dmathews
Global user
(2/25/00 6:00:10 pm)
Reply
Metaphysical Discussion of Age of the Earth
Hello Allan,
If you are interested in a discussion of the Age of the Earth from a metaphysical standpoint, as you say:
Nevertheless, thinking metaphysics to be at the heart of this matter, I
invite my OEC brethren
to engage me at this point. If the metaphysical approach is folly, then
I am sure they will be
able to effectively point this out in open discussion.
I am very willing to engage in this sort of discussion.
According to The American Heritage Dictionary, Metaphysics means: "1. The
branch of philosophy that
systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems
of ultimate reality, including the study
of being (ontology) and, often, the study of the structure of the universe
(cosmology). Speculative or
critical philosophy in general."
I will take it for granted that the discussion which you seek corresponds
to the second definition: You are
seeking a philosophical discussion of the Age of the Universe question,
a discussion which would
concentrate upon the interpretation of observation and its incorporation
within a larger framework (a world
view).
Your argument takes the form: "OECs see the world in the context of their
beliefs, and they interpret the
"evidence" by their own theory. This, in essence, makes their theory unbeatable
because it is the very
thing used to interpret the observations." It appears that you are claiming
that the old earth creationists
have framed the argument for their position in a manner which must lead
inevitably to the success of their
arguments. That is to say that the old earth position is not subject to
refutation.
In response to your argument I will declare that the Old Earth position
does not demand, require or insist
upon any particular view of the Universe. I will also declare that the
Old Earth position is, or at least was at
one time, subject to doubt and refutation.
In defense of the first declaration (the Old Earth position does not demand,
require ...) I will argue that
Young Earth advocates live in the same Universe as the Old Earth advocates,
and that the Universe
remains the same without regard to any philosophical presuppositions of
people observing it. For that
reason, Young Earth and Old Earth advocates can speak about the Universe
confident that objects and
structures in the Universe exist in spite of the opinions and beliefs of
those who observe the Universe.
In defense of the second declaration (The Old Earth position is, or at
least was at one time, subject to
doubt and refutation) I will argue that in the past there was a much different
opinion regarding the Age of
the Earth and that the Age of the Earth has become modified in response
to the accumulation of evidence
over the last several centuries.
I am looking forward to your response.
Thanks,
David Mathews
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
allanita
Administrator
(2/26/00 7:05:16 pm)
Reply
Some More Thoughts
Once again, greetings to all!
Hill's email speaks for itself. As the proceedings of this discussion are
a matter of public record and any
reader can examine the evidence, determining for himself whether the charges
are true, I do not intend to
specifically answer all Hill's charges, although they are disturbing. However,
something Hill mentioned needs
to be put in its proper context, so please indulge me a moment before I
continue my remarks about the
metaphysical ramifications of this issue.
In an effort to expose what he thinks is an inconsistency on my part, Hill
cites a passing reference made by
Steve Wolfgang in one of his speeches at the recent Florida College Lectures.
The reference had to do with
a "the age of the earth is an open issue" chart that had been penned in
my basement in Louisville,
Kentucky some 15 years ago while preparation was being made for a debate
between Buddy Payne and
Frank Lovell, Jr. on Creation vs. Evolution. It is important to know that
this debate was not sponsored by
any church of Christ. Instead, it was sponsored by the Committee For Justice
In Government, a secular
organization which I served as president. The sole purpose of the debate
was to offer a neutral venue in
which the two competing models (Creation and Evolution) could be argued
scientifically and without an
appeal to Scripture (which, if done, would be criticized by the evolutionists,
atheists, and agnostics in
attendance as an unscientific appeal to the authority of the Bible). So,
in an effort to avoid this, not one
Bible citation was made during the four nights of debate. This venue, I
am convinced, aided in
demonstrating that, from a purely scientific point of view, the Creation
Model was more capable of
interpreting the scientific data, with fewer unanswered questions, than
was the Evolution Model. The
approach the Committee took avoided the 6,000 to 10,000 year old age issue
completely, although Buddy
effectively refuted the standard uniformitarian assumptions. So, I hope
this explanation of the events of 15
years ago will set the record straight about whether I believe the Bible
teaches the age of the earth
(notice that I did not say date) is an "open issue." I do not believe the
Bible teaches the age of the earth
is an open issue. However, I admit the possibility that my interpretation
may be wrong, and I am open to
anyone who can convince me it is. With this said, I now want to get back
to where I think this controversy
centers.
Uniformitarianism Is A Faith System
If I were a capital "U" uniformitarianist, I would have to believe that
the present is a key to understanding
the past. But, and here's the rub, the concept that the laws of nature
have always been true in the past is
a metaphysical construct and, as such, a matter of faith. Although it is
precisely here that OECs balk,
claiming that they are only dealing with the "facts," it is true, nevertheless,
that their faith then goes on to
become the grid through which uniformitarianists examine the scientific
data. This is why Roberts,
Couchman, and Mathews believe the "10 facts" that were put on the table
during the first discussion are
overwhelming evidence for the earth being billions of years old. And if
my "grid" were uniformitarianism, I
would definitely be in their camp. But, it isn't, and I'll now explain
some of my reasons why.
