Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and ID (Zondervan Counterpoints)

Status
Not open for further replies.
In John 2, Jesus created wine--instantly--that was judged to be the finest. If our own modern judgments are of any comparison to those of ancient sommeliers (an idea I think is demonstrable from other Scripture texts, such as Is.25:6) then his wine came from grapes "that never existed [and] information is coming to us from no source at all." The wine Jesus produced at the wedding of Cana was surely "vintage" quality, but only minutes "old."

Water Christ certainly called for and may have substantively transmuted into the resulting wine; but since we aren't talking alchemy here, there's no dodging the fact that someone with an accusatory bent could find Jesus guilty of "deception" on the same grounds that God (it is said) would be so guilty for creating things with an appearance of age or "in motion" as another poster posited.

I think most miracles partake at some level of the same "problem." Natural rules: be they physical, temporal, chemical, biological, etc., are supervened and overruled, in order to bring about a revelation that demands accepting God's explanation, as much as he wills for us. Some of the miracles of the Bible are executed under a form of subjection to natural phenomena and environment; Jonah's great fish actually swam around in the salty Mediterranean. The "cloud the size of a man's hand" must have been laden with vapor lifted from the same then-present Sea, soon to deluge the parched territory of Samaria.

Yet, other miracles are intrusions from beyond this universe. Jesus created meals for 5K and 4K people, whatever it was he made of the presentation items he was shown. We creatures may not be able to create or destroy matter, but God is not bound to the reliable habits he instituted for the preservation and propagation of the cosmos.

I am not the "crusader" for YEC or a young earth I once was, though I still regard my unaltered positions on those questions as the "fittest." There are more important theological issues, even to be found in and around Gen.1&2. There are arguments I consider "worthy" against my position, the existence of which drive me to deeper thought, reflection, humility, and devotion. But any claim that undermines supernatural intervention in the universe, on the challenge that God might otherwise appear deceptive, is not worthy. These may as well cross out most if not all the miracles in the Bible, as made up stories or as events otherwise explainable on naturalistic grounds.
 
In John 2, Jesus created wine--instantly--that was judged to be the finest. If our own modern judgments are of any comparison to those of ancient sommeliers (an idea I think is demonstrable from other Scripture texts, such as Is.25:6) then his wine came from grapes "that never existed [and] information is coming to us from no source at all." The wine Jesus produced at the wedding of Cana was surely "vintage" quality, but only minutes "old."

As it stands, that's fine. As long as we all agree the miracle isn't "science." Reasoning by extension, if the creation acts were miracles, then one is hard-pressed to call it science. That doesn't attack YEC (in fact, it raises some difficulties for OEC), but it does put "creation science" out of business.
 
I wanted to add one thing that makes starlight a little different than things on earth w/r/t appearance of age and the deception question. When we view an event such a supernova, if the distances and the speed of light as commonly accepted is correct (apart from what Lisle has shown with one-way velocity problem of SR), then we would have been viewing a star that never existed. God would then just be putting on a light show as it were. That's why the charge of deception is a little stickier. Although I happen to not have a problem with God putting on light shows, or giving us "data" that leads the unbelieving heart to conclude His word can't be trusted. The only question then becomes whether He did so before the Fall, which may raise another set of problems.
 
As it stands, that's fine. As long as we all agree the miracle isn't "science." Reasoning by extension, if the creation acts were miracles, then one is hard-pressed to call it science. That doesn't attack YEC (in fact, it raises some difficulties for OEC), but it does put "creation science" out of business.
I fundamentally agree.
 
I wanted to add one thing that makes starlight a little different than things on earth w/r/t appearance of age and the deception question. When we view an event such a supernova, if the distances and the speed of light as commonly accepted is correct (apart from what Lisle has shown with one-way velocity problem of SR), then we would have been viewing a star that never existed. God would then just be putting on a light show as it were. That's why the charge of deception is a little stickier. Although I happen to not have a problem with God putting on light shows, or giving us "data" that leads the unbelieving heart to conclude His word can't be trusted. The only question then becomes whether He did so before the Fall, which may raise another set of problems.
I don't agree with the postulate that goes: if a supernova explosion, measured at Xmillion light years distant; then universe equal to or greater than such age; or else God is deceptive. We know exactly how "old" the wine was at the moment it was drunk; yet it's apparent age was far older. That's part and parcel of the taste-test. Neither were there any such grapes as were pressed or formed into the resulting substance. Those are exactly the form of the starlight objection: 1) alleged appearance of age that isn't so old in fact; and 2) no actual grapes used.

