# Age of the Earth - Light Years



## athanatos

So, how are we to understand the age of the earth? According to our measurements, there are thousands, millions, of stars over a million light-years away. By definition, that means that it has taken the light of those distant stars over a million years to reach us. YEC could say that the world was created as "aged", that the measurement of distance yields such results because it was created in such a way that the state of the universe appears this way.

Now, I don't mind the idea of the light created as _en route_ per se; i.e. that the light did not take that duration to arrive, but rather that there exists a stream of photons between us and the star.

The only issue is that it throws all observation of those stars into skepticism, because the collection of photons emitted/refracted represent not just the existence of stars but also what they were like at the event of departure. This means that if the stream of photons was created as en route, then the light observed does not genuinely represent any _actual_ event that took place.

Restated: whatever we observe doesn't depict a real past event in the way that the cloud patterns on Jupiter do.


We have various methods of measuring the distance of stars, each supposedly for different ranges of distance. Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So, are our measurements wrong? that the stars are much, much closer? Or what wrong assumptions are influencing this?


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

We believe that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). And we also believe that God created the universe (Genesis 1:1).

It seems like it would be somewhat misleading for God to manufacture evidence for believing events occurred and objects exist that didn't and don't. Is there a solution to this?


----------



## JP Wallace

I think the answer lies in a rapidly expanding universe immediately following creation.

Isaiah 42:5 5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Interesting... After exploring this hypothesis a little, it looks like it is a possibility. There is no evidence for it, but there is also none against it. A unique tack, to be sure.

I'll have to examine this further. Thank you for your input.


----------



## JP Wallace

Strangely enough a rapidly expanding universe is what one would expect if there was a 'Big Bang' isn't it? I'm not advocating an evolutionary model of the Big Bang, however surely a big bang is not disharmonious with creation ex nihilo?

The Apostle Peter 'describes' the end of the old creation in terms of massive energy release, or consumption - it is at least possible that the creation itself there may have been somewhat similar - where God took the energy he had created, the matter he had made, brought it all together and expanded it into what we observe today.

2 Peter 3:10-12 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 

Why would he do it this way? To point to his own 'magnitude', complexity, infiniteness?

Having said that I still think there are elements of big bang type theories that are disharmonious with the creation order - created order is earth first then stars etc. I only mention this to show that an expansion of the heavens is a possible explanation of light speed etc. The expansion to explain light speed would need to have happened I assume after the creation of the stars themselves (and not on Day 1) which would not be in any sense related to the Big Bang as commonly understood.


----------



## JP Wallace

By the way I recommend 'Astronomy and the Bible' by Donald B. deYoung. in regard to this subject see especially p83ff.

Amazon.com: Astronomy and the Bible: Questions and Answers (9780884692676): Donald B. DeYoung: Books


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Dr. Russell Humphries wrote a book on this matter entitled, Starlight and Time. It is well worth the read. He also has a DVD out on the subject as well. I think you may be able to pick it up on You Tube.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Afterthought

CalvinandHodges said:


> Dr. Russell Humphries wrote a book on this matter entitled, Starlight and Time. It is well worth the read.


Though to be fair, his theory is definitely "out there," scientifically speaking (though I speak as a mere undergraduate). It also seems strange to me to attempt to explain a period of miraculous events with what we observe under ordinary providence, though it's been a while since I've looked into that theory and so I may be remembering something incorrectly.


----------



## MW

Reformed Philosopher said:


> It seems like it would be somewhat misleading for God to manufacture evidence for believing events occurred and objects exist that didn't and don't. Is there a solution to this?



God did not "manufacture evidence" for that purpose. Man observes what is done and arrives at conclusions. It would be presumptuous of man to suppose that his specific conclusions, being based on premises which exclude God in the first place, must have been something God intended. Once it is recognised that God did not intend for man to form these specific conclusions from the data there is no basis for alleging that it is "misleading."

In terms of "solution," it might be best to maintain that there is not one. Synthesis between science and theology creates all kinds of preternatural ideas.


----------



## Afterthought

^And perhaps that's the way to deal with all "appearances of history"? Similar to, perhaps even an expansion on, what was said by people in the "appearance of history" thread I made. These appearances of history are psychologically more difficult to deal with because they seem more "solid;" perhaps because we also have more difficulty imagining how the data could show otherwise? 

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------



armorubearer said:


> In terms of "solution," it might be best to maintain that there is not one. Synthesis between science and theology creates all kinds of preternatural ideas.


But then aren't Christians forced to leave God out of their science too? Perhaps that isn't a bad thing? But anyway, wouldn't Christians want to take into account all of their knowledge, which includes theology, when doing science? (I think that's what Plantinga advocates) I realize that isn't what is usually considered science, but why not create our own Christian sort of science?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> But then aren't Christians forced to leave God out of their science too? Perhaps that isn't a bad thing? But anyway, wouldn't a Christian want to take into account all of his knowledge, which includes theology, when doing science? (I think that's what Plantinga advocates) I realize that isn't what is usually considered science, but why not create our own Christian sort of science?



It is not that we leave "God" out of science, but that we leave the consideration of the "supernatural" works of God out of our experimentation as we come to understand the world God has created which we call "natural." By so doing we set fairly strict limits to "science," and understand that we are dealing with a specific area of human knowledge. When "science" then attempts to make statements about God (theology), it is clearly over-stepping its self-imposed limitations.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> It is not that we leave "God" out of science, but that we leave the consideration of the "supernatural" works of God out of our experimentation as we come to understand the world God has created which we call "natural." By so doing we set fairly strict limits to "science," and understand that we are dealing with a specific area of human knowledge. When "science" then attempt to make statements about God (theology) it is clearly over-stepping its self-imposed limitations.


Thank you! That does make sense. Since believers will be all too aware they are investigating God's ordinary providential rules of the world, that would certainly help against making conclusions contrary to what Scripture says. This way also certainly seems to give the proper weight to science and to theology.

I guess the only question then is what to do with events we see that seems to contradict Scripture (such as what was mentioned in this thread, and given an answer too). But if we're not letting science make any theological statements, then I guess we're quite free in the statements we make in science, such as noting that biological entities change over time, the similar relations among creatures in their genetics, there is the kind of chance in quantum mechanics that we cannot even in principle predict what will happen, that starlight shows how old a supernova is (or is that a theological claim because Scripture speaks to the age of Creation? Perhaps the statement about evolution we do see is also a theological statement?), the long time it would take for the erosion we see in rocks and waterfalls to form, the earth revolving around the sun, the sun creating the light we see on earth, the universe expanding from a small point--all the while acknowledging that this is what science tells us would be, if God's ordinary government of the world were in place the entire time (though of course, there's much human imagination and contsruction in science, so the "would be" is not used in the strongest sense).


----------



## Marrow Man

Barry Setterfield, an Australian astronomer, has noted that data shows the speed of light may in fact have decayed over time, at an exponential rate.


----------



## MW

Questions pertaining to "time" and "space" are a unique category. Some of the old philosophical problems relating to measurement demonstrate that human observation can only "describe" time and space in relation to other things in time and space. It cannot give any "explanation" of it. Hence all scientific claims to age are by default relative terms that are meaningless without an absolute. We should be more than happy to allow a scientist to hypothesise all the dates that are necessary for him to make his observations, but those dates are only relative to his science, and in no way explanatory of absolute reality. The wine drunk at the wedding at Cana would, relatively speaking, have taken some time to make, but the Maker, as the absolute determiner of all reality, was able to make it in a moment of time.


