absolutely overturn the dominance of Darwinism.

Most of the founding leaders of ID accept the conventional age of the universe. Few YECs have formal affiliations with ID organizations (like the Discovery Institute, IDEA, etc.) To my knowledge, only YECs like Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, Nancy Pearcey, myself have had formal ties to ID organizations. ID is dominated (and I think that is a good thing) by those that accept the conventional age of the universe and the geological column. But what if the young cosmos or young Earth or young geological column hypothesis becomes scientifically defensible? The payoff will be enormous for ID, and most of evolutionary biology will be overturned.

Are there anomalies that have kept my hopes for a Young Cosmos (in spite of doubts) alive? Absolutely. The reason I’m posting this, is that when readers say, “Sal, why are you posting YEC stuff here at UD? Isn’t YEC irrelevant to ID?”

I’ll respond by saying, “No. It could be very relevant if true. If the universe or earth or even the geological column are demonstrated to be young, evolutionism is toast, and ID prevails.” And then I’ll point them to this essay.

The chances for the truthfulness of the young cosmos or young Earth or young geological column hypothesis is remote, but in light of the potential payoff, if one were a betting man like Pascal, betting on revised ages is a favorable wager. Nevertheless, ID proponents are still prevailing even with the assumption of old ages. A revision to young ages would be icing on the cake and ID’s ultimate triumph.

NOTES:

I use the word “Cocktail” in the title to emphasize the informal nature of this thread akin to a discussion over a beer or cocktail. Public blogs are for fruitful and informal brainstorms and are not intended as serious venues for scholarship. However, blogs might be a starting point for ideas leading to interesting research projects.

One professor of mine, James Trefil, recounted how a discussion over a beer was the start of a research project that led to his book, Are We Alone:The Possibility of Extraterrestrial Civilizations , which became an inspiration for many in the ID movement (even though Trefil himself completely rejects ID). Trefil famously said in that book:

If I were a religious man, I would say that everything we have learned about life in the past 20 years shows that we are unique and therefore special in God’s sight.

35 Replies to “Cocktails! The relevance of YEC to ID

  1. 1
    Robert Byers says:

    Wait a minute.
    When its said conclusions about origins, like age of earth, are religious ones its missing the power of YEC.
    We are saying God was a witness to origins and wrote to mankind, as surely a God would do, what happened.
    Religious doesn’t explain the point here.
    Genesis is saying its a witness and deny its truthfulness but one MUST accept a witness has said something. Fool or liar there it is.
    Christian civilization , which is modern civilization, has agreed with Genesis some or a lot until the present.
    You can’t dismiss the witness as biased.

    There is no evidence on earth for a long earth existence.
    Geology can be explained by YEC thinkers. No problem.
    Remember without the geology evolution or ID critics ain’t got a biological leg to stand on.
    Never do i see biology origins being explained without geology presumptions desperately embraced.

  2. 2
    Barb says:

    I loved Schroeder’s book “Genesis and the Big Bang”. I think he definitely has some interesting ideas about geology. The problem is that there appear to be only two alternatives: the YEC 6-day (literal) creation of the Earth or the evolutionary timetable (based on Lyell’s work) that indicates the Earth and universe may be eons old.

    I think a third view may be in order: the Genesis view. We’re told in the opening verse that there was a “beginning” and we’re shown that an intelligent creator was behind this creative work. No time period is given. It harmonizes with the conclusions of astronomers that the universe did have a beginning, that it is very well ordered, and that it is governed by definite laws. An orderly arrangement based on law can come only from an intelligent mind. While science has explained many of these laws to us, Genesis alone introduces us to the Lawgiver.

    The account in Genesis then goes on to outline the famous six “days” of creation. These days, though, were not the time during which the material of the earth and the universe was created. That had already happened “in the beginning.” The six days of creation were, rather, the periods of time during which the primordial, inhospitable earth was slowly made fit for habitation. The term “day” used in Genesis does not merely refer to a literal 24-hour period. In the original Hebrew, it can mean longer periods of time. In the English language, we speak of “back in my day” or “in my father’s day” and we know that we’re not speaking of literal 24-hour periods, but rather decades of time.

  3. 3
    Chance Ratcliff says:

    Sal, a few thoughts. It looks to me like the following logic reasonably models the relationship between YEC and ID:

    YEC implies ID. Therefore,

    If YEC is true, then so is ID. (sufficiency)
    If YEC is false, ID can still be true. (sufficient but not necessary)
    I ID is false, so is YEC. (necessity)

    So ID is necessary for YEC to be true, but the converse does not hold. Does this seem reasonable?

    This would also appear to be the case:

    Darwinian evolution implies not YEC. Therefore,

    If Darwinian evolution is true, then YEC is false. (sufficiency)
    If Darwinian evolution is false, YEC can still be false. (sufficient but not necessary)
    If YEC is true, then Darwinian evolution is false. (necessity)

    So by my reasoning, I think you are correct. ID and YEC have a relationship. But ID is not dependent upon YEC. The converse appears true however, that YEC is dependent upon ID, at least logically (perhaps this inference would fail if there is a possible world in which YEC is true but not ID). As long as we can say that YEC is sufficient for ID, then its validation both affirms ID and denies Darwinian evolution.

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    Sal, a few thoughts. It looks to me like the following logic reasonably models the relationship between YEC and ID:

    YEC implies ID. Therefore,

    If YEC is true, then so is ID. (sufficiency)
    If YEC is false, ID can still be true. (sufficient but not necessary)
    I ID is false, so is YEC. (necessity)

    So ID is necessary for YEC to be true, but the converse does not hold. Does this seem reasonable?

    You’re the only one in the whole world who has articulated the views I share in such an exacting way. Yes it is reasonable, and imho, absolutely correct!

    The rest I agree with as well, hence, YECs have a very vested interest in seeing ID prevail. ID does not need YEC to prevail, but it would be an absolute rout for ID over Darwinism if the YEC is even partially vindicated i.e. a younger geological column (say 10 million years), old age of the Earth and Cosmos.

  5. 5

    scordova:

    And if not the whole universe, even demonstrating the Solar System, the Earth, or the geological column are young would have huge payoffs for ID.

