Copied from re:thinking Discussion Board
Topic: Age of the Earth
website: http://server5.ezboard.com/brethinkingsbulletinboard

This compilation provided by Hill Roberts.
No edits of any content were performed.
Some of the sequence of posts were rearranged for clarity.
Some posts to this discussion are contained in other threads within these archives.
[HRobLIB@aol.com]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
10/22/99 11:09:10 am
The Age Of The Earth

There seems to be a firestorm raging through conservative, non-institutional churches of Christ over the age of the earth, as it relates to the Genesis account and the creation/evolution debate. Is it true that a Christian, whose conscience requires him or her to take a long age position on the age of the earth, must be viewed as a theistic evolutionist or, worse, a crypto-evolutionist?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
10/25/99 3:46:47 pm
theistic evolution

Dear Allan (and others),
Well, I'll bite and thanks for setting this up. We'll see how it goes. This may well be my only post to this forum depending on time and other factors. I don't really think this is a raging "firestorm." It seems some might be trying to make it into such. I hope not.

If one doesn't accept evolution one cannot be a theistic evolutionist.

It is true that most theistic evolutionists also accept an ancient timescale for creation. However, to conclude that one who accepts an ancient timescale for creation is a theistic evolutionist is a non sequitur, albeit a common one (Thompson, et al.) Most theistic evolutionists accept the Bible as God's Word. Young earth creationists also accept the Bible as God's Word. The same logical fallacy would lead one to conclude that young earth creationists are theistic evolutionists.

The term "theistic evolution" is derived from the general term "evolution." This is generally understood to describe the theory that all life developed naturally according to Darwinian processes from a common ancestor which came from non-life. The qualifier "theistic" affixed to the general term modifies it to mean that all life developed naturally according to Darwinian processes from a common ancestor which was created by God with such a plan and purpose in mind. There are, of course, many variations on the details for both of these paradigms.

There are many other types of evolution (unfolding change) which are experimentally and/or observationally demonstrated. These include:
manuscript evolution
language evolution
ontogeny (one cell to multicellular organism)
aging (teeth, teleomer decay, etc.)
adaptation (microevolution, natural selection)
speciation (or subspeciation, depending on definitions, per Clark & Eakin)
stellar evolution (star birth, midlife and death)
cosmic evolution (expansion data, galatic rotation)
radionuclide decay chains (e.g., uranium to lead or many other shorter lived chains)
topology
weather
culture and
almost any other process that produces results distributed over time

A believer who accepts the data in any of these areas does not automatically become a theistic evolutionist, any more than a believing dentist is a theistic evolutionist because he accepts that God designed teeth to change in predictable patterns from birth to death, though he is a theist who accepts evolution (of teeth).

To be an evolutionist in the sense generally conveyed by that term one must first and foremost accept the naturalistic Darwinian paradigm (or some equally naturalistic alternative to Darwinism).

I believe the problem is that many conservative Christians have confused the philosophical worldview of naturalism with theistic evolution. Biological evolution is only one part of the naturalistic worldview. Naturalism holds that "all there is is stuff." Sagan opens Cosmos with the naturalistic doctrine that "the cosmos is all there is or was or ever will be." Richard Lewontin has observed that it is fundamentally a commitment to naturalism that he seeks, not evolution per se. The naturalist takes observable processes in all areas of existence and connects them together with the philosophical premise that such processes account for all existence without invoking any extra-natural agents. Hence Lewontin and Dawkins accept that apparent design in biology is only that -- apparent, not real, design. (Sounds like a familiar argument.) Hence the naturalist accepts the Big Bang data and then puts his spin on it that such an event explains the existence of the universe. This is absurd as recently noted by premier cosmologist Alan Guth in the September 99 issue of Astronomy. One who accepts the Big Bang data is yet free to interpret the cause as naturalistic or divine. But accepting the Big Bang no more makes one a theistic evolutionist than accepting the evolution of teeth.

A recent joke making the rounds has the naturalistic scientists approaching God to show they too can make life without needing God to do it. So God agrees to a contest. The scientists start by saying all they need is some dirt. God responds: " No, no -- get your own dirt!" I suggest this can be extended to: "...get your own elements" "...get your own quarks" "...get your own space-time" "...get your own laws of physics" (ad infinitum) until ultimately one arrives at "Just do it by the power of your word, nothing else." [This of course presumes the existence of a self to have a word to say.] At that point the humbled naturalist is ready to be introduced to Genesis.

To see a summary of the evidences for why many scientists (believing and unbelieving alike) accept an ancient age for the creation of the universe and the earth, see my online book at http://www.lordibelieve.org Go to the materials page, take the link at AgeEvidences. That page presents pretty much "all I have to say about that." (Please note that debate over age questions is NOT the objective of our workshop at all.)

If the age of the earth and universe is the key point of faith some wish to make it, please offer book, chapter, verse for where the Bible clearly makes this an article of faith or pivotal to one's salvation and eternal destiny, or gives the age of the universe or earth. If it is not such, let's get on with presenting the evidence God has given us to evangelize the unbelieving world. Let us handle all of God's revelation with honor and integrity, recognizing our own limitations. I would suggest that starting with God's natural revelation in all its glory is the right way to do that, Romans 1:18-20.

I have found using the natural evidence God has provided us -- which science has helped us understand -- is THE most powerful apologetic tool among the techno-skeptical world. It gets them interested. However, it doesn't overcome the chief obstacle: the problem of innocent suffering. That is a much more difficult problem for them, and us too. THAT is what kept Einstein from accepting a personal deity, even after he had been convinced by natural data (cosmic expansion) that the universe WAS created by supernatural agency. C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaffer probably are some of our best advisors in this regard. Lets get back to dealing with these main things Satan uses as stumblingblocks: sin, suffering, and God's existence.

Sincerely to all,
Hill Roberts

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
10/25/99 8:06:49 pm
Re: theistic evolution

Hill,

I'm glad you've decided to post on this discussion board. Maybe "firestorm" was a bit exaggerated. But, then again, maybe not! Time will tell. You, obviously, have come in for a great deal of criticism from your fellow Christians for your old-earth position. I agree with you that if one does not accept evolution (the General Theory), one cannot be a theistic evolutionist. Unfortunately, many brethren are having a hard time understanding this. In fact, the first word out of my mouth when I heard about your position was probably something like, "He's not a theistic evolutionist, is he?" Having made myself familiar with your position, I understand you are not a theistic evolutionist. Even so, I believe many will continue to wrongly characterize you as being one.

As you know, I think you are wrong. However, unlike some, I think there may be a possibility that you could be right. Therefore, for many years now I have refused to make this issue a test of fellowship. Some, I am convinced, think it ought to be just that--a test of fellowship, and I think you are probably well aware of this.

But, this is not to say that your position, just because it is honestly held by you, is not subject to criticism. It is, and if others do not offer their critiques, then I will be happy to do so. In the meantime, I want to offer you, and others, the opportunity to discuss this issue in a manner befitting the Christians we claim to be. I expect all involved in this discussion to press their points vigorously, but carefully, and all this without impugning the character or integrity of another, unless it can be first substantiated that such a charge is true, and then that this would somehow be germane to the discussion at hand.

With this said, I thank you, Hill, for getting this discussion started and invite others to share with us their thinking on this important subject.

Brotherly,
Allan Turner

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
10/27/99 7:04:18 am
Substantial Evidence of the Earth's History & Age

I have a High School textbook published in 1967 titled "Investigating the Earth." The book was a gift from a teacher which I received during my elementary school years, and its description of the Earth and the Universe fascinated me from the very beginning.

Back in the 1960's scientists did not know as much about the Earth as they do today. The theory of Plate Tectonics was still intensely debated after decades of widespread rejection among scientists. Compelling evidence in support of plate tectonics was evident:

"Look at the shape of the eastern coastline of North and South America and the western coastline of Europe and Africa. The similarity of the continental outlines has excited the curiosity of scientists since the time of Francis Bacon (1561-1626). Were these two continents joined together at one time?"

The similarity is not limited merely to the shape of the continents:

"The basis for the theory of continental drift is not shape and distribution alone. The close matching of belts of crustal activity and similarities in rock and fossil types on opposite sides of the Atlantic are significant."

That is to say that not only do the coastlines of the continents correlate in shape, the geological features correlate as well.

In addition to the abundant continental evidence for the former connection of the continents on both sides of the Atlantic, the oceanic evidence agrees as well. In the middle of the Atlantic ocean is a mountain chain called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This mountain chain follows the outline of the continents.

Volcanic activity occurs along the whole length of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and scientific investigation of this region demonstrates that the oceanic crust on the West side of the ridge is moving West and on the East side is moving East. That is to say that the continents on both sides of the Atlantic are moving away from each other.

Plate tectonics not only explains the present position of the continents, it also explains past continental interactions. Just as India's collision with Eurasia led to the creation of the Himalayan mountains, millions of years ago Africa collided with North America. These mountains no longer exist because of erosion, but their roots remain.

Abundant evidence for continental drift and continental interactions with other plates (either oceanic or continental) exist throughout the world. The world's history, as revealed in both small and large-scale geological structures, is billions of years old.

For that reason, Christians may safely conclude that the Universe is immensely old. That is my own conclusion, based upon the evidence. –

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/4/99 11:41:13 pm
Re: Substantial Evidence of the Earth's History & Age

I had hoped others would engage Roberts and Matthews. Perhaps they will yet do so. In the meantime, I feel the need to hold up my end of the bargain, in that I said I would respond if no one else did.

So, let me begin by saying that the book of Genesis has become the most scoffed at, disregarded, allegorized, and mythologized book of the Bible. Therefore, it is understandable that Christians would be concerned when they hear fellow Christians saying Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, or that the six days of the creation week actually cover billions of years. Hill Roberts and David Matthews believe that 4.7 billion years (give or take a billion or so years) ought to be factored into one's understanding of Genesis 1. Whether this is correct is, at its best, questionable, and in his published writings, Roberts, much to his credit, admits he could be wrong about the age of the earth. On the other hand, Matthews boldly asserts, "The world's history, as revealed in both small and large-scale geological structures, is billions of years old." To me, it sounds like Matthews doesn't think there is any room for argument on this point. Consequently, he must view Christians like me, who believe the Biblical evidence indicates the earth is quite young, with either sympathy (due to what he considers to be my ignorance of the "facts") or disdain (due to what he considers to be my obstinate denial of the "facts").

As proof of his position on the age of the earth, Matthews cites the theory of Plate Tectonics, along with the attendant "evidence." I believe the "evidence" Matthews mentions is convincing to him (i.e., I don't doubt his integrity), but I believe this is due to the basic presuppositions of a uniformitarian approach to this question—an approach which assumes that the manner and rate of current observable processes are but a reflection of that which has always been taking place. Therefore, it does not surprise me that the "evidence" of long periods of time inherent in the theory of Plate Tectonics produces the "fact" of the billions of years Matthews believes to be unquestionable.

Admittedly, I am not a scientist, so I don't know all the things the experts in the various sciences know. Who does? Even so, I am willing to listen to what the experts have to say, that is, when I can understand them (and sometimes that's not an easy thing). I'm certainly not anti-science, nor do I object to the scientific method. I encourage young men and women to become scientists. However, I know that many in the sciences operate under a wrong set of presuppositions (humanism, materialism, naturalism, evolution, and uniformitarianism, etc.) Therefore, I do not think I am being unreasonable when I suspect their pontifications may be more influenced by their beliefs than by the so-called "facts" they like to cite. Science is not quite the bias-free enterprise many are led to believe. At the same time, neither is religion. Although both systems have a pretty good set of rules for gleaning truth and discovering facts, it is nevertheless a reality that these rules are exercised by fallible men and women. Consequently, we must all be careful, whether we are interpreting the natural revelation (nature) or the special revelation (the Bible). But, only a propagandist would have us believe that the pursuit of science is unbiased, while the endeavors of religion are usually biased. In truth, whether it be the pursuit of science or religion, both have their biases. The fact that many scientists have been unwilling to admit their biases has lead to Scientism, which is nothing less than the idolotrous exaltation of "Science" to the stature of a religious icon. In truth, the question is not whether one is biased or not; the question is really this: What bias is the best bias to be biased with?