----------



## Afterthought

Fascinating! I guess I have one more quick question before I log off for now (though I may be back for more after thinking on that post): to play the antagonist, what if someone objected to your view that God certainly knew what people could and would draw from the data, and so it still is misleading for God to have created things that way? After all, God knew the good and necessary consequences people could and would draw from Scripture, and we usually say that God provided for that; why not for the universe?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Fascinating! I guess I have one more quick question before I log off for now (though I may be back for more after thinking on that post): to play the antagonist, what if someone objected to your view that God certainly knew what people could and would draw from the data, and so it still is misleading for God to have created things that way? After all, God knew the good and necessary consequences people could and would draw from Scripture, and we usually say that God provided for that; why not for the universe?



Quite simply, these conclusions are neither "good" nor "necessary." They are not "good" because they suppose man is free to draw conclusions and hold God to account for them; and they are not "necessary" because we have already imposed strict limitations on science, which should in turn limit the field of conclusions it draws.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Quite simply, these conclusions are neither "good" nor "necessary." They are not "good" because they suppose man is free to draw conclusions and hold God to account for them; and they are not "necessary" because we have already imposed strict limitations on science, which should in turn limit the field of conclusions it draws.


Hmm. I'll have to think on it some more, but I think that also takes care of the follow up questions such as the same question asked but for probable conclusions rather than good and necessary ones, and the question of why God would make the universe such that it would look like to humans as they investigated Creation that He was not involved in it and/or still is not. Thanks again!


----------



## Mushroom

Afterthought said:


> the question of why God would make the universe such that it would look like to humans


In the past the universe looked like a flat earth to humans. Was that deception on the part of God? He knew that they would think that as well.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

armourbearer said:


> God did not "manufacture evidence" for that purpose. Man observes what is done and arrives at conclusions. It would be presumptuous of man to suppose that his specific conclusions, being based on premises which exclude God in the first place, must have been something God intended. Once it is recognised that God did not intend for man to form these specific conclusions from the data there is no basis for alleging that it is "misleading."
> 
> In terms of "solution," it might be best to maintain that there is not one. Synthesis between science and theology creates all kinds of preternatural ideas.



But this throws all of our knowledge into question. You're saying that any ideas we have are just from us observing evidence and arriving at conclusions (which is true), but if God is not responsible, to an extent, for the evidence that he provides us, then we have no foundation for any knowledge. We could change this thread from the "age of the earth" to "history, at all." We certainly have evidence to believe that the universe was created more than 20 minutes ago (most importantly our memories), but God could have manufactured all of that evidence. And it seems like you're saying that even if God did create the universe 20 minutes ago and implanted our memories for our entire lives, he is not responsible for us being misled?

And neither the idea that the universe is billions of years old, nor the idea that the universe is less than 20 minutes old have premises that exclude God.

As Reformed, we believe that the natural world is part of God's revelation to us. So if the messages we get from the natural revelation conflict with the messages we get from the special revelation, we have an error somewhere. And although Calvinist theology is good, I think it is imperative that we recognize neither our theology nor our understanding of Scripture is unflawed. So we need to carefully re-examine all the evidence we get from both science and theology, and see where we could have messed up.

It's entirely possible that some of our science is wrong. There have been a number of theories posted here about the decay of the speed of light. And Brad makes the good point that human science has made major mistakes before. But if we look at the story of Galileo, he found a place where science and theology conflicted and, after the church fought his ideas for a long time, it turned out he was right.

It is certainly appropriate to place limits on science. I think a large part of the evolution controversy comes from a few scientists who overstepped their bounds and claimed that evolution rules out the action of God (philosophically, this is an unsupportable claim). But what we seem to be advocating here is that we limit science within its own sphere. We're no longer telling scientists, "That conclusion is unsupported by the evidence you have and, based on that, is not appropriate for you to make." Instead, we're telling them, "That conclusion, however well supported by evidence, can't be right because it doesn't match our understanding of Scripture."

---------- Post added at 12:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> God did not "manufacture evidence" for that purpose. Man observes what is done and arrives at conclusions. It would be presumptuous of man to suppose that his specific conclusions, being based on premises which exclude God in the first place, must have been something God intended. Once it is recognised that God did not intend for man to form these specific conclusions from the data there is no basis for alleging that it is "misleading."
> 
> In terms of "solution," it might be best to maintain that there is not one. Synthesis between science and theology creates all kinds of preternatural ideas.



But this throws all of our knowledge into question. You're saying that any ideas we have are just from us observing evidence and arriving at conclusions (which is true), but if God is not responsible, to an extent, for the evidence that he provides us, then we have no foundation for any knowledge. We could change this thread from the "age of the earth" to "history, at all." We certainly have evidence to believe that the universe was created more than 20 minutes ago (most importantly our memories), but God could have manufactured all of that evidence. And it seems like you're saying that even if God did create the universe 20 minutes ago and implanted our memories for our entire lives, he is not responsible for us being misled?

And neither the idea that the universe is billions of years old, nor the idea that the universe is less than 20 minutes old have premises that exclude God.

As Reformed, we believe that the natural world is part of God's revelation to us. So if the messages we get from the natural revelation conflict with the messages we get from the special revelation, we have an error somewhere. And although Calvinist theology is good, I think it is imperative that we recognize neither our theology nor our understanding of Scripture is unflawed. So we need to carefully re-examine all the evidence we get from both science and theology, and see where we could have messed up.

It's entirely possible that some of our science is wrong. There have been a number of theories posted here about the decay of the speed of light. And Brad makes the good point that human science has made major mistakes before. But if we look at the story of Galileo, he found a place where science and theology conflicted and, after the church fought his ideas for a long time, it turned out he was right.

It is certainly appropriate to place limits on science. I think a large part of the evolution controversy comes from a few scientists who overstepped their bounds and claimed that evolution rules out the action of God (philosophically, this is an unsupportable claim). But what we seem to be advocating here is that we limit science within its own sphere. We're no longer telling scientists, "That conclusion is unsupported by the evidence you have and, based on that, is not appropriate for you to make." Instead, we're telling them, "That conclusion, however well supported by evidence, can't be right because it doesn't match our understanding of Scripture."


----------



## Afterthought

Reformed Philosopher said:


> As Reformed, we believe that the natural world is part of God's revelation to us.


I don't think that's what the Reformed actually believe. As far as I'm aware, the natural world itself is not God's revelation to us; natural revelation reveals God, not "facts" about the universe itself. What the facts about the universe reveal about God is what natural revelation is; or so that's what I currently understand (and am open to correction!). See these previous threads.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/what-natural-revelation-exactly-how-does-works-73379/ http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/what-natural-revelation-69067/?highlight=natural+revelation

But further, though I could be wrong, I'm fairly certain that while we're promised the Holy Spirit to illumine special revelation, we have no such promise for "facts" about the natural world (such as may be gathered by physics, chemistry, etc.), so I'm not sure it's right to put them on the same ground (not that I'm saying you're doing that! I can't tell from your post if you are. I just know from experience that those who speak about science correcting our understanding of Scripture--moving from the correct logical possibility to a questionable [due to the differences between special revelation and science] probability in the actual world--often do not take that into account.).

