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

[Anti-Babylon]

But, returning to the starlight question. Is it really true to say that the supernova we see is in some way not accurate because, according to the ordinary physical laws, there hasn't been enough time (under the YEC paradigm) for a star to explode and the result to be visible on Earth?

to which you directly resonded:

Yes. Even Ken Ham acknowledges the problem. Most of the responses on this thread implicitly concede the problem by countering that God didn't actually deceive us.

Time out. Time out. No. Of course all creation science (and even non-creation science) acknowledges a problem here with timing (in different ways) but that does not mean supernovae are in any way "inaccurate", more so our pre-conceptions need further tweaking than even what we have tweaked presently.

Wait, class is starting up and I will circle back in a little while.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Yes. Even Ken Ham acknowledges the problem. Most of the responses on this thread implicitly concede the problem by countering that God didn't actually deceive us.

Well if Ken Ham acknowledges the problem... Personally I don't see it as a problem, per se. That may not satisfy some persons here, or the unbeliever, but I don't feel bound to reconcile every little detail Scripture gives me, or which can be observed in Creation, with materialistic science when contemplating the mysteries of God's workings in time. What does time even mean when we're talking about an eternal God? The universe, ordinarily, operates according to certain rules. And God can mysteriously, and wonderfully, intrude upon, interpose Himself between and set aside altogether, those rules when and how He pleases. It's amazing, really.

 

[RamistThomist]

with materialistic science

Who says science is materialistic? Not one of the contributors in the volume is a physicalist or a materialist.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Who says science is materialistic? Not one of the contributors in the volume is a physicalist or a materialist.

I'm not talking specifically about the book. Are we still talking about the book?

But "science", when generally spoken of today, refers specifically to a materialistic, rationalistic approach to Creation. It excludes from the outset the existence of God and any supernatural phenomena. Such science can discover truth to be sure, but it will also blunder around blindly when it takes to do with fundamental questions such as the creation of the universe.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not talking specifically about the book. Are we still talking about the book?

But "science", when generally spoken of today, refers specifically to a materialistic, rationalistic approach to Creation. It excludes from the outset the existence of God and any supernatural phenomena. Such science can discover truth to be sure, but it will also blunder around blindly when it takes to do with fundamental questions such as the creation of the universe.

Your comment came out of nowhere. No one on this thread is a materialist. No one appealed to a specific materialism. Science is no more materialistic than any other discipline.

Some scientists today exclude God. Some don't.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Your comment came out of nowhere. No one on this thread is a materialist. No one appealed to a specific materialism. Science is no more materialistic than any other discipline.

Some scientists today exclude God. Some don't.

Well that's not strictly accurate. I am. And I think others are as well, that is my reading of this conversation.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well that's not strictly accurate. I am. And I think others are as well, that is my reading of this conversation.

You're welcome to to think about materialist scientists. I didn't appeal to them. None of my scientific models demand materialism.

 

[Northern Crofter]

the defining lines between what you draw as science and history are blurred when it comes to the origin of the universe

Agreed. Both history and science are ultimately reliant on faith. I cannot prove George Washington ever existed anymore than I can prove God created Adam and Eve. There is a level of reason (which by faith we believe is God-given) that allows us to draw conclusions from our surroundings which should encourage us in our faith - in God as well as our scientific and historic endeavors - but it still ultimately comes down to faith in something we cannot prove absolutely. I find this (the fact that everyone has faith in something) is important to bring up with colleagues and friends when discussing "Science." Faith in science (Scientism) to explain the universe we live in is just as "religious" as faith in a God Who created and maintains it.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

But "science", when generally spoken of today, refers specifically to a materialistic, rationalistic approach to Creation. It excludes from the outset the existence of God and any supernatural phenomena. Such science can discover truth to be sure, but it will also blunder around blindly when it takes to do with fundamental questions such as the creation of the universe.

There are a couple of levels here. You are correct in that is how most secular textbooks will define science but that is simply because they have "baked in" or "smuggled" their materialism. You are not correct in that science itself is inherently materialistic. No responsible creationist would object to science being rationalistic but materialistic? Oh my yes, many objections.