There cannot be a pure supposition along the lines of the proposed postulate, denial of which impugns divine integrity or truthfulness; or else, abandon miracles entirely. The supremacy of observation, over revelational supremacy, is what is at stake. I'm willing to grant the person who wants to accept the unutterable antiquity of the universe his honest commitment to natural evidence as he interprets it, along with his genuine faith in the Bible and what God has chosen to reveal therein--even if it dissents from my interpretation of the Bible, and of natural evidence.

What I'm not willing to grant: Unless I accept the speed of light inviolate, and all implications therefrom, God (on my other suppositions) must be "deceptive." False; if for God's own purposes an "already formed" universe, like an already formed wine, better suits his intermediate and final purposes--which have been sufficiently explained to his creatures for their good. When God instructs me not to accept the final authority of my sense experience or another observational mechanism, but to allow for his better/truer explanation, I recognize his right to redefine reality for me.
 
That's not what I said.
OK, nevertheless I'm trying to put a postulate together that sets out in an argument style what has been set out already, but rhetorically. Instead of a dismissive retort, I welcome either a rephrasing of the postulate, or a challenge to incorrect reasoning on my part as another judges it.
 
I don't agree with the postulate that goes: if a supernova explosion, measured at Xmillion light years distant; then universe equal to or greater than such age; or else God is deceptive. We know exactly how "old" the wine was at the moment it was drunk; yet it's apparent age was far older. That's part and parcel of the taste-test. Neither were there any such grapes as were pressed or formed into the resulting substance. Those are exactly the form of the starlight objection: 1) alleged appearance of age that isn't so old in fact; and 2) no actual grapes used.

There cannot be a pure supposition along the lines of the proposed postulate, denial of which impugns divine integrity or truthfulness; or else, abandon miracles entirely. The supremacy of observation, over revelational supremacy, is what is at stake. I'm willing to grant the person who wants to accept the unutterable antiquity of the universe his honest commitment to natural evidence as he interprets it, along with his genuine faith in the Bible and what God has chosen to reveal therein--even if it dissents from my interpretation of the Bible, and of natural evidence.

What I'm not willing to grant: Unless I accept the speed of light inviolate, and all implications therefrom, God (on my other suppositions) must be "deceptive." False; if for God's own purposes an "already formed" universe, like an already formed wine, better suits his intermediate and final purposes--which have been sufficiently explained to his creatures for their good. When God instructs me not to accept the final authority of my sense experience or another observational mechanism, but to allow for his better/truer explanation, I recognize his right to redefine reality for me.
The "deception" lies not in the age, but in the appearance of the star (and the subsequent supernova) at all. If a star is currently 2bLY away, then it blows up, what have I seen if the universe is less than 2b years old? In its current position, the light from the star/supernova takes 2 billion years to reach me. If you hold to "light in transit" theory, then the image of the supernova was also "in transit". But that means the star was never there to begin with.
 
The "deception" lies not in the age, but in the appearance of the star (and the subsequent supernova) at all. If a star is currently 2bLY away, then it blows up, what have I seen if the universe is less than 2b years old? In its current position, the light from the star/supernova takes 2 billion years to reach me. If you hold to "light in transit" theory, then the image of the supernova was also "in transit". But that means the star was never there to begin with.
Wouldn’t that apply to the water to wine analogy? The grapes were “never” there to begin with to be fermented (nova).
 
The "deception" lies not in the age, but in the appearance of the star (and the subsequent supernova) at all. If a star is currently 2bLY away, then it blows up, what have I seen if the universe is less than 2b years old? In its current position, the light from the star/supernova takes 2 billion years to reach me. If you hold to "light in transit" theory, then the image of the supernova was also "in transit". But that means the star was never there to begin with.
OK, that response grants half of the "deception" rejoinder, if the recent-creation view (rep'd by light-in-transit theory) is admitted as a possible solution. But it retains the "deception" challenge on the matter of the star, as if there was no second half of the rejoinder.

