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]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy Moyer
12-23-99
Observations and an Interesting Quote

I realize this is out of "thread," but there are so many here, I'm not sure where to start. So why not be more confusing and start another one? Ha. I appreciate the tone between Tom and Jim. It's an interesting discussion. I've pretty much made my points, but I would like to make a few more observations:

Science, as we all know, is an ever-changing discipline. It is not, by any means, an absolute determiner of truth. What was considered "scientific fact" a century ago may no longer be so considered today. This is the nature of its interpretations. I suspect that the interpretations concerning the age of the earth will yet change again -- whether for the "older" or "younger." What this tells me is that what we think are "facts" are often interpretations. And these change. And frankly, I have not seen any arguments here in support of an old earth that are not interpretations of facts.

We have all experienced the same type of discussions with evolutionists. They pity our "ignorance" of the "facts" because we do not believe in macroevolution. I received a note recently from an evolutionist saying "The reason that Darwinists don't always use the terms Macro and Micro evolutionary theory is that they are one and the same." Then, "New fossil evidence shows that his [Darwin's]predictions of how certain species evolved were incorrect. . . he didn't have enough data. His MECHANISM for evolution, however, is SUPPORTED by new fossil evidence. . . if you people would just think (I know logic is impossible with only two neurons) then you would come to the same conclusions." You see, he pitied my ignorance of the "facts" and accused me of not being able to think. To them, the "facts" are just as clear as the "facts" regarding an ancient earth. When we point out that it is interpretation they are arguing, they accuse us of not thinking, or of ignoring facts. We know better, though.

I am a bit bothered, though, by what appears to me to be an aversion to Genesis 1. I argued in another post that no geology is complete without understanding that "in the beginning God created." Yet, when that is appealed to as a basis for altering one's understanding of age, it seems to be tossed out as irrelevant; that the only thing we can look at is "nature." But why? By what rules must we NOT factor in God's ex nihilo creation, which, of necessity, must involve some kind of appearance of age? (i.e., how old did Adam appear to be?). Who says that the pursuit of science must exclude God? Yet, if we admit God into the study, then we must alter our understanding of the natural world. I see no way around that.

In contrast to the ever-changing discipline of science, the biblical account is the absolute determiner of truth. Anything that does not factor that in (and all that it may imply or entail) is incomplete. I am not arguing by this that Genesis says the earth is a mere 6,000 years old. No one can prove that. But, on the other hand, it should, at the least, keep one from being dogmatic about a 4.6 billion year old earth. Perhaps we should all admit, like Will Durant, that "our knowledge is a receding mirage in an expanding desert of ignorance." The preacher argued long ago that "man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, 'I know,' he cannot discover" (Eccl. 8:17). Should this discourage searching or drawing conclusions? Not at all. But I object to the pride of evolutionists who think that their interpretations are "facts" that disprove scripture. I object to any statement devoid of humility which argues as fact what should be admitted as interpretation (and I know I've been guilty of that, too). We may think we "know" something about the age of the earth, but is it possible, just possible, that there is something about it that we cannot discover or know "for sure"? Is it possible that there is something hidden in the mysteries of God's silence that would completely overturn such a discussion as this, and have us all talking about how ignorant we have really been?

I'll end with what I thought is an interesting quote from Foy Wallace from his 1946 version of "God's Prophetic Word" (the 1960 version reads a little differently);(complete paragraphs, pp. 6-7):

"Much argument has been made as to whether the record of Genesis is scientifically correct and historically accurate. Some men in the realm of science complain that the Bible teaches that the earth is only six thousand years of age. But science claims for it a much higher antiquity than that. I recently called upon a man of science for proof that the Bible teaches that the earth is a mere six thousand years old. "Well," he said, "I just assumed it. I thought that is what religious folks claim." That is the trouble with some men in the scientific world. They assume too many things. They assume just about everything they say on matters of religion, and they assume some things they say when they are not talking on matters of religion.

There is no statement in the Bible which indicates the age of the earth. "In the beginning God" is a phrase that defines a period of remote antiquity, hidden in the depths of eternal ages. If the scientists, or the pseudo-scientists, want to ascribe to the earth the age of a million, a billion, or three hundred billion years, I will not pause to argue the question with them now. Let their imagination play on, and their fancy with it, but when they get back to the beginning, it will be the beginning of the first sentence in the Bible, "In the beginning God." That is all that the Bible affirms on the question. I am making no charges against science. There is no conflict between the Bible and science. The word "science" means "to know," and there is not anything any man can prove that he knows that contradicts the Bible. I want to avoid leaving the impression that I am speaking in any derogatory manner against science. The Bible and science go hand in hand. They are halves of the same sphere. Properly considered, they illumine one another. They are co-servants; they support each other. But the man of science is not always scientific, and the man in religion is not always biblical. It is when the man of science gets unscientific or the man in religion get unbiblical, that the clash comes. Some pseudo-scientists have much to say about the discords, disagreements and divisions among those who believe the Bible. But various groups of scientific men, or unscientific men, if you please, tell us that the earth is a million years of age, and then ten million; then a billion, and then ten billion. And now its age has been raised to three hundred billion. If the scientists cannot get any closer together among themselves than the distance between a million and three hundred billion years as to the age of the earth, what right have they to talk of disagreements between others? You may have your billion, your ten billion, or your three hundred billion, but I will take the first sentence in the Bible, "In the beginning, God."