As a Bible believer, I understand that there are two singularities that
uniformitarianism does not — indeed,
cannot — explain: (1) the Creation and (2) the Flood. If Hill were to respond
to this, he would no doubt
complain, as he already has, that by saying I'm a Bible believer, I'm really
attempting to prejudice his
position by implying he's not. Absolutely not! All I'm trying to do is
present MY reasons for believing as I do.
In other words, unlike some, I readily admit my metaphysical presuppositions,
which, in my case, stand or
fall on my belief that the Bible teaches the earth is relatively young,
probably somewhere in the vicinity of
6,000 to 10,000 years, and that it was subjected, in association with the
Flood, to a magnitude of forces
unique in the annals of history. Because of these beliefs, I reject a wholesale
acceptance of
uniformitarianism, which says, in essence, that the present is the key
to the past, particularly, and
especially, if Creation ex nihilo and the Flood actually happened.
Apparent Age
Doy Moyer, in the original discussion, did a very good job explaining why
apparent age is inherent in a
Creation Model of origins, so I don't need to go into much detail about
this. Suffice it to say that Adam, on
the day he was created, would have appeared to be much older than one day
old. However, if somehow
Adam could have been examined with the uniformitarian assumptions that
what we know to be true today,
we can assume to have always been true (viz., infancy comes before adulthood),
then Adam's actual age
would surely have been miscalculated. If other things in the creation were
created in the same fashion
(viz., rocks, et cetera), then apparent (not actual) age would be the norm
in such a creation. In other
words, created rocks, although just minutes, hours, or days old, would
have looked, from the standpoint of
uniformitarianism, to be millions of years old. That these rocks exist
seems to be validated by the
observations and measurements of the radiohalos of polonium (viz., Po-218,
Po-214, and Po-210), which
was done by Robert V. Gentry, a creationist physicist, who has been identified
as the "foremost expert on
the observation and measurement of radiohalos" (National Science Foundation,
NSF Program Review
Evaluation of NSF Proposal "Investigations of Polonium Radiohalos," September,
1979). [For a listing of
Gentry's many articles on this subject, I refer the reader to pages 429-430
of The Origin Of Species
Revisited: The Theory of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance, by Wendell
R. Bird, Volume I, 1991. One
might also be interested in Gentry's book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, 2nd
edition, 1988.]
So, admittedly, I have trouble with a system of interpretation that says
the earth's past can be correctly
understood purely in terms of present day processes acting at more or less
present day rates, which is, in
fact, the major assumption of uniformitarianism.
The Flood
It is very hard for me to read what the Bible says about the Flood and
think it had little or no geological
significance, UNLESS, of course, I was a uniformitarianist who believed
earth's history involves billions of
years. Then, I could argue that an event confined to only one year, even
if it was a world wide flood,
would be relatively insignificant, geologically speaking. In fact, Hill
calls it a "mere hiccup." But it just does
not seem reasonable to me that an event of such magnitude could have occurred
without leaving a trace.
However, the OEC argument that a Flood of one year duration is insignificant
and minuscule, when
compared with billions of years, is specious. For example, the Flood, according
to biblical chronology,
happened about 4,300 years ago. So, why have our OEC brethren, with their
uniformitarian assumptions,
been unable to document such an event in the geological record? After all,
we're just talking about 4,000
years, not 4.6 billion, unless they want to begin to argue that the Flood
probably took place billions of
years ago, long before man, by their chronology, even came on the scene.
Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? Why,
then, do they argue that the Flood would be minuscule in the scheme of
billions of years? It is further
troubling that in order to justify, according to their uniformitarian viewpoint,
the lack of any evidence for a
flood of the magnitude described in the Bible, some OECs, like Hill, argue,
"It would not be likely that such
an event would leave much of any geological record, especially if it was
a world flood in the sense of their
view of the local world, as used in the New Testament for the spread of
the gospel" (The LIB CD, "Genesis
and Time: A Harmony," by Hill Roberts, 1993, revised 1996). This is what
I call "messing" with the
Scriptures, and I don't like it. If Hill wasn't so enamored by what he
believes to be the validity of his
uniformitarian outlook, he would never even hint at the idea that the Flood
described in the Bible could
have been only a localized event.
A more plausible explanation is offered by Creation Science, which thinks
of pre-Flood rocks (which are the
result of Creation and normal forces) and post-Flood rocks (which are mostly
caused by the Flood and
attendant events in conjunction with normal forces) as being mostly the
whole show, geologically speaking.
Now, I know that creation scientists can't agree on what rocks are actually
pre-Flood and which ones are
post-Flood, but that is not to say they may not one day be able to do so
with some specificity. After all,
YECs seem to have been pretty effectively locked out of the halls of science.
Further — and as the OECs
are wont to remind us — it must be acknowledged that Flood Geology, per
se, is not taught in the Bible.