The second half also makes use of the same miracle-at-Cana instance: the first is the appearance of age of the wine; the second is the absence of any grapes to produce the "substance" of the wine. On the deception-theory, 1) Jesus must create wine that tastes fresh-squeezed, so as not to leave the appearance of age; and 2) he must use actual grape substance already present somewhere in the world that he relocates in the ceremonial water jugs, so as not to make wine apart from the known source of wine.

I don't think Jesus was under either obligation; and by argument from the lesser to the greater, neither was God at creation obligated to prevent "supernova" light from relaying time-information, if it was allowed to relay true distance information. Such is unreasonable constraint, if God explains in other ways that creation was in fact more recent than the light/time indications would otherwise teach.
 
Wouldn’t that apply to the water to wine analogy? The grapes were “never” there to begin with to be fermented (nova).
I’m not sure the analogy works. THe water was there. The assumption is that if wine, then grapes. To press the analogy, if supernova, then star. Was the star there?
 
I don't see how there can be creation ex nihilo without "deception." The big bang is on its way out for the big bounce as we speak, and cells in the human body are in various states of growth and decay (as would be needed in the case of mature creation of Adam). The whole universe is in process and at any time one can infer events that came before. Why not believe that rather than being deceptive, God told us how he made things, and we, knowing it was created in process, know that the inferences we make are true?

Nevertheless, another philosophical solution: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/rapidly-matured-creation-dr-byl.96430/
 
OK, that response grants half of the "deception" rejoinder, if the recent-creation view (rep'd by light-in-transit theory) is admitted as a possible solution. But it retains the "deception" challenge on the matter of the star, as if there was no second half of the rejoinder.

The second half also makes use of the same miracle-at-Cana instance: the first is the appearance of age of the wine; the second is the absence of any grapes to produce the "substance" of the wine. On the deception-theory, 1) Jesus must create wine that tastes fresh-squeezed, so as not to leave the appearance of age; and 2) he must use actual grape substance already present somewhere in the world that he relocates in the ceremonial water jugs, so as not to make wine apart from the known source of wine.

I don't think Jesus was under either obligation; and by argument from the lesser to the greater, neither was God at creation obligated to prevent "supernova" light from relaying time-information, if it was allowed to relay true distance information. Such is unreasonable constraint, if God explains in other ways that creation was in fact more recent than the light/time indications would otherwise teach.
To be clear, I am a young-earthier, and no I don’t think God is under any obligation. I was simply pointing out why the charge of deception upon YEC light-in-transit theory is different for stars than water-to-wine miracles. If we grant that a star is billions of light years away and we see it, then it disappears, what have you seen on the light-in-transit view? Light-in-transit may explain the star, but it can’t explain the supernova. Something else must be added to the theory in order to maintain the star was real. Unless you start tinkering with the other assumptions that I granted in my initial post.
 
If God created light in transit and then said to Mankind, "guess how old the Universe is and how it was made from scientific observations", we might claim deceit.

But God told us everything we need to know about the universe, its age, and its origins. If we still decide to make scientific observations and then accuse God of fudging, we're wrong. Not God.
 
To be clear, I am a young-earthier, and no I don’t think God is under any obligation. I was simply pointing out why the charge of deception upon YEC light-in-transit theory is different for stars than water-to-wine miracles. If we grant that a star is billions of light years away and we see it, then it disappears, what have you seen on the light-in-transit view? Light-in-transit may explain the star, but it can’t explain the supernova. Something else must be added to the theory in order to maintain the star was real. Unless you start tinkering with the other assumptions that I granted in my initial post.
We're both on a similar page, as to YE and God-does-what-he-wants. I don't think ill of your question or of your pushback. Inquiry is valuable in order to find understanding. There could be better reasoning than mine, or yours; open discussion should be a path to clarity if not definitive answers.

Phenomena tell a story. God's story has the unique benefit of being more than an idea, or an idea committed to writing or other media; his narrative is formed out of real time/space. Analogous to the work of a writer of a novel, or a work of SF or high fantasy, I don't believe it is common to call the author deceptive regardless of how much of the "real world" or ordinary-life expectations he includes/presumes/excludes as background to his story. For the sake of the narrative, the main character has "ancestors," even if the author dispensed with creating a family tree. The world of the story is furnished with all the useful components, irrespective of whether each part has a complete historic rationale.

