Where is the Next Generation of Creation Scientists?

Where is the next generation of creation scientists?   I don’t mean the next generation of believers in creation science but the next generation of young-earth experts who will continue the legacy of Morris, Austin, Humphreys, Woodmorappe, Wood, Bergman, Oarde, Baumgardner, etc… I believe that this has to be a question that many of the first-generation creation scientists have to be asking themselves at this time.

How is a new creation scientist generated?  Obviously educational indoctrination with YEC literature from the youngest age is critical to form a younger generation with the appropriate young-earth view.  Of those the hope is that some might wish to become scientists and take on the task of creation science.  However, what is more likely is that the fervor of youth for creation science is not for the science but the perceived apologetic value of the young-earth message.  Many aspire not be researchers and understand God’s general revelation but rather they aspire to be Ken Ham.   I have met many Ken Ham wannabes and someday one might become another Ken Ham but Ken Ham is a communicator not a scientist.  He defends with rhetoric which he presumes is backed up by legitimate scientists doing real research to show that his claims about science are true.   In a similar fashion many people may become politicians but politicians rarely do the grunt work of crunching numbers and actually generating the nuts and bolts of the bills they espouse.  There have to be people there to collect the data that politicians use.

So, the more important question is:  Where is the next generation of scientists who will continue the process of producing a coherent scientific model of the history of a young world? I realize that many will be reading thinking to yourselves, but young earth creationism never was a science and is solely based solely on rhetoric.  But I am looking at this from the Christian layperson view of creation science.  These are the people who have kids that ask: why aren’t there dinosaurs anymore and why are lemurs only found on Madagascar?  They are looking for scientific answers couched within the context of an earth that is only 6000 years old.  They expect that Christian scientists will have scientific answers to these questions.

These individuals don’t believe Ken Ham just because he is Ken Ham although I am sure there are many that mistake Ken Ham for a scientist and theologian.  They believe Ken Ham partly because they believe that Ken Ham is standing on the shoulders of experts that have scrutinized the scientific and Biblical evidence.   Ken Ham and other creation science spokesperson’s credibility is based on the perception that they have evidence to back up their claims.  And YEC leaders like Ken Ham feed this belief. They are constantly making claims that a young earth is backed by a chorus of Christian PhD scientists who have dedicated their careers to providing evidence for such claims.

But what happens when all that really exists are flourishes of rhetoric including appeals to the products of a past generation of creation scientists for legitimacy?  One of the mantras of young earth creationists organizations over the years has been that they need money to do their own research which would help to even the playing field with secular science.  This research, though not necessarily persuasive, would provide further evidence to the secular scientific world  that their theories for the earth’s origin are better or at least making a case for being an alternative contender in scientific world.  They also believed they just needed time to convince their skeptical colleagues.

It is obvious that this was the great hope of modern young-earth creationist founder George McCready Price in the earth 20th century and then by Whitcomb and Morris in the 1960s  who nearly 30 years ago now made attempts to have creation science incorporated into secular education curricula.  I think the expectation 60 years ago was that by now there would be hundreds of Christian young-earth-believing scientists who would be so convinced of this young earth model that their views would snowball and become commonplace in mainstream literature by sheer force of the evidence.

Published in 1974 this is one of many books by Dr. Henry Morris one of the  most important figures in YEC history.

Has creation science been a success?  
Any person who has donated to this effort over the past 20 years has to wonder if they are getting what they were promised.   Yes, there is a fancy creation museum, an ark replica, lots of publicity, tons of print and digital media and polls that suggest that large numbers of the public believe the earth is young. That sounds like a lot of success.  But, the bottom line is that in terms of convincing scientists – both Christian and secular – and future scientists that young earth theories actually work and can be used as a legitimate alternative for understanding the origins and development of the earth’s geological formations, success would not be an accurate characterization of reality.

Real success would involve individuals who have the background to understand the data and evaluate the models because they have studied the processes involved and been involved in actual research (gone into the field, collected data, analyzed data, written about it and been reviewed by their peers to test the logic of their conclusions) becoming convinced that the young earth models are viable theories.  Success would be seeing scientists use creationist’ models to make new predictions and make new discoveries about the world.

Any upstart movement or cause can sustain itself for a time by shaping perceptions and beliefs through rhetoric but to sustain itself over time those beliefs and perceptions must be under-girded with ideas that can be intelligently defended and stand the test of time.   Henry Morris laid out a lot of hypotheses in his Genesis Flood manifesto in the 1950s. Many of these lacked any evidence or had been tested at the time.  Rather, he hoped that his framework for flood geology would be tested and improved with the gaps of knowledge filled in by future generations of creation scientists.

I am sure that most creation scientists would argue that much has been learned since the publication of The Genesis Flood and of course those ideas have been much discussed and have changed somewhat over time but I would counter that the theories today are not much more sophisticated today than they were then.  For those that never found the arguments in The Genesis Flood convincing there aren’t many more compelling reasons today to believe in flood geology than there was 60 years ago.

Returning to the question of where are the future generations of creation scientists?  I am not suggesting that there isn’t some young blood in the movement.  Answers in Genesis has had some younger hires in the last decade some of which have fairly fresh PhDs in scientific fields but at AIG most of their time is spent giving talks and writing newsletter articles rather than doing any scientific research.  They filter news stories and form creationists responses to secular science stories but they are rarely generating new data or doing the work of creating a positive testable scientific paradigm.

One notable exception may be their newest employee, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson who is tasked with coming up with some sort of genetic basis for the post-flood hyper-evolution hypothesis that the AiG is promoting.  In a way they decided long before doing any research that ark “kinds” could evolve into thousands of new species in just a few thousand years and now they are trying to find some science to fit their theory.

Creation Ministries International (CMI) has a couple of PhD scientists on staff that received their degrees within the past 20 years and are active writers in creation science journal (more about these journals in my next post).  The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has had two legitimate younger PhD scientists (Jeanson and Lisle)  both of which were actively engaged in some research and writing but lost Jeanson to AiG.  Lisle was at AiG and a few years ago had come over from AIG possibly to be more involved in research since his ability to do so at AIG would have been quite limited.   I’ve been critical of both Lisle and Jeanson in the past (The Salty Sea and the Age of the Earth) but that isn’t the point of my post here.

ICR had a graduate school offering degrees in biology and geology for at least 15 years.  Part of the goal of this graduate school was to train the next generation of creation scientists.  Where did they all go?  I don’t know how many graduates they produced but I have found fewer than five creationist scientists on the payrolls of organizations today that list a graduate degree by ICR in their educational background.  I have to believe that when Henry Morris formed ICR and his graduate school of creation science he envisioned hundreds of scientists today actively applying the creation model to the historical sciences not just mouthing support for it.   That former obviously hasn’t happened despite the proliferation of creation science organizations with their significant financial resources and publishing capacity    Creationists list hundreds of PhD scientists who are creation scientists but this is not the same as saying there are hundreds of creation scientists doing creation science.    The majority of these PhD scientists are simply scientists who are Christians and believe in the cause of creation science and most are likely not even  familiar with the evidence for creation science.

I’m not saying there aren’t any young creation scientists who are making an impact. I’m saying that for a movement that claims the evidence is overwhelming for a young earth and with 30 solid years of training and recruiting scientists to take up the mantle of creation science, the response has been rather underwhelming.

The lack of robust and growing intellectual support for the cause of creation science is one weakness of what appears to be a growing and successful movement as measured by dollars and followers.

————————————————

This post is a revised and updated version of a post that I published in 2012.  Very little has changed in the past three years.  This was also a follow-up of a previous post:  Creation Science Organizations: Past, Present and Future

foggymorningbeechnut-photos-rjduffCover image: Is the sun rising or setting on the creation science movement? Photo credit: Joel Duff, Oct 2016

Comments

  1. On a somewhat similar note, I’ve often pointed out the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution and asked YECs why they think this is, but they never answer. They always evade the question with something along the lines of “It’s not true just because a lot of people say it is” (which is correct) or “I wouldn’t believe in evolution even if every scientist accepted it”, but they never give any reason for the consensus existing in the first place.

    Like

    • wowfunny251 says:

      As an OEC (I disagree with the consensus on biological evolution and agree with the consensus on the age of the earth and universe), I would say the fact that the majority of biologists are atheists and agnostics, and an even higher percentage are still committed to methodological naturalism, explains this. Biological evolution is the only remotely coherent theory that explains the diversity of life. No matter how much evidence of design exists, most biologists would reject it a priori. Most scientists are simply unwilling to invoke God as an explanation, regardless of how well it fits.

      I would actually agree with them in a sense. If you start with the assumption that there is no evidence God exists and thus, God is unlikely to exist, than it would be the best explanation that biological evolution is responsible in some way for the origin and diversity of life. But if you start from the assumption that God definitely exists, and has intervened in the past (the incarnation and resurrection, if nothing else), then it I think supernatural intervention does best explain the origin of species and origin of life. I really need to learn to post shorter comments

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you for the reasoned response. I do think that you’re being unfair to biologists, by saying that they accept evolution mostly due to their viewpoint and not the evidence. Also, if memory serves, the number of biologists that are atheists/agnostics is 60-65%, while those who accept evolution is ~99.85%. So I guess my question now shifts over and becomes ‘why do you think the overwhelming majority of religious biologists accept evolution?’
        As an extension to this, what kind of evidence would it take to convince you of the validity of evolution?

        Liked by 2 people

      • This is just a snapshot of my own experience as a very young evolutionary biologist, but I’ve never met a colleague who appears to believe in evolution because they are agnostic or atheistic. Everyone I’ve met appears to believe it because of the evidence. Of course it’s possible that I don’t know the whole story for these individuals and disbelief in God is a major motivating factor, but judging by the fact that they spend nearly all of their time talking about the science of evolution and almost no time expressing hostility towards theism/religion, I’m inclined to believe they’re simply convinced by the evidence .