    No. It would have huge payoffs for YEC, but ID doesn’t care.

    Unless by “huge payoffs” you are thinking of something else other than evidentiary support. Maybe all you’re trying to say is that a young Earth would make some people who have hitherto been unwilling to consider ID stop and consider the possibility of design in biology (because they would realize the deep time isn’t available for Darwinism)?

    —–

    Chance @3

    I think you have some good thoughts there.

  6. 6
    JGuy says:

    Sal,
    Glad to see you planning to post on this topic – perhaps one of my favorites as you may recall from here & posts on ARN. Your reasoning for this is sound. And I’ve always seen this in the same light as you – as articulated by Chance Ratcliff above.

    You wrote that ‘YEC is not strictly an Evangelical Christian hypothesis but is accepted by some Jewish traditions.’
    I’d like to emphasize the obvious, that these are hypothesis using the same sources to arrive at the young age of the earth. And as far as I know, it is the only basis for making such a very risky prediction. Therefore, it would be a maximally potent argument for the writings of the Old Testament shared by the Jewish and Christian faiths. This is why it is a more exciting topic to me, as a YEC, than all the numerous arguments for ID combined.

    Looking forward to any future posts you make on the topic.

    JGuy

  7. 7
    JGuy says:

    Eric @ 5

    It would benefit ID greatly. At least in this way:

    (1) It would show that the intelligent design of life was necessary. Vindicating the entire past enterprise of ID.

    (2) It would necessarily eliminate continued prejudice in the scientific community against ID.

    JGuy

  8. 8
    Chance Ratcliff says:

    Sal @4, thank you. I’m glad I was interpreting you correctly, and that we have definite agreement there — JGuy too it would seem.

    Eric @5, thanks much. I’d say that ID has no dependence on YEC. But if the implication holds, then YEC being true would automatically vindicate ID, at least on some level. The converse is not true however. ID being true would not necessarily vindicate YEC, which cannot be true if the earth is truly old.

  9. 9
    Chance Ratcliff says:

    Barb @2, yes, those are interesting ideas. I think there’s a fourth way however. It is possible, based upon your reasoning in the first part of your third paragraph, both that the earth is old, and that everything subsequent happened in six literal days. I’m just pointing out that there’s no reason I can see why the earth’s age and the six days of subsequent creation are necessarily yoked together. In this way, one’s faith in a more literal reading of Genesis 1-3, and the preference for a six-day series of creation events, may be separable from certain evidences for an old earth. There is, of course, much more to consider from an evidentiary point of view. I just wanted to bring this up.

  10. 10
    scordova says:

    Maybe all you’re trying to say is that a young Earth would make some people who have hitherto been unwilling to consider ID stop and consider the possibility of design in biology (because they would realize the deep time isn’t available for Darwinism)?

    Whether people will be convinced (especially those determined to disbelieve) is one thing, but at least empiriclaly speaking, that is exactly the point, Deep time isn’t available, the UPB went down a few notches in terms of the avaiable resources (like time).

    Sal

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    SC:

    An interesting point, and certainly one that things like the soft tissues and preserved cells in dinosaurs should make us look at carefully.

    But, I am not so sure the issue is one of warrant.

    It can fairly easily be shown that FSCO/I, especially dFSCI on the gamut of 500 – 1,000 bits or more is maximally implausible on bland chance and/or mechanical necessity, on the gamut of our solar system or our observed cosmos. Indeed we are talking of comparatives like making a cubical haystack as thick as our galaxy and superposing it on our neighbourhood then doing a blind sample of size about 1 straw. To all but certainty such will reflect the bulk: straw.

    Moreover, it can readily be shown that the only empirically warranted causal source is design. Where also we are designers and just to post in comment threads manifests the case that design is the empirically warranted source of FSCO/I.

    All of this is readily accessible to someone with HS math.

    And yet, in the teeth of the implications of this, given the FSCO/I in cells and so forth, we meet all sorts of determined resistance and attack attack attack.

    What is at stake here is a worldview level commitment, an a priori.

    So, I confidently state that any indication that the earth is a lot younger than is currently estimated will be shunted aside and dismissed. Regardless of degree of empirical warrant.

    It will be tagged nonsense and the person who stands up will be swarmed under by a tide of attack dogs.

    However, what can be done is to start with what we already have. Even on the timelines suggested, the thing cannot work. Because of the implications of FSCO/I.

    And those who refuse to acknowledge the force of the evidence, are showing themselves to be dogmatic a priori ideologues, no mind how many lab coats they may wear or have hanging in their closet.

    But then, we have outright admissions to that fact.

    Quote them, and you will be falsely accused of quote mining.

    Alinskyite tactics will be trotted out to demonise and dismiss. And, to do damage.

    In the end, enough people will wake up to what is going on, and will repudiate the system.

    Unfortunately, the damage to science, science education and key institutions in our civilisation might have been fatal by that time.

    In short, it is not going to be science debates that will decide this, but pain, massive pain from existential threats triggered by folly, and a critical mass of people waking up.

    Just as I hope it does not take a city vapourised to wake us up to the madness of radical IslamISM. Right now, way too many are in denial.

    On too many fronts.

    Our civilisation is mortally wounded, it will take a miracle at this point.

    But in Acts 27, there was a miracle.

    KF

  12. 12
    scordova says:

    But, I am not so sure the issue is one of warrant.

    Certainly not for all, but for some. And if for nothing else, it is always worth it to learn more and follow the evidence where it leads. For myself, age of various things is an open question. Soft tissue in dinsaurs is indeed an embarrassment to paleontology. The Earth could be old but the geological column quite young. That will be the subject of a future post.

  13. 13
    buffalo says:

    Consider Genesis 1 appears to be written from God’s perspective. Imagine a rolled up measuring tape 7 times. God sees the entire tape with its layers at once. We live on the tape and must look back past all the graduations.