I wonder if you could modify your argument from natural revelation to "Why would these "facts" that we see in the universe seem to point to an explanation that does not require God in it (e.g., evolution, the universe coming about on its own, humans and animals being related when we compare genes)?" But that seems to reduce to "Why God would make the universe such that it would look like to humans as they investigated Creation that He was not involved in it and/or still is not?", which might (I'm still not certain it is) be sufficiently answered in that these "facts" are conclusions we suppose we can hold God accountable to and that these "facts" are made in the already limited field of science.


As for your other worry, I'll be interested in seeing a response to that too. I had a similar concern with Rev. Winzer's post on the relativity of time and space after I had thought about it some more, especially because of the reliability--to some extent--of the senses, memory, and so forth. While admittedly, it seems time and space must be relative to something, if we first fixed a base to measure from and still came up with an old age, it would seem there may still be a problem; after all, we do something similar with our memories in knowing how long ago a past event took place. I wonder if the key to answering it though may lie in the differences between science and other methods by which we gain knowledge (namely, our senses and memory, etc.), but I wonder if there is so big a difference (I recall Charles Peirce arguing that we all think and evaluate data like scientists even in our day to day lives!).




Brad said:


> In the past the universe looked like a flat earth to humans. Was that deception on the part of God? He knew that they would think that as well.


A good point! That's one reason why after posting I edited my statement in order to qualify it to "why God would make the universe such that it would look like to humans as they investigated Creation that He was not involved in it and/or still is not."


----------



## au5t1n

A scientist might conclude from the distance to the stars and the speed of light that the starlight would have, under natural circumstances (i.e. the realm of science) taken X amount of time to get here (say, billions of years). As long as it is understood that scientific exercise cannot account for supernatural events (a limitation it must accept), then its natural conclusions need not conflict with the infallible revelation of Scripture that God created the earth in six days (cf. Exodus 20:11). I think this is the gist of what Rev. Winzer means by separating the domains of science and theology and allowing them to "conflict," bearing in mind the limitations of science.


----------



## Afterthought

austinww said:


> A scientist might conclude from the distance to the stars and the speed of light that the starlight would have, under natural circumstances (i.e. the realm of science) taken X amount of time to get here (say, billions of years). As long as it is understood that scientific exercise cannot account for supernatural events (a limitation it must accept), then its natural conclusions need not conflict with the infallible revelation of Scripture that God created the earth in six days (cf. Exodus 20:11). I think this is the gist of what Rev. Winzer means by separating the domains of science and theology and allowing them to "conflict," bearing in mind the limitations of science.


That's how I understand him too, though I think there is a little more going on to allow for geocentrism in reality with heliocentrism in science: namely, that the conclusions we make from observation do not always line up with reality as Scripture outlines, in which case the epistemic question of the last few posts comes up. But I wonder if remembering this may answer the "why" objection from natural revelation I made in my last post; the answer being that in science we have already limited ourselves to natural explanations of facts, so why would we expect the facts to lead us to a supernatural explanation, and why would we then accuse God of misleading us when we've already limited ourselves to explaining the data in terms of natural causes?

The scientist might think it unfair that one cannot neutrally approach the data and conclude things about God or that something supernatural happened, but it also doesn't seem fair to expect such when "neutrally approaching the data" means "explaining in terms of natural causes." But if we then assume God exists or admit supernatural causes, then of course we will arrive at God from the natural data! And as for admitting supernatural causes in our explanation, it will lead to a "God of the gaps" type of argumentation, or we will never be able to tell if something was natural or supernatural (indeed, science may explain something supernatural in natural terms; for example, we always explain scientific laws in natural terms, even though the laws would not exist without God's sustaining them and so in that sense the laws have a supernatural source). Things do seem to get messy here when science and theology are mixed (though I suppose we could still run into the danger of "God of the gaps" thinking if we saw a miracle)... I wonder then how natural revelation can work if one cannot merely look at the facts and know God exists, though I suppose looking at facts scientifically is different from looking at the facts such that they reveal God? But that may be separate from the topic at hand.

At any rate, it certainly appears that the questions concerning star light and events related to it have been answered.


----------



## Romans922

Science means little in this question. God's Word is clear. 6 days of creation, ex nihilo. 

GI Williamson said this on a blog recently:

" The best thing I’ve ever read on the creation issue is an article by Oswald T. Allis of Old Westminster. He rightly pointed out that the way to settle this issue is by using the analogy of Scripture. What he meant was that we need to compare Christ’s acts of creation performed during his earthly incarnate acts of creating the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). He created “old wine” and did so virtually instantaneously. Why, then, should we not believe that he created an universe that looks old to us, and an Adam that looked about 30 years old, recently (a few thousand years ago). I have yet to hear a convincing argument against this superb article by Dr. Allis. You can read it yourself by going to the the OPC web site with this: http://opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV4N4.pdf


----------



## MW

Reformed Philosopher said:


> But this throws all of our knowledge into question. You're saying that any ideas we have are just from us observing evidence and arriving at conclusions (which is true), but if God is not responsible, to an extent, for the evidence that he provides us, then we have no foundation for any knowledge. We could change this thread from the "age of the earth" to "history, at all." We certainly have evidence to believe that the universe was created more than 20 minutes ago (most importantly our memories), but God could have manufactured all of that evidence. And it seems like you're saying that even if God did create the universe 20 minutes ago and implanted our memories for our entire lives, he is not responsible for us being misled?



Obviously God did not create the universe twenty minutes ago. One of the reasons why I would assert that empirical science must be given its proper domain is to put an end to just this kind of preternatural nonsense. Those who mingle the supernatural with the natural usually end up creating a sui generis that cannot be supported by revelation or observation. I think special revelation provides us with every reason to accredit every fact so long as it is understood within its epistemic limitation.



Reformed Philosopher said:


> As Reformed, we believe that the natural world is part of God's revelation to us. So if the messages we get from the natural revelation conflict with the messages we get from the special revelation, we have an error somewhere.



Natural science deals with probabilities and is a constantly developing field. One must distinguish between the findings of natural science and God's revelation of Himself in nature.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Romans922 said:


> Science means little in this question. God's Word is clear. 6 days of creation, ex nihilo.



I think what you mean to say is that your interpretation of Scripture is clear. The church authorities thought Scripture was clear on the geocentric universe as well, but while their interpretation was clear, it turned out that the Scriptures they were pointing to probably shouldn't have been used in that way. I think it would be hubris to claim you have a perfect understanding of God's Special Revelation.



armourbearer said:


> I think special revelation provides us with every reason to accredit every fact so long as it is understood within its epistemic limitation.



So what is the epistemic limitation of scientific discovery? If science told us that the earth was 6,000 years old, would we be able to believe it? What if science told us that the earth was 10,000 years old? Would we be permitted to believe science if it told us that Goliath was 2.5 meters tall? 6 meters? What if it told us that Solomon was the son of one of David's servants?

My point is, we can't have a limitation that stops us from considering science if it tells us something that conflicts with our beliefs. I completely agree that there should be limits placed on science, but the limits should be things related to the capabilities of science (i.e. science cannot tell us that God doesn't make a brick fall, only that the brick falls as would be expected according to our understandings of gravity and causation). If we accept everything science tells us (how electricity works, why chemotherapy fights cancer, etc), but reject it when it tells us what we don't want to hear (that our interpretation of Scripture might be wrong), we just look like we're burying our heads in the sand.



armourbearer said:


> One must distinguish between the findings of natural science and God's revelation of Himself in nature.