        Liked by 3 people

        • wowfunny251 says:

          I think I may have been misunderstood. My arguement is not that biologists are consciously doing this, anymore than YEC’s who claim the evidence for a young-earth is overwhelming are consciously misrepresenting the data. Rather, they have very potent biases that are affecting their judgement of the data, minimizing data that contradicts alternative ideas and emphasizing data that supports their idea.

          As for the ratio of atheist/agnostics to evolution belief, it isn’t just them. As I said, many who do not identify with either of those categories would still have a similar bias against a supernatural perspective on the origin of species. The only ones that wouldn’t have a bias towards evolution (though likely having one against it) is conservative Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

          And that number is probably small enough that any remaining discrepancy could be explained by the “snowball” effect popularity has. Even “popularity” in the context of theories within the scientific community. When most everyone around you is an evolutionist, and the overwhelming majority of arguments you hear are only from that side, obviously you would be inclined more towards evolution than a hypothetical (and frankly non-existent) unbiased individual.

          Like

          • Dana J Tweedy says:

            I think you have it backwards. Scientists don’t have a bias toward evolution, they accept evolution because it has the evidence and explanatory power that makes a theory work in science. The only ones who dispute evolution are those who have a bias against it, and they have not provided a evidence based set of reasons to reject evolution.
            Also, in your first comment, you said “an even higher percentage are still committed to methodological naturalism”. This seems to suggest that you feel that methodological naturalism is not a necessary condition for any scientific work. Without use of methodological naturalism, science cannot operate. If one can assume the action of a supernatural being, then evidence no longer matters, and one cannot possibly falsify any conjecture. Again, quoting from your post above:

            ” But if you start from the assumption that God definitely exists, and has intervened in the past (the incarnation and resurrection, if nothing else), then it I think supernatural intervention does best explain the origin of species and origin of life.”

            The problem with such an assumption, from the standpoint of science, is that you are then assuming your conclusion.  If you assume, without evidence, that a supernatural being intervenes, then supernatural intervention can explain any conclusion you wish to reach.  That leaves science nowhere to go.  You can't rule out the idea that everything was created last Thursday, with all our memories intact, because a supernatural being could potentially do that.   All conclusions are equally likely, because none can be falsified.   
            

            Please note, I am not saying that a scientist cannot hold religious beliefs. I’m not saying that all belief in a supernatural being must be discarded for someone to use the scientific method. What I’m saying is that a scientist MUST use methodological naturalism as a tool for the purpose of practicing science, otherwise whatever endeavor one is doing, it’s not science. You can’t assume that for the purposes of investigation, that your favored explanation can work because a supernatural being was involved. Science has earned a reputation for getting results, but the price of that is that one can’t get around the necessity of relying on evidence based conclusions. Supernatural intervention cannot be the best explanation for a natural process, because supernatural intervention is not testable, or falsifiable.

            Liked by 4 people

            • wowfunny251 says:

              All have biases, I do not think anyone is completely unbiased here. But as for science, again I am interested in what’s true, not what follows the rules scientists propose. I believe that God exists and has intervened in the past. If that is true, the best way to come to know more truth is the take that into account.

              I don’t really care if creation is science or not, I care whether or not it’s true. And looking at the available data, I think creation is in fact, true. If you think that isn’t practicing science, fine.

              But if your version of science requires that a T-rex fossil with a “made by God” stamp on it has to be explained naturally, then I want no part in it, because it is bad at truth.

              (Of course, your entire arguement assumes 1. That science requires that something must be falsifiable, which is not an original part of the scientific method, but an incidental belief of most scientists 2. That supernatural intervention is in fact, not testable or falsifiable, which is not always true)

              Like

            • well Dana, i appreciate your rather naive perspective. Wow has it quite right. Everyone has biases. EVERYONE!! Religious or secular. It’s an insult to any perspective to accuse it’s adherents of ignoring scientific “facts” ( for today, anyway) just to promote a viewpoint. I’m sure adherents on both or any side of this debate believe they are being objective and scientific in their approach to these issues. It’s just very human to forget, or ignore, that none of us is objective about anything. We all have a worldview and perspectives, and all we read, believe, and research is filtered through our own individual paradigms. Thomas Kuhns “structure of scientific revolutions” spilled the beans on this truth from a purely secular points of view long ago. I am still astonished at the number of scientists from all sides who are still deluded into believing that they are just simply and objectively interpreting the data. This truth should lead all into a more humble approach to scientific issues.
              Contrary to the opening salvo in this debate, there is no dearth of young earth scientists or even old earth creationists who reject darwinian evolution, not to mention those of an atheistic or agnostic bent who also reject this particular strain of evolutionary thought. I have no problem finding book after book of these varied perspectives to read. They are there, if one really wants to find them.
              Of course, if you posit that yec’s are not “real scientists”, or that there must be some vague minimum number of Phd’s involved in an organization for it to be considered serious, or if you label all ID adherents as creationists in disguise, then you will, of course, not find the evidence you claim is necessary to sway you.
              I think a far more interesting question is “Where is the next generation of Darwinian evolutionists?” It has rapidly fallen out of favor and continues to do so, many adherents stubbornly holding on because that can’t see or won’t accept any alternative. Besides, when one is constantly exposed to evolutionary thought from the earliest ages through college and beyond, is it any surprise that most scientists produced from this mill cling to evolution? Most critics of creationists accuse them of doing the very same thing to their students without acknowledging their own culpability. I see a time coming, and it’s already begun, when darwinian evolution will be viewed the same way we now view Ptolemy’s perspective. Quaint, cute, and based unfortunately on incorrect science, even if it was perhaps the best they could do with what they had.
              As long as you restrict your arguments to AIG, and continue this obsession with Ken Ham, you will continue to miss the forest because of a tree. I mean really? Ken Ham is all you’ve got? Certainly, if you make your target the only one out there, and magnify it’s significance so greatly that it’s all you can see, then i imagine you will always hit what you’re aiming for. While critics continue to pound what they see as Ham’s simplistic and restricted viewpoint, what i don’t see them do is acknowledge the groundswell of discontent in the evolutionary camp, or even mention the alternatives being studied from the secular viewpoint. As long as that continues, this and all other sites like it will be sorely lacking in serious scientific debate. Sites like this are exactly like what they constantly criticize.

              Like

          • Gotcha. The biases we have when surrounded by like-minded thinkers are certainly potent. I will say, it is probably quite rare for evolutionary biologists to truly question the validity of the theory. The same can be said for probably just about anything: when a model of the world makes sense, and there is little resistance to it from the people around you, you are unlikely to be truly critical of it, be it a scientific theory, religion, politics, etc.

            Like

      • Believing in design is entirely compatible with thinking evolution happened based on the evidence. They are not mutually exclusive beliefs, if you believe in Providence.

        Liked by 1 person

        • wowfunny251 says:

          True, but providence has limits. Providence couldn’t say, invert the suns gravity, or walk on water. Frankly, I don’t think natural processes are sufficient to account for the level of design in biology.

          Like

          • I think “design” is an ephemeral and ultimately irrelevant concept. For ID to be science, it would have to provide the mechanisms by which these purported designs were implemented in the real world. Designing something doesn’t make it so.

            Like

            • wowfunny251 says:

              First of all, I don’t really care about what category of knowledge you sort ID into, science or not, I care about what is true.

              Second of all, I disagree with this idea that to know something is true you must know the mechanisms by which it works. If you went back in time and saw animals suddenly forming from raw elements of the earth, would you still not believe in supernatural intervention because you don’t know the mechanism by which that occurred? We still don’t fully understand the mechanism of gravity, yet the theory of gravity is accepted as true by almost everyone.

              Thirdly, there are ideas as to what the mechanisms behind supernatural intervention may be. My personal view (though somewhat tentative) is that as our mind form thoughts and ideas, God’s mind is simply so vast that his thoughts are what we call reality. We of course can’t imagine an entire universe, every property of every particle, every thought of every being within that universe, all at once like God can. Even if this idea is wrong though, it doesn’t change the fact that you don’t need a mechanism to know if something is true.

              Like

              • wowfunny251 Then you are a Berkeleyian idealist. If it’s any comfort, someone asked C.S. Lewis once what he thought God’s philosophy would be. He thought about a bit, and said, “I would guess Berkeleyian idealist.”

                I agree with you that you don’t have to know a whole mechanism to know something happened. If the car was in St. Louis last week and now it is in Los Angeles, someone could have driven it, it could have been shipped by train or even aircraft, or Spock could have moved it with the transporter. Careful Sherlockian forensic examination of the car may tell us which mechanism is more likely. For the same reason, we don’t have to know all the mechanisms of evolution to have good reason to think it happened, because that’s what careful examination of the details seems to indicate.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Arguments from design, though, are intended to refute the obvious mechanism (e.g. evolution) by saying “feature X doesn’t exist because it evolved, it exists because it was designed that way.” To use your car analogy, it’s like saying the car didn’t drive to Los Angeles, it’s there because the owner wants it to be there.

                  Like

                  • wowfunny251 says:

                    In that case both statements “the car is there because the owner wants it to be there” and “the car drove there” are true. Newflash: words can mean different things in different contexts. When creationists use the term “design” in contrast to evolution, they typically are not using it to refer to “design” as in conceptualizing the mental blueprint of a things, they use it to refer to physically performing the action of designing or “crafting” something. And creationism proposes that life (not just the first cell, but the diversity of life, or at least part of it) was created through supernatural intervention, rather than the process of natural selection and random mutation.