  14. 14
    tjguy says:

    Barb @2

    I think a third view may be in order: the Genesis view. We’re told in the opening verse that there was a “beginning” and we’re shown that an intelligent creator was behind this creative work. No time period is given. It harmonizes with the conclusions of astronomers that the universe did have a beginning, that it is very well ordered, and that it is governed by definite laws. An orderly arrangement based on law can come only from an intelligent mind. While science has explained many of these laws to us, Genesis alone introduces us to the Lawgiver.

    Barb, if the only information we had about creation were found in Genesis 1, then perhaps your interpretation would hold more water, but the Bible is a whole. We can’t pick and choose which chapters/verses to believe and which to discard or twist to fit our views.

    For instance, we know that Adam was the first human being. His genealogy is found numerous times in Scripture. Perhaps an argument could be made for a few extra generations here or there, but you could never fit in millions/billions of years. That would clearly violate the text. Adam was created on Day 6. We know from God Himself, Ex. 20:11, that He created the heaven and the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th for a specific reason – to give the pattern for our 7 day week. The length of a year, month, and day come from the solar bodies, but not our week. He is clearly using the word day in a literal 24 hour sense in this passage. In fact, as clear as Genesis 1 is, it is hard to understand how it could not be a literal 24 hour day. How could He have made it any clearer?

    Then we have the global flood that would have deposited huge amounts of sedimentary rock continent wide all over the earth. A uniformitarian approach to rock formation will never understand this. Genesis 6-8 supports a young earth.

    Then we have Jesus’ own words where He says that He created them male and female at the beginning of creation. I hardly think “beginning of creation” could mean the last 99,999% of history!

    The account in Genesis then goes on to outline the famous six “days” of creation. These days, though, were not the time during which the material of the earth and the universe was created. That had already happened “in the beginning.” The six days of creation were, rather, the periods of time during which the primordial, inhospitable earth was slowly made fit for habitation. The term “day” used in Genesis does not merely refer to a literal 24-hour period. In the original Hebrew, it can mean longer periods of time. In the English language, we speak of “back in my day” or “in my father’s day” and we know that we’re not speaking of literal 24-hour periods, but rather decades of time.

    Why do you think the “the primordial, inhospitable earth was slowly made fit for habitation”?

    Just curious. You will not find that anywhere in the Scripture. You will find that it happened in just 6 days. True. The word “day” can mean a longer period of time, but the way it is used in Genesis 1 makes it pretty clear. It is used in conjunction with the words “morning”, “evening”, and numbers. These all help to inform the meaning of the word “day”. It is only in the last 200 years – since science adopted the idea of uniformitarianism – that this interpretation has taken hold. In other words, if your interpretation is correct, God didn’t do a very good job of communicating His truth, did He? In fact, He basically mislead all of humanity until finally, evolutionists gave us the correct interpretation of God’s Word. That is hard for me to fathom!

    So just because a word has a wide variety of meanings, we are not free to pick and choose the meaning we want. The context is important. The word day is used in several different senses in Gen 1-2. 2:4 “in the day of my father” type of usage. It is also used to represent just the 12 hour light portion of the day in chapter one. But when it talks about day 1 day 2, morning and evening all together, the meaning is quite clear in my opinion. If it weren’t for “science” I doubt anyone would have ever come up with this “day age theory”.

    The whole of Scripture is important. And God Himself made it pretty clear in the words He Himself engraved on the 10 Commandments. II Peter 3 warns that in the last days people will reject a global flood and doubt Jesus’ return because of this claim: “Everything continues on from the beginning until today as it always did.” This is basically using the idea of uniformitarianism as a reason to reject the flood and creation and as a result, the future coming of Christ.

  15. 15
    scordova says:

    tjguy,

    The problem is all this preaching and hermeneutics doesn’t make a persuassive empirical case. If one makes a persuassive empirical case, then all these discussions don’t even need to happen.

    The reason for the alternative interpretations is that Creationists like James Clerk Maxwell created electromagnetic theory, which combined with astrophysical observations makes it difficult to reconcile what we see with our instruments with the interpretation you suggest. So the irony of ironies is that Old Earth theory came about by the scientific (not theological work) of a creationist.

    So, all you’ve done by insistence on one interpretation of Genesis give people on the sidelines is more reasons to believe the Bible is wrong. Some have then rejected the Bible because to them the data didn’t agree.

    Reminds me of those who opposed heliocentrism in favor of geocentrism because the Bible said the Earth was immovable…

    “There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

    Martin Luther defending geocentrism

    You could make a more believable case if you can come up with:

    1. observations
    2. hypotheses
    3. tests

    that would support young Earth. Short of that, all your insistence on the rightness of your interpretation might actually persuade some to leave the faith.

    The point of this thread was YEC’s relevance from an empirical (not theological) standpoint on ID.

    I appreciate Barb’s and other’s theological alternatives which wouldn’t have to even be done if YECs had a far more credible and empirical case. I think YECs have a partial case, but not a slam dunk.

    Sorry, you can see I’m resentful of YEC culture. I went to grad school to and suffered to learn hard subjects to help get a better grasp of the issue, and all I saw was a bunch of preaching and museum building, nothing that resembled a serious search in what God has made. When I had questions about relativity and maxwell’s equations and nuclear physics, all I got was preaching like what you’ve just provided. I don’t like a culture where reasonable questions can’t be raised without an inqusition coming down.

    If we are to declare the works of God, as he commands, then it seems to me we ought to study it.

    I’m enthusiastic about the possibility that the world is young, but making inflexible theological arguments? Reminds me of the geocentrists.

    That is the problem. The YECs don’t have a very believable case, and too many of them go around condemning the doubtful in clear violation of Jude 1:22.

    If you and others will pre-empt any contrary piece of data via theological fiat, why would anyone find integrity in that sort of search for truth?

    So, supposing your interpretation is the most defensible from a hermeneutical standpoint, that doesn’t make it defensible from the stand point of our knowlege base.

    Some, like Ken Ham, say it’s a matter of world view. Actually that’s unbiblical. God promises in Romans 1:20 that the world is made such that men are without excuse. Whatever their world view is, the facts are promised to be at variance with every world view save the true one.

    You are arguing scripture, it would be helpful to hear some facts.

    And finally, here is what happened to one ICR physics grad student. I can relate:

    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.”