But couldn't every fact tell us something about God (if we were wise enough to understand)? I certainly think that the way God created the world would tell us something.


----------



## Romans922

Reformed Philosopher said:


> I think what you mean to say is that your interpretation of Scripture is clear. The church authorities thought Scripture was clear on the geocentric universe as well, but while their interpretation was clear, it turned out that the Scriptures they were pointing to probably shouldn't have been used in that way. I think it would be hubris to claim you have a perfect understanding of God's Special Revelation.



Benjamin, 

Please tell me what 6 days means? Does it mean 6 hours? Does it mean 6 years? Does it mean 6 million years? Or does it mean 6 literal days? How long is 'day' in Scripture? 

We know that on the 4th day of 6 of creation, God created the stars. Do stars mean moons? Do stars mean asteroids? Do stars mean stars?

Now look at the age of the earth. We know very specifically how long it was from Adam to Jacob. Genesis 5 and 11 give us very specific genealogies with very specific dates. These aren't rounded off dates, these are years like 769, not 700, 650, 300. They are very precise dates. Given that they are very specific dates/genealogies, it is easy to conclude (do the math) that from creation of Adam to the birth of Jacob is 2168 years. Now, am I not correct that most biblical scholars agree on when Abraham was born and the dating all the way to Jesus? 

So without any doubt, yes, it is clear. Have biblical scholars muddied the waters? Of course. When we go to Genesis 1, how can it be taken any way but literal? Someone has to do some great magic (illusion) to get the Hebrew reader to miss the very literal language and grammar that is found in the beginning of Genesis.

Now, what evidence is there contrary to this? In the example of the earth being flat, there was evidence against this. In reading Scripture, there was not any necessary reason to determine that the earth was flat. That view was forced onto the text. But in this case, the one forcing something on the text are those old age earthers who ignore the plain meaning of Scripture and even more specifically the Hebrew grammar.


----------



## MW

Reformed Philosopher said:


> So what is the epistemic limitation of scientific discovery?



First, it is limited to natural phenomena. Secondly, it is bound to observable fact. Thirdly, is only ever descriptive, never explanatory. Fourthly, deals with probability. Fifthly, is always open to re-evaluation. With these limitations we can accept everything natural science teaches. The fact that it conflicts with the plain teaching of God's word does not require us to adopt a pseudo-science or to re-evaluate God's word in the light of it. Sarah's womb was dead and Sarah had a child in her old age. The two facts conflict with each other. Both are legitimately maintained in the belief that God calleth those things which be not as though they were.


----------



## Afterthought

There's probably an obvious answer to this that I'm overlooking (and the answer has probably already been given in some form), but if we separate theology from science, how are we justified in using such truths as original sin, creation in the image of God, etc. in explaining such behavior as sociology, psychology, or even some parts of biology (or in using such things in counseling situations)? If we do use our theological knowledge in these sciences, why not use them in others too; that is, if we use facts of special revelation in some sciences without any harm--and indeed would not ignore them except to our peril, why not use them in others?

Some philosophical/psychological theories would merely say that societies corrupt people or that people need to give in to acts of self-expression. Various psychological explanations are based on evolutionary findings, such as humans acting to reproduce in order to spread their genes among the race. And yet there are other findings of psychology that we use just fine. I think I may be conflating several issues together in asking this question, but I'm not entirely sure how to phrase those issues.


----------



## MW

The image of God in man and the fall into sin are "explanatory" of man's state. Sociology, psychology, etc., are but "descriptions" of what humans do. The problem here, as Jay Adams has pointed out, is that psychologists very often invade the domain of theology. They use "insight" to gain trust and exercise dominion over others. The fact is, without an ultimate explanation of the human condition, the psychologist has nothing "normative" with which to evaluate what humans do.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> The image of God in man and the fall into sin are "explanatory" of man's state. Sociology, psychology, etc., are but "descriptions" of what humans do. The problem here, as Jay Adams has pointed out, is that psychologists very often invade the domain of theology. They use "insight" to gain trust and exercise dominion over others. The fact is, without an ultimate explanation of the human condition, the psychologist has nothing "normative" with which to evaluate what humans do.


Thank you! Science in general indeed tries to be "explanatory" of all sorts of things rather than a mere description; eventually, its "explanations" become facts after observations are made (example, the acceptance of molecular theory; or the big bang; or evolution). I guess that may be the key then: where science is being explanatory of things, and we have theology to correct it, we can accept the theological explanation as correct because it's just a matter of one explanation over another at that point, and theology has the ulitmate explanation of reality to begin with (along with it coming from God's Word, which we are obligated to believe). When science is being explanatory of things that we do not have theology to correct (e.g., when molecular theory first came around; or really any explanation of observables in terms of unobservables that theology and special revelation do not speak to), we should be all the more careful to note its limitations and to be careful in speaking of its latest findings as definitively reflective of reality. When science of any kind is merely describing things within its own limitations though, we can accept it with respect to those limitations.


----------



## JohnGill

ICR and AIG have articles on this issue. You might also look up Halton Arp. He disproved the idea of Redshift-Blueshift. Almost everything that "scientists" claim proves billions of years has been disproven. 

Radiometric Dating - based of 3 faulty assumptions
1. Constant decay rate of radiometric isotopes (disproved by nuclear catalysis and photoremediation)
2. The belief that there was no daughter element. Mt. St. Helens disproved it
3. The belief the area remained undisturbed for billions of years.

Ice Core dating was disproven by WWII planes left on Greenland. According to Ice Core dating WWII occurred 100,000 yrs ago. C-14 dating has similar issues. Moon silt, ocean salinity, recent lava flows which were radiometrically dated all end up disproving the billions of years myth. So the idea of there having been billions of years has no evidence. Unless one is willing to believe that when we know the age of a rock radiometric dating is wrong and when we dont know the age of a rock, it's correct. The best book I've read on the issue is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Wasn't written by a Christian but a science journalist. Refutes it pretty soundly.

Hope this helps some.

It also helps to remember that billions of years nonsense is necessary for evolution. Has nothing scientific behind it.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Romans922 said:


> Benjamin,
> 
> Please tell me what 6 days means? Does it mean 6 hours? Does it mean 6 years? Does it mean 6 million years? Or does it mean 6 literal days? How long is 'day' in Scripture?
> 
> We know that on the 4th day of 6 of creation, God created the stars. Do stars mean moons? Do stars mean asteroids? Do stars mean stars?
> 
> Now look at the age of the earth. We know very specifically how long it was from Adam to Jacob. Genesis 5 and 11 give us very specific genealogies with very specific dates. These aren't rounded off dates, these are years like 769, not 700, 650, 300. They are very precise dates. Given that they are very specific dates/genealogies, it is easy to conclude (do the math) that from creation of Adam to the birth of Jacob is 2168 years. Now, am I not correct that most biblical scholars agree on when Abraham was born and the dating all the way to Jesus?
> 
> So without any doubt, yes, it is clear. Have biblical scholars muddied the waters? Of course. When we go to Genesis 1, how can it be taken any way but literal? Someone has to do some great magic (illusion) to get the Hebrew reader to miss the very literal language and grammar that is found in the beginning of Genesis.
> 
> Now, what evidence is there contrary to this? In the example of the earth being flat, there was evidence against this. In reading Scripture, there was not any necessary reason to determine that the earth was flat. That view was forced onto the text. But in this case, the one forcing something on the text are those old age earthers who ignore the plain meaning of Scripture and even more specifically the Hebrew grammar.