                    Like

                    • wowfunny251 says:

                      To further the analogy from my PoV, saying God designed and implemented via evolution is like saying “The owner wanted the car in L.A and the mechanism for that was breathing on the car to move it until it got there.” The mechanism is insufficient.

                      Like

                    • nonsensical

                      Like

                    • “Supernatural intervention” still doesn’t tell us anything, other than that “the deity wanted it that way” — which is surely a theological assertion, not a scientific one.

                      Also, I disagree that “design” is in any sense a synonym for “make”. Design implies an intentional arrangement of things, but says absolutely nothing about how that arrangement will be accomplished.

                      Of course, in fairness to old earthers, the YECers have it much worse, since the entire premise of the Fall seems to be an appeal to malevolent design — that Satan (presumably) opened a genetics lab and reengineered all life on earth so it would rely on death, parasitism, predation, and other processes that are alleged not to have existed in God’s perfect creation.

                      Like

                    • sorry Paul, but that’s a terribly false accounting of YEC viewpoints on the fall. You can’t be serious. Tell me your not. Or were you being facetious? Please tell me you were.

                      Like

                    • That’s exactly what I’ve had YECers tell me. Do they not claim that Satan is responsible for the corruption of humans and animals after the fall?

                      Like

                    • there is quite a difference between motivating and “creating” which is what you implied. And i am not sure every yec would buy into your implication that Satan had some role in the initial or eventually nature, role, or function of mankind’s DNA. Granted, there are some who believe that he “attempted” to do something, but agreement is far from ubiquitous on this topic. My response was to the typical “painting with a wide brush”, or creating caricatures and using them as a majority viewpoints.
                      Yes, Satan rebelled, and has been since.. I am sure this being is doing all within his purview to screw up the creation (for his own purposes) but anything and all that he can do is severely limited by God’s sovereignty. Do we not see a universe bound by entropy? Everything is slowly, or rapidly, breaking down so to speak. Not the original picture given in the beginning chapters of genesis.
                      Now one can, and millions have, debated Satan’s role and capabilities, the extent of his freedom, etc. but those are theological and philosophical issues, not answers found in a test tube. Science is merely capable of telling us what it observes. It cannot answer the why’s.
                      I’ve constantly encouraged, on sites such as these, that those on both sides of the debate broaden their horizons and not settle for over-simplifications, nor, as this site often does, surrender to the impulse to exalt ONE person as a spokesperson for the entire perspective of any one camp. There seems to be constanting chirping here as if offering a rebuttal to Ken Ham has actually answered the big questions which haven’t been.
                      I see constantly the useless exercise of trying to answer science with bible or trying to interpret the bible with science. While i do not see christian faith and science as incompatible, both are limited in what they can accomplish in relation to each other, thus the constant loggerhead. There are many other factors, of course, to explain this but one will not finish the race by running on the wrong course. Thanks for your response.

                      Like

                  • wowfunny251 says:

                    Not sure I follow you. I wouldn’t in any way call pure theistic evolution supernatural intervention. Supernatural intervention means that God intervened to do something the normal laws of physics would not do. Theistic evolution would say that God providentially orchestrated natural processes which perfectly follow the laws of physics to bring forth the diversity of life.

                    Design when contrasted with evolution by creationists is used to mean supernatural intervention rather than natural process. Words only mean what we use them to mean, so this is just the case.

                    Like

                  • good point, as long as you understand that what may be “obvious” to you is, by the same scientific standards, anything but obvious to many others.

                    Like

                    • wowfunny251 says:

                      Natural process resulting from design? I never said it couldn’t. You seem to be misconstruing 75% of the things I say.

                      Of course everything is by design, natural or supernatural. I am simply arguing that the way God brought forth life in all of it’s diversity was supernatural rather than natural. That does not mean that God can’t design via natural process (I actually think God did use natural process to create many things, such as planets, stars, etc. just not the diversity of life), I just means that in this particular instance, he didn’t. Not sure what the issue is.

                      I also don’t understand why you called my extrapolation of the car analogy “nonsensical”. Perhaps you should re-read my posts a few times. My point was that although you can have design implemented through a mechanism (design = owner wants car in L.A, mechanism = car drives to L.A), I adopted it as a tool to explain my view, which is that evolution is insufficient to account for the diversity of life, so it is like proposing the mechanism for the car getting to L.A is the owner breathing on it til it got pushed to L.A.

                      Like

                    • thanks for the clarification. I stand convinced though, that secular evolutionists do not welcome your intermingling of divine and natural causes. I always point this out to my evo christian friends. Those like Dawkins don’t even allow for the implication of design or divine causes. Is this a case of one feeling they are correct because they stand in the middle, welcome on neither side?
                      As to your car example, i say nonsensical one because it is not a sufficient philosophical syllogism, and certainly not one a secular scientist would even acknowledge. Evolutionary creationists are always attempting to have their cake and eat it too, arguing from both sides of their mouths. One side, if not both, are not going to be arguing correctly, according to acceptable rules of reasoning or bases inherent to their paradigms. Just suggesting you work on your examples, or pick a side, one at a time, and appeal to them within their own acceptable means of understanding the issue.

                      Like

            • based on this reasoning, much of what is accepted in scientific circles today isn’t science. Do i really have to give you a list of what is accepted in scientific theory without understanding all of the explanatory mechanisms? If you’re right, what we believe about gravity isn’t science, nor the big bang, nor quantum physics. I could go on. This is truly an example of requiring something of others that you don’t require for yourself. Just sayin’.

              Like

              • There’s a difference between having an imperfect but constantly improving understanding of natural mechanisms, and not even trying to provide any.

                Liked by 2 people

                • or is it an issue of your particular paradigm not allowing you to accept the explanations offered? When you reject a priori a position or perspective, you obviously won’t accept explanations for it. Why do so many here have such trouble finding said literature? Are you even bothering to look? Or do you not even care to do so, and then presume it’s not out there? And my point still stands.

                  Like

                  • I don’t understand, Chuck. What explanations have intelligent design creationists offered? If they reject the mechanisms of evolution, what mechanisms do they propose in its place? “Design” is not a mechanism, simply a philosophical assertion.

                    Like

                    • as is, in reality, evolutionary theory. There are no empirical scientific proofs of evolution. Sure, there are some things science has discovered that could possibly be covered by evolutionary theory, but, i would argue, the alternatives explain what we see in a superior way. It is the evolutionists consistent unwillingness, in most cases, of even considering them that substitutes for “proof against”. And again, if many of you would move beyond Ken Ham, or even try to objectively consider arguments of ID, you might find answers to your “questions’. There are answers and mechanisms being offered. You just won’t even consider them, often not because you can offer viable or superior solutions, but merely because you believe your paradigm won’t even allow you to consider them. The literature is voluminous. But you will probably proffer your “peer-reviewed” argument, without acknowledging that scientific journals censor anything that resembles or mentions intelligent design or it’s corollaries. As a simple but significant example, Dawkins will consider panspermia but not intelligent design. What may i ask, is the difference? Aliens are ok but God is not? Is this scientific reasoning or just atheistic prejudice? If you want the literature, search for it. I have. And i found it. If you’re not willing to put in the effort (it’s not hard) but would rather rely on “HAM-bashers” arguments and accusations, then i doubt you sincerely want to see alternative explanations. I have already, several times, on this site and others, played the “show me the proof” game, only to find that those who request such are not even willing to take the time to follow up. They just ignore it, and go on to request something else, hoping, i suspect, to just tire their debaters out and make them go away. As a creationist, you may be surprised to discover, i am quite open to various scientific arguments and theories. My paradigm does not demand I jettison anything, but demands i consider all things. This is because i do not see creationism and science as opponents, but complimentary. I encourage you to consider doing the same.

                      Like

                    • I’m afraid I don’t follow much of what you wrote. All I’m saying is that scientific theories actually consist of mechanisms that have explanatory and predictive power. Creationism/ID never seems to do that. You say the literature is “voluminous”. Why not just give us your best example?

                      Like

                    • to approach your question from a non-christian angle, i think ID does indeed offer such an explanation. And what specifically would you like me to address?

                      Like

                    • Evolutionary theory supplies mechanisms for how evolution occurs. DNA transcription errors, allele frequencies, selection pressures, etc. These mechanisms explain in physical, real-world terms how ancient monocellular life diversified into the life forms we observe today, illuminating everything from the genetic tree to shared ERVs and the laryngeal nerve. The IDers’ claim that life was just designed as we see it doesn’t actually provide any mechanisms or explanations analogous to those provided by evolutionary theory.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • I understand. So here’s my question. Seeing as how you reject design and explanations involving design or a designer, exactly what could they provide you that you would in any way accept? It’s kind of a no-win situation for them. The fact that they are trying to explain why something is designed disqualifies their explanation from consideration. Kind of like asking someone to do math without numbers. It would be similar to them asking you to explain evolution using only design arguments. And that’s why i don’t spend time anymore debating what i call “the color of unicorn wings”. Unless evolutionists or atheists can explain to me (aside from circular reasoning) why something virtually (and i use virtually generously) impossible from a probability perspective could actually have happened (and believing impossible things is not very empirical) then there seems little need to squabble of small details. It is like me asking you to believe in tooth fairies starting with the presumption that tooth fairies are real.
                      I think the IDer’s are publishing much more materials regarding mechanisms that you suppose. The two sides are starting from two very different perspectives (design versus random), so obviously the explanations will also be widely distanced.
                      I’ll say again, while i don’t accept evolution (and my reasons are purely scientific for doing so), i have no problem with either side arguing consistently from their perspectives. I do have difficulty when people try to prove evolution and vast ages from the bible, or try to disprove the bible from science. That is using disingenuous argumentation. Therefore, if you are an atheistic evolutionist, i have no specific problem if you argue correctly. If you are a creationist, likewise. NO one on these sites ever has their minds changed, nor have i found any remotely willing to do so. Thus i find the arguments superfluous and in vain. I only interject when i find illogical or contradictory approached. Theologians often suck at science, and scientists often suck at proper theology and philosophical argumentation.
                      Thanks for your responses. Wishing you well.