But, and this should not be ignored by our OEC brethren, it certainly rests
upon, and starts from, inferences
made from the Bible narrative itself, which I, and a lot of other YECs,
believe to be a very safe place to
start.
This is what I like so much about the work of John R. Baumgardner, a YEC
who I mentioned previously,
whose runaway subduction theory postulates an alternative to the traditional,
uniformitarian perspective of
slow processes over very long periods of time. Baumgardner posits that
a catastrophe, driven by processes
in the earth's interior, progressively, but quickly, resurfaced the planet.
That such a process is theoretically
possible has been acknowledged in geophysics literature for almost 30 years
(See O. L. Anderson and P. C.
Perkins, "Runaway Temperatures in the Atmosphere Resulting from Viscous
Heating, Journal of Geophysical
Research, 79, 2136-2138, 1974). A major consequence of this sort of event
(cf. Genesis 7:11) would be
progressive flooding of the continents and rapid mass extinction of all
but a few percent of the species of
life. During this process, the destruction of ecological habitats would
begin with marine environments and
then progressively envelope the terrestrial environments, as well. Will
Baumgardner's theory ever be
vindicated? Hill thinks not and believes all the evidence totally defeats
the theory. He further makes
Baumgardner sound like a pseudo-scientist who is simply trying to make
"pigs fly." It is, of course, obvious
why uniformitarianists resist such a theory. However, Baumgardner's postulate,
whether or not it is ever
proven to be correct, IS good science, meeting all the supposed criteria,
and one day it just may become
the predominant explanation of the geological record. Now, please don't
misunderstand me. I'm not saying
the biblical account of the Flood depends upon Baumgardner's theory being
accepted as a likely scenario of
past events. What I'm saying is that if it ever becomes such, it will force
die-hard uniformitarians to
reconsider much of their thinking about their philosophical assumptions.
Science, of course, is repleat with
just these kinds of reversals and paradigm shifts. So, a Christian who
bases his interpretation of the current
think-sos of the sciences may be standing on very shaky ground.
Nature As The 67th Book Of The Bible
Hill is convinced that Genesis does not tell us anything about the time
of creation. Instead, he believes
that this story is actually told "in the rocks." In other words, when it
comes to understanding what the
Bible is really saying, Hill believes the natural data is actually "another
'passage' which must be considered
to ensure consistency." It is statements like this that give rise to the
idea that Hill considers the natural
data, as interpreted by him and other scientists, to be the 67th book of
the Bible. He even calls nature "the
primary revelation from God." In the most basic sense of being first in
occurence, it is, but it is a far cry
from being equal to, or even superior to, the Bible. Just like the Bible,
the natural data must be interpreted.
So, the fact that an interpretation of physical data is being used to make
a critical interpretation of the
Bible seems to be, as Hill himself admits, fraught with danger. Finally,
when an assumed interpretation of
the data becomes the only scientifically and theologically acceptable "facts,"
then the Bible is in serious
danger of being grossly misinterpreted.
Additionally, it is particularly offensive that Hill paints science as
a more objective discipline than religion.
He goes even further by casting dispersions at his preaching brethren,
when he writes: "The nature of my
scientific work and my layman's position in the church is such that my
livelihood does not depend upon me
taking anyone's 'acceptable' position on these issues, either professionally
or religiously" (Op. cit.). In other
words, a preacher's objectivity is questionable because he is paid to preach.
This kind of insinuation is
alarming, at best, and makes it sound like Hill has some kind of ax to
grind with preachers, who, not just
incidentally, have been his most vocal critics. I suppose this doesn't
have to be haughtiness, but it sure
sounds like it.
David Mathews has agreed to engage me on the metaphysical aspects of this
issue, so I'll reserve any
further points for my discussion with him.
The Issue Of Fellowship
Some wonder why, if I think OECs are wrong, I would continue to fellowship
them. Hey, I fellowship a lot of
folks I believe are wrong on religious subjects, and I would imagine a
lot of folks have fellowship with me,
although they think I'm wrong on some issues. So, even though I am convinced
that the Bible teaches
planet Earth is relatively young, and will vigorously defend my position
on this, I do not believe a Christian
must believe the earth is relatively young in order to go to heaven. I
know why OECs believe what they do,
and I respect their firmly held convictions, realizing it is a matter of
intellectual integrity with them. In the
meantime, I will openly and privately engage OECs in an effort to convince
them they are wrong, and I will
do this without attempting to draw lines of fellowship. My track record
on this is clear.
Does this mean that fellowship is never an issue? No, it doesn't. When
radical YECs or OECs begin to say
"cannot," "must," and "is" in connection with the age of the earth, a line
has been crossed and a break in
fellowship is inevitable. I continue to hope brethren will be careful in
what they say and write about this
issue, even while vigorously pressing their points. I have no doubt that
my OEC brethren will continue to
get their feathers ruffled by what I say and write, but it needs to be
understood that I did not mention the
"repentance" word until it became obvious, at least to me, that some had
crossed over the line.