Materialism is basically the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and physically observed phenomenon. I think reading your posts you are actually not materialistic and you are using the term "materialistic" as simply dealing with and working with physical material but that is not what the meaning of "materialism" is as preached by high priests of secular science that act as gatekeepers against us who do not bow to that idol.

 

[itsreed]

If not referenced yet, give a listen to this series of lectures from Dr. Johnny Gibson, WTS:

Back to the Beginning: Genesis 1–2 - Westminster Theological Seminary

“The sabbath is not merely a symbol or a type…In order for something in the Bible to be either a symbol or a type it must first be a historical reality. You can’t begin with a symbol. The thing has to first be a historical reality which then symbolizes something.” –Dr. Jonathan Gibson Watch four...

faculty.wts.edu

Thorough and fair expression of positions, coupled with thorough exegetical considerations. A must answer for those not persuaded of the exegetical basis for 6-24.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

Of course all creation science (and even non-creation science) acknowledges a problem here with timing (in different ways) but that does not mean supernovae are in any way "inaccurate", more so our pre-conceptions need further tweaking than even what we have tweaked presently.

Wait, class is starting up and I will circle back in a little while.

To all:

1) Thank you for your thoughtful interactions here.

There are two points of clarity that I would hope all those who commented would consider and that is

2a) regarding supernovae and dating explosions (or really any physical phenomena which presents apparent issues to theoretical models of any kind):

2i) Philosophy of Science

Correct philosophy of science dictates that any proposition must be treated as suspect. The "null hypothesis" holds true immediately in the face of any alternative hypothesis.

EX: If anyone posits the lack of stage III supernovae remnants proves the universe is younger than it appears, then the "null" ("The lack of stage 3 supernovae remnants make no commentary on the age of the universe") holds until the idea is tested - or alternatively, the paper could propose a test that could be conceived that would falsify the "null" when such materials are made (like a new type of telescope).

If one could be constructed and an experiment conducted or at least reasonably proposed, the experiment must be universally repeatable (the falsification factor is already accounted for in relation to the "null").

2ii) After publication, the experiment is either repeated or the proposed experiment and all its formulas, concepts etc. are analyzed and errors can be exposed at this level which would preserve the "null".

(In this example, it was shocking that this idea even got published at all. There simply is no lack of stage III SNR in the first place and the original proposal was dismissed outright and post haste by most all YEC).

3) Is Creation Science Really Just History?

There might be overlap as I admitted, but it certainly is not merely a study of the past.

Very soon, the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA) in Germany will be online. A unique and brand new telescope that will be able to measure gamma rays for the first time in outer space before they hit the earth's atmosphere, many measurements that affect proposed experimental models will be revealed.

There are many possible revelations (also possibly none - that is how science works sometimes).

Of primary interest to some (not all) creation scientists is the question of if the CTA will potentially measure quantum gravitational effects on photon propogation though the universe,

meaning if quantum gravity is true, there should be time delays between photons with different energies across large distances and this would mean the vacuum itself would have a significant refractive index.

If quantum gravity is true, this will have certain implications for all the creation models - both YEC and OEC.

But besides that, the new formulas could have major implications on quantum mechanics itself in the everyday world including earth-shaking advances in computers and information technology.

Or not. That's how science is sometimes.

But these efforts are certainly not merely history. Yes?

Even creation science as apologetics to the young minds coming up is useful as most of them have never once questioned their philosophical materialism. Of course, God alone regenerates and only the Word of God brings faith to one's newly born heart, so is this all really just history? I am honestly curious here.

 

[RamistThomist]

Agreed. Both history and science are ultimately reliant on faith. I cannot prove George Washington ever existed anymore than I can prove God created Adam and Eve. There is a level of reason (which by faith we believe is God-given) that allows us to draw conclusions from our surroundings which should encourage us in our faith - in God as well as our scientific and historic endeavors - but it still ultimately comes down to faith in something we cannot prove absolutely. I find this (the fact that everyone has faith in something) is important to bring up with colleagues and friends when discussing "Science." Faith in science (Scientism) to explain the universe we live in is just as "religious" as faith in a God Who created and maintains it.