It still isn't obvious to me that the phenomenon of a supernova must, in the nature of the case, bear witness to a prior created (or evolved) star with space/time existence unrelated to the presence of an observer. The stars were brought into being, according to Gen.1:14, in conjunction with a design element oriented to earth and actually attuned to the human observer. The light from stars is naturally produced by superheated gas; but even on old-creation assumptions the visible star firmament is not comprised of stars of equal age and composition. Age discrepancy is built-in to the representation; but Gen.1:14 is (at least) unconcerned with the issue of distance/dispersal/time. At most, it correlates creation closely with observation/utility.

The supernova or exploding star, or the light that "goes out" (as from a star that, if it had begun eons ago, shined for a time and then went dark) is simply a phenomenon to the observer. He may assume that there could/must have been a physical star emitting light, which took millennia to arrive here; the outage effect took place still later on, and that effect also arrived here to be noted. In the story God has ordained--what we call history or real space/time--that on-then-off effect is what is significant, not whether there was "enough time" on a naturalistic cosmological scale to create an accidental coincidence between the event and the observer.

It doesn't seem inherently deceptive for God to desire that effect, even if the story he tells from start to finish doesn't have a space/time prologue with time for instantiation of a star that went through a life cycle from birth to death, the only way to allow the effect to be observed "without a doubt." That seems to tie God's hands without justification. Could God have started the story of our universe with a lengthy (eons) set-up period, in part to obviate certain objections and charges that sinners might bring against him? I suppose so, but it isn't apparent to me that's the route he chose or had to choose. The stars he set in space are widely dispersed, yet they were needful for man to tell "signs, seasons, days, and years." Therefore, by means of eons OR by means of instant creation, he brought them "to light" to an earthly observer. The latter would include permitting the sign of a star "going out," as if it had shone until it couldn't any more.

The wine of Cana is, I believe, justly comparable. To the MC of the wedding, he experiences the phenomenon and deduces (incorrectly, but not to the detriment of Jesus' reputation of honesty) the wine is of another vintage, i.e. not created a couple minutes earlier. In the second place, no water naturally turns to wine, regardless of the time allotted, regardless of the injection of ingredients. Watered-down wine IS deceptive, according to Is.1:22, implying the two things (water and wine) are essentially distinct. Jesus did not need one physical substance for the purpose of reorganizing its molecules, and "scientifically" justifying the presence of the wine. He simply made the water to be wine instead, and the men who drew the water KNEW what they put in the jugs, Jn.2:9.

So, there's no "source" for the wine in grapes. The wine is not "sourced" in the water. There is no "origin" for the phenomenon of the wine other than the will of God. It is seen, tasted, and its benefits taken, all without a single grape. The phenomenon of seeing a supernova, or after effects of glowing gas cooling off as if for an eon already, do not meet any true criteria for deception, unless one posits that men have otherwise a legitimate excuse for doubt or casting aspersion on the divine character. God is justified if he has shortened the "real-time" duration of the universe to the plan of redemption; or he is justified if he chose the "long version."
 
OK, nevertheless I'm trying to put a postulate together that sets out in an argument style what has been set out already, but rhetorically. Instead of a dismissive retort, I welcome either a rephrasing of the postulate, or a challenge to incorrect reasoning on my part as another judges it.
I think it is safe to say that, with all do respect, the whole "water to wine" vs "supernova" thing is the fallacy of a false analogy. I can't for the life of me see what "water to wine" has to do with a star exploding whenever in the past?
We can call that deception or miracle or whatever but if we stretch the term miracle to that limit than it means nothing at all or everything, making it not miraculous. I'm not singling you out, I have nothing but respect for you, but you mentioned incorrect reasoning so I thought I'd point that out to include others.
 
I think it is safe to say that, with all do respect, the whole "water to wine" vs "supernova" thing is the fallacy of a false analogy. I can't for the life of me see what "water to wine" has to do with a star exploding whenever in the past?
We can call that deception or miracle or whatever but if we stretch the term miracle to that limit than it means nothing at all or everything, making it not miraculous. I'm not singling you out, I have nothing but respect for you, but you mentioned incorrect reasoning so I thought I'd point that out to include others.