[end of Wallace quote, HR]

Thanks for reading my rambling.

brotherly,

Doy Moyer

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Mathews
12-27-99
Re: Observations and an Interesting Quote

Hello Doy,

I would like to answer several of the questions you presented in your post:

1. I am a bit bothered, though, by what appears to me to be an aversion to Genesis 1.

Comment: I do not detect any aversion to Genesis 1 in Hill Roberts' or his writings, and have no aversion to the text myself. The question is: What does Genesis 1 actually teach, and how does it relate to the Universe and the Earth?

2. I argued in another post that no geology is complete without understanding that "in the beginning God created." Yet, when that is appealed to as a basis for altering one's understanding of age, it seems to be tossed out as irrelevant; that the only thing we can look at is "nature."

Genesis 1 is considered irrelevant as a determiner of the age of the Universe specifically because the text does not make any claim about the age of the Universe. All measurements of the Universe's age based upon the Bible are derived from chronologies taken from the geneaologies and Israel's history and dependent upon assumptions.

3. But why? By what rules must we NOT factor in God's ex nihilo creation, which, of necessity, must involve some kind of appearance of age?

The "appearance of age" argument makes a claim about the appearance of the Universe at the moment of creation and the Earth's crust at the creation. The argument becomes moot once evidence of modification of the Universe and the Earth is discovered. Modification demonstrates that the Universe and the Earth that presently exist is different from the initial Universe and Earth.

Estimates of the Universe are measurements of the time required to account for these modifications, hence a measurement of the time required to produce the present Universe from a previous state, not necessarily the initial state. Measurements of the age of the Universe and the Earth therefore need not explain or account for the initial state of the Universe.

4. (i.e., how old did Adam appear to be?).

While Adam's apparent age would appear to present a challenge to measurements of the Universe's age, the analogy fails simply because Adam is not available for investigation. The Universe of the present and the past is available for direct investigation, and the Earth of the present and the past is also available for direct observation and measurement.

5. Who says that the pursuit of science must exclude God? Yet, if we admit God into the study, then we must alter our understanding of the natural world. I see no way around that.

The pursuit of science need not exclude God. God is ultimately responsible for the Universe and everything that exist. A distinction must be made between acceptance of God's responsibility for the Universe and the use of God as an explanation for natural features and events which are not in need of a supernatural explanation.

For example, if God never claims to have produced the Atlantic ocean in a sudden, cataclysmic event, there exist no justification for making any claim that the Atlantic ocean was produced in a sudden, cataclysmic or miraculous manner.

6. In contrast to the ever-changing discipline of science, the biblical account is the absolute determiner of truth. Anything that does not factor that in (and all that it may imply or entail) is incomplete.

I agree absolutely. My disagreement is with claims or assertions about what the Biblical account implies or entails, as these are matters of speculation. Reading the Scriptures in as strict a manner as possible does not allow for the speculative theories that are presented by organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research, and examining these speculations against the scientific evidence reveals that they are inadequate to account for the Earth as it presently exist.

Thanks,
David Mathews

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Greene
1-5-00
Re: Observations and an Interesting Quote

Hi, Doy.

I just want to respond to two points that you have made. Please - please - understand that while I disagree, and even disagree "passionately," I am referring to the issues that I discuss and not to you as a person. I say this explicitly here because there are many who take such disagreement personally, especially in the context of a topic like this where discussion has tended to become polarized.

Point #1 --------

You write: Science, as we all know, is an ever-changing discipline. It is not, by any means, an absolute determiner of truth. and: In contrast to the ever-changing discipline of science, the biblical account is the absolute determiner of truth.

I agree with the first idea as stated, but I strongly disagree with the second idea. I believe that what you are saying is something equivalent to "the Bible is the only infallible source of information available to us" (please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of your statement). Contrary to this, I think it is clear that reality itself is an infallible source of information that is available to us. Reality is what it is. It is our human understanding (including the scientific process, among other things) that is fallible, not reality itself.

Dr. Davis A. Young, whom I refer to frequently in this kind of discussion (whose father, incidentally, is Dr. Edward J. Young, the conservative Old Testament biblical scholar; [grin]imagine the discussions in that family), has written ("Christianity and the Age of the Earth," in *Is God a Creationist?*, pp. 87, 88, 93):

The facts of the Bible and the facts of nature, therefore, do not disagree but form one comprehensive, unified expression of the character and will of our Creator and Redeemer. Nature and Scripture form a unity, for God is one. Although man, because of his sinful nature, reveals himself in inconsistent and contradictory ways, God *cannot* do so. But the fact that God's words and works are a perfect unity does not by any means indicate that we can always see how they agree or fit together....

Nature is also from God, and nature would lead us to believe that the Earth is extremely old. Scientific investigation of the world God gave us is an exciting enterprise that God would have us engage in. We do not need the flight-from-reality science of [young earth] creationism. We need a more vigorous approach to both nature and Scripture. May I plead with my brethren in Christ who are involved in the young-Earth movement to abandon misleading the public. I urge them study geology more thoroughly. Geology cannot be learned from a few elementary textbooks. There is far more to it than that. I also urge creationists to be less dogmatic about Scriptural texts over which there has been substantial diversity of interpretation within the historic Christian church. If they would be of service to Christ's kingdom, they should do some honest-to-goodness scientific thinking that takes facts seriously, facts that were created by the God they wish to defend and serve.