I agree, but there is more to the story. Knowledge is circular. At that point--and perhaps only that point--presups are correct. But knowledge does not remain circular. We do bring (or presuppose) a certain model, yet we also, whether we intend to or not, submit our minds to the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline. That "submitting-to" can challenge our model or theory.

 

[alexandermsmith]

There are a couple of levels here. You are correct in that is how most secular textbooks will define science but that is simply because they have "baked in" or "smuggled" their materialism. You are not correct in that science itself is inherently materialistic. No responsible creationist would object to science being rationalistic but materialistic? Oh my yes, many objections.

Materialism is basically the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and physically observed phenomenon. I think reading your posts you are actually not materialistic and you are using the term "materialistic" as simply dealing with and working with physical material but that is not what the meaning of "materialism" is as preached by high priests of secular science that act as gatekeepers against us who do not bow to that idol.

I was referring to the prevailing science of the day which is materialistic; that which the man on the street would understand as science.

 

[Knight]

I agree, but there is more to the story. Knowledge is circular. At that point--and perhaps only that point--presups are correct. But knowledge does not remain circular. We do bring (or presuppose) a certain model, yet we also, whether we intend to or not, submit our minds to the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline. That "submitting-to" can challenge our model or theory.

You've mentioned this a few times in this thread, and I also read your book review this theory seems to derives from, but I confess I still don't understand it, especially when you refer to "the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline." Can you explain that? When I think of something as "rational," I think of something as either true or, at least, as having good reasons for thinking or believing. But this would typically attach to propositions.

 

[RamistThomist]

You've mentioned this a few times in this thread, and I also read your book review this theory seems to derives from, but I confess I still don't understand it, especially when you refer to "the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline." Can you explain that? When I think of something as "rational," I think of something as either true or, at least, as having good reasons for thinking or believing. But this would typically attach to propositions.

I am drawing upon the Patristic reflection of the Logos and the logoi inherent in things. Things have a knowable structure to them. The mind "grasps" for patterns (this might be the truth behind Gestalt psychology).

 

[Knight]

I am drawing upon the Patristic reflection of the Logos and the logoi inherent in things. Things have a knowable structure to them. The mind "grasps" for patterns (this might be the truth behind Gestalt psychology).

That's a bit more intelligible to me. Are you thinking of universals and/or the correspondence theory of truth (both of which I would affirm)?

When you said, "we also, whether we intend to or not, submit our minds to the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline," how does that harmonize with those who reject truth? It almost sounds like the epistemic theory you mention is externalist, but even the externalist would say our cognitive faculties may be malfunctioning. Or are you just generalizing?

 

[RamistThomist]

That's a bit more intelligible to me. Are you thinking of universals and/or the correspondence theory of truth (both of which I would affirm)?

I certainly affirm both, but I think truth is more than correspondence. Following Polanyi and Esther Meek, Truth also involves "integration" of facts into a whole.

When you said, "we also, whether we intend to or not, submit our minds to the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline," how does that harmonize with those who reject truth?

I should have been more clear. I probably should scratch that line.

 

[Knight]

I certainly affirm both, but I think truth is more than correspondence. Following Polanyi and Esther Meek, Truth also involves "integration" of facts into a whole.


I should have been more clear. I probably should scratch that line.

Sure. I think truth involves coherence and correspondence, even though I only highlighted the latter.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Hoping to bring some focus to the discussion, and welcoming any feedback. It is true that we can't scientifically explain the creation origins since science is not equipped to observe the original phenomena. The tools of science can only study the aftereffects and the way the cosmos works now (i.e. Adam was created as a mature adult and functioned that way immediately). Science is really more of a tool for exercising dominion, not a tool to understand our origins. Each school of thought (YEC, OEC, Theistic evolutionist, secularist, etc.) can only provide a suggested model, essentially a "paradigm of everything" which can make the most sense of the data we have, and which can also successfully predict answers to future questions when we are capable of finding the data to confirm it. This is where young earth creation scientists need to focus their labors (and often fall short), explaining how their paradigm of everything makes the most sense of all the data we do have compared to the other proposed paradigms, and do experiments to resolve those many points of dispute (i.e. the starlight problem).

