# Appearance of History



## Afterthought (Mar 16, 2012)

Oftentimes, the YEC/OEC/Evolution debate focuses on the term "appearance of age." But that doesn't seem to be a real problem; why couldn't God have made a fully functioning universe? Of course, there's no misleading fact of the universe, because God has told us the truth of the matter in the Bible and because we are functioning in the domain of human observation--even observation of the universe functioning under the rules of ordinary Providence--when it comes to this sort of science. Not to mention that natural revelation doesn't have to do with facts about the universe in themselves anyway. The real problem that should be focused on seems to be the "appearance of history." Why does there seem to be an appearance of history in the universe?

Take Niagra Falls for example (though probably a bad example because it could perhaps be explained in terms of flood geology; but it would be nice if we weren't forced to make a "scientific" explanation for these sorts of situations, unless by the nature of the question it is a "scientific" one?) which shows erosion patterns which suggest it has been eroding backwards for a long time. Or take supernovae that we see exploding at a distant time in the past and so never existed if YEC is true; I realise there is a YEC creation science which might explain this, but I'd really like to see if there's a way to avoid forcing ourselves into scientific explanations. Or finally, take evolution for example in which we can trace a history of genes that leads us back to animals. It's not just a similarity of genes between humans and animals, but an actual history.

What should we make of such, if we believe God created "in the space of six days", especially if YEC is correct? Is there a way to apply the two domains of knowledge to solving this problem? Perhaps it is incorrect thinking--indeed, putting God in a box we should not put Him--that God would not create with an appearance of history as well as appearance of age?


To show what I mean by the "two domains of knowledge" and to provide an example of answering these sorts of issues without being forced to give some scientific hypothesis to explain it (notice that Turretin gave none), see this thread.


----------



## Tim (Mar 16, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> Why does there seem to be an appearance of history in the universe?



Hopefully I am correctly understanding what you wish to pursue. Is this your main question?

Can it also be written, "Why does the universe appear old"?

To answer, I would ask, "How do you know what _old_ is supposed to look like"?


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2012)

Tim said:


> Can it also be written, "Why does the universe appear old"?



This doesn't seem to be quite what is meant here: the question does not have to do with age, necessarily, but the appearance of events. For example, places like New Hampshire where clearly the mountains were once much taller and volcanic at one point, but which have seemingly been worn down over quite a long period of time. Or, a place like the area around Mt. Etna in Sicily where you have hundreds of cones which seem to arise only once or twice every thousand years and which sit on top of limestone with even older fossils preserved in them.

The question I would have here is how we know that the rates of change are absolute constants.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 17, 2012)

Perhaps this would serve as an illustration. It would be one thing for Adam to be created with fairly full knowledge on many points. He was created in relative perfection, and that is part of it. It would be something else for Adam to be created with memories of a childhood _that never actually happened_ - say of learning the things he knew in school. The first you could call an appearance of age; the second is an appearance of history, and I take it that Raymond is asking about that.
The question itself seems rather difficult to sort out; but I think a recognition of our profound ignorance about the world should keep it from being troubling.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 17, 2012)

*Raymond*


> Or finally, take evolution for example in which we can trace a history of genes that leads us back to animals. It's not just a similarity of genes between humans and animals, but an actual history.



I presume this is just what evolutionists _claim_. _If it is the case_ then evolution is true.

Lots of things have been claimed about genes. Dawkins wrote a whole book on the thesis that genes were _selfish_. Some wit said it made as much sense as writing a book called, "The Sex Mad Prime Numbers"!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2012)

How long does it take for "natural processes" to make a cask of "the best wine"? (Jn.2:10).

So... who wants to accuse Jesus of deceiving the master of ceremonies? Fooled him good.


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 19, 2012)

Thanks! P. F. Pugh and py3ak understood the question properly. Apologies for any lack of clarity on my part.



Contra_Mundum said:


> How long does it take for "natural processes" to make a cask of "the best wine"? (Jn.2:10).
> 
> So... who wants to accuse Jesus of deceiving the master of ceremonies? Fooled him good.


Well, I guess that might put to death the usual objection to "appearance of age!" Though I suppose a difference is that in one case, a person isn't trying to find its age and the other, a person is (though this does indeed answer one of the OP questions! Jesus had no problem creating something with appearance of age!)....or maybe it amounts to the same thing anyway: the master thought it tasted differently than he expected yet received no correction. I'm not sure if this can be extended to "appearance of history."



Peairtach said:


> I presume this is just what evolutionists claim. If it is the case then evolution is true.


Not being a biologist (and having lost the argument to forgetfulness), I do not know all the details about it (I believe Francis Collins advanced the argument in his book).


It seems the usual answer to the OP is, "We have too little knowledge to know whether these appearances of history actually are history." Are there any other thoughts, or is that the only way to deal with it under the OP's constraints?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 20, 2012)

The "appearance of age" is, itself, an observation that is subject to constraints. Impossible-to-verify assumptions are made concerning "initial conditions."

Sometimes, it is stated that Adam (for example) had "the appearance of age." Which means what, exactly? Did he have a "scar" from when he ripped open a calf muscle in a childhood that never happened? Were all his body-cells "artificially" timed-out for replacement at different times _as if_ they had individual originations that varied? Did he have a "bellybutton?"