Truth must correspond to itself. Those who believe in biblical inerrancy should not try to make some arbitrary distinction between kinds of truth in the sense of saying that, somehow, those facts over there (such as astronomical observations) don't really count if they contradict the interpretations (young earth creed) we have already developed from these facts over here (the biblical text). The hermeneutical consideration here is that what you learn from science can and does "feed back" into biblical interpretation. (I have pointed out the historical example of geocentrism in another post in this discussion forum.)

An "aversion to Genesis 1" has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. What this has to do with is a love of and dedication to truth - even if the truth we learn upsets our personal, religious preconceptions.

Point #2 --------

Science is not as "ever changing" as is emphasized. Science is a "building upon" process and a "zooming in" process. Exploration and examination is performed. Information is gathered. Explanations are developed and tested. These steps, as a cycle, feed into each other and loop back into each other in a dynamic process. For example, the Hubble Space Telescope is the end result of centuries of a particular network of such cycles as this (don't forget the space travel part), and the HST represents a great advance from Galileo's telescope which was just a beginning.

From your comments, I think I'm seeing the implication (again, please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation) that we cannot know anything about reality in any objective or relatively certain way. This is clearly not the case.

The earth revolves around the sun, and not vice-versa (though, technically, the sun and the planets revolve around a center-of-mass which happens to lie close to the center of the sun). We know that disease is caused by microorganisms and not evil spirits. We have cured diseases (wiped out things like smallpox, reduced the scourge of polio in the U.S. to almost nothing, and developed flu vaccines). We have built power generating plants that drive submarines and produce electricity for millions of people based on what we have learned about radioactivity and nuclear decay. We have measured the speed of light in a vacuum, and can measure time, based on atomic vibrations, down to within incredibly miniscule fractions of a second. We have put men on the moon because of understanding detailed aspects of reality and the way things work. We have learned that the surface of Venus reaches temperatures around 900 degrees. The Galileo spacecraft flies in complicated orbits around Jupiter and among the moons of Jupiter, and we have in the last few years acquired very detailed information about these moons (entities which people before Galileo never even knew existed). ([grin] The Mars Climate Orbiter would have been fine if people hadn't mixed English and metric units!) We can peer into the far reaches of the universe and examine what's there - something that people only a hundred years ago could only speculate about. We now know that there are literally millions of "island universes" (galaxies), where scientists a hundred years ago did not possess the technology to acquire enough information even to determine whether or not there was anything other than our own Milky Way.

Science is certainly a dynamic process. I agree with and appreciate the idea that the "frontiers" of scientific areas certainly become "fuzzy" with regard to "what is." What I am claiming is simply that we must acknowledge, as truth seekers, that there certainly are aspects of reality that we can and have learned about with very much certainty.

One of these aspects of reality is that the universe is quite ancient, on the order of billions of years. Is it 12 billion? Is it 14 billion? 16 billion? 10 billion? While this is not clear and while it is freely acknowledged by all that such number are "ballpark" figures only, it is clear that such numbers as these are "in the ballpark." It is equally very clear that the universe cannot be only 6,000 years old.

The image clarity of the Hubble Space Telescope allows the use of distance estimation based on the magnitude measurements of Cepheid variable stars up to a distance of about 150 million light-years, give or take a bit, so measurements of galaxies at these distances are relatively accurate (meaning the universe is at least 150 million years old). It is my understanding that at this time (early 2000) the farthest galaxy for which the HST has actually made observations of Cepheid variables for distance estimation is NGC 4603 at a distance of about 108 million light-years - which means that right now, today, we observe galaxy NGC 4603 as it was 108 million years ago, and the universe was already a "going concern" at that time (see http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/19/index.html and http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970415c.html). (Note, however, that supernovae, as stellar explosions, are greatly brighter than such stars as Cepheids, and thus magnitude measurements of these can yield useful information for estimation of distances much greater than 150 million light-years.) Of course, the nature of these kinds of measurements is such that they only work on the galaxies that are closest to the earth. The vast majority of all other galaxies in the universe (millions of them!) are farther from us than these, so the universe is very old indeed.

In my Jan. 3rd post under "Three questions" I mentioned the SN1987a example that demonstrates that the universe has been around for at least 169,000 years. Here is a good link to information about that: http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/novaesupernovae.html

With regard to dinstinctions between what is clear and what is not clear, here are two more examples:

When Pluto was first discovered (by which I mean that an initial observation was made that was then subsequently verified by further astronomical observations), it was initially estimated to have a mass about 14 times the estimate today in 1999. While it was clear that there was indeed a ninth planet, the preliminary - with full emphasis on the word "preliminary" - information regarding that planet's size made any kinds of conclusions as this "fuzzy." Subsequent observations (also based on subsequent advancements in astronomical technology) refined the size of the planet downward. Being unclear ("fuzzy") about the precise size of Pluto did not imply that Pluto did not in fact exist. Indeed, Charon, Pluto's moon (half the size of the planet Pluto), was not even discovered until 1978.

Objects in the Kuiper Belt region of the solar system, which is beyond Pluto, were first detected only in 1992, even though the Kuiper Belt had been hypothesized in the early 1950s. Again, technology advanced enough to be able to observe such small objects at such great distances.

Science marches on. Further observations are made. Technology advances (also based on the scientific process). More information is acquired. Refinements are made. While acknowledging that science is one big, dynamic, positive feedback cycle, and also acknowledge the tentative nature of scientific conclusions (incompleteness of knowledge, and human fallibility, of course) this does not render the bulk of scientific knowledge just a moot point.