    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.

    What happens to a Young Earth Advocate

  16. 16

    JGuy @7 and Chance @8, and scordova generally:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but a young Earth does not necessarily mean Young Earth Creation. The key question would still remain regarding how life came about and diversified on Earth.

    I think it is a little naive to think that a young Earth would suddenly convert a legion of materialists to non-materialists because “the time is too short.”

    4B years, 4M years, 4K years. It is all a rounding error in the larger probability calculations. If someone can’t see the facts in front of their nose with the evidence as it stands right now, it is doubtful they will change their tune just because you’ve added a few more zeroes to the probability calculations.

    Yes, there might be a few folks on the fence who would sit up and take notice, but you can bet a lot of committed materialists wouldn’t bat an eye. After all, we’ve already got punctuated equilibrium, which essentially argues that evolution occurs too quickly to see and in places where we can’t see it. All we need is a “hyper-punctuated equilibrium” hypothesis and, viola, no problem with a 10K-year evolution scenario!

    So, yes, a young Earth would be helpful to ID in the sense that it would get some fence sitters to sit up and take notice. But for so many of the other folks, it isn’t like we are dealing with a rational, dispassionate search for the truth anyway. They are clearly not saying: “I think materialistic Darwinism is true — but only just barely; and if you can add a few more zeroes to the calculation then I will admit that design is required.”

  17. 17

    Adding to my #16:

    Furthermore, with a young Earth, the materialist can always fall back to a modified panspermia or some other “explanation” away from the young age of the Earth for how life could have arisen and diversified so fast.

    As far as making the case for ID is concerned, tweaking the time parameter is no different than tweaking the specified complexity parameter.

    Would we really say “Gee, if only the bacterial flagellum had an additional 10 parts, that would really convince the materialists that design is required!” or “If only there were new data demonstrating that the average protein consists of 500 amino acids instead of 300, that would really push the ID story over the line and convince lots of people.

    Such additional hurdles in the probability calculation would have precisely no impact on the committed materialists — the additional zeroes in the calculation ironically producing zero effect in the outcome.

  18. 18
    scordova says:

    I think it is a little naive to think that a young Earth would suddenly convert a legion of materialists to non-materialists because “the time is too short.”

    Agreed. What I should have said is ID will triumph in the eyes of those willing to see. Even if the Darwinists won’t agree, it would be reassuring whenever more data comes in that tells me I was on the right side to issue. It would, for me personally, tell me ID won by large margin.

    Sometimes reassurance is important, because it helps give one courage in the face of materialist onslaught that is willing to resort to dirty tactics to suppress contrary opinions.

  19. 19
    Chance Ratcliff says:

    Eric @16,

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but a young Earth does not necessarily mean Young Earth Creation. The key question would still remain regarding how life came about and diversified on Earth.”

    Right. A young earth would leave no time for Darwinian evolution, but by itself would not establish how life arose.

    “I think it is a little naive to think that a young Earth would suddenly convert a legion of materialists to non-materialists because “the time is too short.””

    I suspect you may right. Just to note, when I wrote my post at #3 I was thinking of YEC in general, which would imply more than just a young earth.

    “4B years, 4M years, 4K years. It is all a rounding error in the larger probability calculations.”

    Lol! Yeah, just considering the sequence space of an average length polypeptide makes a few billion years look like a cat nap. 😉

    “So, yes, a young Earth would be helpful to ID in the sense that it would get some fence sitters to sit up and take notice. But for so many of the other folks, it isn’t like we are dealing with a rational, dispassionate search for the truth anyway.”

    Good point. There’s gobs of evidence already for design, especially given what we now know about molecular biology. While I suspect that confirming a young earth might rattle more than a few cages because of its implications to the Genesis account, it seems like big bang confirmation should have accomplished something similar already. Does anyone know of atheist or agnostic testimonies of conversion to theism because of big bang cosmology?

  20. 20
    butifnot says:

    Sal, I believe most have under appreciated the dogma and religious fanaticism involved with science that touches on age. The analysis of all relevant observations and data is so tainted as to be thoroughly non-scientific. Each and every contradictory observation has been and will be explained away. A serious unbiased (as possible) reexamination of ‘the’ evidence will yield surprising results.

    Is this science operating?

    Kuiper Belt: These comets would have evaporated by now. There ‘must’ be a source to replenish them.

    Ort Cloud: These comets cant have come from the first ad-hoc source, there must be two.

    Soft tissue and intact proteins in mega old fossils: Wow! soft tissue and proteins and biologic molecules can survive for MILLIONS of years.

    These galaxies are not moving the way they ‘should’: Must be some dark fairy matter – in just the right place and amount.

    All the ______ on/in this solar body should have evaporated or dissipated long ago: ‘Scientific proof’ of a hidden source.

    This body can not be this hot given the ‘known’ age: Lets find that heater.

    This structure can not have persisted ‘this long’: Search for the replenishing mechanism.

    etc
    etc
    etc

    but making inflexible theological arguments? Reminds me of the geocentrists.

    Long-ages are the current inflexible theological argument. Sal, it was the scientists and ‘smartest’ people of the time who espoused long disproven and now laughed at theories.

    “…This inflexible, dogmatic, self-blinding position”

    “If you and others will pre-empt any contrary piece of data via theological fiat, why would anyone find integrity in that sort of search for truth?”

    Perfect description of current ‘majority’ science. It is ridiculous to think that they are one bit less dogmatic than ‘fundamentalists’.

    So, supposing your interpretation is the most defensible from a hermeneutical standpoint, that doesn’t make it defensible from the stand point of our knowlege base.

    When you say ‘knowledge base’ I think of “ALL of our knowledge base supports evolution which is as sure as the theory of gravity”. Heck, ‘our knowledge base’ supported all manner of incorrect theories throughout history!

    Reminds me of those who opposed heliocentrism in favor of geocentrism because the Bible said the Earth was immovable…

    Interpreting the bible by the current science of the time is going to be trouble. And everyone says ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’. And ‘the church’ at the time of Galileo had accepted Greek, Aristotelian cosmology, interpreting the bible to support the current science, which mistake has continued till today.