How is it a false analogy?

Wine comes from grapes. In this case there were no grapes.

Supernovas come from stars. In this case (hypothetically?) there was no star.

It's incredibly straight forward.
 
How is it a false analogy?

Wine comes from grapes. In this case there were no grapes.

Supernovas come from stars. In this case (hypothetically?) there was no star.

It's incredibly straight forward.
Stars aren't grapes. False analogy. That is whats true of of one isn't necessarily true of the other. Plus that doesn't even touch the miracle problem.
 
Stars aren't grapes. False analogy. That is whats true of of one isn't necessarily true of the other. Plus that doesn't even touch the miracle problem.

"Stars aren't grapes" - right... hence, it is an analogy... lol.
 
How is it a false analogy?

Wine comes from grapes. In this case there were no grapes.

Supernovas come from stars. In this case (hypothetically?) there was no star.

It's incredibly straight forward.

I think it is more of a category confusion than a false analogy. We are still receiving information from stars that appear to be more than 6,000 years old. We aren't currently drinking the grape juice from John 2.
 
I think it is more of a category confusion than a false analogy. We are still receiving information from stars that appear to be more than 6,000 years old. We aren't currently drinking the grape juice from John 2.

Someone could have been drinking the miraculous wine during the wedding and made the same analogy.

In the future, perhaps people might make the analogy who will no longer receive information from what we might - all else being equal - have thought were stars older than a YEC would posit as possible.

In what way would either person still be confused?
 
How is it a false analogy?

Wine comes from grapes. In this case there were no grapes.

Supernovas come from stars. In this case (hypothetically?) there was no star.

It's incredibly straight forward.
That's where the deception charge comes in, though. Nobody saw grapes. But if there was no star, what were you seeing?

Again, I have no problem with God weaving supernovas into creation to inspire awe of him, or even using them to deceive unbelieving hearts just as he can send lying spirits and give people over to strong delusion in punishment for their refusal to give him glory.

In my mind, God told us approximately when and how he created, and we shouldn't use science inappropriately to contradict him. And distant starlight isn't exactly solved by Big Bang cosmology anyhow.
 
I think it is more of a category confusion than a false analogy. We are still receiving information from stars that appear to be more than 6,000 years old. We aren't currently drinking the grape juice from John 2.
Either way its a logical fallacy.
 
I'm honestly mystified by the pushback against the analogy Bruce introduced. Was Jesus' action in Cana deceptive or not? If not, why not? By parity of reasoning, why can't the same reasoning be applied to creation?

That is, can someone please clarify for me what is the "fallacy" or relevant element of disanalogy? Stating that stars aren't grapes is hardly helpful.

Jacob mentioned that we aren't currently drinking grape juice from John 2. While pithy, in what way is the duration of the effects of a miraculous action relevant to whether the analogy works as it needs to (cf. my questions above)?
 
Jacob mentioned that we aren't currently drinking grape juice from John 2. While pithy, in what way is the duration of the effects of a miraculous action relevant to whether the analogy works as it needs to (cf. my questions above)?

We aren't using grape juice (to quote John Macarthur) from Cana to do continued scientific discoveries today. We are using starlight (among other things).
 
There is no way to know that the light has been traveling longer than the universe has been in existence. Measurements of the speed of light do not tell the whole story. You say in your other response that it is ad hoc. I would respond that it doesn't seem to be any more ad hoc than the acknowledgment that Adam and Eve were created as adults with the appearance of age, yet being seconds old. The other common objection (which you have not voiced) that this would constitute a deception on God's part hardly holds water, since it is an argument from the silence of Scripture. We don't know what God told Adam about the appearance of age. We can deduce from God's establishment of the stars for signs and seasons that God told Adam at least that. There is no problem here. The most reasonable and simple solution is that God created the stars with their light already reaching earth. This is at least hinted at in the text of Scripture already. If you think this is just ad hoc, then please answer how it is that the stars could be created with God already and immediately giving them the rule of the calendar, which implies immediate visibility.