So, I admit it, I'm biased—I favor the Bible. Although I recognize that the scientific endeavor has been a great blessing to mankind, I believe such efforts will always be limited to providing less than ultimate answers to our questions. Couple this with the fact that scientific "evidence" is frequently, if not always, open to different interpretations, and you have my objection to interpreting the Bible by the "facts" or "evidence" of an evolving set of alleged scientific facts. I believe Roberts and Matthews favor the Bible, also. However, it is my intention in this reply to demonstrate that both men, although thoughtful and intelligent, have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by certain uniformitarian presuppositions.

For example, Matthews' claim that, up until recently, scientists did not know enough about the Earth to realize what he now believes to be the overwhelming evidence for continental drift is questionable. In fact, it has him at odds with one of the most well-known scientists of our day, Stephen Jay Gould. Writing in the February, 1987 issue of Natural History, in an article entitled "The Continental Drift Affair," Professor Gould says:

     During the period of nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for continental drift—that is, the      data gathered from rocks exposed on our continent—was every bit as good as it is today. It      was dismissed because no one had devised a physical mechanism that would permit continents      to plow through an apparently solid ocean floor. In the absence of a plausible mechanism, the      idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd. The data that seemed to support it could      always be explained away.... In short, we now accept continental drift because it is the      expectation of a new orthodoxy.
 

Notice the religious terminology Gould uses, and all this from an "unbiased scientist" who loves to criticize "creationists" for their biased faith, but then candidly admits his penchant for Marxism, a philosophy, he admits, that has greatly influenced his "scientific" views. So, as Matthews espouses the "expectations of a new orthodoxy," maybe he ought not to be so touchy about being called into question by those who think there is nothing wrong with the older orthodoxy of a much more ancient faith.

Hill, on the other hand, has been more careful in the things he says and writes. Some have thought his efforts to hedge his statements about the long age of the earth with qualifications demonstrating his preference for the Bible over science as nothing less than shibboleths. His real intent, they say, is to destroy people's faith in the Bible. This is, in my opinion, quite unfair. Such a charge must never be made unless it can be proved. I certainly do not believe Hill is trying to subvert anyone's faith, anymore than he believes I am trying to subvert someone's faith when I teach that I believe the earth is quite young when compared with the general consensus of the scientific community. However, Hill is on record that he believes a young-earth view is detrimental to the evangelism of those cultures that have been exposed to the scientific method. In fact, he believes a young-earth view can be a far greater obstacle to one's faith than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, Hill believes the age of the earth is an important question with serious implications. Likewise, I believe his position on this question to be just as critical, and with implications just as serious.

So, a very important part of this age-of-the-earth issue is faith. With the mentioning of this word, we have arrived at a place where I feel a bit more comfortable. At its core, this issue is about faith. Matthews does not believe Genesis 1 can be interpreted literally. Like some others, he may believe the Hebrew word translated "day" should have been translated "eon," or "long period of time." He may believe the billions of years are to be found in an alleged gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Whatever his position, Genesis 1 is not to be understood literally. Roberts, who agrees with Matthews on the billions of years, believes the six days of Creation were consecutive days, more or less equivalent to our current solar days, but with long periods of time between them. I know why Matthews and Roberts believe there are billions of years to be inserted into, or between, the verses of Genesis 1 (I used to be a theistic evolutionist), and it isn't because Genesis 1 demands it, or even hints of it. On the contrary, they believe billions of years are there because the natural revelation (God's revelation in nature) demands it. However, and we must all keep this in mind, the natural revelation is also subject to interpretation.

With both Roberts and Matthews, uniformitarianism, with its "the present is the key to the past" presuppositions (and this is the only way one can read 4.7 billions years into the equation) bears on their interpretation of special revelation (God's Word). This means we have an interpretation, along with its attendant applications, of the natural revelation being used, in turn, to interpret the special revelation, along with its attendant applications. To me, this seems fraught with danger. I'm not saying this should never be done—just this: When it is done, it should be done very carefully!

Now, if faith (and this has to be saving faith) comes by hearing God's Word (Romans 10:17), then the beginning point of this kind of faith has to be Genesis 1, because this is where the special revelation begins. Commenting on this kind of faith, the Hebrew writer says: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3). If this is true, then there will always be limits on our understanding of natural revelation when viewed from the standpoint of science. Consequently, natural revelation is secondary to special revelation.

Roberts admittedly makes me nervous in that he appears to elevate natural revelation to the very particular and exalted status of special revelation, making them both equal. This is, I am convinced, a serious mistake. The kind of faith mentioned above is not produced by natural revelation. Although natural revelation is important, it is limited. On the other hand, although one can argue that the Bible was never intended to be a science textbook, it does describe itself as being able to make us perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17), and I believe this applies to the work of the scientist as well as the preacher. So, special revelation is superior to natural revelation and is, therefore, not to be subordinated to it. Natural revelation can certainly help us interpret the Bible, but ultimately, it is the Bible that interprets everything, even natural revelation.

Roberts thinks that if the earth is young, then the natural revelation, as he interprets it, makes God deceptive. God, Hill knows, cannot be deceptive, so, he reasons, Genesis 1 must be interpreted in light of the apparent old age of the earth. The key here is "as he [Hill] interprets it." Could Hill be wrong? Yes, he even admits it. Could his presuppositions be misleading him? Again, the answer is "yes." So, the argument about deception seems intended to prejudice those who hear him on this issue. However, Roberts believes it, and is, therefore, honest in his argument. Honest, yes, but in my opinion, wrong!

Let's look at the flip side of Roberts' argument. If it is true that 4.7 billion years are to be factored into Genesis 1, then God is being deceptive in the way He wrote it? But God can't be deceptive, so the earth cannot be 4.7 billion years old! So, what does all this prove? Perhaps nothing. On the other hand, it may give us some insight as to which particular revelation (natural or special) is being favored by the one using it. If there is some room for error here, I prefer to err on the side of special revelation.

In thinking about this issue, I have had to ask myself this question: "If the writer of Genesis wanted to teach his readers that all things were created in six literal days, then what words would he use to best convey this thought?" Conversely, I also must ask: "If the writer of Genesis wanted to teach his readers that all things were created over billions of years, then what words would he use to best convey this thought?" If God was wanting to teach me trusting, saving faith, and Genesis 1 is the beginning point for this kind of faith, then why, if He used billions of years to create, didn't He just say so? His telling me this up front could not possibly lessen my trust in Him, so there is no conceivable reason that I can think of for Him to conceal it.

Yes, I admit the possibility of the "gap" theory being correct, but I've certainly got to read it into these scriptures. Yes, I admit to the possibility that "yom" ought to be translated "a long period of time," but it goes against every rule I know about Bible interpretation. In the meantime, I'm trusting that the Holy Spirit meant what it sounds like to most people that He meant when He said what He said in Genesis 1.

I've gone long. There are yet other things I would like to discuss along these lines, but I'll give these two men a chance to reply.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/4/99 2:42:20 pm
Data vs Philosophy

Allan's response I believe fairly represents the nature of reasoned objections to an ancient age view of creation. It is not about who has faith, or better faith; it is not about integrity or lack thereof; it is not about who's seeking truth or not. However, I perceive a trend that is already counterproductive. On the one hand, if I am circumspect, that is honest. But if David is forthright, he is castigated for boldness. A bit of Catch-22. Likewise, this post is probably not as gracious as it should be, since I'm blind to my own failure. But I've tried. I respect Allan's response.

The most natural way (least contrived) to understand Genesis 1 is the traditional 6x24hrs concept. On the other hand the most natural way (least contrived) to understand natural history is in a framework of antiquity. The truth probably lies in a mixture of the two interpretations.

[Sidetrack: This difference is not because scientists as a community have some hidden conspiracy to do in the Bible, or God, or Christianity. That is a personal philosophical agenda predicated upon naturalism and atheism. In fact, polls (which I detest) suggest that prevalence in America of belief in a God to whom one prays is about the same among scientists as in the general population, 40 -50 %. Less than 10% of the responding American populace affirms there is no God. (Albeit actions speak louder than polls.) This poll is a strange result to that very small, but vocal, minority: a minority which seems to control the academic halls. Yet, I have never once in my professional circles been openly ridiculed for my faith. Instead, I find many of my scientific colleagues accept Christ, in agreement with the poll. In contrast, among my brethren in Christ I am frequently ridiculed and held in suspicion for my profession. Go figure. But back to the prior paragraph's thought.]

Resolving those two least contrived interpretations of Genesis 1 and Natural History is problematic for any serious student of both realms. I know of over a dozen approaches that make some attempt to do that. I know of none of those approaches that is without problem, including mine. Beyond such attempts to harmonize, are views that make no such attempt. The most offensive to me of these is the one that avers that "science is right, Genesis is myth, and has nothing to contribute to understanding questions of origins." What some Christians do not seem to understand is that the opposite non-harmonizing view that "Genesis 1 is right, science is wrong and has nothing to contribute to understanding questions of origins" is equally offensive and destructive. Both realms have meaningful information to contribute as one makes informed conclusions concerning origins. It is all about mis-interpretation and mis-trust in both realms. Take whatever animosity you detect in this issue between brethren, multiply that by a million, and you have the mis-trust that exists between you, a believer, and the scientific skeptic.

Generally the defense of Christian belief is termed "Apologetics." [I know this is elementary for you readers - indulge me.] It comes from "apologia" as used for example in 1 Peter 3:15 - to make a defense. However, we more commonly refer to this field of study as "Christian Evidences." Apologetics and evidences are not exactly the same. "Apologetics" may use evidence, but it encompasses far more. It is more of a legal concept of arguing for a point through tools of rhetoric and logic, or sometimes even manipulation. "Evidences" implies that evidence is discovered, analyzed and drives one to consistent logical conclusions regardless of personality. David's response was evidences. Allan's response was apologetics. Both are valid ways to reason. They are just different. [Allan is certainly correct: science is not pure in its practice of this methodology.] This difference in reasoning approach is a common problem I encounter in this issue. Those from a more Bible-only side tend to want to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of the arguments, because that's what they understand. Those having more familiarity with physical data want to talk about just that - data. I am a mixture of the two. I am data/evidence driven to formulate philosophical foundations of faith, not the other way around. It is the classic issue in apologetics of presuppositionalism versus evidentialism. It is my opinion - probably will get creamed for this - that evidence is the last thing many of those engaged in the apologetics of "Christian Evidences" want to contend with. It is actually quite ironic to me that we call apologetics "Christian Evidences." Apologetics, as it is practiced today, is seldom about "evidence." It is mostly rhetoric. This post being an excellent example of just that.