Your entire argument is founded on the premise that Genesis 1 (and I would assume 2 as well) needs to be taken literally. But you provide no evidence for that other than, "if we take it literally, it seems very clear."

Imagine that archaeologists from 4200 C.E. rediscover Chicago. And they manage to dig up a number of Chicago Tribune articles. They come to believe that the Chicago Tribune always writes the truth, but then come upon a troubling "passage" similar to the following: "The glory of the Great Bull has left Chicago. And that bull had three horns. The first horn had six rings and its number was 23. The second horn supported the first horn. And the third horn was pierced in many places and greatly troubled."

If taken literally, there is a definite meaning regarding a three-horned bull leaving Chicago. But if we take into account the history and culture of the people, we discover that there are other ways to take it. In fact, reading it literally is not being true to the text.

So, are there other ways to read Genesis 1? Yes. But we seem to be building a house of cards here. If we disregard what the scientific community tells us, the literal interpretation probably makes a lot of sense. But we reject what the scientific community tells us because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Until we set aside that loop, both science and other interpretations will never please us.



armourbearer said:


> First, it is limited to natural phenomena. Secondly, it is bound to observable fact. Thirdly, is only ever descriptive, never explanatory. Fourthly, deals with probability. Fifthly, is always open to re-evaluation.



I'll accept these limitations, though I am not sure "observable fact" means the same thing to me, and although I believe science is descriptive, I think there are times when we would be fools not to see an explanation from what science describes.



JohnGill said:


> ICR and AIG have articles on this issue. You might also look up Halton Arp. He disproved the idea of Redshift-Blueshift. Almost everything that "scientists" claim proves billions of years has been disproven.
> 
> Radiometric Dating - based of 3 faulty assumptions
> 1. Constant decay rate of radiometric isotopes (disproved by nuclear catalysis and photoremediation)
> 2. The belief that there was no daughter element. Mt. St. Helens disproved it
> 3. The belief the area remained undisturbed for billions of years.
> 
> Ice Core dating was disproven by WWII planes left on Greenland. According to Ice Core dating WWII occurred 100,000 yrs ago. C-14 dating has similar issues. Moon silt, ocean salinity, recent lava flows which were radiometrically dated all end up disproving the billions of years myth. So the idea of there having been billions of years has no evidence. Unless one is willing to believe that when we know the age of a rock radiometric dating is wrong and when we dont know the age of a rock, it's correct.



If I understand your post correctly, your conclusion is that all of the methods that scientists use have been conclusively shown to have to be irreconcilably flawed. If that is true, then any scientist who uses or accepts these methods is an idiot. Since the vast majority of scientists do believe in our ability to properly estimate age, they would all be idiots. And finally, because I cannot justify calling all scientists idiots when they know infinitely more about the field than I do, I cannot accept your conclusion.


----------



## CharlieJ

Caution: some of the resources recommended on this thread have been greeted with extreme skepticism, not only by the scientific community at large, but also by many Christian and creationist scientists. The idea that the speed of light is decaying at anything more than an infinitesimal rate is completely unfounded. The idea that universal expansion could cause starlight to make it to earth by natural causes has been virtually universally rejected both within and without the creationist community.

Often, people recommend books because they like the conclusions. This isn't an ethical practice, especially when it comes to science. I believe some of these bogus claims are dealt with in Poythress' Redeeming Science, which is (or was) available free online.


----------



## J. Dean

A point to be made about this: a colleague of mine (a science teacher) has said that science is more educated guessing than is generally known.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

Romans922 said:


> Science means little in this question. God's Word is clear. 6 days of creation, ex nihilo.
> 
> GI Williamson said this on a blog recently:
> 
> " The best thing I’ve ever read on the creation issue is an article by Oswald T. Allis of Old Westminster. He rightly pointed out that the way to settle this issue is by using the analogy of Scripture. What he meant was that we need to compare Christ’s acts of creation performed during his earthly incarnate acts of creating the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). He created “old wine” and did so virtually instantaneously. Why, then, should we not believe that he created an universe that looks old to us, and an Adam that looked about 30 years old, recently (a few thousand years ago). I have yet to hear a convincing argument against this superb article by Dr. Allis. You can read it yourself by going to the the OPC web site with this: http://opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV4N4.pdf



This is where I stand. THe second Adam was created, he was created with apparent age...as a man. THe universe can also be created with apparent age....light and all.


----------



## JohnGill

Reformed Philosopher said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> ICR and AIG have articles on this issue. You might also look up Halton Arp. He disproved the idea of Redshift-Blueshift. Almost everything that "scientists" claim proves billions of years has been disproven.
> 
> Radiometric Dating - based of 3 faulty assumptions
> 1. Constant decay rate of radiometric isotopes (disproved by nuclear catalysis and photoremediation)
> 2. The belief that there was no daughter element. Mt. St. Helens disproved it
> 3. The belief the area remained undisturbed for billions of years.
> 
> Ice Core dating was disproven by WWII planes left on Greenland. According to Ice Core dating WWII occurred 100,000 yrs ago. C-14 dating has similar issues. Moon silt, ocean salinity, recent lava flows which were radiometrically dated all end up disproving the billions of years myth. So the idea of there having been billions of years has no evidence. Unless one is willing to believe that when we know the age of a rock radiometric dating is wrong and when we dont know the age of a rock, it's correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand your post correctly, your conclusion is that all of the methods that scientists use have been conclusively shown to have to be irreconcilably flawed. If that is true, then any scientist who uses or accepts these methods is an idiot. Since the vast majority of scientists do believe in our ability to properly estimate age, they would all be idiots. And finally, because I cannot justify calling all scientists idiots when they know infinitely more about the field than I do, I cannot accept your conclusion.
Click to expand...


No if they accept these methods which are based on erroneous assumptions they are self-deceived. Also, not all scientists believe in the billions of year age of the earth. You imply in such a statement that a person who believes in a young creation is not capable of being a scientist. There are many scientists who believe in a young creation who would disagree with you. 

Odd how you go from "any who do" to "most" to "all". Furthermore, you presented a bifurcation fallacy. These scientists don't have to be idiots when they accept the faulty dating methods. As I stated, they're self-deceived. They need these faulty dates to support their religion of evolutionism. I suggest reading about the history of the philosophy of Anaximander and how it led to the idea of a great age for the earth. Just as the veneer of "science" was added to Anaximander's philosophy by Darwin, so too has the veneer of "science" been added to the age of the earth. It's an example of confirmation bias when one claims "science" has proven the earth is billions of years old. And if you wish to claim their methods work, then I repeat the following: Why is it that when we know the age of a rock (19th century lava flows & Mt. St. Helens eruption) that radiometric dating is always wrong? But when we don't know the age of a rock the method is always right? You've also failed to deal with people getting radically differing results from the same specimen or even the faulty assumptions of radiometric dating that I posted above. 