Science will not be able to explain what the laws of nature looked like during the creation week. They can only study the finished product after the laws of ordinary providence take over. Perhaps God did "speed up" the light of the stars initially (I think that most certainly was the case during the creation week). But was it still operating that way now in some way so that we see the light of an "older" supernova? Let's take that as a hypothesis. What data would the aftereffects of such a phenomena produce or leave behind to confirm it? Do we see that phenomena occurring anywhere else? Or take the other hypothesis, that like the wine analogy, God provided the light of a supernova without an actual star, simply to help us mark our seasons. What data can we gather to confirm that as a plausible explanation while still making sense of the data we have?

Such a pursuit would also likely cause us to tweak other theories too depending on the answers we find (following Kuhn's argument for paradigm revolution...). But that's really all that creation science can propose; trying to find the best paradigm that explains everything we observe today, in light of what we believe the Bible says about our origins and history. And that is the limit of it's apologetic value as well; they can argue that their model currently makes the most sense of all the data science has discovered thus far, and provides the best understanding for why things work the way they do now. While I am a young earth creationists, based upon exegesis of Scripture, I'd like to see a scientific paradigm someday to confirm that narrative based upon a thorough exegesis of the creation. Perhaps such a pursuit is not achievable given the many mysteries still out there, but that to me should be the goal if they are pursuing it as an apologetic venture.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

First, thank you for this post. I would like to reply and do so with some hesitation knowing how many excellent theologians and scientists may be watching this thread.

It is true that we can't scientifically explain the creation origins since science is not equipped to observe the original phenomena. The tools of science can only study the aftereffects and the way the cosmos works now (i.e. Adam was created as a mature adult and functioned that way immediately). Science is really more of a tool for exercising dominion, not a tool to understand our origins.

100% agree.

This is where young earth creation scientists need to focus their labors (and often fall short), explaining how their paradigm of everything makes the most sense of all the data we do have compared to the other proposed paradigms, and do experiments to resolve those many points of dispute (i.e. the starlight problem).

I agree 100%. But some creation scientists are doing what you suggest. For example, if you Google the starlight-travel problem, you will get a plethora of ideas. Sussing through the real scientists from the fake scientists can be easy enough but sussing through the real scientists that do not commit errors is a ridiculously Herculean task. Among YEC alone, there are 5 categories of different solutions to the starlight-travel problem. The lack of variation in OEC and secular timeframes is due to the total embrace of cosmic inflation but this introduces new issues for them that YEC models do not have to account for because most of us never accepted cosmic inflation based on lack of evidence (outside of the mathematics published that would govern its operation - YEC concedes the *math* of inflation checks out).

Now to do experiments can be tricky. In astrophysics, we are limited to data released to the public from telescopes run by governmental science agencies that give time to researchers they deem are doing work worthy of scheduling. In short, creation science could propose some tests and experiments that would be a bit more fruitful yet there is no way we can even be heard - even if we had enough money. That's how anti-creation that mainstream culture within science has become.

Science will not be able to explain what the laws of nature looked like during the creation week. They can only study the finished product after the laws of ordinary providence take over.

100% agreed.

But was it still operating that way now in some way so that we see the light of an "older" supernova? Let's take that as a hypothesis. What data would the aftereffects of such a phenomena produce or leave behind to confirm it? Do we see that phenomena occurring anywhere else? Or take the other hypothesis, that like the wine analogy, God provided the light of a supernova without an actual star, simply to help us mark our seasons. What data can we gather to confirm that as a plausible explanation while still making sense of the data we have?

I was almost dreading the return of the wine analogy. This part here is where I hesitated before posting my reply.

The fact that Christ made wine from water with no real grapes is recorded directly in the Gospel of John. To take this miracle and superimpose the conclusion that supernovae created without real stars could be analogous is an odd statement to be sure.