                      Like

  2. datadroid says:

    I frequently challenge YECs to come up with just one example of a practical result, discovery, invention or successful exclusive prediction based on the premise that the earth is young or that species are largely unrelated. To date, not one has done so.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Someone might have an hour or so to spare to check what exactly all this is about:

    “Startling facts about Noah’s daughters-in-law found by creationist researcher Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. Here is your opportunity to ask a Harvard-trained creation scientist any questions you might have.” (According to the AiG Facebook page.)

    Like

    • dean allison says:

      Thank you for this great video. This young-gun professor is making some ground-breaking scientific predictions that will contribute to the theory of evolution becoming viewed as a laughing-stock characterization of the hubris of man in the next few years.

      Like

      • We shall see.

        Like

      • Hi Dean, well, I’ll grant Jeanson is trying. He isn’t a professor and he is researching an areas that is outside of his training. Do you have any familiarity with the mtDNA sequences he is dealing with? If you do then you will realize that in the video he leaves out some very important data that would very much change his results. Ken Ham doesn’t seem to be aware of the missing data but I am sure that Jeanson realizes he is presenting a biased set of data. The point is that there is nothing particularly ground breaking here. Just because they say that this is new doesn’t mean it is. So I wouldn’t hold my breath for this research to change any paradigms as yet.

        Liked by 1 person

        • dean allison says:

          Thanks for your response! What is the very important data that Dr. Jeanson is leaving out? Thanks for your time in educating me on his crucial omissions, as I am a simple centurion and not versed in these matters.

          Like

          • Hi Dean, The figures that jeanson shows seem to be about right with standard methods of sequence comparisons. But the only lineages he shows and uses in his analyses are modern living humans. There are abundan ancient DNA lineages (thousands of year old samples) that have been sequenced that can – and have been – be used to test his ideas of mutation rates. Mutation rates are hard to talk about because there are different rates to consider and so I don’t want to go down that trail here but there its not as simply as Jeanson makes it sound to Ken Ham. I think Jeanson knows this but he is simplifying for Ham. The thing is that Ham goes on to use his data in talks not really understanding it in which case he inappropriately applies the data to questions that it can’t answer without being aware he doesn’t now what he is talking about.
            Butt the bigger problem that is fairly obvious is that his tree of human mtDNAs doesn’t include neanderthals or denisovans or the Sima de los huesos samples of hominins. These are all considered to be “humans” by AiG and there are mtDNA sequences from them but Jeason doesn’t show us where they fit into the noahic lineages. I can tell you that these sequences fall far outside all the variation in all living humans today and so they don’t fit on that tree very well and would be hard to explain as descendants of humans. So I found it a bit interesting that Ham and Jeason talk about cherry picking data but then present cherry picked data because they can’t explain the data they have left out. Hope that helps a bit.

            Liked by 2 people

            • dean allison says:

              Preston, I read through some of this site you linked to, and I gleaned that they do not hold a high view of Scripture. If Scripture cannot be trusted then God’s interaction and guidance with us mortals seems pointless. Why interact with people who will not be able to share that knowledge going forward. Jesus used Scripture constantly.

              Like

            • dean allison says:

              Actually, he didn’t leave the Neanderthal point out of the discussion. It is near the end of the video. He says is even worse for evolutionists, and that for the Biblical Creationists the DNA of Neanderthals is easily explained by a Neanderthal genome which is more susceptible to degradation than most people groups.

              Like

              • Ah, yes, I see it is at the end. Yes, that is his response when pushed. Total ad hoc idea with no evidence to support. He should include them in his analysis though since they are human. Saying it doesn’t’ make a difference is different than actually including them and showing the data. How would it be worse for an evolutionist? Sounds like something someone would say when they don’t have an explanation themselves. I suppose he could be right but then what would stop me from propsing that chimps are really just even more degraded humans since their mtDNA isn’t that much different? Jeanson thinks that gorillas and chimps descended from an ancestral pair but their mtDNAs are more different than humans and chimps. It seems that genetic differences really make no difference in his model at all.

                Like

            • dean allison says:

              Dear NH, for some reason my response loaded below the response to a other post, but did you see what I wrote regarding Dr. Jeanson and the Neanderthal DNA? He did not leave it out of the discussion, and easily accommodate into the YEC model while pointing out that it is a tremendous problem for the evolutionary theory.

              Like

  4. dean allison says:

    As the famous American poet, ICE CUBE, advised: “Chickity-check yo self before you wreck yo self.” God tortured Himself to death in order to protect the faithful from His Holy wrath. Are YOU faithful? “But I’m a Christian!” Imagine a scenario in which YOU evolutionists ARE the Christians to whom Jesus rebukes, saying, “I never knew you.” Now of course, He knows who you are, but it is YOU who do not know who He is. Best to be sure, if you can… chickity-check it. I used to be a theistic evolutionist. I understand how you people read the Bible and how you view God — most every line is read through an unconscious filter, parrying the Sword that is the Word. When the Bible says, “X” (where X is something that makes me uncomfortable), it really means “Y” (which is a range of expert, theologian musings, tickling my ear). I write this not to insult, but to inspire you, out of love and duty, to consider the possibility that you may be DEAD wrong. One of my close, theistic-evolutionist friends told me that God can’t just make a human out of dust. WOW! God can’t do this…God can’t do that… Do you really know Him, brothers? Do you really want to know Him? Hmmm, God inspired Moses to write Genesis, modeling it after ANE creation myths, because people in the 1400s BC are accustomed to talking dragons and vegetarianism, and that would be well-received…NOT!!! Or maybe God isn’t smart enough to tell Moses a pre-Abrahamic world history that could remain AS HISTORY throughout world history (do the Hebrews still keep track of Anno Mundi?) God’s just not that creative… He’s not that clever of a wordsmith… You may think you are saved, but you may be considered — by Jesus — to be a “scoffer,” whom Peter specifically describes as those people (in the latter end of the last days) who deny a fiat creation and a world-destroying deluge. Is that you? God says, “A righteous man regards the life of his animals.” Evolution has been described by its supporters as an incredibly cruel way to create things. People fall apostate by viewing the god of their evolutionary interpretation as unworthy of worship. Is this the god you preach? Meditate on this as I pray for you.

    Like

    • Dana J Tweedy says:

      You say that people “fall apostate by viewing the god of their evolutionary interpretation as unworthy of worship”. I don’t know where you get the idea, but I feel it’s quite the opposite. People “fall apostate” when they realize that the creationist assertions they have been hearing about the Earth, and it’s history are objectively false, and that they have been lied to by well meaning creationists. Accepting that evolution and God are compatible allows one to save one’s faith, not abandon it.

      I’m always open to the possibility that I could be wrong, and I’m open to viewing the evidence. If you have any evidence that evolution is wrong, you are welcome to produce it, but I suspect what you produce (if any) will be simply claims made by various creationist authors, that have been found to be false, and misleading.

       Your theistic evolutionist friend who said that God couldn't create man out dust is wrong.  God can create anyway he wishes to create.  However, there's no reason to think God could not have created man from dust by using evolution as his process of creation.   As a means of creation, evolution is no more cruel than any other means of creation.  Suffering and death are part of life, not alien to it.  If God had created beings instantly "by fiat", the fact that all life depends on the death of other life still remains. Blaming Adam and Eve for that condition still does not make God's responsibility go away.
      

      Liked by 1 person

      • dean allison says:

        @dana_j_tweedy

        Thanks for your thoughtful response. Did you see the video, linked above, by Ashley Haworth- Roberts? There is a lot of meat to chew on in that video. Biblical creationists are now making testable predictions. Rome wasn’t built in a day — neither was neo-Darwinism. Dr. Jeanson is discovering the actual, observed mutation rates (as opposed to the reverse-engineered rates — which start with evolutionary time frames) align neatly with biblical and secular world history. These population genetics are plotted by differences to show an awesome snapshot of our family tree! Of course, the data points back to three genetically distinct women — the wives of Noah’s three sons. Dr. Jeanson is now correlating the emergence of people groups with major historical events (e.g., the spread of the Roman Empire is highlighted in the video.) This is an extraordinarily exciting time to love God with all of your heart and mind. Let God become true, and every man false — Romans 3:4

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dean I’ve not watched that video I flagged but I believe Jeanson is trying to con fellow young earth creationists about mutation rates. Please see here:
          http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3482&p=49018&hilit=icr#p49018

          Like

          • dean allison says:

            Hi Ashley, do I have to download “tap-a-talk” to view what you sent? It’s not opening. If you get a chance would you consider cutting and pasting the main point or paraphrasing it? Thank you!