Not accepting my conclusion that all these methods are flawed doesn't deal with the fact that they are flawed. Do what the scientists have failed to do, prove they work.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

JohnGill said:


> No if they accept these methods which are based on erroneous assumptions they are self-deceived. Also, not all scientists believe in the billions of year age of the earth. You imply in such a statement that a person who believes in a young creation is not capable of being a scientist. There are many scientists who believe in a young creation who would disagree with you.



There may be many scientists who believe in a young earth creation, but the PEW Research Center notes that 97% of scientists believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time (source)Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. So you are going to claim that 97% of scientists have managed to deceive themselves and you (presumably with little expertise in the field) are going to save them?



JohnGill said:


> Odd how you go from "any who do" to "most" to "all". Furthermore, you presented a bifurcation fallacy. These scientists don't have to be idiots when they accept the faulty dating methods. As I stated, they're self-deceived. If you wish to claim their methods work, then I repeat the following: Why is it that when we know the age of a rock (19th century lava flows & Mt. St. Helens eruption) that radiometric dating is always wrong? But when we don't know the age of a rock the method is always right? You've also failed to deal with people getting radically differing results from the same specimen or even the faulty assumptions of radiometric dating that I posted above.



I admit that I did equivocate "most" into "all," which was a superficial logical problem with my argument. But I think we can say that "any who do" and "most" are the same, as we are talking about 97% of scientists.

I can't presume to know the solutions to the questions you've posed. My point is simply that I'm unwilling to claim all scientists are "self-deceived," liars, or idiots because they're telling me something that isn't easy for me to accept. I don't really understand why radiation treatments help fight cancer, but when the doctors tell me they do, I don't start pointing out perceived problems and claiming they're wrong, that would be hubris. Similarly, there are seemingly simple problems regarding relativity and I don't completely understand the theory, but when physicists tell me it works, I'm willing to take their word.



JohnGill said:


> Not accepting my conclusion that all these methods are flawed doesn't deal with the fact that they are flawed. Do what the scientists have failed to do, prove they work.



There are plenty of real scientists who I'm sure would be much more equipped to deal with your question. I'm sure some of them would be willing to discuss it, on the condition that you keep an open mind and trust that they're not "self-deceived," liars, or idiots.


----------



## au5t1n

Reformed Philosopher said:


> My point is simply that I'm unwilling to claim all scientists are "self-deceived," liars, or idiots because they're telling me something that isn't easy for me to accept.



What I find difficult to understand is why you are not as quick to apply this logic to the Holy Spirit. It obviously isn't easy for you to accept that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11), but shouldn't you be slower to cast doubt on the Holy Spirit's veracity and knowledge than you are to do the same on scientists?

Also, you're assuming here that the scientists in question are approaching the data objectively rather than with a religious pre-commitment to Darwinism. Even if they had such objectivity, you're also forgetting that the majority of scientists work in areas of research that have little, if anything, to do with macroevolution and simply believe what they were taught in school concerning it, as we all are prone to doing. Finally, you're forgetting the point made earlier that scientific data can, at best, tell us what would have needed to happen naturally in the absence of a supernatural miracle. If a scientist had analyzed the wine Jesus made, he might have concluded that by the laws of science, such wine would require years to produce and could never be produced from water. And he would be right, in the absence of a miracle.


----------



## Mushroom

So what percentage of these 97% of scientists are believers? Those that aren't, and I suspect that number to be rather high, can be classified as self-deceived pretty simply. As Austin points out, how can these folks garner a greater level of confidence in a Christian's mind than what the Holy Spirit has stated in God's word?

If you haven't noticed this yet, Benjamin, it's going to come as a shock to find that there are people of vastly superior intelligence who are willing to believe some very incoherent things. Their intellect is not proof of the veracity of their beliefs.


----------



## JohnGill

Reformed Philosopher said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> No if they accept these methods which are based on erroneous assumptions they are self-deceived. Also, not all scientists believe in the billions of year age of the earth. You imply in such a statement that a person who believes in a young creation is not capable of being a scientist. There are many scientists who believe in a young creation who would disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be many scientists who believe in a young earth creation, but the PEW Research Center notes that 97% of scientists believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time (source)Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. *1. So you are going to claim that 97% of scientists have managed to deceive themselves and you (presumably with little expertise in the field) are going to save them?*
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd how you go from "any who do" to "most" to "all". Furthermore, you presented a bifurcation fallacy. These scientists don't have to be idiots when they accept the faulty dating methods. As I stated, they're self-deceived. If you wish to claim their methods work, then I repeat the following: Why is it that when we know the age of a rock (19th century lava flows & Mt. St. Helens eruption) that radiometric dating is always wrong? But when we don't know the age of a rock the method is always right? You've also failed to deal with people getting radically differing results from the same specimen or even the faulty assumptions of radiometric dating that I posted above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I admit that I did equivocate "most" into "all," which was a superficial logical problem with my argument. But I think we can say that "any who do" and "most" are the same, as we are talking about 97% of scientists.
> 
> *2. I can't presume to know the solutions to the questions you've posed. My point is simply that I'm unwilling to claim all scientists are "self-deceived," liars, or idiots because they're telling me something that isn't easy for me to accept. I don't really understand why radiation treatments help fight cancer, but when the doctors tell me they do, I don't start pointing out perceived problems and claiming they're wrong, that would be hubris. Similarly, there are seemingly simple problems regarding relativity and I don't completely understand the theory, but when physicists tell me it works, I'm willing to take their word.*
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not accepting my conclusion that all these methods are flawed doesn't deal with the fact that they are flawed. Do what the scientists have failed to do, prove they work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *3. There are plenty of real scientists who I'm sure would be much more equipped to deal with your question. I'm sure some of them would be willing to discuss it, on the condition that you keep an open mind and trust that they're not "self-deceived," liars, or idiots.*
Click to expand...


1. Assuming the accuracy of the percentage which is debatable as such surveys are notoriously self-serving to Darwinists, why should it come as a surprise to you that scientists who hold to an unbelieving worldview are self-deceived? Assume 97% to be correct, it should come as no surprise that they are self-deceived. The vast majority of people on the planet are non-christian and therefore self-deceived. It should not be surprising that scientists who hold to an ungodly worldview are also self-deceived.

2. First, I have never accused these "scientists" of being idiots or liars. I dont appreciate your implication that I have. We're not discussing their intellect, but their worldview which is anti-Christian and therefore demonstrates their self-deception. Anti-Christian worldviews are automatically self-deceived worldviews. Cancer treatments are immaterial to this discussion. And if you had researched Relativity you would know that there are physicists who disagree with it, non-Christian physicists. Just as some physicists believe in the big bang and some in steady state. 

3. Once again you have implied that those who disagree with radiometric dating and other such dating methods or your 97% are incapable of being real scientists. That's not only flawed reasoning, but an insult to those scientists who don't believe in radiometric dating for the very reasons I stated previously. Furthermore, as a Christian I am forbidden by God to keep an "open mind" on such issues. To do so is sin. I am commanded to start with a Biblically based worldview and acknowledge that ALL worldviews contrary to scripture are not only self-deceived worldviews, but extremely sinful worldviews. As I stated, all scientists who hold to views contrary to scripture ARE self-deceived. And the great age of the earth view, which originated not from science, but apart from science by 19th Darwinian philosophers, is contrary to scripture and therefore anti-Christian and a self-deceived worldview.