Conversely, I don't expect to be asked to repent unless, and until, I have
crossed over the line. Therefore,
I really don't understand how Hill Roberts, or any other OEC, can demand
I repent for believing and
teaching that "...[in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them [is], and
rested the seventh day..." (Exodus 20:11). As Hill has, once again, informed
us that he has left the
discussion, perhaps one of the other OECs will answer this question.
Allan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
allanita
Administrator
(2/26/00 9:11:30 pm)
Reply
Re: Metaphysical Discussion of Age of the Earth
David,
Thanks for picking up the gauntlet. You say:
It appears that you are claiming that the old earth creationists have framed
the argument for
their position in a manner which must lead inevitably to the success of
their arguments. That is
to say that the old earth position is not subject to refutation.
No, I don't think you or other OECs have done this intentionally, or are
even necessarily aware that this is
what you've done, but it is, in my opinion, what you've done. I'm speaking
of the assumptions you use to
interpret the data, which you obviously assume to be correct. I am not
saying your theory is not scientific
and, therefore, unfalsifiable. What I'm saying is that you seem to be perceptually
blinded to data that
would tend to refute your theory by the very grid you use to interpret
said data. Your assumptions and
inferences are, I think, being mistaken for directly observed facts which,
in turn, have become riveted in
the very structure of your thinking about this subject. In other words,
when you say the earth IS, as
opposed to SEEMS TO BE, billions of years old, you are, in fact, the personification
of my point. For
example, you go on to say, "I will declare that the Old Earth position
does not demand, require or insist
upon any particular view of the Universe." To which I reply, no "particular
view" except the one that views
the Earth as old! In other words, your "Old Earth position" IS precisely
a position, as opposed to some other
position, like a Young Earth one. You see what I mean?
You then go on to say:
In defense of the first declaration (the Old Earth position does not demand,
require ...) I will
argue that Young Earth advocates live in the same Universe as the Old Earth
advocates, and
that the Universe remains the same without regard to any philosophical
presuppositions of
people observing it. For that reason, Young Earth and Old Earth advocates
can speak about
the Universe confident that objects and structures in the Universe exist
in spite of the opinions
and beliefs of those who observe the Universe.
Pardon me, but how on earth could you think this statement operates as
a defense of your first
declaration? What you're saying, if you'll permit me to break it down for
you, is that the Earth IS as old as
it IS, and it doesn't make any difference how old anyone thinks it IS,
it IS still as old as it IS. David, this
can in no way, shape, or fashion, function as a defense of your absurd
(on its face) declaration, and if you
really think it does, then you are in much worse shape than I would have
otherwise thought. Secondly, the
fact that you and I are God-believing creationists is what allows us to
"speak about the Universe confident
that objects and structures in the Universe exist in spite of the opinions
and beliefs of those who observe
the Universe." However, at its core, such a belief IS metaphysical, and
there are plenty of folks in the
world who believe that what you and I believe to be real is nothing but
an illusion (the Hindus, for
example).
As far as your second declaration and its defense goes, I don't disagree
with you, although I'd put
quotation marks around the word evidence. However, this second declaration
has nothing to do with my
original point, and is, therefore, not a refutation of it.
I look forward to this continuing dialogue, and thank you for your time and effort.
Allan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dmathews
Global user
(2/26/00 10:38:17 pm)
Reply
Metaphysical Discussion of Age of the Earth
Allan,
When you say:
What I'm saying is that you seem to be perceptually blinded to data that
would tend to refute
your theory by the very grid you use to interpret said data. Your assumptions
and inferences
are, I think, being mistaken for directly observed facts which, in turn,
have become riveted in
the very structure of your thinking about this subject.
You are substituting an assumption for an argument. When you state that
"you seem to be perpetually
blinded ..." it is quite evident that you are in no position to know or
evaluate the processes of thought or
reasoning in my mind (or anyone else's mind), and are therefore are not
capable of reaching any conclusion
about my treatment of data which allegedly refutes my arguments about
the age of the Universe. Given
that you have no access to my thought processes, I must reject this assumption
and all of its implications.
When you say:
In other words, when you say the earth IS, as opposed to SEEMS TO BE, billions
of years old,
you are, in fact, the personification of my point. For example, you go
on to say, "I will declare
that the Old Earth position does not demand, require or insist upon any
particular view of the
Universe." To which I reply, no "particular view" except the one that views
the Earth as old! In
other words, your "Old Earth position" IS precisely a position, as opposed
to some other
position, like a Young Earth one.
Your observation is trivial. Of course, the Old Earth position is a position,
just as the Young Earth position is
a position.
An argument could never occur between viewpoints which are in agreement.
Arguments between
viewpoints which are ambiguous are futile at best because vague principles
are difficult (and sometimes
impossible) to refute.
My viewpoint is (apparently) not in agreement with yours. I have chosen
to present my viewpoint in a
distinct and defensible manner. This is my position: The Earth is billions
of years old. I am not ambiguous
or doubtful about my conclusion.