            Like

            • Dean

              The link works for me (in the UK). But you could try this page instead and then go to ‘Free for All’ and search for the thread ‘Latest young earth creationist con’ (started in April 2014):
              http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/

              Ashley

              Like

              • PS My 2014 post read as follows:

                http://www.icr.org/article/8017/

                I am unclear that the formula suggested in this article for assessing the extent of differences in mitochondrial DNA between individual humans/fruit flies/roundworms/water fleas is appropriate. The formula in question being “d = 2xrxt where d = DNA differences between two individuals, r = the measured mutation rate in the species or lineage, and t = time of origin derived from each origins model”. In addition the article states that: “the measured mitochondrial DNA mutation rate for humans is, on average, ~0.00048 mutations per year” but I do not know whether that has much basis in FACT. For instance I gather that research has established a discrepancy of nearly an order of magnitude between pedigree-based and phylogeny-based estimates of mitochondrial DNA control region mutation rate” – see this abstract: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/1/217.full). Furthermore, it is not clear to me that data used by Jeanson take any account of differing reproduction rates between the four species in question ie humans may produce a new generation every 25 years or so, much less often than eg fruit flies. Surely this should be taken into account in DNA mutation rates since mitochondrial DNA is not only subject to frequent mutations during someone’s lifetime but this form of DNA is also inherited (with further possible mutations) from one’s mother if a female has children. The article is also unclear, in the text just before the formula is presented, on what exactly is meant by “differences between two individuals”. Is it two individuals from different species within a given creationist ‘kind’? Surely that would be meaningless. So is it two individuals within one species? If so, why does the text also use the phrase “mitochondrial DNA differences between isolated groups of individuals”?

                I wrote the above text before reading the last section of Jeanson’s article on possible objections.

                I’ve now read that final section. The first response ‘answering objections’ is to accuse evolutionists of ‘circular reasoning’ (but no example of them doing this is provided). The second response goes off on a tangent about nuclear DNA (which is inherited from both parents and less subject to mutation than mitochondrial DNA). The third response seems to be not an ‘answer’ so much as a further attempted attack upon ‘evolutionists’ and also starts implying that there is a “worldwide diversity in mitochondrial DNA mutation rates”. The fourth response seeks to justify the ICR’s decision that “fossil DNA sequences were deliberately omitted from this study because they are too fraught with scientific uncertainty”. The fifth response appears – to a layman – to make sense. But if a spurious formula has been used the response is probably irrelevant. The sixth response refers to an ‘evolutionary rescuing device’. The seventh response addresses a hypothetical counter-claim that “four species do not represent biological diversity on Earth”.

                NONE of this addresses the concerns I raise above. I am not sufficiently expert to know for certain that all of my concerns are valid – ie that this is definitely a YEC scam and not simply ‘poor presentation’ (by an intelligent writer if footnote 4 is anything to go by).

                I am also flagging this at Eye on the ICR. The blogger may of course be busy with his studies but he is probably better placed to expose/confirm flaws in Nathaniel Jeanson PhD’s article than I am.

                The writer wishes to destroy acceptance of the notion of ‘deep time’. Since shallow time would ruin mainstream evolutionary theory.

                Like

      • dean allison says:

        @ dana_j_tweedy

        Please forgive me, but I forgot to address your objection to my assertion that theistic evolutionary doctrine undermines Christianity and causes apostasy. Please see the video of the brilliant Stephen Fry, below. He has rejected God as unworthy of worship, because of cancer and destructive parasites without realizing he’s only rejected the god of theistic evolution. The actual God, who created (just as he relayed to Moses) by His awesome power, CURSED this world, which is awaiting its recreation to idyllic perfection as described in Revelation. Stephen is associating the thorny characteristics of the cursed world as a direct reflection of God’s nature. Why? Because there never was a real fall/curse per logically consistent theistic evolutionists — these thorny characteristics have been around since the “time of dinosaurs.”

        Like

        • You are right that TE (or EC) does often lead to unorthodox theology. There are plenty of ECs like me and Joel (the author of this blog) who have not apostasized. It’s been 20 years for me. But read http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk for a while. The author (Jon Garvey mostly) is a fine fellow and is trying mightily to get TE to straighten itself out theologically. He has written an unpublished book, which you can get to at his site. Fry is a great actor, but you rely on him for philosophy/theology?

          Liked by 1 person

      • dean allison says:

        @jana_j_tweedy

        I just noticed the horizontally scrolling additional information in your response. You asserted the following core assumptions of the theistic evolution worldview:

        “As a means of creation, evolution is no more cruel than any other means of creation… [A key assumption, otherwise you would have to agree with Stephen Fry, but it is completely irrational. If I create a Bunny from scratch by pulling it out of my hat with real magic, then that is infinitely less cruel than if I made it by killing 100 million protobunnies and trillions of protobunny ancestors to achieve the same result. By contrasting the amount of fear and pain and suffering of my trillions of “creative kills” to evolve a bunny versus zero fear, pain and suffering with my “magic hat” the distinction should be obvious.]

        “Suffering and death are part of life, not alien to it. If God had created beings instantly “by fiat”, the fact that all life depends on the death of other life still remains… [I am assuming you are talking about vegetable life, since Genesis makes it clear that the menu was green and leafy. What do the contrasted receptions to the sacrifices of Cain and Abel reveal about God’s view of vegetable death? In Eden, life was sustained without animal suffering per His original pre-Fall design. When God said that “dying you shall die” if you eat of the forbidden fruit, was Adam confused, because death is good and normal and that’s what he expected anyway? Death is referred to as an enemy in Scripture, and Proverbs 20:12 rules out any possibility for God to be insensitive to animal life and suffering. He would never use evolution as His creative method.]

        “Blaming Adam and Eve for that condition still does not make God’s responsibility go away. [How crucial is this? Very!!! Either God is good or He is responsible for cruelty and suffering. If you believe that He is responsible… then, tragically, you don’t know Him. God is Holy and wholly good. Stephen Fry believes as you do that God is responsible for suffering, and if Stephen meets God, he would take the moral high ground and say to Him, “Infants with bone cancer — how dare you?!”]

        Like

    • It would take too much space to respond to all the nonsensical statements in this post. One point. Jesus was pretty hard on people who arrogated to themselves the authority to say, “Thou fool.” (you are going to Hell) to their brother. Only He has the authority to do that (which He did on occasion,) and it’s you who really ought to think about what you are doing.

      Like

      • dean allison says:

        Preston, I hope it is clear that I am not condemning theistic evolutionists, but challenging them to step out in faith for their own immediate (and long-term) benefit and happiness. It takes nearly no faith to believe what atheists believe, but then just to tack a mysterious higher power on there somewhere, loosely based off of Jesus. I was a theistic evolutionist. I know what it is like. But, there is an enormous blessing of personal peace, love and joy awaiting those who deeply believe — those who don’t draw a line in the sand and say, “God’s miraculous power shall not cross this line.” Trust that God can say what is true, and He did, and He can preserve His Word for you and your great, great, great grandchildren and beyond. Trust that He is good and not in any way responsible for evil, and that the cursed world you live in should not be your home — don’t attempt to acclimate yourself to it. Death and suffering are an abomination that should make us all yearn for restoration and the promised New Heavens and New Earth (which will be created in an instant — not over billions of years) where there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

        Like

        • Dean Allison, you find your collapse into mindless fundamentalism (I don’t know what else to call it) quite comfortable. Fine. Good for you. I couldn’t do it, and I don’t think it is what God wants from me. Fine, but don’t mistake that for the faith that saves. That has to do with your faith/trust/connection with God Himself now, not your willingness to “believe six impossible things before breakfast.” Just one big thing – that He can forgive you. Oh, and by the way, there is no line that God is not allowed to cross. We just can’t expect to measure Him doing it. On this point, you really need to read Jon Garvey’s blog, unless you are really committed to abandoning thinking, in which case there will be no point in it. He’s as committed to an infallible Bible as you are, but he thinks an old earth and evolution happened. But he doesn’t think a Cosmic Fall (fall of creation) happened, and I have come to agree. Animal physical (even hominin) death and human spiritual death are two different things.

          The thing is, exactly what happened thousands of years ago doesn’t really matter for the purposes of ordinary spiritual life. The message is clear enough. Adam and Eve had plenty of experience to know that God cared about them and could be trusted. They nonetheless chose not to trust him and disobeyed. Don’t fall into the trap that some atheists do where they think that it was the Fruit of Knowledge that caused the problem in the story (so we have to forgo all human knowledge – how will you get your car fixed?) leaving out the bit about Knowledge of Good and Evil. In other words, knowledge in general is o.k., but don’t find out about evil by being faithless. But they did. And so we all are born alienated from God, and that causes all the problems. It’s not long before Cain kills Abel. All the subsequent evil flows from failure to trust God, not your interpretation of an ancient text, but God Himself. So, what exactly happened back there? I don’t know. I just know what the results are, both in human sin and in DNA sequences. I’m curious, as we all are to some degree, but I don’t think God places a real high priority on satisfying our curiosity. That’s not what the Scriptures are for. They can be misconstrued to all kinds of pointless or wicked ends, but the point is to give you a guide to the process that God used in the past to lead people to Himself, and what He had to do to save them. For that purpose, it is irreplaceable, but for other things, there are many other sources of knowledge.

          Like

          • dean allison says:

            I just prayed for you. I hope you know I want the best for you. For your sake alone, I hope that you are right. But what you called “mindless fundamentalism” might be called “obedience” by others. All God wants is obedience. He doesn’t care how smart of a biologist you are. Dumb people (like me 😇) will get into heaven, too.

            Like

            • Dean Allison, I remember a couple of meetings on cancer biology and yeast genetics where I was pretty sure I was the dumbest person in the room. It’s all relative, as that old nonsensical saw goes. I’m glad for the same things you are. I sometimes think God must find some amusement in our puny efforts, but He did become one of us, and that makes all the difference. God bless.