I think it's deeper than that as the analogy leaves out the exegetical difficulties in terms of age.

Also, something to think about here: when I was OEC, Lisle challenged me (indirectly as he made a statement in general) that if we had access to Adam and Eve's physical non-infantile forms a couple of days after creation, we would age them visually - I don't know - but certainly more than ~2 days old. Lisle said that if we could have access to their somatic cells, we could see no mutations and age them at about 2 days old microscopically.

I was determined that God could not be deceptive in any way and wanted to see if there was some analogy in the cosmos that would allow evidence that secularists are missing/ are discounting.

Now while I have yet to find any analogous cells that put a forensic sign to a younger cosmos, I do watch with bemused interest at secularists positing an infinite universe of universes - a multi-verse - with no fewer assumptions or lack of mathematical rigor to their hypotheses than God creating the heavens and the earth.

But this theory gets popularized by media! This idea gets to go into the passive consciousness of the everyday man on the street as it gets featured by Marvel movies etc.

We live in a fallen world indeed.

As it stands, that's fine. As long as we all agree the miracle isn't "science." Reasoning by extension, if the creation acts were miracles, then one is hard-pressed to call it science. That doesn't attack YEC (in fact, it raises some difficulties for OEC), but it does put "creation science" out of business.

The "deception" lies not in the age, but in the appearance of the star (and the subsequent supernova) at all. If a star is currently 2bLY away, then it blows up, what have I seen if the universe is less than 2b years old? In its current position, the light from the star/supernova takes 2 billion years to reach me. If you hold to "light in transit" theory, then the image of the supernova was also "in transit". But that means the star was never there to begin with.

I, also, agree with Lane. Why is it deception for God to have created a star which has the appearance of age but was, in reality, only a few moments old? For one thing: who was measuring the age of stars? Who created the equations and measurements to "discover" the age of stars? It wasn't God anyway. Nowhere that I know of does God say the stars had been in existence for billions of years when in fact they had not; nor does He instruct us to be taken up with the pursuit of such knowledge. And as mentioned by Lane I think, why would we assume God told that to Adam? Why do we assume the apparent age of the universe was a major topic of conversation in the first place?

The question we should be focusing on, in my opinion, is the purpose of the stars. We are told this explicitly: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so." (Genesis 1:14-15) God did not create the stars to be a subject of astronomical study but to give light and to measure time. The whole universe was created with the Earth and Man at its centre therefore that should guide our understanding of the Creation. The manner in which the universe was created gave it the appearance of great age even at its beginning: this was in the wisdom of God, to His purpose and to His glory. This created universe operates on certain physical rules but as was said above God is not bound by these rules and His intervening or setting aside these rules is not deception otherwise many of the miracles are deception. The stars are where they are and under ordinary circumstances one can grant it would take so long for the light to reach Earth. Why this prevents God from having created the stars giving light on Earth from the beginning I don't know.

We have been given the ability to probe into the workings of Creation and to understand the rules which govern them. But we are not given the ability, or the permission, to probe into the secret and sovereign counsel of God on matters He has chosen not to reveal to us. Deception could only be present if God lied about something. We have no record of His doing so and the very notion is blasphemous. Whilst I am of the YEC view myself I don't say any of this out of a motivation to defend the YEC at all costs. For argument's sake the YEC position could still be wrong for other reasons. But I fail to see how the apparent age of the universe is problematic. It is an age arrived at by human inquiry and science, assuming a particular purpose to the Creation (a materialistic, rationalistic purpose) and setting aside other purposes. I don't believe it is wrong for scientists to pursue inquiry into the universe but these seems a good example of the pitfalls of pursuing such inquiry in a materialistic spirit. It does not consider the purpose of the Creation.

The stars were created to give light and measure time and not to be reconciled centuries later to a specific school of human science.
 
We aren't using grape juice (to quote John Macarthur) from Cana to do continued scientific discoveries today. We are using starlight (among other things).
Okay, but so what? How is that relevantly disanalogous?

Again, could not the people at Cana made the same analogy while they were drinking? If so, then how would you have replied to them at the time?
 