You have also failed to deal with the historical origins of the idea for great ages of the earth. Such a view didn't originate from science, but in its current form from 19th century Darwinian philosophers. As I pointed out, the veneer of "science" was added later to this view. Any evidence that has been found to disagree with this idea has been discounted, ignored, and ridiculed. That is not science; that is anti-Christian prejudice masquerading as science. And as Christians we are forbidden from entertaining the notion that it could be true.

If you wish to accept great ages for the earth, then you must accept all that goes with it or be guilty of irrationality by logical contradiction. And what goes with the great ages idea is particle to people evolution. That is a denial of sin and Christ himself. You seem to be taking as indisputable fact, the opinions of self-deceived men over the teaching of Scripture. That is an horrendous foundation for thinking and can only lead to foolishness.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> The image of God in man and the fall into sin are "explanatory" of man's state. Sociology, psychology, etc., are but "descriptions" of what humans do. The problem here, as Jay Adams has pointed out, is that psychologists very often invade the domain of theology. They use "insight" to gain trust and exercise dominion over others. The fact is, without an ultimate explanation of the human condition, the psychologist has nothing "normative" with which to evaluate what humans do.



Of course if they do indeed have a Christian worldview they can explain and describe exactly is wrong and how this falls short of what is normal and good in God's eyes...right?


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Brad said:


> So what percentage of these 97% of scientists are believers?



The survey claims that 8% of scientists believe that God guided evolution, 4 times as many as believe that humanity has always existed in its current state. I'm not sure that's relevant, as I do not accept your premise that because unbelievers are self-deceived about something (their own guilt), they are self-deceived about everything.

I also do not want to claim that it is impossible for them to be wrong. What I am protesting is the willingness to believe that we (mostly uneducated in the ways of science) dare to condemn them as fools or deceived. "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom" (Proverbs 11:2). 



austinww said:


> What I find difficult to understand is why you are not as quick to apply this logic to the Holy Spirit. It obviously isn't easy for you to accept that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11), but shouldn't you be slower to cast doubt on the Holy Spirit's veracity and knowledge than you are to do the same on scientists?



I believe that all truth belongs to God, and that the Holy Spirit uses a wide variety of means to communicate that truth to us. If he can use the mouth of a donkey (Numbers 22), a disembodied hand (Daniel 5), and King Neco (2 Chronicles 35), I see no problem believing that the Holy Spirit can communicate truth to us through mainstream science.

So, when we seem to be getting two different truths, I think we need to have a sit down and think things through very carefully. Is it possible that our current science is wrong? Yes. In fact, judging by the frequency of past paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries, it's almost certainly wrong (or at least incomplete). But I have two reasons for not worrying too much about science: 1) Scientists are already working to find holes in the current theories, that's how a scientist can make a name for him/herself; and 2) I don't know a fraction of what most scientists know about science, so injecting my own opinions in the debate would be something like a fish trying to correct Michael Jordan's shooting technique.

But, where I feel this conversation is most seriously lacking is the theological side. We have a possible point of contention, and it doesn't even make us reconsider our position? There is no possible way that we could be wrong? The literal interpretation is the only conceivable explanation? As a student of theology, I want to see these things considered, instead of being glossed over as we march to war against scientists. 

Honestly, I'm not willing to take a side in the larger discussion, because I have so many unresolved questions in my head. But I will fight anyone who is dogmatic on one side or the other, at least until they can give me satisfactory answers to my questions. "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid" (Proverbs 12:1).

Regarding the appearance of age argument, that is both entirely plausible and a completely different argument. My problems with that are epistemological, not scientific (science would have nothing to say in that argument).



JohnGill said:


> Furthermore, as a Christian I am forbidden by God to keep an "open mind" on such issues. To do so is sin.





JohnGill said:


> And as Christians we are forbidden from entertaining the notion that it could be true.



One can only have a closed mind when they are certain that they are correct. And you're telling me that's what God wants from us?

And no, we're not. We're commanded to "test the spirits." James writes, "But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere" (James 3:17)



JohnGill said:


> You have also failed to deal with the historical origins of the idea for great ages of the earth. Such a view didn't originate from science, but in its current form from 19th century Darwinian philosophers.



I'm unfamiliar with how the view originated, but if it was a philosopher who came up with an idea that turned out to fit the scientific evidence really, really well, I'd say he was pretty lucky.



JohnGill said:


> Any evidence that has been found to disagree with this idea has been discounted, ignored, and ridiculed.



So your claim is that 97% scientists willingly discount a theory that better explains the evidence because they're engaged in an anti-Christian conspiracy? When some of them are Christians? This doesn't set off any red flags in your mind?

Scientists strive to make new discoveries that radically change our understandings of the way the universe works. A few months ago, some scientists believed that they had broken Einstein's theory by shooting particles faster than the speed of light. Had they been right (they weren't), they would have been famous around the world. Although science shows no mercy to bad theories, it is actively hunting for the best one.



JohnGill said:


> And what goes with the great ages idea is particle to people evolution. That is a denial of sin and Christ himself.



That's a fairly big logical jump. Just because I'm advocating a different understanding of Genesis 1 & 2, and God's method of creation does not mean that I am denying either sin or Christ. I would still be happy to say the creeds with you.


----------



## Mushroom

Reformed Philosopher said:


> But I have two reasons for not worrying too much about science:


And then: 


Reformed Philosopher said:


> I want to see these things considered, instead of being glossed over as we march to war against scientists.


Strange to be marching to war against a group you don't worry much about.

But the real problem is this:


Reformed Philosopher said:


> There is no possible way that we could be wrong?


It is a certitude that WE are wrong; we see through a glass darkly. It is impossible that God is wrong. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that God is not constrained to carry out His purposes within the confines of natural phenonema. The donkey spoke. The wine appeared well-aged. The universe was created in 6 days. Attempting to use 'science' or many other philosophies and artifices to deny the supernatural character of those acts is an art long practiced by God's enemies. Believing the earth was flat had no bearing on what scripture states, believing that the earth is billions of years old does. David may have believed the earth was flat, and God did not correct that inconsequential error - but he did believe that the universe was created in 6 days, and to believe otherwise would have denied the veracity of God's word.

---------- Post added at 06:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 AM ----------




Reformed Philosopher said:


> So your claim is that 97% scientists willingly discount a theory that better explains the evidence because they're engaged in an anti-Christian conspiracy?


ALL unbelievers are engaged in a conspiracy against Christianity. It is encumbent upon their natures. The 8% who claim Christianity and hold to evolution are either sorely mistaken or mere professors. They've got to endure the cocktail party sneers, so their professed faith is tested, and in some found lacking. That adds nothing to this discussion. No red flags.

But there is evidence, some of it posited in this thread, that refutes the contentions of 'mainstream' science, and it is discounted out of hand by this majority you speak of, because it unravels the carefully woven cover that veils their need to answer to a holy God. Be careful that you haven't drunk the Koolaid, brother. Copernicus and Galileo were wrong, the universe is not heliocentric. Don't buy into the dialectic that they were martyrs for the truth.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Brad said:


> Strange to be marching to war against a group you don't worry much about.



To clarify, I don't worry much about scientists. But I feel like the Christian community is marching to war against them, or at least preparing for a war. I'm hoping that we can avoid that.



Brad said:


> It is a certitude that WE are wrong; we see through a glass darkly. It is impossible that God is wrong.



Agreed.