    It’s too bad you had bad experiences with YEC’s. But your caricature of them as lower intelligence, blind to reality and lacking any supporting evidence is not true – and very familiar as in how evolutionists refer to ID. Put any subject in the search engine here, creation.com and you will find something else.

    I believe many YEC’s, and possibly a current or soon to be majority have come to that view because of science and not religion. The typical story – I had faith in the bible growing up – went to college… – came back to faith after really looking at the evidence for myself.

    If one is not familiar with dozens of cases (of hundreds) of observations which are consistent with a young age and contradict long ages, they are willfully ignorant or biased, in this age of instant access to information.

    And cosmology and astronomy have taken a ride right out of reality.

    Evolution is inexorably bound to loooong ages. I am sure any universally accepted age under one million would completely destroy it.

  21. 21
    butifnot says:

    Reminds me of those who opposed heliocentrism in favor of geocentrism because the Bible said the Earth was immovable…

    “There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

    Martin Luther defending geocentrism

    An interesting note on this passage supporting geocentrism, which would be as much as saying sunrise anyways. Not only the sun but the moon also Joshua bid to stand still and are recorded both as not moving.

  22. 22
    tjguy says:

    OK Sal, thanks for the post. I’ll look into some of the things you mentioned.

    I do recognize that some people will be turned off by the YEC approach, but on the other hand, many are won over as well – although that doesn’t happen with scientists as much with regular people I wrote that post in response to Barb who gave her reasoning for why she thought the days of Genesis should be interpreted as long ages. If she is able to post her opinion, I should be able to post mine as well. I’m sorry if it offended you. I can understand where you are coming from.

    I believe there are very good biblical reasons to interpret the days as 24 hours and you can’t just ignore these and pick whatever possible meaning you want. Original intent is important.

    In the end, it comes down to one’s view of the Word of God. Is it authoritative when it comes to science and history as well as spiritual matters or is it inferior to science?

    Finding a way to mesh the two to avoid that problem is great if it works, but if we twist the scripture from page one, that has huge implications for how we interpret Scripture all the way through.

    Plus, we set a precedent that whenever science disagrees with the Bible, we should go with science. What if psychology disagrees with the Bible, or archeology, anthropology, or some other branch of science?

    These are all imprecise sciences – historical sciences and so there is a lot of interpretation that goes into this type of science. That is why if we really want to know what happened in the past, I believe it is important that we start with the word of the Creator Himself.

    For instance, was there a global flood or not? If so, that has huge implications for geology. We don’t see floods like that scope happening today, so evolutionists automatically assume it didn’t happen, but how would they know? They were not there. We have eyewitness testimony in the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    I recognize that the preaching/hermeneutic argument does not make a persuasive empirical case, but you can’t just ignore that part of it and expect to come up with an accurate interpretation of the Bible.

    You could make a more believable case if you can come up with:
    1.observations ?2. hypotheses? 3. Tests

    I agree with you here. However, observations dealing with the past must be interpreted. Take the red shift of starlight. The red shift is a factual observation. What it means is an interpretation. It is possible that the red shift is NOT due to the universe expanding. That is simply an assumption on which the Standard Model is based.

    The scientific method is very difficult to use dealing with historical sciences like cosmology, evolution, origin of life, astrobiology, paleontology, geology, etc. No one saw it happen and no one can devise an experiment to repeat it either. Certain things must be interpreted and our worldview, our approach to science will determine how we do that.

    Evolutionists will simply assume there is a natural explanation and confine all their hypotheses to natural explanations. IDers are open to supernatural explanations to a certain extent, but still favor “science” over the Scripture. Creationists believe the biblical worldview is trustworthy and so they interpret the same evidence through that worldview. So, nested hierarchies are taken as evidence for common design as opposed to common descent.

    There are creation scientists who do investigate these things and who do offer hypotheses and experiments to test them where possible. For instance, ICR carried out the RATE experiments which did seem to verify a young earth. Of course, this is vehemently attacked by mainstream scientists, because they just can’t imagine such a thing could be true. It would be nice to see them try and duplicate the results.

    Dinosaur skin, red blood cells, flexible ligaments etc. in hundreds of million year old dinosaur bones is another observation that would seem to support a young earth.

    I want to come back to this again. I appreciate the interaction. It is good to talk about this. Dialog between ID and creationists is a good thing. In the long run, we are on the same team in that we believe in a Creator.

    As you know, creationists are very concerned about biblical authority. If we lose that battle, we have lost everything and the whole foundation of our faith will be destroyed. Evolutionists will never see things as creationists do because they interpret the evidence through a different lens. But in the end, we all have to take our starting point by faith.

    God bless!

  23. 23
    scordova says:

    Does anyone know of atheist or agnostic testimonies of conversion to theism because of big bang cosmology?

    Big bang cosmology (becuase of finite age) kept me in the Christian faith when I almost left it. I was and old-earth evolutionist as I learned it in high school, raised in a Catholic household that didn’t care about the origins debate.

    I became a creationist after learning just a little bit that made so much sense from an ICR tract. However, when I heard ICR criticism of the Big Bang, I stopped wanting to hear whatever else they said because it some of it seemed so full of ridicule whereas the Big Bang had individuals like Albert Einstein backing it. I thought to myself if Einstein says there is a Big Bang, there has to be one…

    I also have not liked the absence of YEC explanations for distant starlight and radio metric dating.

    There is an almost forgotten book by the reporter Richard Milton Shattering Myths of Darwinism where he confesses he is not a creationist but points out evidence that the Earth is young.

    But in my own personal inquiry outside of theology, I began to learn of anomalies and data that cast doubt on ages. Nature has other clocks than radiometric ones, and those clocks show that we may be misinterpreting the radio metric clocks. What is exciting is this can lead to testable hypotheses that can resolve the issue.

    I’m not saying the mainstream will ever agree with my conclusions, but for myself, it is sufficient to know the truth. The mainstream doesn’t accept ID, but they can’t cover the facts supporting ID for anyone really wanting to learn. It is enough for me to know the truth even if I’m in the minority.