I do not present this viewpoint for approval. If anyone objects to my position,
I invite them to refute it. If
my opponents cannot refute my position, they ought to evaluate their arguments,
their evidence or their
conclusions.
Those wondering about the evidence which supports my position are encouraged
to look at the ground
beneath their feet and the sky above their head. I am prepared to defend
the position utilizing evidence at
all scales of size and complexity, from the localized structure of the
Earth's topography and geography to
the cosmic dimensions of interacting galaxies, clusters and superclusters.
Evidence is found in the smallest
particles revealed by physics to the Universe itself.
Must I beg for the presentation of refuting evidence? I am presently unaware
of any substantial arguments
in defense of a young Earth and young Universe. There are some arguments
on behalf of a young earth and
Universe that are easily refutable, and other arguments which are dependent
upon inaccurate and outdated
evidence.
I am prepared to demonstrate that the Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years
old, though I am presently
unaware of anyone willing to defend either of these ages. At the present
moment I cannot help but
observe a certain ambiguity in the Young Earth position specifically because
Young Earth advocates are
unwilling or unable to answer the question: "How Old is the Universe?"
and they are also unwilling or unable
to answer the question: "What is the maximum age for the Universe allowable
within the Young Earth
framework?"
I am not opposed to the statement: "Earth IS as old as it IS, and it doesn't
make any difference how old
anyone thinks it IS, it IS still as old as it IS." Philosphical arguments
must take this form. The Scientific
analogy to the philosophical argument may take the form of a question:
"How Old is the Universe?"
A philosophical argument (a metaphysical argument) does not demand any
assertion regarding the
Universe's age. Philosophy does not care whether the Universe is old or
it is young. Philosophy is concerned
with verifying that a Universe exist and whether or not humans may know
anything about it.
Your words demonstrate as much when you make reference to the Hindus: "However,
at its core, such a
belief IS metaphysical, and there are plenty of folks in the world who
believe that what you and I believe to
be real is nothing but an illusion (the Hindus, for example)." Philosophy
is concerned with distinguishing
between reality and illusion.
Are you seeking a philosophical argument? Present a philosophical argument.
When speaking of data and evidence, it is evident that you are making a
scientific argument. Therefore, I
request that you present a philosophical argument.
Thanks,
David Mathews
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy Moyer
Global user
(2/27/00 12:55:13 am)
Reply
Metaphysics, etc.
Metaphysics deals with the theoretical or first principles of a particular
discipline. It tries to get to the
heart of presupposition, to the very nature of reality itself. For our
purposes, it has to do with a priori
speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation,
analysis, or experiment.
Long before science developed into the discipline it is today, it was philosophical
to the core. And, in fact,
philosophy still plays a major role in science. The scientific method,
which does have its strong points, is
nevertheless subject to bias and speculation. It is also a discipline that
must necessarily rely upon a priori
assumptions and a fair bit of circularity. For example, one cannot scientifically
prove that our five senses
give reliable information without first assuming that they do, indeed,
give us reliable information.
Positions such as uniformitarianism and catastrophism are, essentially,
philosophically rooted. In the 18th
century, James Hutton rejected catostrophism and formulated the uniformitarian
theory. This theory
suggests, as we know, that processes such as sedimentation, volcanism,
and erosion caused changes in
the earth's suface, and had been working the same way and at the same rate
over long periods of time.
With this assumption, and I emphasize, it IS an assumption, he saw the
earth as being older than was
generally accepted.
Shortly after Hutton, Sir Charles Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism
even more. The
assumption, again, is that "natural processes that change the earth in
the present have operated in the
past at the same gradual rate." Lyell's theories influenced -- you guessed
it -- Charles Darwin, and Lyell
became a strong supporter of Darwin's ideas.
Catastrophism, on the other hand, claims that major catastrophes (not necessarily
just the noahic deluge)
have changed the basic formation of the earth. If this assumption is true,
then, of course, the earth is
younger than would be predicted through uniformitarian glasses. This, too,
is an assumption. The question
is not, who begins with an assumption; the question is which assumption
is the best with which to begin?
Now factor in God. Uniformitarianism is based upon "natural processes"
in operation over long periods. But,
and this is the most significant point, if we believe that God has, at
any time, effected any change on the
earth, then this would necessarily affect our beginning assumptions. And
this is what bothers me:
uniformitarian theists must believe that God "created," then sat back and
did nothing so that "natural
processes" could run their course without any interference from Him for
billions of years. That, in my
opinion, smacks pretty strongly of deism, and wins no points in its favor
as far as I'm concerned. Now if a
uniformitarian disagrees with this, then I ask, when has God stepped in
to effect any change on the earth
(in your view)? And if He has, then how in the world can you continue to
think that natural processes have
always worked in the same way at the same rate over such long periods?
I see these things as
incompatible.
I believe God created. As Creator and Sustainer of the universe, I believe
He is at work in it. I do not
believe that God simply got the ball rolling and since that initial time
He has just let nature do whatever it
does without any further action on His part. In stating this belief, I
do not claim to completely know or
understand how God does it. I am content to let God be God and work it
however He wills. My point is
simply that if we factor God into this world (who miraculously created
the heavens and the earth), then
how can we be sure that He has never effected change on the earth which
would necessarily affect
natural processes (and thus affect a uniformitarian view)? "Have you understood
the expanse of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this" (Job 38:1. How pitiful we must appear to
God.
I do know, from Scripture, that there have been large catastrophes, such
as the noahic deluge. I am not
comfortable at all with sweeping this away because people don't think they
can see the evidence for it. We
will make the rules for what we think we should see with such a flood,
then declare, "we don't see it." I'll
get philosophical about it: how does anyone know for certain that the very
effects we see in this world are
NOT from a worldwide deluge? There has been nothing else like it, nothing
else to compare it to. There are
no test cases for such a flood, nothing to scientifically test it against.
We might compare to localized
floods, but how can they really compare to a worldwide one? The flood was
a unique event; if the entire
earth was covered, how do we know that it wouldn't produce exactly what
we see today? I wonder if
perhaps this has something to do with why some opt for the "localized flood"
concept. I don't know.
Again, the point is that catastrophe does change things, and ultimately
my understanding of God as
Creator causes me to lean to the catastrophic assumption as opposed to
uniformitarianism. Now this in no
way obligates me to an exact time framework. I don't think I need to defend
a 6000-10000 year old earth.
But neither can I be comfortable spouting the dogmatism of OEC. If uniformatarian
theory is correct, then
that is what needs to be shown (pointing to geoligical features, etc. does
not prove uniformitarian theory;
it only proves that such geological features exist). However, I dare say
that the only way uniformitarianism
can be shown to be true, is if it is assumed true in the first place. Once
assumed, the OEC position is a
given because it can't be any other way. But I'm not willing to grant the
assumption. And this is where the
issue is engaged, which, in turn, is why it is, after all, a metaphysical
discussion.
brotherly,
Doy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dmathews
Global user
(2/28/00 1:00:49 am)
Reply
Metaphysical Discussion of Age of the Universe
Doy,
I have no doubt whatsoever that Science (and religion as well) are both
philosophical at their core. All
beliefs and opinions rest upon a priori assumptions, including the most
cherished beliefs of religion.
I disagree strongly with your claim:
Catastrophism, on the other hand, claims that major catastrophes (not necessarily
just the
noahic deluge) have changed the basic formation of the earth. If this assumption
is true, then,
of course, the earth is younger than would be predicted through uniformitarian
glasses.
As a matter of fact, Catastrophism does not make any claim regarding the
maximum age of the Universe
either inherently or relative to uniformitarianism. Not only does Catastrophism
not demand a young
Universe, the principles of Catastrophism may be incorporated successfully
within a Uniformitarian
framework including billions of years of history.
What Christians ought to recognize is that Catastrophes occur -- and can
only occur -- in an environment
whose routine behavior functions at a much smaller pace than the catastrophes.
For example, the
Mississippi river's routine flow of water would constitute a catastrophe
should a much smaller river
experience a similar flow in response to heavy precipitation. A small river
may flood catastrophically even if
its greatest volume is much less than the Mississippi river's. In contrast,
a catastrophic flood for the
Mississippi requires that the river greatly exceed its routine flow of
water. The amount of water needed to
create a catastrophic flood is different specifically because catastophes
always occur relative to the
normal behavior of an environment.
Catastrophism demands uniformitarianism because the normal behavior of
any environment always
corresponds to that environment's most common state -- which is its least
active and energetic state. For
that reason, Catastrophism is a subset of Uniformitarian geology. Catastrophism
does not and can not
contradict or compete with Uniformitarianism.
I am not troubled at all by the statement: "uniformitarian theists must
believe that God 'created,' then sat
back and did nothing so that 'natural processes' could run their course
without any interference from Him
for billions of years."
If God does not claim direct (miraculous) responsibility for the existence
of a feature or property of the
Earth, a Christian has no right or reason to presume that the feature or
property was the result of some
miraculous process. For example, questions about the origin of the Himalayan
mountains are not resolved by
claiming that God formed them instantaneously by a miraculously act specifically
because the Scriptures do
not contain that claim and scientific evidence contradicts it.
When you ask: "I'll get philosophical about it: how does anyone know for
certain that the very effects we
see in this world are NOT from a worldwide deluge?" You are mistaken: You
are asking a scientific question
regarding the evidence and its interpretation. You are not asking a philosophical
question at all.
In answer to your question: The geological and topographical features of
the Earth are not the result of a
worldwide flood. I am not stating an assumption or speculation, merely
a fact which is abundantly verified
worldwide on both a local and global scale. Noah's flood can not, under
any circumstances, produce the
geological features of the Earth or the sedimentary column.
I disagree with the claim:
There are no test cases for such a flood, nothing to scientifically test
it against. We might
compare to localized floods, but how can they really compare to a worldwide
one? The flood
was a unique event; if the entire earth was covered, how do we know that
it wouldn't produce
exactly what we see today?
There does exist test cases for a worldwide flood: Local floods. The forces
operating in a local flood are
identical to the forces operating in a worldwide flood.
Floods can do many things, yet the Earth's surface reveals the operation
of many nondiluvial geological
processes. Some nondiluvial processes cannot function in a flood, and other
nondiluvial processes are so
vast and powerful that they are not affected in any way by a flood.
I disagree altogether with the claim:
However, I dare say that the only way uniformitarianism can be shown to
be true, is if it is
assumed true in the first place. Once assumed, the OEC position is a given
because it can't be
any other way.
Uniformitarianism is true because it corresponds with present observations
of the operation of geological
processes on the Earth. Uniformitarianism is true from a historical standpoint
because the rocks of the
Earth provide a record of their origin and modification and therefore reveal
the operation of slow and
uniform processes throughout history. Uniformitarianism is true by necessity
because Catastrophism itself
demands a uniformitarian state prior to and following the occurrence of
a catastrophe. Simply stated,
Uniformitarism is true based upon observation, evidence and reason.
Before concluding this post, I must make an observation about your statement:
"Again, the point is that
catastrophe does change things, and ultimately my understanding of God
as Creator causes me to lean to
the catastrophic assumption as opposed to uniformitarianism. Now this in
no way obligates me to an exact
time framework. I don't think I need to defend a 6000-10000 year old earth."
Doy, it would appear that your beliefs and opinions regarding the age of
the Earth are ambiguous.
Ambiguous propositions cannot succeed against specific propositions specifically
because ambiguous
propositions are not subject to their proof or refutation. If you are not
prepared to defend a 6000 - 10000
year old earth, I must assume that your beliefs are potentially compatible
with a 5 billion year old earth, a 1
billion year old earth or even perhaps a 200 million years old earth.
Ambiguous propositions cannot contradict specific propositions, and for
that reason I will state again my
proposition: The Earth is 5 billion years old.
Do you object to my proposition?
Do you have a contradictory proposition? (For example, a contradictory
proposition would declare: The
Earth is at most 18,000 years old.)
If you do not object to my proposition or offer a contradictory proposition,
I must assume that your beliefs
are compatible with my own. Where no contradiction exist, no argument exist.
So I must request that you
defend a specific proposition regarding the age of the Earth.
Thanks,
David Mathews
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doy Moyer
Global user
(2/28/00 2:17:07 am)
Reply
Metaphysical Discussion of Age of the Universe
David,
Your reply has demonstrated several things to me:
1. You have created a logical fallacy with your "either/or" type of proposition.
If I don't agree with the idea
that the earth IS 5 billion years old, then I must either state that it
is no more than 18k years or I am in
agreement with you. That is nonsense, and I am under no obligation to play
by your rules. I reject your
logic as invalid reasoning.
2. You have totally missed the point on the difference between "uniformitarianism"
and "catastrophism."
Either of these two assumptions can and do incorporate a certain amount
of the other. That is a given. But
as their own philosophies, they stand in opposition to each other. This
is readily recognized by those who
write about it: "Uniformitarianism contradicted the theory of catastrophism..."
(Encarta Encyclopedia). In
forming the uniformitarian theory, the encyclopedia points out that Hutton
"rejected the theory of
catastrophism." So your attempt to say that one is just a subset of the
other is plainly fallacious. These
are two standard theories that attempt to account for the features of this
universe. And, by the way,
catastrophism does not necessitate that only the noahic flood accounts
for all features.
3. Your dogmatism is unimpressive. You can say something IS true all you
want to, but your statements
don't make it so. Job's friends were so sure about their own theories regarding
sin because they thought
they had observed it. But they were wrong, and were rebuked for their dogmatic
arrogance. That you
won't even admit to the possibility of a faulty interpretation is incredible
to me.
4. Of course my questions are philosophical. When we question the knowledge
of something, we are getting
philosophical. I asked, how do you know that a worldwide flood would not
produce exactly what we see?
Your answer is just a "because we know" kind of answer. And because you
know already, any science
applied to it will just "prove" what you already know.
5. I am beginning to wonder if our entire concept of God is what is different
here. And that is more
important to me than how old the earth actually is. I believe in a God
who MIRACULOUSLY created the
universe. And I have no problem with this miracle including an earth that
was created fully functional (an
earth with life and all that is necessary for the existence of such life,
including features that might
necessarily appear older then otherwise because of the relationship such
features sustain to life and a
functioning earth). But you have a problem with this. Why? I'm not even
sure what you believe God
created. A spec of dust that blew up and eventually formed this universe?
You believe in a God who
created something, then sat back and did absolutely nothing. That is a
deistic belief, and I reject it. Even
those who accept progressive creationism accept a God who was actively
at work throughout the creative
process.