              Like

  5. Nicely written post!

    Arguably, the creationists who are now driving the movement realize all this, at least on some level. Most of the major organizations have moved decisively away from advocacy for equal time in the school system, and there is little apparent effort to duplicate the ICR graduate degrees in biology or geology. Instead, they have shifted away from this and moved toward a greater focus on the kind of rhetoric that carries their followers; with glossy magazines, theme-parks, well-produced merchandise, conferences and websites that apparently serve as an automatic rebuttal machine, providing a decisive response of variable quality to every single news story that may ruffle the feathers of rank and file creationists. They have seemingly realized that their main strength is in their marketing and media arm; and to their credit, they are good at it, offering generally high quality materials and events and depending on highly effective, if often deceptive, rhetoric. I don’t think this move is intentionally dishonest, I just think that they found more traction in this direction and played to the strengths of the movement and the demands of their supporters. Even if the strengths of the movement were in their scientific credentials and not the communication skills, I think many creationist leaders would have realized that the Church based market just isn’t looking for this; they are looking for something well produced and that sounds convincing from a stage or in a magazine all the while apparently being backed up by something sciency or by someone who is impressively credentialed (most just need to know that there is an authoritative answer out there somewhere).

    That doesn’t mean the science has been forgotten; I think there now may be a sense that they need to fund just enough of an alt science that the marketing can be bold and sound convincing whenever they refer back to it and so that they can speak from the pulpit with a clear conscience. I’m guessing that the main organizations are not willing to be at all dishonest when creating this alternate science, but I doubt they are willing to give it the attention and scrutiny necessary for it to be high quality instead of just seeming to be high quality (lotsa charts, graphs, numbers, epic bibliographies and tons of technical jargon). In order to build this alternate science to back up their main work, a few organizations have gone to the effort of setting up conferences and creating peer-reviewed scientific journals. The journals are hard to take seriously, at least with respect to the peer-review element, since the reviewers are often inappropriately trained for the subject of the article and since the most outlandish claims and errors still seem to slip through, but their highly technical journals are still looked to as solid evidence that real science is being practiced by creationists, and that is already enough. Even if they don’t have a reasonable solution to some impossible problem like distant starlight, they will at least have a number of articles that offer the appearance of addressing it and offer some kind of proposed solution, and they can bring out their scientific journals as evidence that their scientist, even with a small amount of funding, are hard at work and an answer could show up at any time.

    In fact, as cynical as it sounds, I think they have the balance just right for their audience, and I expect groups like AiG will continue to have great success with this kind of combo. Their alt-science will continue to dribble out at just the rate needed to point to it whenever confronted on any major question, while they continue to crank out oceans of polished merchandise and books that carry more of a propaganda (or to use a less biased word: “evangelistic”) feel than anything else. I don’t honestly think that all of this is a hypocritical money making venture by scam artists, I think the shift in emphasis was mostly subconscious, and that the creationist leaders are generally faithful and sincere individuals who are literally just meeting the demands and needs of their Church-going audience (like any good pastor I guess) while responding to the failure of educators and scientist to respond favorably to their efforts. So… don’t bother looking for the next generation of creation scientists; they only need to produce a few, and this is all they seem to be really be working towards right now…

    Liked by 3 people

    • dean allison says:

      @approved_money_changers

      Swap out creationists for evolutionists and AiG for National Geographic, and I think you’re on to something! Seriously though, talking about diets… remember a few years ago when saturated fat was bad for you, but sugar was good for you? 99.999% (repeating) of scientists funded by “Big Junk Food” corporate research grants agreed with that hypothesis. It was a fact. It was settled science… that is, until it wasn’t. Stay thirsty, my friends.

      Like

      • No, I don’t think I’ll be swapping names here. Scientific journals addressing questions from within an evolutionary framework or directly addressing evolutionary questions are prolific on the scientific side, and if anything, I think there has been underexposure of the scientific conclusions to the population at large, with a number of organizations and educators noting that surveys reflect this lack of exposure and trying to fix it in recent years. Put another way; the vast majority of scientists support evolution but have been unable to effectively communicate it to the general population in a way that they could appreciate, while a very small minority of creationist scientists have depended on an effective communication machine (the infrastructure was already in place through the various Church networks and fellowships) to win over a large percentage of the populations. So, no, I think I’ll leave my thoughts just as they are.

        Aside from that, you seem to want to expose scientists as generally corrupt and scientific progress as generally fickle, a position that gets easier to hold the further you get from any understanding of the scientific community and the work that they actually do. Am I correct in assuming that this is your overall vision of science and that your lack of confidence in it empowers your decision to not get to know anything about it? And why exactly do you assume I am not “thirsty”? What exactly does that mean? I think you need to clarify.

        Liked by 2 people

        • dean allison says:

          @approved_money_changers

          “Stay thirsty, my friends” is the tagline of Dos Equis’ “Most Interesting Man in the World” commerical character. As a Bible-believing Christian, I trust that Adam’s descendants (you, me and everybody) are inherently sinful. When I learn of Dr. Jeanson’s research, I am thrilled that a Bible-believing SCIENTIST is on the job, discovering truths of God’s general revelation which are willing unobserved by secular scientists (including the evolutionary theist scientists that rub elbows with the Atheistic hierarchy). What is the motivation for most scientists to reject God or reject His version of history? Jeremiah 17:9 poses a similar question.

          Like

          • Because for large parts of it, no one can find a shred of evidence that it happened, when there should be tons of it. Which leads me, as a Christian, to think that the Bible is not what you think it is. God gave it, but he had far more important things on His mind than anything in science.

            Like

          • wowfunny251 says:

            Carnivory is not cruel. The death as a result of the fall is NEVER linked to animals, only humans. In Pslam 104 the psalmist praises God for giving lions their food (aka meat) and remarks on the beutifally designed ecosystems.

            As for the new heavens and earth, that is irrelevant. The new heavens and earth exceeds Eden by several orders of magnitude. Eden was “very good” not perfect. The new heavens and earth will be perfect. There will be no sun, moon, or stars on the new heavens and earth, as well as no sea. Genesis 1 tells us both were present on the “pre-fall world”. Nothing in the text suggests carnivory is the result of the fall.

            Like

            • dean allison says:

              Please consider how dogmatically the assertion is worded: “Carnivory is not cruel.” Better to say, “Carnivory is possibly not cruel.” Why? Because there is another way to interpret the Psalm. God, being Holy beyond Holy is well within His rights to abandon planet earth — to cease sustaining this cursed world full of evil. But, because of his unfathomable mercy and kindness He still provides. Carnivory is a corruption, but means of sustenance for the lion. The Psalmist is glorifying God’s continued sustenance, despite His holy right to abandon us to extinction.

              Like

      • Science does sometimes go off on rabbit trails. But if the topic stays interesting to someone, it does correct itself with time.

        Liked by 1 person

        • dean allison says:

          @preston_garrison
          I agree that science corrects itself… It is in the process of correcting itself on origins! (Thanks to Bible-believing scientists such as Dr. Jeanson). Before you harden your heart on what God’s purpose is for Scripture, consider if you are a “scoffer” as defined by 2 Peter 3:3-10. Why does failure to believe in a global flood make a person a scoffer? What are the implications of being a scoffer?

          Like

          • Dean Allison, I thought of all that in the years that I was reading research in comparative genomics (I was a biochemist for 35 years, so I know how to do that,) which convinced me that evolution did happen, but not that God was uninvolved. What you are necessarily believing is that God carefully arranged the physical world so that it would deceive anyone who looked in detail. I didn’t think that that was compatible with what I believe of His character. Many years ago when I was in college, I told Him that I liked thinking and reading, but if He wanted me to quit, I would. In one of the few times that I felt He answered immediately, He said, “That’s o.k. you can go on with it. Just don’t forget Me.”

            Like

            • dean allison says:

              I believe you, Preston. God is awesome and He is unflappable. He may have asked you not to forget about him, because he has seen brilliant people, such as yourself, build a worldview which doesn’t require Him or develops a diminished view of His power, goodness and authority. Is there one piece of scientific evidence from your career that would provide an irrefutable point that the young-earth model could never show an alternative possibility towards?

              Like

              • First, you are simply kidding yourself about YECism being found to be true based on evidence. YECs have been hoping, believing and proclaiming that this is about to happen for over a century, all the while the evidence against them has just been piling up. If you want to see some of it, study Joel’s past posts.

                “an irrefutable point that the young-earth model could never show an alternative possibility towards?”

                You must understand that there is no body of evidence that cannot be accounted for by invoking miracles. The miracle hypothesis is unfalsifiable, No matter what you observe, miracles could always do the trick. You can believe it if you want, but the question is, for any body of evidence (such as comparative genomics) is there a straightforward way of accounting for it in terms of processes that can be studied today?

                What do we usually do? When we see a plant grow, do we invoke miracles (other than the loose sense in which we say the birth of a baby is a miracle, by which we mean it is amazing, but not out of the ordinary?) By miracle, I mean any departure from the usual pattern of things (‘laws’ of nature.) If what we observe can be accounted for as the usual patterns of things, we don’t usually say they are “miracles.” If we choose to nonetheless invoke miracles to account for something complicated, like genomes, it raises the question of why God arranged the miracles to look so much like what we can study in the lab today. Was he trying to fool people who were so silly as to go to grad school in molecular biology? For me, I don’t think He was, since I don’t think that’s the way He is. I think He honors an honest search for the truth, even the lesser truths that science pursues. I made a little longer version of this argument on my blog: http://biomattersarising.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/transposable-elements-and-common.html

                I should add that I don’t mean by this that God is not involved in ordinary “non-miraculous” events. As Christians we thank God for our food, even though we know that meteorology and plant and animal science have a lot that is accurate to say about it. We just don’t know how he achieves His purposes. We can do no more than speculate. We can not make God a variable in a scientific experiment. Anyone who has done science knows that you have to do the controls to be sure which “A” is really causing the result “B.” You may be mostly interested in A1, but you have to test every A that is in the tube, just to be sure. You have to individually leave out every component of the reaction to see if it is necessary for the result to happen. But you can’t do a God(-) control. You can’t persuade God to stay out of one test tube to see what would happen without Him. If you could, that would be “putting the Lord thy God to the test,” which we’re recommended not to try.