My concern is not Scripture, which I hold to be unequivocally true in all that it purports to teach. But any time we read the Bible, we necessarily interpret. Even taking the literal meaning is an interpretational decision. Whenever we claim something, we are never simply proclaiming God's view, we are injecting a human element in as well.

So I think it's important to always be humble about our interpretations and our theology, always willing to consider that we've misunderstood. We are so fallible that it would be funny if it wasn't so scary and sad. That is why I am begging for a willingness to critically assess the options; not because I doubt God, but because I doubt us.



Brad said:


> It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that God is not constrained to carry out His purposes within the confines of natural phenonema.



Again, this seems like a comment about the appearance of age theory. If this is what God did, I agree that it would be silly to use science to try to explain it. I would be happy to discuss the philosophical questions I have regarding that, but I think it would be prudent to first resolve the science-religion conflict in the new and old earth question. The appearance of age debate accepts as a premise that scientists are right when they claim that the evidence supports an old earth. That is a premise that Chris and Austin seem very opposed to, so my hope is that we can reach an understanding there before we move on. That way, when we accept it as a premise, I won't be accused of betraying the faith.

---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------




Brad said:


> ALL unbelievers are engaged in a conspiracy against Christianity. It is encumbent upon their natures.



Is that Biblical? I've never gotten that impression from my reading of the Bible, but perhaps you could point me towards scriptural evidence that indicates that unbelievers are conspiring against us. Paul writes that we were enemies of God (and unbelievers may still fall into that category), but I'm not sure that would support the idea that they are actively working to subvert truth or fool Christians. I would agree that they subconsciously deny their own guilt.



Brad said:


> But there is evidence, some of it posited in this thread, that refutes the contentions of 'mainstream' science



You're playing two sides here. Either the universe looks old or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then there is no problem with using science, because all scientific evidence really contributes to the young-earth theory. If this is true, then we have to figure out why the vast majority of scientists (including 4/5 Christian scientists) don't support the young-earth theory.

If the universe appears old, then scientists are right, but we're left with the philosophical questions of the appearance of age theory or we're left with an interpretational problem regarding the six days of creation.



Brad said:


> Copernicus and Galileo were wrong, the universe is not heliocentric.



The solar system is heliocentric, isn't it? I really can't figure out what you're trying to advocate here. In your opinion, is science in any way reliable?


----------



## au5t1n

Reformed Philosopher said:


> I believe that all truth belongs to God, and that the Holy Spirit uses a wide variety of means to communicate that truth to us. If he can use the mouth of a donkey (Numbers 22), a disembodied hand (Daniel 5), and King Neco (2 Chronicles 35),



How do we know that any of these things really happened if our interpretation of Scripture is so deeply untrustworthy that we could be misunderstanding something as simply and clearly communicated as, Keep the sabbath day holy because God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh? At that point literally everything in Scripture is subject to doubt. My Presbyterian ecclesiology involves a number of necessary inferences from approved examples, and thus there could be some aspect of that in which my interpretation is wrong or could be improved (e.g. Are there two offices with different functions of the eldership or three offices? I believe the former, but some other Presbyterians the latter). There is no inference required for Exodus 20:11. It states plainly that God created the earth in six days with as much simplicity and directness -- within the context of a listing of Ten Commandments, which is not a passage that anyone would argue is poetic or a Literary Framework -- as the examples of events you gave in the quote above. There is as much reason to doubt, Scripturally, that God created in six days as there is to doubt that he spoke through a donkey or a disembodied hand or King Necho. The scientific method, by the way, tells us that donkeys cannot speak. And we can accept that conclusion within the context of the limitations of science, as long as we do not use it to overthrow infallible special revelation in Scripture that a donkey did, in fact, once speak.

ETA: Let me also add that all the events you mentioned are examples of special revelation from God under the Old Testament. The Bible is special revelation, but the scientific method is not. It does not infallibly reveal truth the way God has in the Scriptures and did from time to time directly prior to the completion of the canon of Scripture.



Reformed Philosopher said:


> That's a fairly big logical jump. Just because I'm advocating a different understanding of Genesis 1 & 2, and God's method of creation does not mean that I am denying either sin or Christ. I would still be happy to say the creeds with you.



You said in the "Facts aren't Facts" thread (http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/facts-arent-facts-73618/index2.html#post941298) that Genesis presents a false cosmology due to a misunderstanding of its human author, which is a denial of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, whether you realized it or not. I'm not trying to be mean, but this view is dangerous and doesn't lead anywhere good. The same Genesis also provides the basis for believing humanity is fallen into sin and requires an atonement. That is the point JohnGill was making in saying Darwinism is a denial of sin and Christ himself. He wasn't attacking your personal soteriology.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

austinww said:


> At that point literally everything in Scripture is subject to doubt.



I would say that all of our beliefs should constantly be subjected to doubt. Those that are true have nothing to fear, and the ones that are false may someday be destroyed. In this way, we can gain a better understanding of God and his world.

In the same way, I do not mind doubting Scripture and would be happy to examine the meanings of those other passages to discover the truth. However, I think it should be done in a separate thread as it is not particularly relevant to this one.



austinww said:


> There is no inference required for Exodus 20:11.



Of course there is. You're trying to use it to prove a point. If there was no inference, it would prove no point other than that the quote exists and that it is a series of words, one following another.

I think it would be good to discuss this passage, especially because the point of Exodus 20 is not at all about the age of the earth or the time taken to create it. While it does seem clear, that verse is a sidenote in the chapter and I would be interested in seeing what experts have said about it. However, I wonder how fruitful a discussion would be, as one side seems extremely dogmatic and it is my impression that anyone interpreting it any way other than supporting a 6-day creation would be rebuked and rejected.



austinww said:


> You said in the "Facts aren't Facts" thread that Genesis presents a false cosmology due to a misunderstanding of its human author, which is a denial of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, whether you realized it or not.



Well, I think Genesis fairly obviously presents a cosmology that is different than the one we have. I guess if you tie the credibility of Scripture to its description of the solar system, you might have a reason to pause. I think Genesis gives us fantastic truths about God and his relationship to us, and I have no problem believing that Scripture is true in everything it's trying to teach us. I'm just not sure that Genesis 1-2 were trying to teach us what the solar system looks like. I don't see much danger there, since the messages I take from Genesis 1-2 (God's sovereignty, God's imminence, God's singleness, etc) are much more important than whether there's a dome above the earth.

Is it necessary to believe that the Biblical authors were right about every detail to believe the core tenets of our faith? Would our religion crumble if Joshua only sent out 22,000 men (not the 30,000 described in Joshua 8:3)? What if the belt Jeremiah bought was cotton or some other cloth (Jeremiah 13)? I really don't think those details are the points we should be taking from the passages.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

[/COLOR]


JohnGill said:


> You have also failed to deal with the historical origins of the idea for great ages of the earth. Such a view didn't originate from science, but in its current form from 19th century Darwinian philosophers.



this is simply not true.
the scientific work in geology that gave rise to the concept of deep time was initially done by Christians in the 18th C initially looking for proof of the Noahic flood.

there are 2 excellent books on james hutton
Jack Repcheck: The Man Who Found Time: James Hutton and the Discovery of the Earth's Antiquity.
Stephen Baxter: Ages in Chaos: James Hutton and the Discovery of Deep Time.

the geological theory deep time was in place 3 generations before darwin.


----------