6. It appears to me, though I would hope that you would deny this, that
your beliefs elevate science (your
understanding of it) to an almost infallible status. You are so confident
in
the "findings" of science that you
can't be wrong about this. I object to your proposition because I think
it is foolish to make such claims,
just as I think it foolish for evolutionists to claim that macroevolution
IS true, no ifs, ands, or buts. You
make your assumptions, then state them as absolute facts. You can respond
by calling your position
factual, but that won't change the nature of my objection; it will only
verify why I'm objecting to it. Your
approach to this kind of thing, which you think is scientific, is exactly
what I find so objectionable in
Darwinists. They begin with assumptions that they call facts, then construct
their arguments in a way that
they will always be right. The assumptions prove the theory (and it's the
assumptions we have to
question). Then anyone who disagrees is a pseudo scientist and rejects
knowledge. Do I detect the same
spirit in your position?
7. Until you can admit that you have an assumption about this issue, we'll
just be going around in circles.
At least have the reasonableness to state (in your own words) that, "Yes,
I do have a bias that I think is
most reasonable; and my understanding of the age of the earth is based
upon these assumptions." I can
tolerate that a whole lot more than your current approach, which I reject
as unreasonable. I think Allan
was right: you have constructed the position in such a way that it is not
falsifiable. I've already admitted
that if uniformitarianism (with a big U) is granted, then you would have
a valid interpretation regarding the
age issue. We are questioning that assumption to start with; this is the
heart of the issue.
I see no need to defend a specific age of the earth. Anything short of
5 billion years would deny your
proposition. Last I knew, most thought it was just 4.6 billion years old.
I guess you've found a few more
hundred thousand years somewhere. Amazing!
Thanks,
Doy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Couchman
Global user
(2/28/00 10:16:41 am)
Reply
Re: Age of the Earth, Part One-too-many, I fear
Allan, and others:
I am hesitant for many reasons to make even one more post here. I think
the decision to close the subject
was the right one, as just about everything that could be said had been
said. The “new” posts appear to
confirm my suspicions: you are plowing old ground. David Mathews can engage
Allan and Doy in a
discussion of philosophy if he is so inclined, but David is my superior
as a metaphysician, and my
contribution to that exchange would be gilding the lily.
Allan, if I had a call to judge the subject I would say that making a private
communication public, as you
did, was wrong. But that matter is between you and Hill. Jesus said, “Blessed
are the peacemakers”; not,
“Blessed are the firestorm-stokers.”
In the interests of civil discussion, and against my reservations, I will
make one last attempt to convince
you to set aside the convenient box you have built to contain the “uniformitarians,”
and to accept that I
am capable of explaining the reasons for my own thinking. I owe you that
effort for your stand as a
preacher of the Gospel, for your work in maintaining this discussion site,
and for your kindnesses to me
personally.
FIRST
You state: “We are discussing an Old Earth or Young Earth interpretation
of the Bible, particularly as it
relates to Genesis 1.” I never understood an OEC/YEC interpretation of
Genesis 1 to be the purpose of the
original thread, and neither you nor any of the YECs who posted to that
thread ever treated it as though
that were its subject. Had I so understood I would have had very little
to say, since the Bible says nothing
definitive on that subject. If you wish to raise an issue which the Bible
does address, I will reiterate the
suggestion I made in the earlier thread, to which none of the YECs has
yet seen fit to respond; to wit:
does the Bible say the earth goes around the sun, or vice-versa?
SECOND
An abstract presentation of the “apparent age” argument accomplishes nothing.
I don’t know of any OEC
who disputes your contention that every mature created object must, at
the instant of its miraculous
production, display signs of apparent age. On the other hand, every YEC
that I have read asserts that a
created object will only manifest the UNAVOIDABLE signs of apparent age
(a mature body), not gratuitous
indications (a navel) which would deceive a pious investigator about the
provenance of the object. If you
wish to convince neutral evaluators or even reluctant OECs such as myself
of the validity of your position
on this issue, you must tell us specifically which features of natural
phenomena constitute “unavoidable
appearance of age.” Are the fossils within sedimentary deposits unavoidable
appearance of age in created
rocks? Is a “supernova-in-transit” (SN1987a) the unavoidable appearance
of age in the burned-out husk
which God actually created? We can discuss metaphysics only after YECs
tell us how they want to apply
the principle of “apparent age” to specific phenomena.
THIRD
There are facts which have to be explained. Attribution of great age to
the earth and cosmos is an
interpretation, not a fact. But THERE ARE FACTS. The presence of thousands
of discrete layers of
fossiliferous sedimentary rock is a fact. The existence of deposits of
sediments several miles thick at the
mouths of all of the earth’s great rivers is a fact. Millions of layers
of varved sediments composed of
alternating light and dark bands do exist, and it is a fact that the deposition
of such layers can be
observed today. Evaporite varves are real, and they can also be studied
in the process of being formed.
There are some forty layers of fossil trees in the area of Yellowstone
National Park, and the sediments
which incase them are consistent with airborne, not water-borne, deposition.
The ooze at the bottom of
the ocean, and the chalk cliffs composed of the fossilized Foraminifera
and coccolithophores, are facts.
Gigantic coral reefs do exist, and though they may not be the millions
of years old that uniformitarians
assign to them, you can’t get them in six thousand years; that’