I think that a modicum of reflection will help sort the issues. Its possible Adam didn't have a conventional "bellybutton," although that bodily feature's residual function would have to be performed somehow, if it was not present. If a body cannot function without one, then he must have been created fully grown having one. All the same, it was never umbilically attached to a mother, because Adam was a product of special creation, not natural generation.

The suggestion of a "scar," complete with false-memory, is almost sufficient in the statement itself to reveal the extreme position (or allegation) for the parody it is. So far as I know, there is no example that anyone can point to of God's having created the appearance of actual "history" that never took place. Mocking evolutionists have repeated legends of "stumped" creationists saying that God just created dinosaur bones in the mud to fool the unbelieving scientist--and maybe some people have actually latched on to such a view, genuine obscurantism defying material evidence. But rational explanations exist to explain what the dinosaurs were, and how their death and preservation of remains is consistent with a biblical read of history.

And to the degree that it is beneficial to a body to have cells replaced at different times in a life cycle of healthy function, it makes sense to think of Adam's body as beginning in a condition in which the cells of his body have "artificial" timed-out replacement. However, once again this is not the only way to think about the matter. Initial conditions are not the same as conditions that are effected by time and environment. Adam's body, formed from the dust, is animated by the breath of life. I once worked inside an automobile manufacturing plant. I saw many a finished product roll off the line. Each functioning machine had a "boot" program. It read the "initial conditions" of each car, it ran through parameters, etc. The cars went into a test-booth where their speed was measured and the speedometers calibrated. [By the way, do you know what happens when a catastrophic failure happens in a test-booth at over 120MPH?]

The point is: that wear-and tear is variable, that fuel has to be replaced at faster intervals than just about anything else, that different parts can be marked for replacement at different times based on initial conditions set right at the beginning, and this for the benefit of the overall life of the machine. Does anyone think that the programmers are trying to "fool" the car, or the buyer, into thinking that part A-1 needs to be replaced "sooner" than A-2 just to stick-it to the consumer/sucker? Of course, not; that's not how the system is built. In many ways, a car just rolled off the line is indistinguishable from one that has been on the road for a year. So, is the public being "fooled" every minute they watch traffic go by? Apparently so, if we apply to those kinds of situations the ad hoc "standards" of honesty that some people come up with for testing "the God hypothesis."

The way things "look to us now" is part and parcel of initial conditions, affected by process (whether intra-creational, historical, or miraculous-interventional) and environment. If it was helpful and necessary that initial conditions were set for the benefit of man-on-earth, there's nothing irrational or dishonest in reckoning with the created reality. If it is "good" that light emanating from stars that are are a million light-years away is visible to the eye today (assuming the earth is much younger), then it isn't prejudicial to God's honesty that he made it so from the beginning, by process or fiat. After all, he tells us what he did; he doesn't really tell us how (beyond the basics of his Word of power and a few details concerning time and content). And if men deny his Word, and call him a liar because they then read the material-world incorrectly, whose fault is that? Do we blame the bicycle manufacturer when the buyer fails to put the parts in working order, having failed to read the directions?

We have people who are "wiser than God" all over the place, and who mock the very idea that the supernatural or spiritual has any reality. These people don't need information; they believe nature/physics provides sufficient self-explanation (which is just a variation on the "you-shall-be-as-God hypothesis"). In fact, this idea is incredibly reductionist, and the quest for reductionist solutions to the mysteries of life is a hallmark of man's rebellious nature.


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 20, 2012)

Thanks! That certainly is an interesting take on the "appearance of age" objection (if I understand it rightly): everything is created for a certain purpose, whatever appearances there may be, and so there is no worry about dishonesty in people being fooled, especially because they could always look at God's Word to see what did happen. (And no, I do not know what happens in those test booths when failure occurs) As for appearances of history that may not have taken place, I did provide some in the OP, though no doubt there may be some way to argue against them scientifically (which are those "rational explanations" you mentioned above, I think?).

Edit: Hmm. Perhaps here is a way to deal with appearances of history. Either the apparent history is observed or not. If it is observed, it falls under the domain of observation and so can be understood in that way. If it is not observed, then it must be inferred, in which case knowledge of the Bible plus our limited knowledge would mean we could not accept such an inference if it implied something contrary to the Bible (perhaps there's an issue here if the inference is deductive? But perhaps we cannot make deductive inferences to deal with apparent history?). Because God created the universe in a certain way, it is possible for appearances of history (or age) to fool us, without dishonesty on God's end, since the apparent history/age was merely a bi-product of making the universe work properly/events that happened in the universe later. Thoughts?


----------



## Afterthought (Mar 28, 2012)

Any thoughts on what's written in this thread already? Any other thoughts?


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 28, 2012)

> The suggestion of a "scar," complete with false-memory, is almost sufficient in the statement itself to reveal the extreme position (or allegation) for the parody it is. So far as I know, there is no example that anyone can point to of God's having created the appearance of actual "history" that never took place.



The illustration that I've heard most often is that of observing a star that is hundreds of thousands of light-years away go supernova. Now, in order for us to know that a star goes supernova, we would have to wait for the image of it exploding to reach us. So, if the universe is only a few thousand years old, and we observe such a supernova (which we have), then we have the awkward conclusion that we are seeing the explosion of a star _that never actually existed_. I'm not aware of any counter to such an argument except for one very far-fetched theory about how time would have stretched as the universe expanded from the big bang point at which God created it.


----------