I think it is safe to say that, with all do respect, the whole "water to wine" vs "supernova" thing is the fallacy of a false analogy. I can't for the life of me see what "water to wine" has to do with a star exploding whenever in the past?
We can call that deception or miracle or whatever but if we stretch the term miracle to that limit than it means nothing at all or everything, making it not miraculous. I'm not singling you out, I have nothing but respect for you, but you mentioned incorrect reasoning so I thought I'd point that out to include others.
I appreciate having my proposals reasonably challenged. I certainly want to own better ideas than ones I came up with on my own.

I'll echo what some others have said,
1) in analogy, the important thing is not the sum of the similarity comparisons between the original instance and the analogue, but the accuracy of the specific comparison. So, saying one [potential source] is a star, the other [potential source] is a grape, ergo... false analogy is another dismissive retort. "How exactly does the analogy fail?" is a critical question. A good analogy is valuable precisely when it renders an incommensurate concept accessible at a simpler level. A truly false analogy comes apart when the supposed comparison is exposed as illusory.

2) I don't know what I can say to make my point clearer. The particular wine Jesus made had no "past;" the particular visible phenomenon supernova lacks (on YE criteria) the space/time past assuming natural propagation.

3) to address Jacob's comments: we "experience" the biblical miracle along with the living participants. Calvin wrote that we don't need the RCC "miracles" still happening; we have the superior miracles of the NT as our own experience. Therefore, in the moment of 2K years ago, same objections to the starlight phenomenon may be transferred to the wine phenomenon. The wine appears much older than it is in real time, and there is no natural source grape for the wine. We may be observing now this light with eye or instrument; but we also observe the miracle of Jesus through the instrument of the written page.

4) Back to Jamey's comment: obviously, on a YE reading, creation in toto is miraculous. The discrete elements all form a vast system, with an array of subsystems, all which in complete state form a stable, interconnected whole. That God (on YE reading) took his time over 6 days to complete the work indicates to me that the interplay of forces is not left to function "normally" in a natural-law pattern until the whole is prepared (analogy: a car comes off the assembly line, under its own power, but not because the engine was inserted to the frame and instantly started in the first hour of build).

If, after such a long time from creation to now--however long that is--we are able to observe a phenomenon on a cosmic space/time scale virtually identical to Adam's observation; that simply compresses our relative remove from our first father. It is close to the experience we have generally of the biblical miracles, but in a different manner (not mediated entirely through the page). That divine creation would be a unique experience doesn't seem like much of an objection. I don't think of everything in creation as a miracle in the same way as "intervention" miracles; the natural order has been God's ordinary providence since the beginning.

But to rephrase my previous statement: regardless of whether God inserted a real star in the space time continuum, then blew it up and brought that information to the observation station called Earth, regardless of whether he let that information propagate at standard light speed or hasted the transmission; or if God simply provided the phenomenon of a star "burning out" within the history of observation, and left the star-source to the theoretical realm--calling the latter deceptive impugns not just the single idea that God must respect the laws of physics once he brought the universe into existence. It challenges every miracle of the Bible that violates those laws, and all other laws of nature.

Sure, if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle. The word has lost its meaning. By the same token, if a single disregard of the laws of nature qualifies as deception, then all such disregard is deception. Every "miracle" that could have a natural cause must have that natural cause in real space/time, and God has to utilize his own ordinary regulative mechanisms for the universe, even if he "games" the system in a way we failed to see--like he was a magician using sleight of hand... which is also deceptive. The charge of deception fatally breaks down, if miracles are once admitted.

I don't think it's a good idea to play the "miracle" card, and cease looking for knowledge, or sources, or improvements on our theoretical understanding of the universe, etc. I don't favor the "real" star or the "as if" star. I think its vitally important that we admit divine miracles, whether God adjusts natural phenomena or simply intrudes against all natural laws, and he does it without man's permission or right to call him deceptive when he does.
 
I, also, agree with Lane. Why is it deception for God to have created a star which has the appearance of age but was, in reality, only a few moments old? For one thing: who was measuring the age of stars?

And I think I agreed with Lane in that it isn't deceptive. What it does, however, is refute creation science as a science. We assume the rationality and contingency of the created order in order to justify Christian approaches to science. Since this starlight communicates information that isn't, strictly speaking, accurate, we really can't pursue that line of apologetics any more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top