    The distant starlight is a difficult one, but again, testable hypotheses may uncover a mechanism. There are also anomalous findings that suggest the universe also could be young. The suspicion of young ages, on empirical evidence alone, just doesn’t seem to die. The known evidence may weigh heavily for old ages, but it also doesn’t let the possibility of young ages go away. Over the years, more anomalies have been discovered, and the case for young ages doesn’t seem like it will go away easily.

  24. 24
    butifnot says:

    As to astronomy and cosmology, these are as entrenched as evolution. The sea-change should have come with the realization that we had been blind to most of the universe. The plasma scientist can show you, in the lab, all the features we observe in local and deep space. It becomes sadly funny – solar ‘wind’, bow shocks, dark whatever, imagining that magnetic field lines are real and do things, infinities, a belief in ‘math’ and on and on. Archaic nonsense held with religious fervor.

    ID, YEC, and Electric Universe – I hold to all three – so much condescending angry ridiculing from multiple disciplines is just the norm.

    What swayed me to the electric universe – the surface features of the terrestrial planets: They’re near and dear and clear. As in craters, ‘rivers’, ‘volcanos’ etc etc. Cumulatively they build to a wow! moment. An impact is not the only way to make a crater!

    These images are wonderfully fascinating! I don’t believe one can not pause to consider their implication to Saturn and the sun. Experiments performed a hundred years ago by the man who correctly predicted, in the face of great opposition, the electric source of the aurora.

    http://www.plasma-universe.com.....nd_Nebulae

  25. 25
    JGuy says:

    Here’s a prediction.

    First, just a comment that there are also old earth creationists that believe in young life. e can refer to these as “young life creationist”(YLC) perhaps. And I think Sean Pitman of detectingdesign.com might be a YLC – but not exactly sure.

    …even-so…

    Young Earth Creation also => Young Life.

    Some have read that the mitochondrial Eve age, if using argued observed rates of mutation (vice any derived rate derived from assuming evolution), comes to 6,000 years.

    Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998: 279:29, emphasis added).

    source: http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

    Of course, the Darwinist reject that age, and therefore throw it out in lieu of a derived mutation rate based on evolutionary assumptions.

    Here’s a YEC & YLC prediction.

    When an observed mutational rate for the Y-Chromosome is found. To the extent as above for mitochondrial Eve. The age for Y-chromosomal Adam should come out to about 4500 years old (i.e. the time since Noah).

    There you go, a risky prediction has been made.

    Interestingly:
    With YEC predicting: Mitochondrial Eve @ 6000 years and y-Chromosomal Adam at 4500 years. The ratio of these ages are interestingly close to the accepted ages using evolutionary models and observed mutation in the population.

    So, eagerly awaiting any well observed mutational rates of the Y-Chromosome to be published.

  26. 26
    tjguy says:

    Sal, let me pick up where I left off.

    I’m enthusiastic about the possibility that the world is young, but making inflexible theological arguments? Reminds me of the geocentrists.

    I am very happy that you are at least open to the idea of a young earth! Most people are closed-minded when it comes to the age of the earth. If the earth really were young, then the whole facade of evolution comes crashing down rather quickly.

    You have an obvious disdain for inflexible theological arguments, but Sal, isn’t truth rather inflexible? The OEC view is clearly the newcomer on the block. The only reason we have this view today is because of uniformitarian ideas put forth by Hutton, Lyell, et al. They made assumptions about the past and based their interpretation of the geological record on those assumptions – mainly the idea that the present is the key to the past.

    If someone comes up to you and says that Mohammed was also a prophet sent by God who superseded Jesus and is therefore more reliable, what will you say? Will you make an inflexible theological argument against that view or will you allow that view as well?

    The YEC argument covers more than just the first chapter of Genesis. Can you honestly read Gen 6-8 and find a way to interpret the flood as a local flood? Does that make sense? Is that what the author was trying to say? How much clearer could the author have made it?

    Both OECs and YECs have a problem in interpreting the observations that we have about the past because we can’t repeat it or see what actually happened. You mentioned varves. Did a flood happen or not? How do we know? The rocks should tell the story, but we don’t know enough about the flood to be able to interpret it properly. There is some very good evidence for the flood and there are still some puzzles.

    So, is the inspired eyewitness testimony of Genesis accurate or are the interpretations of 21 century evolutionists more accurate?

    If the flood did happen, and that would be the position of YECers of course, then we have to find some way to explain the varves within that framework, wouldn’t you say? We have to be consistent. Plus, just because there are still unsolved problems/questions remaining in the YEC empirical case, does not mean that we dump the whole idea of a global flood in my mind. There is so little we really know about the flood that it makes it quite difficult to come up with an accurate model of what actually happened.

    Evolutionists are not willing to dump the idea of an old earth just because there are still some things they cannot explain. So how do we decide? That is where God’s revelation comes in.

    Another example would be the many problems with the Big Bang. It is obvious to both YECers and most IDers that the Big Bang could not have happened by chance. The universe is too finely tuned for that.

    Because IDers start with the empirical, they accept the partial evidence for the Big Bang as conclusive and then plug the holes in it by adding God to the mix to make it the hypothesis float.

    In other words, I may be wrong, but it seems like a God of the gaps argument to me.

    YECs begin with Scripture and we don’t think the Big Bang fits with Scripture so we discard it and look for other theories. Dr. Hartnett’s theory is one good example of such a theory. Will we ever really be able to know? I don’t know. All human ideas are a bit tentative because we can’t test them with the scientific method. We can’t go back in time and observe it or repeat it to verify our ideas.

    That is the problem. The YECs don’t have a very believable case, and too many of them go around condemning the doubtful in clear violation of Jude 1:22.

    We don’t have a very believable case? Are you referring to the Scriptural evidence or the empirical evidence as interpreted through the eyes of evolutionists? It seems that the empirical evidence is far more important for you – this is the ID approach it seems.

    Yes, Jude tells us to be gentle and understanding with those who are having doubts. I would think that would go for IDers too. It is a good reminder. Thanks. But I don’t think it means we should compromise God’s Word or that we cannot discuss the matter. The stakes are high here.