For example, Allan engages is a time-honored tradition of questioning uniformitarianism. This is rhetoric. Everyone, except the post-modernist, believes in uniformitarianism. Else one would have no basis to expect supper tonight just like last night. But everyone also knows that sometimes there is no supper due to some irregularity. So everyone also believes in catastrophism. [Or for you wives, you expect us deadbeats to go work tomorrow, just like today, but sometimes we get sick.] Or maybe more importantly, we all expect the sun to rise tomorrow. It is far more justifiable to expect that the sun has been rising every morning in the past just like today, than it is to expect it will be so tomorrow. Why? Because one is based on evidence, the other is based on philosophy. Most of us accept that big trees were once little trees. That's uniformitarianism. Most of us accept that little rocks come from big rocks. That's uniformitarianism. If one believes there is evidence of a recent creation, he is using uniformitarianism, just as is a geologist who watches deposits accumulate slowly over time. All dating processes assume some degree of uniformitarianism. Biblical chronologies assume uniformitarianism, or else they don't work. So ultimately it isn't about the rhetoric or -isms; it comes down to the data. Does the data substantiate the conclusion? That is the question that must be dealt with. I find that, among those from the clerical side of the issue, data is the last thing they want to deal with. Allan failed completely to deal with the data, the evidence, of continental drift. He "drifted" into the rhetoric device of authoritarianism by quoting from Gould. Point: Gould is simply wrong on this. There did not exist in the nineteenth or early twentieth century sufficient evidence to drive the conclusion, precisely because alternative explanations were valid based on the evidence. It was sufficient for the hypothesis, but not the conclusion. When submarine geodesics and magnetic anomaly data became well developed after WWII, the case became overwhelming. It was data that converted the "unbelievers" in spite of whatever philosophical objections they previously held. If one wants to counter an argument such as David presented, one must deal with the data. That might convert him to your viewpoint. Philosophical rhetoric won't.

In my first post I directed the readers to a document that presents a wealth of data for the antiquity of creation. Since the content of this document was first briefed to a collection of preachers, I have never yet had anyone critical of it deal with the data. It is not "my" data, it is data accessible to anyone who wants to spend the time to collect it. The only critiques offered have been philosophical, of the nature of Allan's response to David. If the volume of data in that document seems overwhelming then try just the SN1987a Brain Teaser at http://lordibelieve.org/page16.html If your head begins to hurt over that one example, then aren't you glad the Bible doesn't require you to know about such things? You can simply and correctly believe God created the world and you and everything there is and you will have no problems with anything else you will read in the Bible, regardless of whether you think its old or young. For example, see Dr. Northcutt's article in the October FCMagazine at http://flcoll.edu/pdfs/dnorth.pdf A strong apologetic is offered without once requiring some view concerning timescales. But can you see that for an unbeliever who already does know about SN1987a, we cannot have any hope of converting him to our philosophical view, if our opening line to him is "Okay, SN1987a is all an illusion, but let me tell you about a dead guy who really rose from the grave over 2000 years ago." ?

If you want to convert a scientist to some philosophical viewpoint one must start with the data. You may not like that, but it is reality. The data may not be your specialty. If not, you might want to get some help from someone who's specialty is the natural data. Starting with data is essentially Paul's point in Romans 1:19-20. To bring the Gentiles to a proper philosophical viewpoint concerning sin and salvation, he argued that God first presented them with the evidence of natural history. Obviously natural history is not going to provide information about God's will for dealing with sin and salvation. That can only come from the special revelation. This argument is not about elevating one revelation over the other. Both have God-designed roles. Nature argues for God's existence, His power and His Divine-ness on the basis of physical evidence. The Word cannot do that. On the other hand the Word condemns man's sin and presents God's plan for man. Nature cannot do that. Each revelation has a realm in which it dominates and illuminates the other. They must harmonize. Science has now given us tools to pursue that which is "plainly seen" in ways not available before. The message is the same at any scale of observation: God is, He is awesome! The part or detail of that natural revelation that appeals to one may not the same part or detail that appeals to another, therefore we need to keep digging to understand as much as possible of the evidence God has provided. [It is the same in the written revelation, is it not. We all have our favorite passages that motivate us and clarify beyond that of others. But we keep digging nonetheless.] It is an awesome testimony to me personally that in the very time man's knowledge has increased concerning the physical realm so that some felt justified in proclaiming God just a myth, God's creation in those very details seen via microscope or telescope simply exposes His divine-ness at an even deeper level. At the time when philosophies of man aggressively challenged the existence of God, God provided us the tools through science to reveal in scale both large and small that He does exist! He is there and He is not silent. [Pardon me, that's rhetoric, and in sentences too long, to boot.]

Because I am data driven toward my faith, I feel compelled to understand how the written and natural revelations fit together respecting the question of creation. I have offered one possibility that I believe preserves the literal "days" reading of Genesis 1, while allowing the possibility of any amount of time, young or old, for the overall creation process. (See the Appendix at http://lordibelieve.org/page15.html , especially page 11 of http://lordibelieve.org/time/age8.PDF ) It is not a novel approach, dating back to Augustine. It may be right, it may be wrong. It is probably wrong, given that man fundamentally cannot grasp such things. But it is an effort. There are other efforts by other believers worth your study. It is not railing in the wind. It is not an attempt to stir things up or undermine your faith. It is an attempt to reach the unbeliever in God's Word, with the truth as best I can know it from God's Natural Revelation. While pragmatism is no marker of truth, the fact is this approach has a proven track record among the unbeliever raised on naturalism. That is the problem nearly all our children face. They need answers that help them preserve their faith in the face of physical evidence. Answers that are better than "just forget the physical evidence, believe anyway." Our traditional "forget science" approach hasn't seemed to work too well in that regard. If you have a better way to reach that skeptical audience, use it. I don't care one wit about "winning" this argument. I care about winning souls out of the secular, humanistic and naturalistic worldview. One author/critic this year charged my approach with causing "young people to lose their faith in the young earth and flood geology." To all readers: Is that the basis of your faith? If so, I suggest you need a better faith. Instead of young earth flood geology, faith should be founded on the eternal Creator-Son and the overflowing blood of His cross.

Godspeed,
Hill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/4/99 10:40:42 pm
Re: Data vs Philosophy

I appreciate Allan Turner's response and his objections to the viewpoints presented by Hill Roberts and myself. I disagree with his objections to the conclusions of science regarding Plate Tectonics, and this is my explanation.

My rejection of the young earth position resulted from years of very careful investigation of the scientific and philosophical arguments presented by proponents of the young earth position. I have read many of the books published by the Institute for Creation Research, all of the ICR's Impact articles and more techical material produced by ICR scientists.

The first book written by a young earth creationists that I read was Henry Morris' "The Genesis Flood." Upon reading the book, I was immediately convinced that Flood Geology was an effective explanation for the geological features of the Earth. Impressed by the presentation of science by Henry Morris, I soon read as much ICR material as possible.

At no point did my devotion to the ICR's position cause me to stop reading the scientific evidence presented by geologists and popular scientific authors. I read these books to familiarize myself with the teachings of opponents and also to subject them to critical investigation. I was determined to judge the evidence as fairly as possible, without avoiding the strongest and most effective evidence available to the other side.

After subjecting these opponents to investigation, I came to realize that perhaps I did not apply the same standard to my allies. Determined to examine the evidence, I sought out all of the geological arguments presented by the Institute for Creation Research. My aim was to first determine exactly what ICR believed about geology, and then to decide if these geological positions are reasonable and preferable to the conclusions of mainstream science.

I discovered that the ICR has precious little to say about geology, even in the books which supposedly were written specifically about geology. For example, "The Genesis Flood" does not present a complete or systematic theory explaining the origin and development of geological features. Out of the 317 Impact articles written, less than ten percent actually speak about geological matters and several of these are redundant. In other books and even in techical writings, geology is relegated to mere sentences and paragraphs.

Concentrating on the ICR's very limited presentation of geology, I sought to understand its position. What I discovered was that ICR often had no position whatsoever, or that it had an ambiguous position. ICR's geology is incomplete at best.
 

Testing the validity of ICR's geology, in the very limited form in which it exist, resulted in the realization that many of its arguments fail. For example, ICR's scientists know that all of Earth's geology was not produced by Noah's Flood. Steve Austin acknowledges as much in his book, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe." The strata which underlie the Great Unconformity is identified as pre-flood. When I questioned an ICR staff member about when and how long it took for these sedimentary strata to form, I received no answer. In addition to the difficulty encountered in explaining these strata, there is also the addition very significant realization that ICR cannot confidently identify the boundary between flood, pre-flood and post-flood strata, and for that reason there is a considerable amount of doubt about exactly what sediments Noah's Flood accounts for. The final failure of the theory is that the majority of geological processes are not diluvial, and for that reason Noah's Flood could never adequately account for them.

I am very confident that Plate Tectonics is truth, explaining and accounting for the physical evidence effectively and completely. There exist no successful alterative among the Young Earth creationists, nor is there any need for an alternative.

Investigation of the evidence accumulated by thousands of scientists over centuries has led to the conclusion that the Earth and the Universe are ancient. There exist no successful scientific theory which would explain the evidence in a rational manner within a time frame of thousands of years.

I can accept the evidence of science without rejecting God or the Bible. I would never encourage any Christian to abandon faith in God or the Bible. But I must insist that Christians evaluate the evidence and reach a conclusion.

Thanks,
David Mathews

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy
11/5/99 4:21:58 pm
RE: Data vs. Philosophy

I appreciate the tone of the discussion on the age of the earth to this point. I have gone on record, in Focus Magazine, as saying that I don’t believe it should be an issue that divides brethren. There is a whole lot we don’t know, and we need to be careful. I suppose this keeps me from being too dogmatic about it (I sometimes jokingly say that I’m “agnostic” about this issue). While I have leaned toward a younger earth, I recognize that there are troubled spots with that position, and try to refrain from pushing something beyond credulity. But I also appreciate Hill’s honesty in recognizing that his position is not without flaws also. Frankly, I think both sides have some valid points that need to be carefully considered. And after that, we need to keep our humility about us and recognize that God is the One with the final answers, whether He has chosen to share all those answers with us or not. For even stating such a view as this, I’ve been criticized for “leaving the door open” too much. Well, I must be honest with myself and the evidence, wherever that leads me.

I think brother Turner’s initial response is both valid and logical, so I’ll try not to repeat too much of it. I would like to comment on what I perceive to be a flaw in Hill’s reasoning. I agree with so much of what he said, I hate to sound nit-picky. But since he brought up the distinction between “data and philosophy,” I’d like to delve a little more into that, as I believe this holds the key to our understanding of the issue. So here is a little more “rhetoric.” He rightly acknowledges the difference between these two matters (data and philosophy), but I’m not sure Hill or David sees (or at least appreciates) the connection they make between the “data” and the “interpretation” of that data.

This, also, is very fundamental, but I think sometimes overlooked. It is the logical mistake of confusing the actual data (evidence) with the interpretation of that evidence. When this is done, then the interpretation (usually in the form of the conclusion) is stated as a fact, as if it is the data itself. For example, plate tectonics is the data, the actual evidence. The conclusion, that, therefore, the earth must be old, is a statement based upon the interpretation of the evidence. Now that conclusion may be valid, and all of this fine, but we just need to admit that the data and the conclusion are two different matters. If Hill is going to make a valid distinction between data and philosophy, then he also needs to distinguish fact from interpretation of fact. He seems to do this with the text of Genesis (i.e., there is what the text actually says, then there is how we interpret what it says).

Now the debate between old-earth and young-earth creationists is over the interpretation of the facts, not necessarily the facts themselves (there may be exceptions, of course). Therefore, it is not correct to say that young-earth creationists are ignoring scientific facts, if the difference is not over the data, but the interpretation of the data. The data is just there. It is neutral. Evidence “says” what it does because of the spin we put on it (which is what interpretation is about). The actual data does not appear with tags and brochures explaining what it all means (e.g., dino bones don’t get dug out of the ground with explanations; we provide the interpretation, the bones are just dead bones). We give it meaning through our own explanations.

It is a mistake to think that science and philosophy do not go hand in hand. We criticize evolutionists precisely because they meld the data with the interpretation, without acknowledging the distinction. Anytime we are faced with data, we must interpret it; and our interpretation will generally depend upon our own biases (i.e., how we have philosophically drawn conclusions from whatever data we have received). Scientists are not the objective observers that some seem to think. They have philosophical presuppositions, and these come through in their conclusions. It is a part of the process. We all need to admit it. Someone who refuses to admit this loses credibility as far as I’m concerned.

J.P. Moreland wrote, “While I lean somewhat strongly toward an old earth creationist view, I cannot shake the idea that the young earth people may be correct.” He then went on to critique the young earth view. I appreciate the honesty of that, however. Likewise, Phillip Johnson, who also accepts an older earth, pointed out, “I agree with critics of that position (i.e., the old earth view) that something is awkward about the idea that God stepped in at various undetermined points in an earthly history of billions of years to some more creating or to inject new genetic information into the biosphere.” I can respect those from both sides who admit to the difficulties inherent in the positions. I would think that apologists for both sides would give each other fair hearing and acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses of each position. Ultimately, and this is crucial, the position we accept boils down to faith (which is not to say that evidence has nothing to do with it). God was there at creation. We weren’t. So what He says about creation (Genesis) must be more significant than our own interpretations from physical science (which may be in a constant state of change). I have no problem with the idea that God could create everything in full capacity and working order, fully grown, etc. without His being deceptive about it (since, if this is the way Genesis 1 is to be interpreted, God told us about it). The physical evidence is open to interpretation, so we better be careful not to put our conclusions based on interpretation on par with the actual data. That goes for both young and old earth creationists.

May God bless us with open hearts and minds to continue in our study, humility to admit our biases, and strength to accept truth when we see it.

Brotherly,
Doy Moyer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/5/99 6:26:26 pm
Re: RE: Data vs. Philosophy

Hello Brother Moyer,

You are correct in noting the connection between science and philosophy, and the relationship between evidence and interpretation. The evidence in question is vast, as large as the Universe, and deep, present within atoms and subatomic particles. The Age of the Universe is directly related to many sciences, including cosmology, astronomy, geology, nuclear physics, chemistry and biology. When discussing the age of the Universe, Christians are contemplating reality and what we can know about reality. Complex issues of this sort demand careful thought and reasoned answers, and also an open mind because knowledge is constantly increasing.

I am confident that everyone will acknowledge that continents and oceans exist, and that each of these are built upon rocks, and that the continental crust are different from oceanic crust, and that sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks are different and each has a different origin, and that mountains and basins exist. Christians can observe these evidences, and naturally become curious about why all these things exist.

Questions about the origin of these large scale geological features might lead a Christian to seek an answer in the Bible. No answer is available in the Bible for these questions because geology is not discussed by any of the prophets or the apostles. For that reason, all of Biblical geology (in whatever form it takes) is necessarily speculative and doubtful. Speculative answers, even those that sound convincing and correct, are subject to rejection and refutation. Christians must therefore avoid any attempt to create or defend any Biblical geology.

The science of geology, a remarkably young science only centuries old, has accumulated an immense amount of evidence classifying, identifying and explaining the geological features of the earth. The conclusions of science are built open present observation of geological processes, and examination of physical evidence. Given that the conclusions of geology are derived from the scientific methodology, Christians who seek to criticize, modify or reject geological conclusions must justify their decision by appealing to the evidence.

Christians have not sufficiently answered the geological arguments by merely stating an apparent objection to geological evidence. "Apparent Age" and "Noah's Flood" are not sufficient if these explanations are not connected with specific geological evidence which they explain successfully. That is to say that proponents of "Apparent Age" must identify what geological features have apparent rather than actual age, and provide some means of distinguishing apparent from actual age. Proponents of Noah's Flood must explain what sediments were produced by Noah's Flood, and provide some means of distinguishing pre-flood, flood and post-flood sediments. Without specific details there exist no means of testing the argument, and no reason for anyone to accept the argument.

I am confident that examination of the crust of the earth will reveal that the present crust is not the initial crust (the crust which presently exist formed through geological processes following the origin of the Earth) and that Noah's Flood does not account for Earth's geological features (the majority of geological processes are not diluvial). I have great confidence that plate tectonics is substantially true, based upon honest and careful examination of evidence found worldwide, and that it successfully explains the geological features of the earth in the past, present and future.

In summary, I am confident that the scientific evidence and the scientific interpretation of the evidence is substantially correct, and that there exist no coherent alternative explanation among the young-earth creationists.

-- David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy
11/6/99 12:09:32 am
Re: RE: Data vs. Philosophy

I should thank brother Matthews for illustrating the point I was making in my last post. That is, fact and interpretation of fact are distinct, and we need to admit that distinction. You'll notice that he speaks of such things as "conclusions of science" or "conclusions of geology." Remember that it is the people who draw the conclusions. Science itself is not capable of drawing conclusions. We can gather facts, and call it science; then we can draw conclusions from the facts (which may or may not be true), but to call that science is to meld the science and philosophy together without acknowledging the difference. Toward the end, David says that he has confidence that plate tectonics is true (the evidence), but then says that it "explains" the geological features, etc. Once again, people explain it that way. The question though is more philosophical nature. Is it the correct explanation? And how can one be absolutely sure that the conclusions are flawless?

Which brings me to another point. Any explanation of origins is based on faith. We weren't there. What has happened is in the past, historical, and all we can do is try to piece together what MAY have happened based upon facts to be gathered. Since science deals with matters that are testable, observable, and falsifiable, I find myself becoming skeptical of piecing together an entire history of the earth that cannot be observed, tested, or repeated for observation (e.g., how can anyone possible prove absolutely something to be millions or billions of years old? In order to do this, we must assume what must be proved, viz. that the methods used to prove this do indeed prove this). But, let me emphasize, we cannot gather ALL of the facts without the factual account of Genesis. Piecing together the facts, in other words, must include the Genesis account, or else we give up our biblical foundation.

David speaks of contemplating reality and what we can know about reality. Fine. But Genesis is just as much reality as is our observations of the physical features of the earth. If we do not take Genesis into account, then we are not taking all of reality into account. Now if it is, at least, POSSIBLE that God created things fully formed and functioning, then this must be taken into account when thinking about "age." I'm not arguing that this answer every question, but if we fail to take it into account, I think we are sorely missing something. After all, it is the only inspired record of the actual events.

I think some of the arguments regarding "apparent age" are blown a little out of proportion. We all believe in apparent age to some extent (just as Hill argued that we all believe in uniformitarianism, to some extent). How old did Adam look a week after he was created? A scientist could have run tests on him and drawn a dogmatic conclusion that he must be much older than a week. His mental abilities, his physical make-up, etc. all would have pointed to a much older person (who must also have been birthed by a mother). Looking at present people, we might say such a conclusion is justified. But, and this is the point, God, by revelation, has told us about creation. Adam was different because this was special creation. And all of creation was special. So why would I fuss about an "apparent age" and then say that makes God deceptive? He told us what He did. And we must factor that into the scenario.

Now I realize the whole issue is more complicated than that. I'm not an expert on geology and astronomy. But even so, I would still argue that these sciences are incomplete without the reality of the Genesis account. It seems that David wants to explain it all (as far as the science of geology goes) apart from the Bible (since there is no "biblical geology"). But this is a mistake, for we are then ignoring the word of the one was there at creation.

Well, part of this rhetoric is to illustrate that the whole issue ultimately comes down to faith, a philosophical viewpoint. Facts from science will not contradict the Bible, but, as we all know, many philosophers and scientists do contradict the Bible. Science is an ever-changing discipline. The "conclusions of science" today may be very much different in another millenium. But the Bible will still be there, standing firm and strong as always. I do not believe that there will ever be a scientific fact that will contradict Scripture. But I do believe that many "conclusions" will. This is precisely why I argue the case about the distinctions between fact and interpretation.

In Him,
Doy Moyer
doy@focusmagazine.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/6/99 5:44:26 pm
Facts and the Interpretation of Facts

Hello Doy,

I do not know what anyone means when they say that God created the Earth "fully formed" indicating an analogy between Adam's initial state and the initial state of the Earth. What does a "fully formed" planet look like? Looking at the other planets and their moons, the structure of a planet's crust can take many different forms. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a "fully formed" earth at the creation would appear in any way similar to the present surface of the earth.

Earth is distinct from the planets and the moons in one very significant property -- processes of crustal creation and destruction are operating constantly on Earth. At the mid-oceanic ridges, the spreading of plates is leading to the creation of new oceanic crust through volcanic activity. At the trenches, oceanic crust is subducting into the Earth's surface where it is destroyed by melting. Continental crust is formed through a variety of mechanisms, and destroyed by erosion.

Erosion's power is demonstrated by numerous former mountain chains which exist only by their exposed roots. No mountains would exist except that the constant motion of plates causes collision between continents and oceanic crust, island arcs and continents. An example of a mountain chain formed by the collision of a continent with oceanic crust is the Andes mountains of South America. An example of a mountain chain formed by the collision of a continent with an island arc is the Taconic orogeny of the Eastern North American continent. An example of a mountain chain formed by continent-continent collision is the Himalayan mountains.

All of these collisions and their resulting mountain chains reveal a history of earth extending back many millions of years. Demolished mountain chains and ocean basins, such as those present in the Canadian Shield, reveal a history of the earth extending back billions of years. The presence of multiple mountain forming events occurring successively are sufficient to prove that the Earth's history is actual, not apparent, and that the history extends back into the billions of years.

There is no scripture in the Bible which would dispute the history of the Earth as it is revealed by geology. The Scriptures do not demand or even suggest that these evidences are apparent and not actual. For that reason, I can accept the evidence of geology without contradicting the Bible or denying faith in God.

Thanks,

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy
11/6/99 6:16:05 pm
RE: Data vs. Philosophy

Bro. Matthews:

I do not believe you got my point. I think you know by "fully formed" I mean simply that God could have created this earth in a six day period "ready" for life, as Genesis 1 seems to indicate. In other words, God could have made everything "grown," so to speak, and fully functioning, just as He did Adam. It had nothing to do with mountains, etc. But even then, that was a side point, in which I was stating that I had no problem with that. "Appearance" of some sort of age is a necessary corollary to special creation, whether we are talking about Adam, or a seed in the ground. Why is this not acknowledged?

Still, it seems that David is unwilling to factor Genesis into this world's "geology." This was one of my main points before. He wants to separate Genesis from the physical earth, and by doing this, he removes a biblical foundation. I am not saying, in any way, that Genesis contradicts geology. But I am saying that any geology, without factoring in Genesis, is incomplete. Is he assuming that God could NOT have created the earth with function already in place? It would seem so. This is the problem I have with dogmatism about an old earth. It assumes that God couldn't have made a fully functioning earth without it having to go through billions of year. That assumption is simply not provable without first assuming what must be proved. All I'm asking for here is for old earth advocates to grant that possibility that God could have done it in a shorter time. And if they won't grant the possibility, then I have to wonder why. It is at that point that another "philosophy" seems to be driving the position, and not the actual "evidence." At least that's how it appears to me.

Again, David is not appreciating the distinction between evidence and interpretation of evidence. What geology "reveals" is based upon how one interprets that evidence. If another geologist (credentialed) disputes the interpretation, he is automatically written off as one who doesn't look at the evidence, when it's the interpretation of the evidence he is questioning. Again, I ask, how can one absolutely know for certain that something is billions of years old? One must assume what needs to be proven: that the processes "revealing" such an age actually do reveal that age. Since no one was there to confirm it, we need refrain from being dogmatic about it.

It's not the evidence of geology I have a problem with. It's interpreting it with dogmatism that I have a problem with. And having said that, I've already admitted that I'm not a dogmatic young-earth creationist. While I lean to a younger earth, I grant the possibility of more time. And I am not a "no more than 10,000 years" apologist. I've been accused of being "on the fence" with this, but I am trying to stay consistent ("what's good for the goose is good for the gander"). Ultimately, this is an issue that boils down to faith, whether you are putting your faith in the ever-changing processes of science, or in the Bible as God's word (or a combo of the two).

Thanks again,
Doy Moyer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/6/99 11:57:25 pm
What God Can Do vs. What God Did Do

Hello Brother Moyer,

I accept your proposition that apparent age is a necessary component of special creation, although I must insist that apparent age is meaningless when what we presently observe is not the Universe as it existed at the moment of creation. In whatever form the Earth existed at creation, that form would have (must have) suggested age. Exactly what this form was is speculation in an almost absolute sense -- no evidence presently exist which would identify the initial state of the Earth, and the Bible does not describe the initial state of the Earth. For that reason, I am prepared to set aside the apparent age argument altogether as irrelevant and inconsequential.

I have no need or desire to limit God's ability to do anything, such as creating a "fully functioning earth." What I am insisting is that the present surface of the Earth is not the initial surface of the Earth, and that the Earth's surface reveals an immense history of successive and concurrent geological activities whose interactions have created the complex continental and oceanic structures observed today.

I will also insist that the forces which have created the present surface of the Earth are presently active on the Earth's surface and therefore must make the future Earth's appearance different from today's Earth. Once it is understood that these processes which are presently active are comprehensible, the historic geological evidences also become comprehensible. A coherent and defensible history of the Earth exist in the science of geology.

Any attempt to deny or modify the historic record of geology must also demand a modification of a host of other sciences, as the properties and interactions of matter (such as continental and oceanic crust) is governed by physical laws which limit the rate of geological activity and the effects of geological activity. All theories which attempt to compress geological history within a short time frame (such as below 100,000 years) threaten to make the Earth and the Universe incomprehensible and science void.

I am not specially concerned about what God can do. I am concerned about what God did do. There is a distinction between these two that Christians ought to acknowledge. I am confident that numerous independent evidences exist which can and does demonstrate that God did not create the present Universe within a short time frame (under 100,000 years).

The concept of immense time should not be more offensive to the soul, mind or emotions than the reality of immense space. From the standpoint of God, 10 billion light years is not distant, even though for humans that distance is beyond comprehension. From my own standpoint as a Christian, the passing of 6,000 years since the creation is as meaningless as the passing of 15 billion years, both from the standpoint of the short span of human life (less than 100 years) and the immense span of eternity.

God is older than 15 billion years, and God will exist long after another 150 billion years have passed. From a spiritual standpoint, 15 billion years is inconsequential. What is significant is that we live in this moment, and we may only think, speak and act in the present.

What right do I have to complain if God waited 15 billion years to create me? Why would anyone consider that more troublesome than the thought that God waited 10,000 years for my existence?

I am confident that the Universe is immensely old, the Universe is comprehensible, and that faith can exist in a Universe immense in both size and age.

Thanks,
David Mathews

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/9/99 10:54:23 am
re: Data and Philosophy

Doy,

I appreciate very much your point concerning data and interpretation. Facts of nature and facts of the Bible can never contradict, unless of course one or the other is not true. That is the fundamental tension of apologetics, isn't it? You are exactly correct in noting that interpretations of the Bible (religions) and interpretations of nature (science) may contradict, and I believe this is nearly always because of philosophical presuppositions. [Sometimes it is because not all the relevant data is known. Only a fool claims absolute knowledge.] As anyone who has attended any of our lectures knows, I go to extreme lengths in the workshops we teach to make sure we emphasize this same point. I center every presentation of my workshops around this point. "Here is the data; here are two interpretations. Which do you find more reasonable to believe?" I am not confusing data with interpretation. I am asking that those who wish to change my interpretation of the data do so, not by pointing out it is my interpretation, but rather by taking the same physical data (which is documented by links in above posts of mine and David's responses) and offering a better interpretation of that same data (as in "more reasonable" to me, since that's who you are trying to convince).

Mostly what is going on in this so far is akin to an experience I suppose we can all identify with. You are studying with someone concerning the necessity of baptism. You cite all the relevant passages (the data). They respond "Well, that's just your interpretation." Which of course is exactly correct, but you believe it to be the correct interpretation consistent with certain established laws of interpreting such data (passages). So you try again. You try to educate them better in their skills of how to interpret such data. You go back over the same passages. You introduce additional supporting passages. You show how it all fits together from many different perspectives and contexts. They again say its just your interpretation. Until one of two things happens you are at an impasse.

Either: 1) you acknowledge that since it's just your interpretation then it is okay for them to interpret the passages differently (my experience is that their "interpretation" is usually to just ignore the passages, or at least it seems that way to me.) or 2) the other acknowledges that the passages must be incorporated into a rational interpretation consistent with all relevant passages (i.e., the whole of Scripture).

Failing to reach one or the other ends hope of getting any further. Accepting 1) is unacceptable to you. Accepting 2) is usually unacceptable to the other.

So while it is a valid charge that my interpretation is "just my interpretation" (actually a "few" other folks share this ancient earth view), accepting resolution approach (1) is unacceptable to me. I do not acknowledge that "it is just my interpretation" frees one to hold interpretations contradicted by data. (But of course contradiction itself is a matter of interpretation. All human understanding is interpretive whether considering scripture or nature.) So I encourage anyone to offer alternate interpretations of the physical data. Then we will be making some progress.

Secondly: regarding your point that any geological view that doesn't incorporate Genesis 1 is only playing with part of the data. Obviously correct again. That of course is why I am a creationist in the first place. I incorporate Genesis 1 - and the rest of Scripture - into my interpretation of the physical data. Without the grace of Genesis (& the Bible), I probably wouldn't be a creationist. Likewise any Genesis interpretation of creation that fails to incorporate the physical data in the creation is equally suspect if it presumes to extrapolate, without the benefit of physical data, beyond the limited and simple statements of Genesis 1.

As to your point to David concerning dogmatism, I agree. This is obviously an area where much continued study is needed among brethren. However, providing overwhelming evidence, such as David points to in his links, and I on my web page, is not dogmatism. It is attempting to help others see the massive volume of physical evidence that must be countered by potentially valid alternative explanations of that data. Also this should help evangelists better appreciate the magnitude of the challenge before them if they wish to evangelize a world well educated concerning such data. Unfortunately, the evangelist's job is a lot harder now than it used to be, because there is simply a lot more data. I am trying to help Christians be better equipped, even if you disagree with my interpretations, understand what you are going to be facing when evangelizing those that share similar views as I and others have concerning the age of the earth. Look at it like this, you can use me to sharpen your saw (in Steve Covey terms).

Remember, I am not trying to convert anyone to a religious belief that the universe is ancient, rather my view is that whether you believe it to be young or old doesn't matter with respect to your relationship in Christ.* I happen to believe it is old on purely scientific grounds. I believe scripture can be understood consistently with that view. I do strongly believe that we shouldn't be teaching our young people that they must believe its young in order to accept the Bible as truth. Or even planting seeds of suspicion in their minds over this issue. THAT dogmatism is a very hazardous slope for their faith, and the unity of brethren. I very much appreciate your "agnostic" position, I think that is probably the best bet for most folks - simply acknowledge that one might not know. However, a caution, don't let that become the dogma itself. If another brother does think he knows (whether young or old) he should not be viewed with suspicion simply for that greater certainty. Maybe he has more complete data or a better understanding than another. The time agnostic has three choices: 1) maintain his agnosticism without looking any further, 2) show all the interpretations of the data to be wrong, thus moving to informed agnosticism, 3) accept an interpretation of the data, therefore no longer being an agnostic. I am of the latter, though not so dogmatically so that I'm not willing to evaluate alternate interpretations I've not previously considered. My door is open.

* I do believe it makes a difference in how effectively one can evangelize with the gospel in certain communities well versed in science.

Sincerely,
Hill

(Thread Archival Note: See Subthread 1a for other followup discussions to this post. HR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/7/99 7:58:37 am
Substantial Evidence

Hello Brother Turner,

In accordance with your request that I or Hill produce a shred of evidence in support of plate tectonics and continental drift -- which is presumably not a subject of controversy, as you state your acceptance of continental drift -- I will provide you with a number of links to web sites which discuss the operation and the implications of continental drift. I encourage you (and expect you) to examine these evidences as they are produced by scientists and I am in agreement with the histories that they are presenting. Not only do these stories make reference to the movement and the interaction of the continents, they also require vast amounts of time to accomplish the interactions recorded. These accounts are also significant because they speak about successive events which could not have occurred simultaneously or instantaneously.

http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/wpk/geos/GEO_2/GEO_PLATE_T-17.HTML
[Western Canadian Shield]

http://northern.lights.com/waterways/geology/geolhist.htm
[The Geological History of Saskatchewan]

http://www.geo.umass.edu/gradstud/davis/tectonic%20overview.html
[History of the Superior Province]

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/geo_survey/oh_geol/97_Fall/ordovici.htm
[Geology of Ohio -- the Ordovician]

http://geollab.jmu.edu/vageol/vahist/16pghisH.html
[Sixteen Page History of the Geology of Virginia]

All of the above web sites discuss the history of segments of the North American continent, and I have organized them so that the story begins in the oldest region of North America (central Canada) and moves to the Eastern edge of the North America (Virginia and the Eastern Coast).

Continents form by accretion. The North American continent is a patchwork of crustal blocks which have become welded together by continent-island arc and continent-continent collisions. Collision events create mountain chains, such as those which previously existed in numerous places in North America. These mountain chains no longer exist, except by their exposed roots, because erosion has leveled them. The eroded mountains became sediments, and the sediments lithified to become rocks, and these rocks were later folded and metamorphized by later mountain-building events. The closer one travels to the ocean (from the Canadian Shield) the younger the rocks become as they were formed by more recent collisions.

Eventually you reach the border of the continent, where you will usually find mountains which have formed so recently that erosion has not yet leveled them. For example, the Rocky Mountains of Western North America and the Andes of South America. These mountains formed by the collision of North America with the Pacific plate.

No alternative exist to the above history among the young earth creationists. The creation scientists (such as those at ICR) do not have evem a theory to offer. They cannot explain the Earth's geology within a time frame of 10,000 years even with the flood. They can not identify any strata as flood, pre-flood or post-flood. For that reason, the young earth creationists do not provide any detailed comprehensive explanations for the geology of the Earth.

What is known -- and what I will defend -- is that the majority of Earth's sedimentary strata, all of Earth's metamophic and igneous rocks, and the operation of plate tectonics are not products of the Genesis flood or any other diluvial process. For that reason, flood geology is incomplete, insufficient and inadequate.

I will end these comments here as they are sufficient to present the evidence that you requested. I have not exhausted the evidence, as it exist worldwide -- even under your own feet.

Thanks,
David Mathews

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/9/99 10:31:49 am
Re: Substantial Evidence

David,

I have heard and read about the supposed "evidence" of plate tectonics and continental drift for more than two decades now. So, I am somewhat familiar with it, although I am not, as you evidently are, an expert on the subject. So, you ought not to suppose I know nothing about it. Nevertheless, and true to form, you continue to operate under the illusion that someone who disagrees with you is either ignorant of the data, or just dishonestly obstinate. My admission that I believed the continents are drifting, should have been some clue that I am not totally ignorant of the subject. Another clue should have been my admission to having been a theistic evolutionist at one time.

Nevertheless, you cite five websites that I am expected to visit so I can get "up to speed" on the subject. You evidently expect me to scour over the highly technical stuff on these websites (and they are highly technical and difficult, maybe even impossible, for me to understand) and when I do, and if I am honest (which is an implication of what you've said about this so far), then I'll know what you know—i.e., world history is billions of years old!

By reacting this way, it is clear that you've missed my point, which is this: The discussion is not about the data (it is what it is). Instead, and Moyer made this clear in his postings, the argument is over the interpretation of the data. This is illustrated by the story of John Baumgardner of Los Alamos National Laboratory, who is, by everyone's standards, a world-class scientist. In fact, it has been said that he is the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection, the process by which the Earth creates volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plates. His program, called "Terra," is a fascinating and highly touted 3-D computer program that gives scientists the ability to see and understand how plate tectonics actually operate. It is presently the most popular of several programs designed for this purpose, and is being used by many around the world who study and teach Earth Science. So, as Baumgardner's scientific credentials are unquestionable, and because his work involves plate tectonics, directly impacting the science, he can, unlike me, speak with authority in this area. But when he does so, this world-class scientist does not agree with your position. He is, instead, a young-earth creationist, who says uniformitarian "glasses" prevent old-earth scientists from giving much attention to the evidences for catastrophism in the sedimentary record. He argues, as I do, that such basic philosophical biases profoundly affect the way scientists approach problems and weigh the evidence. So, according to Baumgardner, it's not simply "facts speaking for themselves," as you and Roberts try to argue. Instead, the framework one starts from can, and does, profoundly affect the conclusions that are drawn.

This truth is even illustrated by Terra itself, for if you put different assumptions into the computer, you can get radically different results as to how the processes have actually functioned and for how long. One set of assumptions is reported to give you a flood similar to the biblical flood, and an age to the earth of less than 10,000 years. Another set of assumptions gives an age of about 4.6 billion years. This clearly demonstrates the point Moyer and I have been making—namely, the data produces entirely different results depending upon the basic assumptions you begin with, whether catastophism or uniformitarianism.

Now, here are my questions for you. As you cannot argue that Baumgardner is ignorant of the data, what makes you so certain that he is just being obstinate, and probably dishonestly so? Do you think it is because he is simply blinded by his religious faith—a faith that says much of the geologic record should be, and probably is, the result of the Noachian flood? Finally, why do you reject the flood account, or do you? If, like Roberts, you don't reject it, then why do you suppose there is no evidence for it in the geologic data, as interpreted by you?

Sincerely,
Allan

(Thread Archival Note: See Subthread 1b for other followup discussions to this post. HR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/9/99 10:33:48 pm
Answers to Questions

Brother Turner,

In answer to your questions:

1. As you cannot argue that Baumgardner is ignorant of the data, what makes you so certain that he is just being obstinate, and probably dishonestly so?

I do not know that Baumgardner is dishonest or obstinate. Dr. Baumgardner's character is not my concern. The merits of Dr. Baumgardner's theory depend altogether on its ability to explain the data gleaned from nature concerning plate tectonics.

Dr. Baumgardner's theory is wrong -- absolutely wrong. Regardless of what events he can create using his computer model, the physical evidence does not coincide with catastrophic plate tectonics.

What is known and acknowledged (even by ICR scientists, though not so by ICR's material designed for the general public) is that plate tectonics is an effective and successful explanation for the geology of the Earth, and that plate tectonics is an observable and measureable phenomenon. For that reason, plate tectonics is a fact, based upon substantial evidence gleaned from observation and the historical records preserved in the rocks of the oceans and continents.

The physical evidence does not support catastrophic plate tectonics. The oceanic crust was not formed instantly following a catastrophic event. John Baumgardner's theory is wrong, regardless of his status as an eminent scientists.

2. Do you think it is because he is simply blinded by his religious faith—a faith that says much of the geologic record should be, and probably is, the result of the Noachian flood?

John Baumgardner's scientific theory is a direct result of his religious faith, as he has stated publicly. His theory is not derived from the Bible, however. The Bible says nothing about catastrophic plate tectonics or flood geology.

3. Finally, why do you reject the flood account, or do you?

I do not reject the flood account.

4. If, like Roberts, you don't reject it, then why do you suppose there is no evidence for it in the geologic data, as interpreted by you?

There is no evidence for the flood in the geological data because the majority of geological processes are not diluvial. Proponents of flood geology cannot identify sedimentary rocks deposited by Noah's flood or distinguish between supposed flood strata, pre-flood and post-flood strata.

From a Biblical standpoint, no evidence exist that Noah's flood had a profound impact upon the geology of the Earth. The Earth prior to the flood did not differ significantly from the Earth following the flood. For example, rivers mentioned prior to the flood continue to exist today. If the flood had deposited a mile of sediments or had other profound effects, these rivers could not exist today.

No Biblical support exist for Flood Geology, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and other more dubious theories produced by the Institute for Creation Research and other similar institutions. All of these theories are incomplete and unsuccessful, subject to rejection by Christians, scientists and anyone else who chooses to examine them according to their merits.

Christians who are conscious of an apparent contradiction between science and the Bible ought to evaluate their own understanding of the Bible. The young earth doctrine is beset by many problems, among which is ambiguity concerning the actual age of the Universe. Simply stated, the Bible does not provide a specific age for the Universe and the Earth, nor does the Bible devote much attention or attach much importance to chronology.

If chronology was necessary to the faith, God would have included a universal and consistent measure of the passage of time in the historical accounts of the Bible. Uniform measurements and absolute measurements of the passage of time are an invention of Western civilization. Modern society views time much different than ancient cultures, demonstrated by the presence of clocks and watches everywhere and our obsession with the passage of time especially as it relates to becoming old.

Thanks,
David Mathews

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/9/99 12:58:21 pm
Re: Terra & Runaway Subduction

Allan,
Okay, this is good. Someone has introduced some real data into this discussion to support the young earth interpretations and presuppositions.

Dr. Baumgardner's work is well recognized within the modeling and simulation community for excellent and efficient finite element modeling of large scale structures. As you note he disagrees with the standard time-scale for plate tectonics. (Readers will note that in my previously referenced online book about Age, page 31, I also reference his work. This is not new information to this discussion.) There is a good review of his work in USNews June 16, 1997 that should be accessible to readers of all backgrounds. One will note in that article that he acknowledges it is his young earth presuppositions which drive him to use his excellent Terra model on his own time to suggest his runaway subduction model. He uses this computer simulation to generate a model of plate tectonics in which the continents rapidly reach their current positions in a short period of time, which he ascribes to events of Noah's flood. He acknowledges that he has no physical basis for this other than his own young earth presuppositions derived from his interpretation of scripture (he is a Seventh Day Adventist - see Ron Number's book "The Creationists" for an excellent review of the role SDA doctrines have played in the advent of "Creationism" in America. For a more at-home review of SDA influences in CoC, see Steve Wolfgang's chapter in the FC book "A Tribute to Melvin Curry.")

The Terra model will only produce results of rapid crustal motion if one inserts completely non-physical constants into the simulation. For example he uses properties of rock in terms of specific heat, thermal conduction, thermal gradients, tensile strength, shear strength, compressive failure, dynamic loading and mass density profiles that have NO relation to the actual values for these properties of basalt and granite (the two basic types of crustal rock). Some of the values he uses for these constants of nature differ by more than an order of magnitude from reality. When he uses values for these properties of nature that are correct for such materials, his model produces exactly the type of slow motion for the continents consistent with the rest of geological data. Furthermore, his own model shows that if the continents were to move at such rates, the surface destruction would be so great and so prolonged that the earth would STILL be uninhabitable for all the massive earthquakes which would STILL be happening if runaway subduction happened only a few thousand years back. So which part of the model's results do you want to keep for your presuppositions?

As it happens, computer simulation and finite element modeling is something I do myself in my professional work. Anyone who works with such tools knows that a computer model can be made to produce any result at all simply by changing the model and/or using inputs that produce the desired results. For example, in a model of a satellite flying around the earth, I can easily produce a model that indicates such a satellite can orbit the earth at only ten kilometers altitude. All I have to do is give the atmospheric portion of standard, high-fidelity models constants for the density of air that are off by a factor of 10. But surely everyone understands that satellites cannot orbit at ten kilometers altitude just because a computer model with bad data says so, even if its a really good community-standard computer model that produces high-precision results for orbital mechanics when used with correct data. Computer models can be great. But it is never fair to input a lighter-than-air pig into one and then claim pigs really can fly.

Sincerely,
Hill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/6/99 11:49:10 pm
Re: Data vs Philosophy

Hill,

Claiming you already see a trend that is "counterproductive," you write: "On the one hand, if I am circumspect, that is honest. But if David is forthright, he is castigated for boldness." What I said was "boldly asserts," and this seems appropriate when describing David's "The world's history...is billions of years old" statement. Yes, I believe he's less circumspect than you, but I nowhere said, or even implied, that this was a reflection on his honesty. In fact, I didn't equate "circumspect" with "honest." This is the product of your own thinking, not mine. But, if I didn't make it clear previously, and I really thought I did, then I will make it so now: I believe David is honest (i.e., a man of integrity), and I have no reason to think otherwise. However, I continue to think you and he are honestly wrong. I'm really sorry you see this as being "counterproductive."

It is interesting, perhaps tellingly so, that neither you nor Matthews have produced a shred of evidence for what you believe—only assertions, yet you claim I have failed completely to deal with the evidence supporting continental drift. Excuse me, but I believe the data indicates the continents are drifting. So what? Simply citing plate tectonics, continental drift, or small and large-scale geological structures, et cetera, is not presenting "evidence" or "data." It is, instead, an appeal to the implications and various assumed ramifications of a particular interpretation of that data. For sure, there are other interpretations of the data, and you know it, but you have rejected them. Now, just because you have done so does not mean that they are invalid, only that you think they are. Hill, the fact that you and David don't think they are valid is of interest to me. In fact, where you're both coming from on this is of keen interest to me. I want to know what's going on, scientifically and otherwise, and I'm willing to listen to what you and David have to say. In fact, I've spent quite a bit of time going over reams of your material, which I would not have done if I wasn't interested. However, those presuppositions to which you admit cause me to doubt whether your interpretation of the evidence is correct. And in discussing this with you, I do not impugn your motives or integrity. Do you appreciate this? Evidently not, for you are already talking about seeing a trend that is counterproductive. Again, I'm sorry you feel this way, as I had hoped our discussion would be helpful.

The force of your argument is that if I were a scientist, and knew what you and other scientists knew, then I'd know why you know what you think you know, and that if I knew all this, I'd have to conclude, like you, Matthews, and the majority of scientists, that the earth is 4.7 billions years old. Hill, my brother, this does not have to be arrogance, but it sounds like it could be, and perhaps this contributes to how some feel about your approach to this issue. In fact, when I view this in light of your constant characterization of science and scientists as manifesting the highest and purist of motives, while disparaging your brethren in Christ, particularly preachers, as being fellows with less than honorable motives, it just doesn't set well with me. In my opinion, you spend too much time whining (sorry, but that's what it sounds like to me) about the criticism that you must have known you'd get from brethren. You then have a tendency to paint those who oppose you as being less than honorable men, who have their own little fifedoms to protect. Pardon me for my bluntness, but I, along with others, resent these accusations, and I wish you'd quit it, as you sometimes appear to be your own worst enemy in this, in that this only contributes to even more prejudice against you. Yes, I certainly do not think all the criticism leveled against you has been fair, intelligent, or Christianly, and I think my opening remarks in this discussion thread indicate this. Yes, I know how unpleasant, totally frustrating, and absolutely disheartening it can be when this happens, and I know all too well the desire to lash back. But most of your opponents are not mean-spirited, parochial, pea-brained imbeciles, and even if they were, it would not make your case one bit stronger. So, if you and Matthews are right, it is your job to prove it, not assert it! You'll have to explain your position in a way the common man can understand it, without appealing to an exhalted position for yourself, as a scientist, or Science, in general. In other words, you're going to have to popularize your position, whether you want to or not, as this is the only way you'll ever be able to win the hearts and minds of us non-scientists. True, a discussion of this sort does not lend itself to a detailed, scientific agenda, but I do not think it the disadvantage you seem to imply. If we tried to make it fit the above criteria, very few would be of the disposition to listen, and all the other would quickly become bored stiff. On the other hand, a discussion of the sort we are having provides us an opportunity to discuss our differences, perhaps understand the other's position more clearly, and this, I think, is in no way counterproductive.

I questioned, and continue to question, the uncritical, "carry-it-to-the-nth-degree" implementation of uniformitarian presuppositions. I do this, even while I make the uniformitarian assumptions necessary to getting along in this world, but this does not make those of us who question your interpretation of the data hypocrites, and if it doesn't, what's your point? Yes, just like you, I live everyday with the assumptions of Newtonian Physics, even while I'm aware of the implications of Quantum Physics. Yes, I know things, as well as issues, are complex, and often not what they appear to be on the surface. And I even know that the heart is a deceitful place, but I honestly don't think my questioning of uniformitarianism is just insincere rhetoric, as you seem to imply. Of course, you may have been referring to my skill in the art of writing and speaking effectively, but I suspect a compliment is not what you had in mind.

You say Professor Gould is just wrong. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he is, and knowing what I do about him, I've come to expect it; but you simply saying he's wrong doesn't mean he is. You are certainly free to argue that out with him, if you like. As you well know, I am not competent to deal with all the ins and outs of plate tectonics and continental drift, et cetera. There are others, much more competent than myself, that must deal with these. I respect Matthew's journey away from a young-earth position to the one he now holds. I am even sympathetic to it, but this does not mean that I am convinced, as he is, that all the evidence, when dealt with objectively, compels one to conclude that the earth is 4.7 billion years old. And although I believe he actually thinks the evidence is overwhelming, nevertheless, what he says is, in my opinion, a bold assertion, which I believe is yet to be proved. There are scientists who believe Matthews is wrong in his interpretation. So, unless all these scientists are dishonest, or incompetent (and this is certainly the way many evolutionists like to portray them), then there must be more than one way to interpret the data. In this regard, it is interesting to note that in the current controversy brewing over the old-earth position of Shane Scott, a professor at Florida College, this position is being defended by a member of the Bible department, not the Science department. I consider Shane a friend, and he has, over the years, demonstrated himself to be not just a fine young man, student, and, now, professor, but a fine Christian and gospel preacher. I'm not for censuring him in any way, and believe any such effort to be misguided. However, I believe his old-earth position is wrong. So, he and Florida College are going to have to take the heat on this, and they will.

As you know, this issue has never been just about how one interprets Genesis 1. For example, you and Matthews believe the geologic data points overwhelmingly and conclusively to earth history encompassing 4.7 billions years. But, the Bible says there was a great flood in Noah's time. Now, if the information provided in the Bible about this flood is true, then it was undoubtedly a worldwide, cataclysmic event. When referring to it, the Bible says:

     For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth      standing out of the water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished,      being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by      the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men (2      Peter 3:5-7).
 

Now, although this was obviously an event of epic proportions, you have said in your writings, and I assume Matthews would agree, that you have not seen evidence of the flood in the geologic data. Here, then, is my point: If I were you or Matthews, I would be seriously questioning my interpretation of the geologic data. Instead, you remain convinced that your interpretation of the geologic record indicates 4.7 billion years of continuous history, and that nowhere does this history, as interpreted by you, reflect what you, as a Bible believer, would expect to find clearly exhibited in the data—i.e., evidence of the Flood. When dealing with this, you say that in spite of the physical evidence, which you have argued "dominates" in this area, you believe the Flood actually occurred. Why? Because the Bible says so, you say. Fine, I agree with you. But (and you're the one who brought up Catch-22), in the approach you espouse, an approach you think we all ought to adopt, what reason can there be for believing the Bible (special revelation) over the geologic evidence (natural revelation)? So, when you argue so hard for the adoption of a particular approach to understanding how things really are, but then you turn around and abandon this approach where you know your brethren would simply not tolerate it, why should you get upset with my questioning the assumptions of this approach? Remember, Hill, it was you who said, "If you want to convert a scientist to some philosophical viewpoint one must start with the data." Where, my scientific brother, is the data (as you interpret it) for the Flood? It's not there, by your own admission! So, either a Flood of the proportions mentioned in the Bible didn't happen, or your interpretation of the geologic record in flawed. I think it's your interpretation that's flawed, and I suspect you have some serious questions about it yourself.

I believe you cross over the line in your argument that natural revelation (which must be interpreted) "dominates" special revelation. Yes, there is something that natural revelation (properly interpreted) does that special revelation does not do. But when you talk of natural revelation dominating special revelation, you have, in my opinion, started down a slippery slope. I'm not thinking of you as much as I am of those who hear you. They might not remember, in spite of what you've said, that special revelation is really ultimate. In other words, you don't see the Flood in the data, but you still believe it occurred. Therefore, you accept the Bible's ultimate validity over geologic data, as interpreted by you. But some, who learn to think like you've taught them to think, may begin to have serious doubts about a book claiming to be a special, divine revelation from God, but doesn't jibe with "the data." Then what are you going to do, unlearn them? This is why I, and others, even while knowing you feel convicted in your position, can believe that your approach to this subject is fraught with spiritual danger. You can dismiss all this as just rhetoric, if you like, but I think you shouldn't. I know I sound like a preacher, but this is what I am.

Consider another example. The fossil record speaks loudly of death, and lots of it, but your interpretation of this record has billions of years of death and dying in the animal kingdom before man was ever created. Consequently you believe that death was a natural part of God's creation, and so argue in your writings. On the other hand, the Bible identifies death as an "enemy" that will one day be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:25). Therefore, physical death is not natural, even though it seems so in our fallen world. It is true that death is not mentioned in Genesis until after man's sin, and although it is true that the Bible does not say animals did not die before man's sin, the impression one gets from reading the Genesis account is that the whole creation was cursed as a result of man's sin. This idea is borne out in Romans 8:20-21, where we are told that the "creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." Because the "glorious liberty of the children of God" is mentioned here, some have incorrectly interpreted this passage to be talking only about man. This is simply not so, for in the very next verse, it is said that the "whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs until now" (v.22). Furthermore, the terms "creation" and "whole creation" are contrasted with "we" and "ourselves," which clearly is speaking of the redeemed. So, not only the saved among men are to be redeemed, but the "whole creation." Therefore, the glorious liberty of the children of God is not reserved just for mankind, but for all creation. So, if physical death is a consequence of man's sin, then where did all that death in the fossil record prior to man come from? You answer that it has nothing to do with man's sin and is, instead, nothing more than a reflection of the natural order as created by God. The apostle Paul does not appear to agree.

So, there are critical reasons why I have problems with your interpretation of the data. However, if you and Matthews are right, I want to know it. Therefore, demonstrate conclusively why your interpretation of the geologic data isn't to be questioned? If you can do so, then I'll have to accept it, whether I like it or not.

I'll stop here and give you a chance to reply.

Brotherly,
Allan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/9/99 10:56:40 am
Re: Data and Philosophy

Allan,

Well I punched a hot button of yours for which I apologize. I do appreciate that you have never impugned my motives or integrity. I was not and do not impugn yours. I simply noted that the more one of the respondees moved towards "boldness," the more condemnatory seemed the tone of the response, to me. Apparently I erred in this assessment. The readers, if there are any, can get the good from all our inputs and sift out our chaff. Let's move on.

As to your points concerning the existence of other interpretations of the data, please see my comments to Doy. You note that you doubt if my interpretation of the scientific data is correct because of my scientific presuppositions. That is why one must go back to the data and develop better interpretations from the data. As you know, having read my "reams of material," you know I have produced at least a "a shred of evidence." Please see my first post. To indicate I have not yet provided such is difficult for me to comprehend.

I have never appealed to the argument from authority such as "believe me because I'm a scientist." Such an appeal would be arrogant, rude, uncharitable and especially ineffective. Nor have I ever appealed to science as "manifesting the highest and purest motives." It does have a high calling: to learn physical truth. However, manifesting that calling in the lives of its men and women is altogether different. There are rascals in the bunch, to be sure. Contrary-wise, though you charge me with it, I do not disparage preachers as a class for having impure motives when they disagree with me. Such could not be further from the truth. However, as with scientists, there are some rascals in the bunch (thankfully a very small minority). Sometimes you've been on the pointed end of their stick yourself, I believe.

I'm perplexed. You don't see how your statements such as "whining," "pea-brained imbeciles," "appealing to exalted position," and "fifedoms," could be at least somewhat counterproductive? I try not ever to use such denigrating language myself. It's okay with me if you do, though unexpected. I will just have to evaluate if I wish to respond to points contained in such rhetoric. For now I do not.

I did not suggest that your questioning of uniformitarianism was "insincere" rhetoric. It's just rhetoric that, separate from evaluation of the data I've already given you, doesn't accomplish what you desire: my conversion to a positive-definite young age view.

At a couple of points you observed that I (or David) had failed to "Prove." You ask for more than anyone can provide. Proof in the sense you ask for it cannot be had. Gödel's incompleteness theorem showed that even in self-consistent rigorous mathematical "proofs" - nothing is ever Proved. It always comes down to what one is willing to take as axiomatic. If my axioms differ from your axioms I cannot prove anything to you. All anyone can do is present the evidence and interpretations, and ask which interpretation is more reasonable to believe. That is all I urge even now.

Concerning your injection of the flood of Noah into this discussion: You have grossly mis-represented my views concerning the flood. I DO NOT say anywhere "that in spite of the physical evidence" against a flood I believe it happened. Hence all your conclusion is invalid concerning the inconsistency of my views on the roles of natural and written revelation. I do not know of any physical evidence against the flood of Noah. Likewise, I do not know of any physical evidence for the flood of Noah. From principles of physical geology, I do not expect a flood of a few months to leave discernable physical evidence thousands of years later. Sedimentation rates are driven by time under water and the subsequent events that may or may not preserve such sediment deposits intact. Flood effects are driven by flood duration, not geographic extent. (It's sort of like the difference in density and mass: total mass increases with volume, but density stays the same. Sediment thickness increases with time, not areal extent.) Based upon other massive floods of similar duration (months), the total sediment loads deposited are miniscule (few inches) and generally are washed away in irregular fashion very soon thereafter. It would be difficult to imagine that what may have been no more than just such a thin, tenuous deposit would be broadly, homogeneously and durably preserved from then until now. There is no indication in the Genesis story that any major geological features were significantly altered, deposited or emerged as a result of the flood. There is no indication that the post-flood world viewed by Noah was any different at all from what he had last seen. Flood geology is NOT a scriptural view, it is an extrapolation beyond scripture. That's doesn't necessarily mean its wrong, but it is not scripture. Likewise for an ancient age view. If either view is to be proved correct it will have to come from physical evidence. As David has noted, the proponents of flood geology have presented a particularly incomplete evidence trail for the paradigm. I believe the worldwide flood of Noah occurred based on the only Divine evidence of it currently available to me, the written revelation. I have absolutely no question about that. Keep looking, maybe compelling physical evidence will turn up some day, but the geological strata are not it. As David has noted, most of that is not even deluvial.

Concerning your points about physical death: Are you willing to place so solid a defense upon what you admit is only your "impression" from several readings. And are you really willing to apply the always arguable Romans 8:20-21 passage positively to animal death (when death of any kind including human is not mentioned in the passage) instead of to the rebirth (which IS what's mentioned)? Death of man is a consequence of man's sin. Surely we all agree on that. But nowhere does scripture directly tie the death of all organisms to man's sin. Physical remains of animals in strata consistently below strata bearing human remains indicates other things had been dying long before any man did. Animal death may well also be the result of man's sin, even before the fact of man's sin was realized in Adam. (Consider that Jesus' blood apparently cleansed the sin of the faithful in Israel before His blood was ever shed: a conclusion drawn from Lev. 4:26, 31, 35, 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 6:7 with Heb 10:4) I don't know if animals died because of man's sin; maybe, maybe not. I don't see how anyone could know positively without explicit revelation from God, which we don't have. Maybe if physical data could help us in this, we should be appreciative of that, rather than suspicious when it redirects us concerning an obscure - and largely irrelevant - issue. Does anyone of us doubt that man's sin causes man's death? No.

[Let me try to explain from a physical perspective why it is a problem for nothing to die before Adam and Eve are kicked out of the garden. Bacteria are a vital component of normal life. The human body is about 70% water. Remove all that. Of the dry stuff that is left, about 10% is not you, but bacteria: about two billion, or 2 kilograms. Without that bacteria in us, we would quickly die. We are designed to use bacteria. They help us in many ways, mainly in our gut. Bacteria divide at a rate of about once per ten minutes on average. At that rate of geometric doubling your body would swell up and burst open well before ten doublings. Two kilograms of bacteria would become two thousand kilograms in 100 minutes. At that rate of doubling, the world would be filled with bacteria from the deepest layers of crust to the highest reaches of the atmosphere within about a day. (Same for plankton, and myriads of other fast reproducers.) That is, unless bacteria died out and become re-absorbed about as fast as they reproduce; hence maintaining the proper equilibrium. Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life. That certainly suggests some non-natural sustenance for these two lives. But does the text indicate anywhere that bacteria were likewise munching on the tree of life? Speaking of munching, what about the living food cells eaten by Adam and Eve and all the other animals? Life must have died by the mouthful, or else those living cells couldn't have been processed as food. Would we be even willing to think that whatever the tree of life provided for Adam and Eve it also provided for other organisms? And what about that part of creation outside of the garden? Did it likewise have access to the tree of life so as to avoid a geometric catastrophy? Some might say they were not multiplying, but as soon as the words are out of our mouth we realize that if they weren't multiplying we have a problem. To wit: God's commands to these will-less organisms to multiply after their own kind weren't being followed, which would be at least a weird corner for a Bible believer to find himself in. If organisms weren't functioning then as now, then it wasn't a "mature" world He created after all. Or, on another tack, with every step Adam took in the garden, he would have been killing millions of organisms. With every step an elephant took outside the garden, millions of organisms would have died. Just interesting things to think about!]

Those that want me to take a different interpretation of the physical data for ancient ages should start with the data already provided. Or give me book/chapter/verse which explicitly requires me to take a young age view of the age of the universe. Either will do to change my mind. If one doesn't like my attempt at harmonizing ancient age with Genesis, supply a better alternative that preserves the evidence from both realms. If one doesn't like us doing the workshops our way, please provide some that give folks the correct information they need to combat naturalistic atheism. God speed to all, we could use the break. There's more work to be done out there in the land of the lost than any of us can accomplish batting it around in here.

Sincerely, and with respect and love for a brother who's trying,
Hill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/12/99 2:22:14 am
Re: Data and Philosophy

Hill,

There is no need for you to apologize for punching my hot button. In fact, I suspect I may even have a few others that'll get punched before this discussion is over. Anyway, I was just giving you my impression of how what you say sometimes sounds to me. I've read your material, and some of the responses to those who have opposed you, and although my impression may be wrong, it is, nevertheless, honest. It is probably I who need to apologize for possibly leaving the impression with others who might read this discussion (and my server says close to 700 have already done so) that "pea-brained imbeciles," "appealing to exalted position," and "fifedoms" were words you had actually used, rather than my impression of what it sometimes sounds like you are saying. Again, my impression may be wrong, therefore, the readers of this discussion thread are free to view it with any value they decide to put on it. But with all due respect, you were already mentioning "counterproductive" before I ever shared these observations with you. But, like you, I certainly don't want to wrangle on and on about this, so taking your advice, I'll move on.

I have not once questioned the data involved in this issue. I don't feel competent to do so. But, as you well know, the data itself is frequently disputed. In fact, the methods employed in science have been designed to aid in disputes over the validity of data. If I were a scientist, I would undoubtedly be involved in that process. However, not being a scientist, I assume the data is correct, even though there is always the possibility it may not be. So, in my mind, at least, this discussion has never been over the data. I take your word, and the word of other scientists, that the data is there, and that it has been recorded accurately. So, I am not questioning the data per se, and I believe you know this. However, the data, whatever it is, must be interpreted before it can be the "evidence" you and Matthews have appealed to in this discussion. This was my point when I mentioned "not a shred of evidence," and, again, I think both you and Matthews know this. So, although you accuse me of resorting only to rhetoric and ignoring the evidence you and Matthews have presented in this discussion, you and Matthews have both resorted repeatedly to rhetoric and semantical gymnastics in your effort to dodge the force of the only argument you know that I have—i.e., the argument over the presuppositions of the systems used for interpreting the data. Therefore, I view with incredulity your effort to give the impression that there is rhetoric on one side of this discussion, and only "facts" and "evidence" on the other. This, my brother, is simply not true. And although this technique has been used effectively by our evolutionist opponents down through the years, I had, quite frankly, hoped better from you.

Our evolutionist adversaries (yours and mine) have rigged the discussion for far too long, excluding the metaphysical, and thereby tilting the discussion in their favor. The structure built on this tilting foundation has, in recent years, begun to crumble. With it, there has been a resurgence of interest in metaphysics, which, before this discussion, I thought you and I both would agree is essential if we are to have a proper understanding of origins. Now, I'm not sure you think so. I would be the first to admit that not everything associated with this resurgence is good and helpful, and any discerning Christian knows it, but it hasn't been all bad either. I believe advocates of Flood Geology and Creationism have made their share of mistakes. They have, at times, it seems to me, overstated their case at the expense of the "evidence" on the other side. At times, it even appears to me that their scholarship and honesty can be clearly questioned, even though Matthews has made it clear in his posts that it would be impossible for him to even think such a thing. For example, there is the now outdated argument about the influx of meteoritic dust from space to earth being about 14 million tons per year, and then arguing from this that if the earth and moon were really 4.7 billion years old, there should be a layer of dust approximately 182 feet thick covering their surfaces. (This, we are told by some, is why the lunar modules had those long landing pods.) In fact, this very argument, minus the one about the lunar module, was made in Scientific Creationism, a book that, when it was first published in 1974, was intended to be a "textbook" for the teaching of scientific creationism under the editorial direction of Dr. Henry M. Morris, Director of the Institute for Creation Research. (Incidentally, the 14 million ton figure was set forth by Hans Pettersson in the February 1960 issue of Scientific America, and I think it is safe to conclude that Pettersson was not a scientific creationist.) Now, we are being told that it has been discovered, as a result of data obtained from space probes and other means, that the level of dust influx from space is about 400 times less than what Pettersson thought. Now, when some scientific creationist familiar with the data continues to capitalize on this outdated argument, he is certainly deserving of the resulting scorn he will get from those who know the data. It is unfortunate that many brethren ignorantly continue to cite this example, not knowing that the figures have been seriously modified. But these kinds of things are not an anomaly peculiar to creationists. For instance, in his highly praised book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate, Tim M. Berra makes arguments that you would strongly disagree with, although he cites the "overwhelming data" (he sounds like you) which he believes to be the "evidence" for the general theory of evolution (macroevolution). While making the correct observation about the creationist error cited above, he then has the audacity to write: "Biologists do not deny the fact of evolution. We do, however, debate its mechanisms and tempo." You and I know Berra is not limiting himself to just microevolution, which you and I both agree is a fact. He is, therefore, wrong about this. Perhaps we can cut him some slack (which we are almost certain he would not extend to the creationists), as his book was copyrighted way back in 1990. But, alas, the edition of his book that I have in my library was printed in 1998, while Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biomedical Challenge To Evolution, a book you cite in your seminars, was published in 1996. But you and I both know that even before Behe's seminal work (in fact, all along), there have been biologists who questioned macroevolution. So, even this champion of evolutionary science is a hypocrite of the worst sort. Furthermore, even the old-earth creationists are not immune. Hugh Ross, who you cite and recommend, in a radio debate with Duane Gish on Dr. Dobson's FOF program, made the preposterous claim (for a scientist) that anyone could verify the birth of stars by taking a pair of binoculars and peering into the sky. Now, if I made a statement like this, even though I'm not a scientist, my critics would crucify me, and you know it. But, what do you do? You recommend the guy, while talking about the bad science of "scientific creationist."

(For those interested in the debate between Ross and Gish, one can visit here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-ross-debate.html. This is, incidentally, an anti-creationist site.)

Now I wrote all that to say this: Just because some on both sides of this issue remind us that we, as men, are fallen and, therefore, frequently less than we should be, there is no reason to write off everything "scientific creationists" have to say, for they have, at least in my opinion, and from my perspective as a Bible student, made some excellent points. I am aware of the frequently made charge that they are not actually doing science, only criticizing it, and in some cases this may even be true, depending how one defines science. Nevertheless, I agree with creationists wholeheartedly (I hope this isn't just a religious term) that the great Flood of Genesis 6-9 is of critical importance to a true understanding of earth history, and that it does provide a satisfactory framework within which to interpret the data. I know that orthodox geologists, along with you and Matthews, completely reject this idea, citing the mantra that most of the geological strata are not even deluvial. This, however, is one of the things about your position that forces me to question it. As a Bible believer, I want to know how what you say can be true. I think there must be something wrong with your interpretive framework (i.e., capital "U" uniformitarianism). So, once again, we are back to the issue of interpretation (catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism), which is really the only thing I feel competent to discuss.

You and Matthews claim to have examined the alternative (viz., "flood geology" and "creation science") and found them wanting. I understand what you are saying, and in many cases understand why you are saying it. On the other hand, I believe that you also understand what I am saying and why I am saying it. You are quite comfortable with your position. You'd have to be for Matthews to make, and you to defend, his bold assertion that world history "is" billions of years old. You repeatedly challenge Doy and me to cart out explanations/interpretations that you have already considered and found wanting. I know this because I've read your material. So, I don't get it! What would be the point? You have written "reams" on this already, your website has been displayed, and folks can wade through all that material on their own. So, there is no need for us to repeat that here, is there? Or do you really think the answer is for your side to cite five websites that hold your interpretation and I cite five websites that favor my position? What, pray tell me, do you think we'd accomplish by such a display? Each of us has given serious thought to his position, and each one of us, I trust, wil