                Like

                • dean allison says:

                  Preston, I understand what you mean, but my point is completely different. Please imagine this for me: God is on trial accused of being responsible for all the evil in the world. The burden of proof is not simply “beyond a reasonable doubt” but, instead, you must convince the jury that God was not literally accurate in His version of the creation account. You must convince them that there is ZERO way that He could have done it exactly as He said. Now, of course, as you said, miracles could always be invoked and cannot be measured or completely reverse-engineered by science. Therefore, you could never reach the burden of proof to convince the jury. One day, Preston, you will stand in front of Him. What if he wants to know why you preferred an alternative history to the one He gave? What will you say? What if He says that your version of events implicates Him as evil? What if He takes umbrage at your insistence on a worldview you can never prove against His miraculous account? How is this a smart path to be going down? “But God, Atheists didn’t think I was a total nut, because I largely agreed with their origins myth. That gave me the opportunity to present the Gospel to them.” Hopefully, that is enough to placate His potential wrath.

                  Like

    • Knocked it out-of-the-park with this comment. I think you have some great points here. I agree that the major YEC organizations have collectively moved in the direction you suggest and that they have really found their niche and serve it well. Interestingly, there are some fringe groups and YEC players. Some are AIG wannabes like CreationToday and David Rives. They generate no new information and just use resources. But there are others like Logos Research Associates. They seem to consciously be saying that research is needed and want to be the serious academics of YEC. There is also the Creation Research Society. But these groups have been nearly moribund the past couple of years. A lack of funds and an aged groups of scientists they aren’t going to make any difference. There are a couple of independent contractors such as Todd Wood and Marcus Ross. They are doing the most innovative stuff but they are small and get lost in wake of AiG and ICR.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. I would just like to point out that WordPress is doing a terrible job of sorting things out. The Replys are not anywhere near the post they are replying to. It lets me comment, but asks me to log in when I try to “like” something, and then rejects every password and username I have ever used. So, if you Reply to someone’s comment, put their name at the beginning so we can maybe sort it out.

    Like

  7. “All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I would not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed.” – Montaigne

    I don’t always remember this, but I should.

    Like

    • dean allison says:

      @preston
      That’s a great quote! If you look at the history of compromise you will notice it corresponds with the decline of church attendance as a percentage of population. England is down to around 10% church attendance from nearly universal attendance in the 1700s, and English churches abandoned young earth creationism at the first opportunity (with the anti-Mosaic geologists around 1800). If my boldness inspires boundless faith, and by this faith tremendous joy and hope — as it has for me, then it will be worth it to endure the scorn of my betters.

      Like

  8. Acts 17:26 says that God intended for branching-off descendants of Adam to be fit for different places on our Big Blue Marble. Note that Ham’s wife was the mother of the fewest grandsons of Noah, so the odds were that she would be the mother of the most granddaughters (to marry their cousins having an Asian or Caucasian mother). So African mtDNA would predominate – and there is nothing more that I can contribute to any specific details of mtDNA analysis.

    I did note at one point in AiG that they’d see the Flood as starting in November of the Flood year, as opposed to May – so that creatures would have stored fat to support lots of sleep. Does NOBODY ever ask what, then, happens when a loaded Ark sits sweltering through an Anatolian summer? You look at big cages on the “Ark Encounter” sitting on a flat floor (even on what should be the bilge level) and have to ask: “Did the creatures lie down in their own sludge – in summer heat as well?”

    I would think that this would catch today’s “free range” enthusiasts as being important – when it’s really impossible for most of us to comprehend the “wheels within wheels” of DNA analysis. When you read that ALL BATS are designed (Genesis 1 creation) to catch prey, it’s lots easier for people to think that insects died in God’s perfect creation before the fall. So you have to ask what “death” really was as a category – if it was just a transfer of life to life, maybe? God bless us all.

    Like

    • dean allison says:

      Gerald, may God please bless you. Please consider additional possibilities for your three points. 1. The people groups you named would not have been formed until after the Babel dispersion. 2. The waters of the flood would have been hot, energized by volcanic and tectonic activity; however the 40 days of precipitation along with volcanic ash clouds would have blocked out some heat from the sun during and after the flood. The temperature on the Ark could have been well-balanced between hot water and cool air. 3. Bats can eat fruits and nectar as well. Insects are like God’s little robots that perform a variety of essential yet behind the scenes activities — many of which have been corrupted by the Curse. Typically, the death of an insect does not invoke the same abhorrent reaction in us that the death of a puppy does, but God may sustain his creation without insect death if He chooses. He’s more powerful than we can possibly imagine.

      Like

      • wowfunny251 says:

        God is also more wise than we can possibly imagine. If God allowed hundreds of millions of years of animal death via carnivory, we should have faith and trust that he did it for a good reason. Just because you cannot imagine one does not mean one does not exist.

        Like

  9. The author of Genesis was inspired by God to introduce YHWH to a pagan world and to describe the nature of man. The only cosmology the author knew was ancient mid-east cosmology, which the Israelites adopted and greatly modified. The cosmology in Genesis would have been scandalous to any non-Hebrew who could read it or was told about it. It would have seemed shockingly “godless” – instead of all kinds of things being gods, including the stars, there was only this one mysterious deity. And this deity was strange – everyone knew that real gods fought each other and acted like super-humans, but this God was different. The author of Genesis had to describe something transcendent yet do it in a framework people could grasp. I don’t see that God was trying to convey ideas about the speed of light, layers of fossils, or genetics. I don’t see that the word translated as “firmament” means that the earth is or was once covered by a solid dome.

    I am puzzled why anyone would think that Genesis has to be read like a modern history book or a modern science book. The first person to write what we could recognize as history was Herodotus. Aristotle attempted something like science by describing plants and animals – he was ahead of his time but what he did was not quite science although it was going in the right direction (even though he got many facts wrong). We moderns (from fundamentalists to liberals) tend to read our modern language and way of thinking into the Bible. Some read a garbled version of science into the Bible. Some read modern politics into the Bible and see Jesus as kind of a modern social revolutionary figure. The Bible is something we weaponize by reading the right “ammunition” into it.

    Like

    • dean allison says:

      Jacob,
      Your belief about God speaking in their language and time has to jump this hurdle linked below. The writer used the simple vocabulary of Genesis to show how God could clearly explain Creation as you believe it to be true. Hopefully this helps illuminate the error you are making in thinking God is not a timeless communicator. Heaven forbid mortal man could write Genesis more timelessly!
      http://creation.mobi/genesis-according-to-evolution

      Check this satire of your position out, too. Everyone on this site should remember that there are multiple ways of interpreting what happened. Just because Atheists say one thing, does that mean you you should dogmatically champion it against God’s own claims?
      http://creation.mobi/new-compromise-bible-version-satire

      Like

      • wowfunny251 says:

        Just as the scientific data is interpretable in multiple ways, so too is Genesis. It is incredibly arrogant to claim that your interpretation of the bible is God’s word, and if you don’t believe that interpretation you don’t believe the bible.

        Like

        • dean allison says:

          Consider how dogmatic (and arrogant) your statement is. What if I’m right? That’s impossible, right?

          Like

        • dean allison says:

          Wow-funny, one of us is right and one is wrong. I would rather be laughed at by God for taking him literally, then scorned by God for trumping his word with the long ages of the Atheist’s origins myth. Let’s set Genesis aside shall we? These are the verses you should be using against me to disprove my position:

          The empirical method is the beginning of knowledge.—Proverbs 1:7
          Trust in science with all your heart, and do not lean on the LORD’s understanding—Proverbs 3:5
          Methodological Naturalism is the beginning of wisdom.—Proverbs 9:10
          The fear of man is most important for today’s Christians to maintain academic respectability, but he who trusts in the Lord is naïve.—Proverbs 29:25
          If I [Jesus] have told you earthly things like the fact that Adam and Eve existed ‘from the beginning of creation’ and the global Flood really ‘occurred’, and I’m wrong, don’t worry; just believe me anyway if I tell you heavenly things.—John 3:12
          But if you do not believe his [Moses’] writings, it’s not a problem, because you can believe my [Jesus’] words anyway.—John 5:47
          Now these [Berean] Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the word and the scriptures daily to test them against uniformitarian science and reinterpreting them accordingly.—Acts 17:11
          For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been invisible in nature, which looks like the results of survival of the fittest, so unbelievers have a good excuse.—Romans 1:20
          For the creation was always afflicted with futility because of him who created it that way, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that for millions of years, even billions, the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth until now.—Romans 8:20–22
          Be conformed to this world and be transformed by the renewal of your mind towards secular academic thinking.—Romans 12:2
          We affirm arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and make Christian teachings captive to every scientific thought.—2 Corinthians 10:5
          Imbibe modern philosophy, and make sure you follow the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and accordingly judge the teachings of Christ.—Colossians 2:8
          You must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. And by these waters also one locality of that time was deluged and destroyed, but these scoffers understandably forget that because this local flood left no trace.—2 Peter 3:3–7

          Like

          • wowfunny251 says:

            If your interpretation is right, that does not change what I just said. I do not say you are rewriting God’s word for interpreting Genesis in a YEC-view, I expect the same from you. Everyone interprets the bible, and it is arrogant to claim someone is rejecting God’s word for simply interpreting it in a different way than you, even if that interpretation is wrong.