    Barb told us how she thinks her OEC views fit with Genesis 1 and so I simply wanted to respond to that. She mentioned it first, not me. We have empirical evidence as well, but she was talking about the Scripture so I responded in kind. I think it is important for IDers to see how their OEC views affect God’s Word. I think many think they can change the meaning of the word “day” and just like that, the problem is solved, but they need to see that it is a lot more complicated than that.

    If you and others will pre-empt any contrary piece of data via theological fiat, why would anyone find integrity in that sort of search for truth?

    True. No one who does not accept the Bible as God’s Word would. But without that as a reference point, how can we ever really know the TRUTH about the past?

    Jesus said that God’s Word is truth. So why would we reject God’s revealed truth and search for something we have already rejected? Shouldn’t we start with what God has revealed and go from there rather than making educated guesses about the past? In other words, why search for what God has already revealed? I know this will not work in science class and will just get ridiculed by unbelievers, but from a believer’s vantage point, it makes sense.

    Empirical evidence is great, but evolutionists can always come up with a just so story to explain it away and who can argue with that? You can’t prove their story false, nor can we prove our version right.

    So, supposing your interpretation is the most defensible from a hermeneutical standpoint, that doesn’t make it defensible from the stand point of our knowledge base.

    Some, like Ken Ham, say it’s a matter of world view. Actually that’s unbiblical. God promises in Romans 1:20 that the world is made such that men are without excuse. Whatever their world view is, the facts are promised to be at variance with every world view save the true one.

    I do understand the problem of empirical evidence, but how do we know our interpretations of the empirical evidence are accurate and actually qualify as a trustworthy knowledge base?

    Plus, are you saying that if our knowledge base disagrees with the revealed word of God that we should go with what our knowledge base currently tells us? You seem to automatically think that the problem is not with our knowledge base, but with God’s Word.

    So, when the Bible says that thorns were a result of the curse for sin, how do we handle that? Since we have fossils of thorns millions of years old, before humans came onto the scene, would you say the Bible is wrong there? Just curious.

    You seem to have a problem with biblical truth and only want to argue with empirical evidence. YECers do not discount empirical evidence at all. It is just not our starting point. We feel we need the truth of God’s revelation to accurately interpret the empirical evidence we have.

    I don’t see any problem with Ham’s world view thinking. Romans 1:20 simply says that there is enough evidence of God’s existence that can be seen through nature that all men are without excuse. If a person rejects that evidence, that doesn’t mean that verse is wrong. Many reject the evidence because of their worldview. Their worldview leads to a faulty interpretation of the evidence and therefore they reject the biblical story. Maybe I am not quite grasping your point here…?

    I’m sorry that you are resentful of YEC culture. I can certainly understand that given your experience. Sometimes I cringe too when I hear/see the things that some YECers say and how they say it.

    I appreciate my ID brethren. I do. Ultimately we are on the same team – at least all who are believers in Jesus are. But just as they have serious concerns about me, I too have serious concerns about their views. It is a matter worth discussing. If IDers are right, then creationists are doing a lot of harm to science and are a bad testimony.

    If IDers are wrong, then although it does not necessarily effect their salvation, they too are doing great harm to the Church, biblical authority, and are misleading lots of people. I’m afraid of the implications ID may have for future generations if it destroys the foundation and authority of the Bible. So it is an issue worth discussing in a calm and respectful way.

    Thanks for reading.

  27. 27
    scordova says:

    You have an obvious disdain for inflexible theological arguments, but Sal, isn’t truth rather inflexible?

    Truth is inflexible, but the truth is not always clear, and it is astonishing that some Christians insist that it ought to be since that is actually unbiblical. For example:

    Proverbs 25:2

    It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

    Even supposing that the most natural reading of the Bible suggests young ages, Christians ought not to be labeled “compromisers” for wanting to investigate if the claim is true to find out if that is really the case.

    Doubting Thomases and Doubting Gideon’s are not labeled as “compromisers” in the Bible, but Ken Ham and others do exactly that. I don’t think that’s right or healthy in instilling faith, in fact it has the opposite effect, it suggests a culture that will believe what it wants no matter what the facts suggests. That is actually a poor witness.

    So the fact that a natural reading of the Bible suggests young ages didn’t instill faith, actually the opposite, it suggested to me the Bible was a fable. But with ID it became possible to believe in a Creator and that was the most important thing. The alternate old-age interpretations, though extremely forced, don’t seem any more extreme than other difficulties in the Bible.

    I believe in miracles, but I don’t believe in in-transit created light, appearance of old-age arguments. Romans 1:20 suggests God wouldn’t do that. If the universe is young, the facts will eventually support that, imho. I don’t see why there needs to be a rush to judgement on the matter.

    And finally a word about my resentment of YEC culture. In the movie Expelled, were the ID proponents YECs? No. Several were old-earth creationists or old-earth IDists. They suffered persecution for the truth, so I find it outrageous that several Christian brethren who suffer persecution for the truth are being publicly labeled as “compromisers”. Disgusting, imho. Even supposing the Earth is young, a Christian can be mistaken about it, but it doesn’t justify labeling them “compromisers” as Sarfati and others are quick to do.

    I am now a member of the Presbyterian Church of America, I would never think to label other denominations that have a high regard for the Bible as “compromisers” merely because we have different theology. YEC leaders like Sarfati and Ham do that a lot. I think it’s wrong. The bible makes a distinction between someone making a mistake and those intentionally distorting truth. The label of “compromiser” suggest these people are willfully distorting truth. I don’t see that, and I know many of the “expelled” personally.

    So what I see is a culture that demonizes those who are undecided and have legitimate scientific questions, and worse, many times, people like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind, don’t really do any science even at superficial levels to help resolve the difficulty, just beg for money to build museums rather than carrying out empirical investigations.

  28. 28

    I’m afraid of the implications ID may have for future generations if it destroys the foundation and authority of the Bible.

    The question is whether ID is correct. If it is, then it will not destroy any other truth (Biblical or otherwise).

    Of course it might conflict with some people’s interpretations of scripture, or their desires, or their philosophies. If so, so be it — so much the better for those beliefs falling by the wayside.

  29. 29
    DebianFanatic says:

    scordova said in reply to tjguy:

    So, all you’ve done by insistence on one interpretation of Genesis give people on the sidelines is more reasons to believe the Bible is wrong. Some have then rejected the Bible because to them the data didn’t agree.

    tjguy makes a good point. At first glance, Barb’s view seems to make sense. But if you consider these other things which tjguy points out, Barb’s view is weakened.

    The Bible says what it says, and if the Bible is wrong on an issue, then the Bible is wrong on the issue. That gives us no justification for trying to change what it says. We should read it for what it says, not for what we want it to say in order to fit it in with our particular viewpoints.

    We should not gloss over what the Bible actually says because we fear that will cause people to then reject it.

    And tjguy is right: God explicitly says,

    Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy: You are to labor six days and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to YHWH your God. You must not do any work…. For YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore YHWH blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy. (Ex 20:8-11)

    Unless God is changing his definitions of “day” and “Sabbath” mid-paragraph, then the Sabbath day of creation is the same Sabbath day He tells the Israelites to observe every week – a 24-hour period. And He says that everything was created in six of those such periods.

    Again, if the Bible is wrong, it’s wrong. But this is what it says. Let’s not sugar-coat it so it’ll be more palatable.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    of related note is this excellent lecture by John Lennox:

    Seven Days That Divide the World (John Lennox) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ge#t=1574s

  31. 31
    tjguy says:

    Sal, you said this about Maxwell’s theory:

    The reason for the alternative interpretations is that Creationists like James Clerk Maxwell created electromagnetic theory, which combined with astrophysical observations makes it difficult to reconcile what we see with our instruments with the interpretation you suggest. So the irony of ironies is that Old Earth theory came about by the scientific (not theological work) of a creationist.

    Of course, this didn’t seem to be a problem for him. He was a creationist as you know and thought his theories rebutted cosmic and Darwinian evolution.

    Here are a few articles that deal with your criticism. I’m not sure if they will satisfy you or not, but it is not like creationists do not have answers.

    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....rd-physics

    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....scientists

    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....-starlight

    Regarding this last article, astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, of ICR stated:

    People have asked “Don’t Maxwell’s equations prove that light travels the same speed in all directions?” Maxwell’s equations are four equations which govern the relationships between electric and magnetic fields. Since light is an electromagnetic wave, Maxwell’s equations describe its behavior and its velocity. In particular, there are two parameters called the “permittivity” and “permeability” of free space which determine the speed of light. Material substances also have permittivity and permeability (different than that of vacuum) which is why light travels at a different speed through material than through empty space. But Maxwell’s equations do not require light to travel the same speed in all directions. In fact, there are substances where light travels at very different speeds in different directions, and Maxwell’s equations still apply. In such cases, the permittivity and permeability are tensors rather than scalars; in other words, they are direction-dependent. This causes the speed of light to be different in different directions. Under the anisotropic synchrony convention, this is the case for vacuum.

    I’m not sure what to think of his anisotropic synchrony convention, but for what it’s worth, that is his answer.

  32. 32
    scordova says:

    I know several the creationist physicists personally and they know me – Jason Lisle, Danny Faulkner, Russell Humphreys, Bill Lucas, John Hartnett, Barry Setterfield, Steve Golmer….

    The problem is these are postulated theories, no direct evidence for which one is the best, or if any are true by the standards of proven theories. I asked Dr. Lisle in 2008 personally what he thought, and he said he was undecided.

    I obviously think the world could be young, but that’s another thing than having a convincing case like say the creation of the first life.

    I’ll happily debate in favor of ID, creation of life, the failure of the geological column — Maxwell’s equations are another matter. To appreciate the difficulty, here are Maxwell’s equations in their current form:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

    which would also cause a revision to

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

    If you’ve studied these theories in school you’d understand why a physics student would find glib dismissals of two major theories in physics revolting. Unlike Darwinism – these theories work, electromagnetism works, relativity works. You can’t just throw them away. They make things like radios, electricity, GPS, and atomic bombs possible…

    You can throw Darwinism away and science will work better, not so with these staples of engineering, yes engineering!

    I really took exception to Ken Ham saying in effect the speed of light issue was an assault on the Christian faith and a matter of world view. It is not. There is plenty of evidence against Darwinism, we can’t say the same about evidence against the constancy of the speed of light. There may be evidence of it, but it sure isn’t as strong as evidence against Darwinism.

    Few creationists have attempted to re-write Maxwell’s equations. One who did, Bill Lucas, was sharply criticized by John Hartnett and Danny Faulkner at the 2008 ICC.

    Here is Bill Lucas re-write:
    http://www.commonsensescience......e_law.html

    Dr. Hartnett just about blew a gasket when Lucas force law was presented at the 2008 ICC. Danny Faulkner too. It was glorious seeing YEC physicists screaming at each other. 🙂

    Btw, will you be at the 2013 ICC? I was thinking of attending the Astronomy conference in July. Look me up if you are there.

    Sal

  33. 33
    scordova says:

    tjguy,

    FWIW, Dr. Hartnett invited me to be one of his PhD students. I ended up graduating from another school with something less than a PhD, and have chosen finance as my occupation.

    Sal

  34. 34
    tjguy says:

    Sal,

    Thanks for your reply. No, I won’t be at any of these conferences. I live in Japan, a couple of hours from where Dr. Torley lives, although we have never met. I am not a scientist either as you can tell from my posts.

    I certainly understand that there are still unresolved problems in the YEC argument. I think there are unresolved issues for all positions, so I feel it is best to start with the authority of the Creator Himself and work from there, but that doesn’t satisfy scientists I know.

  35. 35
    Pearlman says:

    Good news for ID and YeC science fans:
    SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis may be the only realistic cosmology model standing.
    it not only aligns with ID and YeC but attests to the Torah narrative and YeC timeline.
    it falsifies all deep time dependent scientific hypothesis by the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence that is distant starlight.
    thus relegates deep-time doctrine dogma like neo-darwinism to blind faith, not science.

Leave a Reply