There are many things that we know with such certainty that we describe them as "the truth." The world really is shaped like a ball. And the universe really is quite ancient.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
(Psalm 19.1-4a)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy Moyer
1-6-00
Re: Observations and an Interesting Quote

Todd:

I think that if you have read my other posts, you will know my attitude toward this discussion. I am open, and not by any means a dogmatist on the age of the earth. In fact, you are much more dogmatic about it than I am.

I think you misinterpreted my statement about the Bible being the absolute determiner of truth. This was made in contrast to "science," not to reality itself. You appear to make the interpretations of science into reality (which is demonstrably false in some areas). I have said quite a lot about "fact" and "interpretation" in other posts, so I won't repeat myself here too much. I can appreciate someone's interpretations of facts, but I only ask that they admit that it is interpretation when they give it.

I have no problem with reality. What is, is. What I'm questioning here is whether or not what some people say "is," really is. Now let me ask you something. I brought this up in my last post, and no one has mentioned it in reply. To a Darwinist, the "facts" of science are so clear, that to deny macroevolution is to deny reality. All of the rhetoric given regarding reality and science in regards to the age of the earth would be argued by a Darwinist about the reality of macroevolution. These are the "facts of nature," according to their interpretation. "The theory of evolution... is so broadly supported by different lines of inquiry that all but a very few scientists accept it with as much certainty as they do the theory of gravity" (Raven and Johnson, Biology, p. 5). So let me ask, how do you reply to that? What do you say to an evolutionist who believes you are denying reality when you deny  macroevolution? Does this put you at odds with science? He is just as sure about evolution as you are about the age of the earth. I get the same response from both of you if I question either. So, now if you accept one (an ancient earth), but not the other (macroevolution), what are your grounds for doing so? I really want to know. And if you get into their "interpretations," I would only ask that you apply the same reasoning to your other theories.

If the earth is old, that is fine with me. I don't really care how old it is. I am interested in truth. And I gave that quote from Wallace to simply say, after all is said and done, and interpretations change over and again, we are still faced with "in the beginning God." That's not arguing for an age. But it does argue an absolute that science cannot deny (even though some scientists would argue that "reality" is that there is no God).

Now you brought up examples in science which we all accept. But when we observe certain phenomena, we are observing them in the present time. Any conclusions about the past (e.g., age) are interpretive conclusions based upon present observations. Saying that the earth is shaped like a ball is not the same sort of statement as "the universe is ancient." One can be observed here and now. The other can't. One is reality because we can observe it. The other is an interpretation based on observation which is subject to future revision (which is what I mean by saying that science is an ever-changing disciple: all conclusions are subject to revision). I suspect that conclusions regarding age will be altered again at some point. I doubt seriously that any conclusions willbe altered about the shape of the earth.

In saying all of this, I have no problem with scientific pursuit. But someone's observations and conclusions are not the same as God's written word (which is not subject to revision). Reality corresponds to truth, no question about it. But I'm not naive enough to think that just because some scientists draw some conclusions (e.g., macroevolution), that therefore their conclusions are reality. Humans are fallible, and so are their conclusions. This knowledge should at least keep us a little humble in our pursuit of scientific knowledge.

brotherly,
Doy

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill Roberts
1-7-00
Re: Observations and an Interesting Quote

Doy, et al.

At the risk of getting stuck in this tar-baby once more,  brother Doy has asked a question I would like to address because it goes to the heart of practically everything I've tried to say concerning data in my previous posts.

Doy asks:
"Now let me ask you something. I brought this up in my last post, and no one has mentioned it in reply. To a Darwinist, the "facts" of science are so clear, that to deny macroevolution is to deny reality. All of the rhetoric given regarding reality and science in regards to the age of the earth would be argued by a Darwinist about the reality of macroevolution. These are the "facts of nature," according to their interpretation. "The theory of evolution... is so broadly supported by different lines of inquiry that all but a very few scientists accept it with as much certainty as they do the theory of gravity" (Raven and Johnson, Biology, p. 5). So let me ask, how do you reply to that? What do you say to an evolutionist who believes you are denying reality when you deny  macroevolution? Does this put you at odds with science? He is just as sure about evolution as you are about the age of the earth. I get the same response from both of you if I question either. So, now if you accept one (an ancient earth), but not the other (macroevolution), what are your grounds for doing so? I really want to know. And if you get into their "interpretations," I would only ask that you apply the same reasoning to your other theories. "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I would deal with both of Doy's questions the same way: go to the primary physical evidence (reality) which forms the basis for the interpretive conclusions. The result of this for me is that the physical evidence (reality) for antiquity is quite convincing, while the physical evidence (reality) for macro-evolution is arguable. I do not go to introductory text books or popular science books for this research. I go to the scientific literature itself.* In the scientific peer-reviewed literature, a striking feature would be observed. For the question of the age of earth specimens the nature of research would be on expanding the database of measurements and reducing the uncertainty in particular techniques and for particular measurements. In other words, is a specimen 3.65 +/- 0.01 or 3.663 +/- 0.004 (for example)? See Dalrymple for catalogs of thousands of such numerical results from the literature. In contrast to this, when one goes into the primary literature for evolution, ones finds a dramatically different form of research and publication. For example, geneticist John McDonald writes, “The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those [genes] that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those [genes] that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.” Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 14, 93. Such statements could be multiplied by the thousands from the professional literature (see below), but this one will suffice to make my point. In the radiometric, and other dating, literature one will not find such statements that call into question the whole paradigm.

*(However, such textbooks and popular science books do frequently supply the same information in a more digestible form and hence I often recommend such for non-specialist consumption, which is the target audience anyway. However, one must learn how to "read" such popular treatments. For example, Raven and Johnson's statement is quite typical in introductory textbooks. In very many such cases, what they mean is a fact is not what the casual reader may think they mean is a fact. Usually such statements refer to the theory of evolution in the sense of strict Darwinism, or population genetics -- microevolution as it is sometimes termed. My complaint is that textbook authors seem more than willing to let this ambiguity persist. Sometimes such statements are made as a creedal assertion for public or media consumption. Generally, one does not find these kind of positive-definite statements in the professional literature. Its unprofessional. One of the objectives of our LIB workshops is to train the non-specialist with some tools for learning how to sort data from interpretations. In most textbooks there is very little data.)

So in response to your particular question of "What do you say to an evolutionist who believes you are denying reality when you deny macroevolution?"  What I would first say to the biologist is, "What do you mean by the theory of evolution?"  If he/she means populations change in gene frequency over time in response to external factors, I would wholeheartedly agree and use that as a means of entering a discussion on the potential design factors that could underlie such a process. If he means that mutations introduce quantifiable lineages of  change in genetic material, I would wholehearted agree and use that to enter a discussion on the potential design factors that could underlie such a process. If he does indeed mean "macroevolution" as you inferred he did, I would suggest he should allow his textbook to more accurately reflect the state of uncertainty concerning that generalization as is reflected in the professional literature. I would argue that asserting such philosophically derived dogmatisms are unproductive for future research programs, and that presenting areas of uncertainty is the proper ethic and at the very least good for developing continuing research grant proposals. I would point out counter examples from the literature to such grand generalizations which the author must address if attempting to publish in the professional. I would encourage him to present a database that supports his generalization. I would evaluate that database just as any other database is evaluated. Such comments are precisely the kind of critiques I find myself sometimes providing authors when I am called upon for reviews of peer research. (in my physics research area, not in biology).  Rather than putting me "at odds with science" such an approach is deeply immersed in the scientific process. Indeed such is the soul of the scientific process.

Sincerely,
Hill Roberts

“What then does this all-encompassing theory of evolution predict? Given a handful of postulates, such as random mutations, and selection coefficients, it will predict changes in [gene] frequencies over time. Is this what a grand theory of evolution ought to be about?”  Geroge Miklos (geneticist), Memoirs of Association of Australian Paleontologists 15, 28.

“We conclude -- unexpectedly -- that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.” Jerry Coyne (Dept of Ecol/Evol, U. of Chicago), American Naturalist 140,726
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy
1-6-00
Re: Observations and an Interesting Quote

Thank you, brother Roberts, for that reply. I appreciate the approach you take to it in regards to looking at evidence itself. But I do hope you understand the practical problems for us non-scientists. You say, "I would deal with both of Doy's questions the same way: go to the primary physical evidence (reality) which forms the basis of the interpretive conclusions." I think that is the way to go. But my point is that die-hard macroevolutionists will argue the very same thing, which was my original point you commented on. To them, the evidence is air-tight; it is "reality." Now, to me, it is not; and to you, it is not. And to many scientists, the evidence is not air-tight. But to many other scientists, and to popular media (which is admittedly non-scientific), it is.

To question popular scientific theories is not to be non-scientific. With regards to macroevolution, you have reached a conclusion that is NOT the popular conclusion. But that doesn't make you non-scientific. Nevertheless, macroevolutionists will argue that you are.

Now, I don't expect an answer to what follows: I'm going to my soap-box here. I realize that there is a sense of skepticism in my posts. However, I am not a "skeptic" in the true philosophical sense (I believe true knowledge or "true truth" exists), just as you are not an "empiricist" in the truest sense (i.e., you accept some things as true even though they can't be "sensed"). I do think, however, that science has its limitations, and I'm not ready to buy wholesale into whatever is thrown at me, even if it has a lot of scientific lingo attached to it. For all the knowledge we have gained, I still suspect that there is quite a bit we don't know that could alter any present conclusions of science regarding age. But those are just my suspicions. Who knows what future Einsteins may come up with that we don't imagine today? A hundred years ago, it was said that everything that can be invented has been invented. We chuckle at that today. But who are we to think we have discovered all there is discover when it comes to something as vast as the universe? Frankly, I think, perhaps, that one of the reasons the universe is as grand and vast as it is is to help humble us the further into space we go. We'll not find the "edge" of it. We'll not reach into heaven and pull God down to our limitations.

Bertrand Russell, a true skeptic, argued that "there is no logical impossibility in the view that the world was created five minutes ago, complete with memories and records. This may seem an improbable hypothesis, but it is not logically refutable." Well, I'm not agreeing with his complete skepticism, of course, but there is a point to think about. There is nothing logically impossible with the notion that God created everything "fully" grown (and please don't give the "this makes God a deceiver" argument again. I find that very unconvincing, especially if He told us what He did.) Such would not diminish the nature of His universe at all; it still shows His handiwork. Now, we come along today, with our methods and ways of doing things, and think that such is impossible. We develop a discipline, and expect God to be subject to that (in fact, demanding that God NOT be considered in our understanding of His nature, for whatever we understand about the age of the earth, it must NOT include the idea that God could have created it fully grown and functioning). That just seems to me like we are putting God in our own little box, subject to our limitations and understanding of things. I can't help but think of Job and his friends, who thought they had it all figured out. How petty we must seem to God.

But I know. Reality is there. (Sounds like the x-files: the truth is out there.) But again, we observe what we do in the "here and now." That's why I pointed out that "the earth is shaped like a ball" is a fundamentally different statement than "the universe is old." One could have said "Adam is a man," and be right, but to say "Adam is old" shortly after he was created would have been wrong, even though all empirical testing on him would probably have shown otherwise (without God being a deceiver).

Enough philosophical rambling (I hear a tiny voice say). May God bless us in our further search for truth.

brotherly,
Doy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Couchman
1-7-00
The difference between fact and interpretation

Brothers:

I don't know what I did to the first attempt to reply, but here we go again...

It seems to me this particular “sub-thread” has taken a promising turn, one with potential for increasing the level of mutual understanding. So at the risk of over-hashing this subject, I beg brotherly indulgence of a couple of observations.

First, if the position that Doy and others wish to take is this—“science frequently changes its mind about things, and science is after all a product of fallible human reasoning, and the age of the earth has nothing to do with salvation; therefore, I will just say I don’t know”—I don’t think any OECs ought to object or to press the issue further. I think that stance is a perfectly reasonable one, possibly wiser than a definite YEC/OEC position.

Mostly, however, I want to try to address the issue, which Doy maintains has not received the adequate treatment by OECs, of the distinction between fact and interpretation.

FACT:  “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, ‘Who then can be saved?’ Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’”

INTERPRETATION # 1:  “The eye of the needle” was a hole in the wall of Jerusalem which a camel could pass only by kneeling. Jesus was stressing the need for humility, which is difficult for the wealthy.”

INTERPRETATION # 2:  “Jesus was using hyperbole to show how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

INTERPRETATION # 3  “The rich young man had just gone away sorrowful when Jesus challenged him to abandon his wealth. But we know that no one can buy salvation. The mistake the rich man made was to try to enter the kingdom by buying his way into it. If he had been content to keep his money, he would have easily entered the kingdom. It is therefore easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God so long as he does not think he can buy his way into it.”

Scripture isn’t much practical use to us without interpretation. Careful Bible students try to make their interpretation as transparent as possible, but even the statement, “It means just what it says,” is an appeal to interpretation, since there are some texts which are legitimately interpreted to mean something other than what they say. Look at the “fact” I provided, and the three possible interpretations of that fact. Whether agreeing with either of the first two interpretations or not, the reader will surely concede that both these two interpretations are plausible: either of them might be true, though both probably are not. But is it at all possible that Interpretation # 3 might be correct? I think we would all say no, because the conclusion which it expresses—that a rich man can easily be saved—is clearly at odd with the “facts” found in the text itself. Surely there is a difference between the “fact”—the text of scripture itself—and either of the two potentially valid interpretations of the “fact.” Yet we would consider the expression of either of these first two interpretations in a Bible class a legitimate attempt to exposit the text. We would not consider the third interpretation legitimate at all, and no Bible class teacher or preacher would or should get away with espousing it publicly.

I have maintained throughout this discussion that there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between the “facts” found in nature and the “interpretation” of those facts to the inference that nature is either young or old. However, except for the agnostic position which I am personally happy to endorse, both the OEC AND the YEC positions require interpretation of fact. The point of my “putting the facts on the table” was to invite juxtaposition of OEC and YEC interpretations. Some of my brethren apparently consider the OEC interpretation so tightly harmonious with acknowledged fact that it is overwhelming; some YECs apparently find the OEC interpretation so intimidating that they are willing to discard even legitimate science in order to be rid of it. I am not willing to take either of those two positions, and fortunately neither are many YECs. Even though I find most YEC interpretations lacking—some woefully so—I truly rejoice to see the effort made, provided the YECs will acknowledge that their efforts, too, are interpretations, and will abandon dispassionately any interpretations which are clearly at odds with the facts.

And so…

FACT:  The “Green River Formation” of Utah contains some four million very thin layers of shale called “varves.” These layers appear as alternating light and dark bands. The dark layers are made dark by fossilized pollen. Varve formation has been observed in progress for about a century. It requires relatively still water, because shale is composed of clay particles, which are the last to settle out of moving water, and because moving water would destroy any layers already deposited. The varve formation observed involves trapping of pollen in the “spring-summer” clay, deposition of that clay, and then superposition of a layer of clay without this pollen. There are two layers deposited each year.

OEC INTERPRETATION  The processes we observe today are the processes which produced these varves. The (approximately) two million varve couplets took two million years to deposit.

YEC INTERPRETATION # 1  The varve couplets were deposited during a few months of the Great Flood.

In my opinion there are some insurmountable problems with this interpretation. It just doesn’t square with anything we know about the Flood from the Bible, or anything we know about hydrology from studying nature. Is it impossible? I would say not. But it strikes me as much less likely to be an accurate interpretation of “the fact” than the OEC reading.

YEC INTERPRETATION # 2  The varve couplets were created just the way we see them, with fossilized “creation-pollen” which never was real pollen but was actually created before the plants which normally produce such pollen.

Now I think this interpretation is internally consistent, and it certainly accounts for the facts. It is not consistent, however, with the way I interpret the scriptural teaching about the natural revelation. Doy, if I objected to this interpretation, would you respond, “…please don't give the ‘this makes God a deceiver’ argument again. I find that very unconvincing, especially if He told us what He did”? When and where did God “tell us” that He created the shale varves four thousand years before Christ?

So what is the conclusion from this (excessively long) post? There are facts, and there are interpretations, and some interpretations of facts are plausible, and some are absurd: despite evidence observable from the earth’s surface, some people genuinely believe the earth is flat. Old-earth creationism is an interpretation of the natural revelation which, I genuinely regret to say, appears to me the best explanation of the facts. Nobody should just “accept whatever science throws at us,” but YECs who wish to teach their interpretation of nature publicly should be willing publicly to propose interpretations of nature which are, at least, not obviously false.

Your brother,
Tom

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill Roberts
1-7-00
Re: Observations and an Interesting Quote

Doy,
I very much appreciate the practical problems non-scientists face when confronted by the proclaimations from the pulpits of naturalism. That is why we (a physicist, astronomer, physician, engineers, educators) offer our apologetics workshops for our brethren. I believe it is why some find the workshops helpful.

Like you, I wonder what today's young Einsteins may serve up for us in the next hundred years. I suspect whatever it is, it won't be well received in many forums. However, maybe by the end of the next century the question of ages will have trod the path of geo/helio-centricism.

"And yet, it moves."
Hill
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Greene
1-7-00
Re: Observations and an Interesting Quote

 Hi, Doy.

I appreciate both the ideas in your response and the attitude with which you  stated them. So often I encounter a strong underlying current of covert (and  even overt) antagonism from young earth advocates of the "exclusivist" camp.  It is nice to not have to deal with that kind of thing. I reiterate here my  statement that while I disagree, and even disagree "passionately," I am  referring to the issues that I discuss and not to you as a person. My style is  that I am forthright, as well as honest, in what I say.

Point #1 - Regarding "Dogmatism"

I thank you for clearing up my misinterpretation of what you were saying with  respect to "infallible information." However, please note that the idea that the  earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around, was once  considered to be an "interpretation of science" and not "reality." The way I  would describe this (though you may disagree with my way) is that it is both a  scientific interpretation and reality. We call it "reality" — "the truth", or "a fact"  — because the interpretation has acquired such an extensive body of  information consistent with the interpretation that we cannot reasonable  conceive of how it could be otherwise. I know this sounds philosophically  subjective, and maybe it is, philosophically speaking, but in practical terms I  think you understand clearly that the idea that the world revolves around the  sun is so certain that we call it the truth even though philosophically we agree  and understand that there is a distinction between "reality" and "our  understanding of reality."

Let me approach this concept from another example. Clearly, the planet Pluto  existed, and it had a moon, before we learned about it. Alexander Campbell  never knew anything about Pluto. For Campbell to have said anything about a  ninth planet would have been "mere human speculation." Yet today we call the  idea of Pluto an aspect of reality. Albert Einstein never knew anything about  Pluto having a moon. (It was just discovered in the 1970s). Yet today Pluto's  moon, Charon, is a fact. Equally, a two-year old child, not knowing anything  about planets (or not understanding what he "knew"), doesn't know anything  about Pluto either. What justifies us in calling such ideas as these "the truth"?  Reality is what it is, and we learn about various aspects of reality from time to  time with such a degree of consistent and extensive and clear information that  we call what we have learned "the facts." It is a fact that the universe is  billions of years old.

I agree that I am much more "dogmatic" on this particular subject than you are.  The reason, as I presented, is that to someone like me who is aware of and  understands the relevant facts, the idea that the universe is ancient is as  genuinely factual as the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball. I draw this  particular parallel deliberately. I am "dogmatic," because... well, think about it:  Let's say you were talking to someone and you happened to make a comment  that implicitly "assumed" that the world was shaped like a ball, and then that  person starting arguing with you about your "interpretation." You would be just  as "dogmatic." As I stated in my previous post, the relevant information  consistently shows that the universe is ancient and has become so extensive  that this idea is now so certain that we call it a fact — just as factual as  active volcanoes on the Jovian moon Io. I am "dogmatic" about this idea  because I know it to be a fact. If I did not know it to be a fact, I would not  claim that it is factual and I would not be "dogmatic" about it. Granted, I can't  describe and explain all of the relevant details in one post of only 2,000 words,  so I can't impart the extensive details all at once to someone else who is not  also already at least somewhat cognizant of the body of relevant information,  but that doesn't change the fact that I am cognizant of this information.  Many, many others are also aware of this information. We have modified our  beliefs in some manner consistent with what we have learned.

Those who are not aware of the relevant information (because, just as one  example, they simply haven't learned of it yet, or haven't thought through any  of the relevant informational details) can certainly be excused for not realizing  the factual nature of the idea. (But, of course, not knowing or understanding  the relevant information, such people cannot legitimately claim that "Those of  you who advocate an ancient universe and ancient earth can't be pleasing to  God," because in relating "honesty to the truth" and "pleasing to God" in this  context they have failed to take their own personal ignorance of particular  truths into account.)

And please note a critical difference between the nature of my "dogmatism"  and the nature of the dogmatism of those young universe/young earth  advocates (many, but by no means all) who claim that you can't be pleasing to  God if you don't believe in a young universe/young earth. I would never make  this kind of claim at all, and I have never seen anyone who rejects the young  earth belief advocate this kind of dogmatism either. Though they may indeed  question (legitimately so, in my opinion) the wisdom and judgment of young  earth advocates, Christians who do not accept the young earth belief would  never dream of making this issue some kind of measure of who is and who is not  a "good Christian who is pleasing to God."

 Point #2 - Observed Here And Now

This is very closely related to point #1 above, but is a distinct point, so I have  delineated it under a separate heading.

You stated:

when we observe certain phenomena, we are observing them in the present time. Any conclusions about the past (e.g., age) are interpretive conclusions based upon present observations. Saying that the earth is shaped like a ball is not the same sort of statement as "the universe is ancient." One can be observed here and now. The other can't. One is reality because we can observe it. The other is an interpretation based on observation which is subject to future revision (which is what I mean by saying that science is an ever-changing disciple: all conclusions are subject to revision). I suspect that conclusions regarding age will be altered again at some point. I doubt seriously that any conclusions will be altered about the shape of the earth.

I must totally disagree with this idea. A part of astronomy that is so interesting  and intriguing is the very fact that simply by making observations of the  universe we are, quite literally, observing the past directly. In other words,  we are observing the past in the present time.

For example, the sun that we observe is actually an observation of the sun the  way it was about eight minutes ago. When we observe the star Nova Cygni, we  are literally watching the gas envelope moving out from a stellar explosion that  occurred a little over 10,000 years ago (see discussion at  http://beast.as.arizona.edu/Gallery/Hst/novacyg_txt.html and image at  http://beast.as.arizona.edu/Gallery/Hst/novacyg.html). The stellar explosion in  the Large Magellanic Cloud that we observed in 1987 was actually an  observation of a star that exploded about 169,000 years. In other words, in  1987 ("the present") we observed an event that occurred in about 167,000  B.C. And right now, astronomers are still observing details of the subsequent  development of this stellar explosion. Right now, the Andromeda galaxy that we  look at is really the Andromeda galaxy the way it was about 2.2 million years  ago.

The farther the astronomical entity that you observe, the farther back in time  are the events that you see. But you are literally observing these events from  the distant past right now. Please do not overlook this particular nature of  astronomical observations, because it is the critical point in the context of this  kind of discussion.

Yes, the idea that the universe is ancient is just as much a part of reality as  the idea that the earth is shaped like a ball. Granted, we learned of the reality  of the latter idea several hundred years prior to learning the reality of the  former idea, but this is irrelevant to the case. I will also grant you that the idea  of the ancient earth is somewhat less direct, since we can't observe the  earth's past with the same kind of "directness" with which we observe the  universe's past. But the ancient history of the universe is something that we  observe directly, right now, in the present.

 Point #3 - "More Basic" Before "Less Basic," "Direct" Before "Indirect"

Without "muddling up" the discussion by talking about biological evolution, these  other more basic and more direct ideas must be acknowledged by those who  claim to be truth-seekers. Frankly — and very honestly, Doy — to people like  me who are aware of the ancient age of the universe, those who claim to be  "truth-seekers" who yet actively deny that the universe is ancient have already  removed themselves from the bounds of reasonably effective (and effectively  reasonable) discussion — just like today's geocentrists. Despite their claim to  "respect truth," they demonstrate by their claims that they lack the proper  respect for truth. (It is precisely the same situation as those young earth  advocates who are still claiming that those who reject a young earth have no  explanation for short-term comets, despite the fact that there has been an  explanation for almost 40 years and that explanation has been empirically  verified since 1992. Their improper attitude is showing.) How you deal with  information that conflicts with your personal beliefs, and the care you take to  represent things fairly and correctly, is how you are measured on the scale of  truth-seeking. Obstinate resistance, of course, shows up real low on this kind  of scale.

All of this about the age of the universe and the age of the earth is distinct  from discussing biological evolution. Considerations of biological evolution are  separate from astronomy and geology. I rarely discuss evolution with people for  whom I see there isn't even "common ground" on what I consider to be ideas  that are relatively more basic and much easier to understand: The universe,  and the earth, are quite ancient. If a person demonstrates his lack of respect  for truth with relative simple ideas like these, what hope is there in a discussion  that involves relatively more complex ideas?

If someone came to you and told you that the idea that there are hundreds of  millions of galaxies in the universe is not true, that their existence is just a  giant conspiracy of atheistic scientists, I think you would thoroughly agree with  and understand that his attitude should be regarded with legitimate skepticism.  Why would you get into discussing more sophisticated ideas with such a  person? Obviously, despite what he may say about his own attitude, an  attitude like that clearly possesses some fundamental flaw, and a more  sophisticated discussion would be quite pointless. The ancient age of the  universe is a similar kind of idea.

Regards,
Todd S. Greene

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;   the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)

Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do   and doesn't do it, sins. (James 4.17)

Love...comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and   a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and   turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of   the law, but they do not know what they are talking about   or what they so confidently affirm. (1 Timothy 1.5-7)

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own   master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the   Lord is able to make him stand. So then, each of us will   give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop   passing judgment on one another. (Romans 14.4,12-13a)

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and   arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are   unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once,   and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing   to do with him. (Titus 3.9-10)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit   of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)

 
 
  -----------------------------296412135513-- ÿ