Supernovae do not play a role in marking the seasons. They typically only last about 100 seconds in duration. Most all of them leave remnants far too faint to the naked eye to be candidates for that role. Others never existed in the sky until centuries after man appeared - again disqualifying them as markers for the seasons.

Such a pursuit would also likely cause us to tweak other theories too depending on the answers we find (following Kuhn's argument for paradigm revolution...)

Indeed, this is true. Supernovae have now been observed happening in "real-time" (relatively speaking) through our best telescopes (in 2003, 2006, and 2008). Each of these SN were 4 B ly distant, 238 x 10^6 ly distant and 88 x 10^6 ly distant respectively (and in chronological order of discovery). I am sure Dr. Ross added these to his evidences for an OEC model on a website somewhere or in a book by now.

All of these SN events also have revealed accompanying deep mysteries regarding the nature of stars, their sizes, and their behavior during their "death" cycles. (It gets technical but it deals with pre-conceived notions regarding the limits for the radius of white dwarves and more).

These particular "death cycle" issues do not even deal directly with any of the creation models - religious or secular. They pose questions around the defining characteristics of interstellar objects as reported in astronomy textbooks. This is not insignificant - especially in God's role in our post-creation universe.

Of course, it is impossible for supernovae to be "inaccurate" and all models must adjust to new data - even secular scientists agree that these observations must be investigated or accounted for and, incidentally, the very definitions for white dwarves and Chandrasekhar limits currently have an asterisk pending further investigation.

I'd like to see a scientific paradigm someday to confirm that narrative based upon a thorough exegesis of the creation. Perhaps such a pursuit is not achievable given the many mysteries still out there, but that to me should be the goal if they are pursuing it as an apologetic venture.

I dreamed of discovering the paradigm that would unite YEC and OEC. Like Faust, I got into this originally dreaming of being the metaphorical Einstein of creation science.

I was young. I was so stupid. I was in a charismatic denomination with local leaders that encouraged my thinking this way for the possible fame, wealth and - oh yes, all the attending souls it could bring into the kingdom. (Not in that order, of course).

The conflict with apologetic values for all creation models is within its need to be responsible towards the scientific method.

OEC has little apologetic value due to how closely it resembles secular models in all other aspects outside the events of special creation and providential formations. That is not a dig at Hugh Ross and his brethren. I have nothing but love and respect for him as a brother in Christ.

YEC - by its very nature - will have more apologetic value due to a higher volume of unusual predictions within the models and some argue the trade-off is less responsible adherence to the scientific methodology undergirding hypothesis formation and theoretical model construction. (Indeed in some cases, this is unfortunately true).

Thank you again for an excellent post.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Supernovae do not play a role in marking the seasons. They typically only last about 100 seconds in duration. Most all of them leave remnants far too faint to the naked eye to be candidates for that role. Others never existed in the sky until centuries after man appeared - again disqualifying them as markers for the seasons.

I don't disagree with anything you replied to. But regarding this comment, I made it within the broader stated purpose given for the creation of stars in Genesis 1:14 "And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.." I will not pretend to understand how one particular supernova is marking what time or season, but somehow it is fulfilling that God-given design. That was my only intention behind that comment, and I think it would do well for astrophysicists to keep that divine design in the background as they do their research.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

I don't disagree with anything you replied to. But regarding this comment, I made it within the broader stated purpose given for the creation of stars in Genesis 1:14 "And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.." I will not pretend to understand how one particular supernova is marking what time or season, but somehow it is fulfilling that God-given design. That was my only intention behind that comment, and I think it would do well for astrophysicists to keep that divine design in the background as they do their research.

Since supernovae are the death throes of stars, then I see it as they are not directly mentioned in Genesis 1:14. I think as I am reading this, I am not losing sight of the divine design. But if I am missing something, please let me know.

[EDIT: I would also be remiss if I did not mention that I myself am not an astrophysicist. I stopped short of post-grad studies and simply teach HS physics. I just read a lot and I am not pretending to be more than that here]