            Second of all, you do realize that non-YEC interpretations of Genesis predate the advent of modern science right? And honestly, even if modern science didn’t exist, I would still be a day-age creationist because of things in the text itself.

            Liked by 1 person

            • dean allison says:

              Wowfunny,
              You are correct that that non-YEC interpretations have popped-up in antiquity. Basil the Great (329-379 AD) had to swat away such heresies on a regular basis. The Devil is busier than a one-legged man at a butt-kicking competition. Evolutionists will have you believe that they are the cutting edge of wisdom, but the principal of goo-to- you-through-the-zoo naturalistic origins has been whispered into men’s ears since nearly the beginning. Thousands of years ago, Psalm 14:1 said, “The fool in his heart says, ‘There is no God.” The only logical way to believe that is by adopting a naturalistic view of origins which always goes hand-in-hand with great ages. So yes, theories of evolution would have been contemporary to Jesus, Who, interestingly, scolded those Hebrews who didn’t believe Moses. We’re they day-agers or evolutionists? Maybe.

              Basil said:
              ‘Avoid the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog; who say that they have been formerly themselves women, shrubs, fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know; but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish.’ (Homily VIII:2)
              ‘“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to divide the day from the night”. Heaven and earth were the first; after them was created light; the day had been distinguished from the night, then had appeared the firmament and the dry element. The water had been gathered into the reservoir assigned to it, the earth displayed its productions, it had caused many kinds of herbs to germinate and it was adorned with all kinds of plants. However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”’ (Homily VI:2)

              Basil and the other church fathers regularly preached young-earth sermons to whack-a-mole the competing theories of origins. For some reason the Devil’s plan A is to convince people to distrust God’s Word. Jesus modelled our defense against the Devil as standing strong on the written Word.
              http://creation.mobi/genesis-means-what-it-says-basil-ad-329379

              Would you like to tell me why you prefer day age?

              Like

              • wowfunny251 says:

                Again, I am not twisting, rewriting, or rejecting God’s word. I fully believe God did what he said he did, I just don’t believe what he said was meant to be interpreted the way YEC interpret it.

                Don’t kid yourself, there is no such thing as believing the bible without interpretation it. The YEC view is as much of an interpretation as the OEC view. It is still arrogant to claim that because someone has different interpretation than you (even if it really is 100% incorrect), they don’t believe the bible and are twisting it. I do “stand strong on the written word”, I just interpret it differently from you. We both interpret the bible.

                Also, calling non-YEC heresy? Seriously?

                (BTW, other church fathers disagreed with Basil)

                Like

                • i have compassion for your perspective, but if taken too far, it just becomes “the bible is relative”, whatever you think it means is ok and the same for me. It does “literally” mean something, no matter what the genre. The fact that we may disagree with each others interpretation is our problem, not the bibles. You are correct. Everyone interprets within their own paradigm. The challenge is to approach the written word without presumptions and just let it speak without trying to make it conform to what we want it to say. Thus my objections. The bible doesn’t remotely teach anything resembling evolution or billions of years, in Genesis or elsewhere. What church fathers may have said, while interesting, means little to me in comparison to the text itself. I’ll live with the “embarrassments” and just let it speak. There are warnings (in scripture) about distortions or manipulations of the text, so i’ll just be ok with what it says and let God sort it out in the afterlife. That may sound simplistic, but considering the future consequences of doing otherwise, you should understand.

                  Like

              • good post. I just purchased a book on Basil’s writings. I think I am going to enjoy it.

                Like

            • and wow, i would just love to see what those things are, if you have any new ones. The wonderfully creative interpretations i have seen given to justify OEC viewpoints are some of the most disingenuous and etymologically distorted i have ever seen of any bible viewpoint on any subject in my 40 plus years of research and teaching. I mean, if you want to be an OEC, by all means do so. But if you think you have the minutest support from the book of Genesis you are terribly deluded. Just have your beliefs. Don’t distort scripture to support them. I can at least understand someone arguing from a purely scientific or secular viewpoint. But to argue from a biblical standpoint is truly standing with your feet planted firmly in mid-air.

              Like

              • wowfunny251 says:

                Well, that’s your opinion. In my opinion, YEC reads an awful lot into the bible that just isn’t there. I’ve heard your arguments against day-age creationism before, I don’t find them remotely compelling. I don’t think I am twisting or distorting scripture at all.

                That being said, I don’t see interpreting the bible through the lense of science as a bad thing. God reveals himself through both general and special revelation. The bible is 100% true in everything it teaches and describes. So if it appears to be in disagreement with what nature demonstrates to be true, one of them is being interpreted wrong. Many YEC seem to always assume that it’s the interpretation of nature that is wrong, but bible interpretations can be wrong too.

                Like

                • yes wow, interpretations can be wrong as you said. Yet you hint that you interpret the bible through the lens of science and i doubt that particular eyeglass is going to work properly for you. Science is not equipped or capable of use for philosophical or metaphysical issues and questions, at least not as a final authority. Quite the opposite of what you state, i find YEC’s interpreting the bible exactly as it reads, which is the correct method. Unless you can prove there are valid (within the text or genre) reasons for an arbitrary change of word meaning then you will be the person reading into the text, not out of. Whether you meant you’ve read MY arguments before or in general, my arguments are based on the actual meanings of the Hebrew words placed with-in the socio-historical setting at the time of their writing, and in comparison with other cultures. For you or anyone else to come along and reinterpret Hebrew words according to scientific viewpoints is no more welcome to biblical scholars than would scientists welcome christians reinterpreting scientific formulas according to Hebrew word definitions. It is anachronistic and fallicious. And thus WRONG.

                  Like

          • love it. well done

            Like

  10. C. E. Trobaugh says:

    Any thoughts on this?
    http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2017/01/defending-creationism.html?m=1
    Actually, any of his new stuff has something to offer.

    Like

  11. I have participated in enough of these EC vs YEC discussions to have concluded long ago that they are a waste of my time. All they do is prove the truth of what Paul Simon wrote, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” But Joel apparently sees it differently or he wouldn’t do this amazing blog. So, again I think, not “I wish had the patience of Job,” but “it would enough to have the patience of Joel.” :)

    Liked by 1 person

    • dean allison says:

      Spot on, Preston! People do believe what they want to believe. I believe the Bible says something about God removing scales from people’s eyes — what’s that all about?

      Anyhoo, here’s Genesis rewritten (with the same vocabulary) for those that want to believe whay they want to believe:

      ‘When God began to create the heavens and the earth, he expanded a small grain of dust and said, “Let there be light.” And it eventually became so. From this grain of dust, over many great ages he formed the stars and then the sun and finally, after a long age, the earth and the moon. And the earth was hot and dry. There was no water anywhere on the earth. Slowly, God caused the seas to come forth, and from the water he formed exceedingly small creatures in the sea and he said, “Be fruitful and multiply and be slowly changed into fish and plants of the sea and creeping things and animals and plants on the land and birds in the sky.” And after thousands upon multiplied thousands of years, as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore, it was so. But in those days there were terrors on the land and in the sky, and many also fell prey to a host of terrible plagues. Animals were eating each other, and killing with poisonous stings, and from time to time many of the creatures that God had made died and were buried and were no more. But new ones arose to take their place.

      ‘Then after a further number of long ages, God said, “Let us make man in our image.” So God took one of the animals that had arisen, which looked like a man but was not, and God breathed His spirit into this creature so that it was changed into a man. And God called him Adam. In like manner God made a woman also and Adam called her Eve.2 And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” And it was so. And from this first pair came all the people of the earth.

      ‘And after many generations those people who lived in the land around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, called Assyria, became exceedingly wicked.

      ‘God found only Noah to be righteous on the earth. And He said, “I will send a flood to destroy all the sinful people.” So God told Noah, “Take your wife and your three sons and their wives and your animals and move to the land that I will show you. There I will protect you from the flood that will soon come upon Assyria and this people.” And Noah and his family obeyed God and they alone were saved, along with their animals. All the other people in that land of Assyria died, along with some of the creatures there. The birds which had flown away once the waters began to rise returned soon after. And Noah and his family multiplied and gradually divided into different languages and tribes and spread over all the earth. From one of those tribes God called a man named Abraham … .’

      Hmmm, but why are we wearing clothes? 😇

      Like

      • again, well done. You know, if people want to be OEC”s that’s okay. I just wonder why they think the bible would ever substantiate said position, or why, if the bible is so terribly wrong about this, they would continue to use it as some basis for beliefs or moral compass.

        Like

  12. dean allison says:

    Friends,
    It is tempting for some brothers to say that the correct interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 through 11 is a side issue without much importance. But consider this, please: Genesis 12:8 – Abram built an altar and PREACHED in the name of the Lord.

    Listening to good preaching is a wonderful thing, but, friends, what exactly was Abram preaching? Was it the truth of 6-day creation, the Fall/Curse at the Garden of Eden, the prophecy that the seed of a woman will crush the head of Satan, the different sacrifices of Cain and Abel, the faithfulness of Enoch and Noah, the Judgment of the Great Flood, and the dispersion at Babel. Maybe he also had the genealogies and the travails of Job — with its sauropod behemoth and fire-breathing sea dragon. He also had his personal experience of having just been called to Canaan. His “Bible” was pretty thin. But God says he preached in His name.

    His sermons may have been a little too focused on Genesis 1-11 for many modern folks’ tastes.

    Like

  13. Someone above, I can’t get this discussion sorted out, said that design and implementation are two different things. I agree. The software engineers produce CAD (computer aided design) and CAM (computer aided manufacturing) software. Even if design is true, which I think it is, the question remains of whether science can say anything about apparent mode of implementation. My experience is that it can at least say what appears from the evidence to have happened.

    Like

Comments or Questions?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: