# Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and ID (Zondervan Counterpoints)



## RamistThomist

The book itself is good, though I imagine the editor would have done it differently. The essays were fairly informative and well-written, though young earth advocates would no doubt have wished someone like Lisle or Doug Kelly would have replaced Ken Ham.

Ken Ham: Ham insisted he be allowed to have a longer essay than the rest since he, and he alone, “was defending the authority of the Bible vs the authority of Scientists.” Ham’s outlook is simple: will we trust Scripture and let Scripture determine how we view science?” That sounds noble, but can he pull it off? Sadly, he cannot. Ham’s strength is his relatively clear portrayal of one interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Note, however, that not only does Ham ignore other creation accounts (e.g., Job 38-39; Ps. 104), he refuses to bring them into the discussion because they are “poetry.” Poetry, on his account, cannot teach truths. Ironically, Ham is very close to liberalism at this point.

Hugh Ross: Ross presents “moderate concordism,” the view that we can have a testable model of creation that can give us historical predictions. His science seems fairly accurate. As one author noted, the layman is in the unfortunate prediction of trusting one scientific authority over another and just hoping for the best. 

Deborah Haarsma: This is the theistic evolutionist or “evolutionary creationist” account. She has the unenviable task of defending evolution. I do not think she succeeds.

Stephen Meyer: Updated Intelligent Design. I agree with everything he says, but, as others note, his position does not really need the Bible.

Young Earth Creation

There are good scholars and defenders of Young Earth Creation. Ken Ham is not one of those. His essay probably set the movement back twenty years. He does not understand how biblical hermeneutics works and regularly confuses his interpretation with God’s interpretation. His essay is not all bad, though. It is relatively clear and straight-forward. 

* According to him, his is the “clear and natural reading.” 
* Genesis 1-11 is history.
* Yom means a 24 hour solar day.
* When God creates, he creates supernaturally.
* The chronologies do not have gaps.
* No death before the Fall.

His chapter also touches on a worldwide flood, but that is actually irrelevant to the creation account, though it probably does touch on fossils and the like

Response

That it is “a clear and natural” reading is precisely what one should prove. I do believe Genesis 1-11 is history, but that is not all it is. Yom has other meanings besides a 24 hour solar day, as a lexicon can show the interested reader Even today, the word “day” alternates between 24 hours and 12 hours. If I worked “all day,” I do not mean I worked for 24 straight hours.

I do not dispute that when God creates, he does so supernaturally. I think that point was more aimed at Haarmsa. Moreover, as Ross points out, Ham contradicts himself. He says humans were eyewitnesses to parts of the creation week, yet elsewhere says they were unobserved (Ross 31).

The biggest problem that Ham has to overcome is the issue of starlight. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then how does Ham account for starlight that is obviously from much older stars? The initial response is that God created the light, like he did Adam, fully formed and functional. The problem is a bit deeper than that, though. On Ham’s reading, light is coming from stars that never existed. Information is coming to us from no source at all. This is a problem for all Christian justifications of science. At this very point we cannot account for the rationality of the universe. The comparison with Adam does not work. We do not currently see Adam. We do see starlight.

Old Earth Creation

Hugh Ross has probably the best argued chapter, though it is by no means perfect. He argues:
* The surface of the earth’s water is the frame of reference in Genesis 1.
* Poetry can convey truth, which means we are allowed to go to Psalm 104 and Job 38-39 for information about creation.
* Day Age creation. The days were six sequential, non-overlapping long time periods.
* Even if one wants to say there was no death before the fall, there was entropy, as phenomena like metabolism suggest.
* The Bible itself hints at earth’s antiquity. It speaks of the mountains as “ancient” and “everlasting,” which would not make much sense if the mountains were only a few days older than man.

Response

The biggest problem with Ross’s essay, as one can imagine and as Ross himself anticipates, is the presence of death before the fall. Ross points out that Romans 5 only mentions human death as a result of the fall. It says nothing of animal and plant death. Even if all the carnivores were vegetarians before the Fall, it still has them consuming possible life. Moreover, one would have to say that they all became carnivores after the fall. 

I am still not 100% satisfied with Ross’s account. It is logically consistent, but something just does not set right.

Conclusion

There was no overall clear winner. Ross had the best essay. Ham had the worst.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## greenbaggins

Jacob, what would be the problem of seeing starlight as coming from the stars? I don't see the problem you do. A star and its starlight could be considered more or less one functional thing. Your argument seems to be dependent on a providential view of this particular issue. Why not simply posit that starlight was coming from the star, and God sped up the process? If no starlight was coming to the earth as visible, then Adam would have been able to see precisely zero stars at the beginning. That does not seem to jibe with the account of Genesis 1, where stars are _already_ supposed to be time-markers immediately upon their creation. On Genesis' own account, therefore, stars that are very far away would _have_ to have been visible. Therefore God did create stars far away from earth that would have been visible instantly. What is the necessity of having to have a scientifically viable explanation in order for the starlight to have already been reaching earth?

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Jake

RamistThomist said:


> The biggest problem with Ross’s essay, as one can imagine and as Ross himself anticipates, is the presence of death before the fall. Ross points out that Romans 5 only mentions human death as a result of the fall. It says nothing of animal and plant death. Even if all the carnivores were vegetarians before the Fall, it still has them consuming possible life. Moreover, one would have to say that they all became carnivores after the fall.
> 
> I am still not 100% satisfied with Ross’s account. It is logically consistent, but something just does not set right.



Joshua John Van Ee (WSC professor and URC minister) wrote his doctoral dissertation on death before the fall and I find it quite good. He takes the position that Romans 5 is about human death not animal death (to simplify). You can read it free here: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0qm3n0mt

I've not read this book, but I appreciate a debate John Ankerberg hosted between Ken Ham and Hugh Ross (also with Jason Lisle on the YEC side and Walter Kaiser on the OEC side).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake

I agree Ken Ham is not doing the YEC movement any favors. I agree with most of his concerns but his answers are too simplistic. "Yom" is an example he hammers constantly, even though even in Genesis 1-2 "yom" does not always mean 24 hour day. Ham also borrows a lot from "flood geology," a movement with suspect cultish origins, and takes it to weird conclusions (like that the species on the ark were distinct from the species we have today and there has been a very rapid evolution or "speciation" in the past few thousand years to account for the diversity of life we have today).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> Jacob, what would be the problem of seeing starlight as coming from the stars? I don't see the problem you do. A star and its starlight could be considered more or less one functional thing. Your argument seems to be dependent on a providential view of this particular issue. Why not simply posit that starlight was coming from the star, and God sped up the process? If no starlight was coming to the earth as visible, then Adam would have been able to see precisely zero stars at the beginning. That does not seem to jibe with the account of Genesis 1, where stars are _already_ supposed to be time-markers immediately upon their creation. On Genesis' own account, therefore, stars that are very far away would _have_ to have been visible. Therefore God did create stars far away from earth that would have been visible instantly. What is the necessity of having to have a scientifically viable explanation in order for the starlight to have already been reaching earth?



The light from some stars has been traveling longer than the universe has been in existence. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then the light from some stars shouldn't have arrived yet. Ham actually acknowledges the problem but he just ignores it.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Thanks for the review! A few questions if I may?


RamistThomist said:


> I imagine the editor would have done it differently.


How do you mean this?


RamistThomist said:


> though young earth advocates would no doubt have wished someone like Lisle or Doug Kelly would have replaced Ken Ham.



No doubt there. I am one of the few members in my congregation that sees the debate between him and Bill Nye as a clearly-scored victory for Nye.


RamistThomist said:


> Ross presents “moderate concordism,” the view that we can have a testable model of creation that can give us historical predictions.



He keeps using that word "testable", yet his model is convinced of current secular models and makes use of them so thoroughly that he can only predict the boundaries of what will be discovered within those parameters and cannot produce new predictions regarding discoveries, ie. starlight and the cosmological bounds from creation to present and beyond. 

In other words, a problem for the Big Bang and cosmic inflationary models (which there are rumbles in the astrophysics communities that James Webb has discerned some big issues) is simultaneously a problem for Ross.

Sadly, many YEC astronomers like Lisle and Hartnett and many others with testable YEC models have no voice here.


RamistThomist said:


> This is the theistic evolutionist or “evolutionary creationist” account. She has the unenviable task of defending evolution. I do not think she succeeds.



So she believes God started life and then evolution took over completely to macro-evolving from fish-like organisms to primate primeval proto-humans to modern man? That seems so anti-Biblical I am surprised this position is given space.



RamistThomist said:


> Updated Intelligent Design. I agree with everything he says, but, as others note, his position does not really need the Bible.



Not sure what the difference is between this and Ross myself, but I suspect I would need to read the book.


RamistThomist said:


> His chapter also touches on a worldwide flood, but that is actually irrelevant to the creation account, though it probably does touch on fossils and the like



Ham is a businessman and - as you rightly point out - a novice both at Biblical scholarship and scientific pursuits. I do not begrudge him his thoughts, but I think since this topic includes the timing of the creation event, this portion probably deserves a great more detail in the book than seems given. 


RamistThomist said:


> This is a problem for all Christian justifications of science. At this very point we cannot account for the rationality of the universe. The comparison with Adam does not work. We do not currently see Adam. We do see starlight.



The starlight problem was one of the last vestiges of my OEC views. I could not see my way around it. It probably deserves its own separate multi-view book like this. Same goes for the Flood, geology, radiometric dating, Hebrew of creation texts, etc.


RamistThomist said:


> It is logically consistent, but something just does not set right.



I have nothing but respect for Dr. Ross and I cannot wait until I meet him in heaven. You are not wrong about this BUT Dr. Ross represents a scientist who simply cannot lose his faith in the halls of science where all around him everyone else is bowing and actively eagerly worshipping the idol of materialism and fully inhaling the vapors of moral freedoms offered.

Thank you again for this review.


----------



## retroGRAD3

I appreciate a lot of what Ken Ham does, but do agree Dr. Jason Lisle would be a much better choice for defending YEC. I really do enjoy watching Dr. Lisle's presentations.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> If no starlight was coming to the earth as visible, then Adam would have been able to see precisely zero stars at the beginning. That does not seem to jibe with the account of Genesis 1, where stars are _already_ supposed to be time-markers immediately upon their creation. On Genesis' own account, therefore, stars that are very far away would _have_ to have been visible. Therefore God did create stars far away from earth that would have been visible instantly. What is the necessity of having to have a scientifically viable explanation in order for the starlight to have already been reaching earth?



That's a very good summary of the issue. Ross and others avoid the problem by positing older time frames. God could have sped up the speed of light for those stars, but that's also kind of an ad hoc argument. I'm not dogmatic on the issue since i know my limitations on what I understand about cosmology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> How do you mean this?



Ham told the editor that he should be able to write a longer essay than was allowed because he was the only one defending God. The editor should have told him to pound sand and then hired Doug Kelly.


Anti-Babylon said:


> Not sure what the difference is between this and Ross myself, but I suspect I would need to read the book.



Meyer's position is that DNA is so complex that evolution can't account for it. I agree. Doesn't really add much to age of earth discussions, though.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3

For those interested, Dr. Lisle and Dr. Ross had a sort of debate back in 2020:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake

Jake said:


> Ham also borrows a lot from "flood geology," a movement with suspect cultish origins


One more note, to preempt questions, this is well documented in The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674023390

It is written by a secular religious historian but I think it does a fair job of talking about the movement. It does not focus on Ken Ham but on flood geology as a whole, though Ham does come up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> For those interested, Dr. Lisle and Dr. Ross had a sort of debate back in 2020:


I think I watched part of that the other day, and though I lean towards Ross, I was very impressed by Lisle.


----------



## greenbaggins

RamistThomist said:


> The light from some stars has been traveling longer than the universe has been in existence. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then the light from some stars shouldn't have arrived yet. Ham actually acknowledges the problem but he just ignores it.


There is no way to know that the light has been traveling longer than the universe has been in existence. Measurements of the speed of light do not tell the whole story. You say in your other response that it is ad hoc. I would respond that it doesn't seem to be any more ad hoc than the acknowledgment that Adam and Eve were created as adults with the appearance of age, yet being seconds old. The other common objection (which you have not voiced) that this would constitute a deception on God's part hardly holds water, since it is an argument from the silence of Scripture. We don't know what God told Adam about the appearance of age. We can deduce from God's establishment of the stars for signs and seasons that God told Adam at least that. There is no problem here. The most reasonable and simple solution is that God created the stars with their light already reaching earth. This is at least hinted at in the text of Scripture already. If you think this is just ad hoc, then please answer how it is that the stars could be created with God _already and immediately_ giving them the rule of the calendar, which implies _immediate visibility_.

Reactions: Like 10 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

greenbaggins said:


> There is no way to know that the light has been traveling longer than the universe has been in existence. Measurements of the speed of light do not tell the whole story



I'm fairly certain astronomers actually have equations and ways to make that argument. I wouldn't dare go further on that ground since I know my limitations.


greenbaggins said:


> You say in your other response that it is ad hoc. I would respond that it doesn't seem to be any more ad hoc than the acknowledgment that Adam and Eve were created as adults with the appearance of age, yet being seconds old.



Adam and Eve etc aren't ad hoc, because the bible actually hones in on that area.


greenbaggins said:


> The other common objection (which you have not voiced) that this would constitute a deception on God's part hardly holds water, since it is an argument from the silence of Scripture.



I'm familiar with it. I wouldn't say starlight is a deception, only an inconcistency in Christian justifications of science.


----------



## greenbaggins

Jacob, there is no way to measure and tot up equations to decide between the two options of God having created the light already reaching earth versus the stars being billions of years old. Both explanations explain the data on this one point. My point is that science is not equipped to answer the question. And yes, I get that from my family, packed as it is with Ph.D. scientists. You did not attempt to answer my last argument: 


greenbaggins said:


> If you think this is just ad hoc, then please answer how it is that the stars could be created with God _already and immediately_ giving them the rule of the calendar, which implies _immediate visibility_.


You have not demonstrated how this answer is an inconsistency.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> I'm fairly certain astronomers actually have equations and ways to make that argument. I wouldn't dare go further on that ground since I know my limitations.



To say that we have light from stars at greater distances than the calculated age of the universe would allow? Inflation is the leading explanation as the diameter of the observable universe would be projected towards 96 billion light years. We do not "see" starlight from stars older than the universe even in secular models. If you see "Methusaleh" in the news, that star's median age is reported at 14.46 billion years old with a lower limit of 13 billion - a lower limit within the estimated age of the universe.


RamistThomist said:


> Adam and Eve etc aren't ad hoc, because the bible actually hones in on that area.



Does the Bible hone in on Adam and Eve more than starlight though? The formation, the stretching, etc?



RamistThomist said:


> I'm familiar with it. I wouldn't say starlight is a deception, only an inconcistency in Christian justifications of science.



Not true. There are several YEC hypothetical models that allow for God to create stars and on Day 4 and stretch them vast distances away. Lisle's model is testable and falsifiable. So is Hartnett's. If the discovery of gravitational waves by BICEP holds as solid, it seems Lisle will need to tweak but Hartnett's general relativity model will be standing strong. There are also a couple other YEC astrophysicists that published cosmological models that I have yet to read. 

"Inconsistency" seems an unwarranted charge to lay here in my opinion.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> Does the Bible hone in on Adam and Eve more than starlight though? The formation, the stretching, etc?



Yes, as it actually talks about imago dei. It doesn't say anything about stretching. Such can be deduced, other things being equal, from general revelation.


Anti-Babylon said:


> "Inconsistency" seems an unwarranted charge to lay here in my opinion.



Maybe. I didn't mean it in an insulting sense. I'm still learning.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> Yes, as it actually talks about imago dei. It doesn't say anything about stretching. Such can be deduced, other things being equal, from general revelation.
> 
> 
> Maybe. I didn't mean it in an insulting sense. I'm still learning.



Job 9:8; Zech. 12:1

I thought you knew these from Dr. Ross' sections on OEC. He LOVES these verses (and more)

I am relieved to hear you meant no insult. No matter where one lies, every one of these scientists needs to be humble and apply the scientific method without fear or prejudice and YEC has many who fit this bill.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> I thought you knew these from Dr. Ross' sections on OEC. He LOVES these verses (and more)



That's right. We were talking about different things. I thought you meant "stretching starlight" to make a 6,000 year old star look 13 billion years old.


----------



## Eyedoc84

Anti-Babylon said:


> To say that we have light from stars at greater distances than the calculated age of the universe would allow? Inflation is the leading explanation as the diameter of the observable universe would be projected towards 96 billion light years. We do not "see" starlight from stars older than the universe even in secular models. If you see "Methusaleh" in the news, that star's median age is reported at 14.46 billion years old with a lower limit of 13 billion - a lower limit within the estimated age of the universe.
> 
> 
> Does the Bible hone in on Adam and Eve more than starlight though? The formation, the stretching, etc?
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. There are several YEC hypothetical models that allow for God to create stars and on Day 4 and stretch them vast distances away. Lisle's model is testable and falsifiable. So is Hartnett's. If the discovery of gravitational waves by BICEP holds as solid, it seems Lisle will need to tweak but Hartnett's general relativity model will be standing strong. There are also a couple other YEC astrophysicists that published cosmological models that I have yet to read.
> 
> "Inconsistency" seems an unwarranted charge to lay here in my opinion.


Lisle’s theory depends on special relativity, not general. 

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Prevailing Big Bang cosmology also has starlight and time problems. They don’t have enough time either. Granted, they are “closer” in scale than YEC, but there are still gaps they they have to ad hoc explain as well.

I’m with Lane on this. We live in a post-creation, post-fall world. Many of these questions are simply not in the realm of empirical science. When empirical science tries to tackle them (whether Christian or atheistic), there are always untestable assumptions baked in to the equations. Some are better than others, but there is no way around them.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Eyedoc84 said:


> Lisle’s theory depends on special relativity, not general.



I know. I referenced Hartnett's general relativity model; not Lisle's.


----------



## Eyedoc84

Anti-Babylon said:


> I know. I referenced Hartnett's general relativity model; not Lisle's.


you said Lisle’s theory would need tweaked with the discovery of gravitational waves. Why would this be problematic for special relativity? I haven’t really thought through it, but it seems measurements of the velocity of gravity would still have limits imposed by special relativity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Eyedoc84 said:


> Many of these questions are simply not in the realm of empirical science. When empirical science tries to tackle them (whether Christian or atheistic), there are always untestable assumptions baked in to the equations. Some are better than others, but there is no way around them.



I want to be clear here. I do not disagree with this stance in any way, shape or form. I suspect this will always be unanswered, but I do not believe it is a potential "deception" on the part of God or the Bible. I do not believe the cosmological models of Christians hold "inconsistencies" that the secular scientists do not. I believe study of the heavens should not be misused to discount God (as secularists do) nor should the Bible take a back seat ever in this pursuit.

I discern that @RamistThomist was not intending to say these things yet I inferred them and responded as I did.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Eyedoc84 said:


> you said Lisle’s theory would need tweaked with the discovery of gravitational waves. Why would this be problematic for special relativity? I haven’t really thought through it, but it seems measurements of the velocity of gravity would still have limits imposed by special relativity.



They do indeed. And if gravitational waves are detected with a time delay, it seemed problematic for his ASC to me.

(In fairness I originally said "it seems Lisle would have to tweak" allowing for some factor I may be missing).

But when I searched right now, I found Lisle answered this by the fact that incoming gravity waves would be instantaneous and outgoing gravity waves would travel slower.









Jason Lisle on Gravity Waves


My previous article was “Around the Solar System with Jason Lisle”, and in it I provided a brief recap of our solar system from a creationist perspective. After the presentation I had a chance to s…




sixdaysblog.com


----------



## Knight

greenbaggins said:


> Jacob, there is no way to measure and tot up equations to decide between the two options of God having created the light already reaching earth versus the stars being billions of years old. Both explanations explain the data on this one point. My point is that science is not equipped to answer the question. And yes, I get that from my family, packed as it is with Ph.D. scientists. You did not attempt to answer my last argument:
> 
> You have not demonstrated how this answer is an inconsistency.



I have to agree with Lane here. Someone I know put forward the following analogy:

"As an illustration, think of [if] God created a ball at some point on a long incline. The ball is created, and rolls down the incline. People at the bottom of the incline can measure the speed of the ball, and calculate from the inertia, etc., when it was that the ball was stationary and began to roll, than thus conclude when God created. *But they have assumed that God created it stationary.* If God created not a stationary ball but a ball already rolling, then the calculations as to when the ball was stationary would conclude a starting point preceding the creation point—a virtual past. God created a world in motion—_in motu_."

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

Anti-Babylon said:


> I want to be clear here. I do not disagree with this stance in any way, shape or form. I suspect this will always be unanswered, but I do not believe it is a potential "deception" on the part of God or the Bible. I do not believe the cosmological models of Christians hold "inconsistencies" that the secular scientists do not. I believe study of the heavens should not be misused to discount God (as secularists do) nor should the Bible take a back seat ever in this pursuit.
> 
> I discern that @RamistThomist was not intending to say these things yet I inferred them and responded as I did.


With you all the way here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84

Anti-Babylon said:


> They do indeed. And if gravitational waves are detected with a time delay, it seemed problematic for his ASC to me.
> 
> (In fairness I originally said "it seems Lisle would have to tweak" allowing for some factor I may be missing).
> 
> But when I searched right now, I found Lisle answered this by the fact that incoming gravity waves would be instantaneous and outgoing gravity waves would travel slower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jason Lisle on Gravity Waves
> 
> 
> My previous article was “Around the Solar System with Jason Lisle”, and in it I provided a brief recap of our solar system from a creationist perspective. After the presentation I had a chance to s…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sixdaysblog.com


Yes, and so far it can't be answered. Other than Lisle's theory sounding strange on the face of it, the math in SR _has_ to allow for it. And to his credit, when you read _why_ God gave us stars in Genesis 1, there's no reason to say light _has_ to travel away from the earth at the same rate it comes.

Humphrey has some interesting stuff based on GR as well (white hole cosmology).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Knight said:


> I have to agree with Lane here. Someone I know put forward the following analogy:
> 
> "As an illustration, think of [if] God created a ball at some point on a long incline. The ball is created, and rolls down the incline. People at the bottom of the incline can measure the speed of the ball, and calculate from the inertia, etc., when it was that the ball was stationary and began to roll, than thus conclude when God created. *But they have assumed that God created it stationary.* If God created not a stationary ball but a ball already rolling, then the calculations as to when the ball was stationary would conclude a starting point preceding the creation point—a virtual past. God created a world in motion—_in motu_."



I think it's deeper than that as the analogy leaves out the exegetical difficulties in terms of age.

Also, something to think about here: when I was OEC, Lisle challenged me (indirectly as he made a statement in general) that if we had access to Adam and Eve's physical non-infantile forms a couple of days after creation, we would age them visually - I don't know - but certainly more than ~2 days old. Lisle said that if we could have access to their somatic cells, we could see no mutations and age them at about 2 days old microscopically.

I was determined that God could not be deceptive in any way and wanted to see if there was some analogy in the cosmos that would allow evidence that secularists are missing/ are discounting.

Now while I have yet to find any analogous cells that put a forensic sign to a younger cosmos, I do watch with bemused interest at secularists positing an infinite universe of universes - a *multi-verse* - with no fewer assumptions or lack of mathematical rigor to their hypotheses than God creating the heavens and the earth. 

But _this theory gets popularized by media_! This idea gets to go into the passive consciousness of the everyday man on the street as it gets featured by Marvel movies etc.

We live in a fallen world indeed.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Eyedoc84 said:


> Humphrey has some interesting stuff based on GR as well (white hole cosmology).



Hartnett took it and put GR math to it. That's the one I am most familiar with.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> I discern that @RamistThomist was not intending to say these things yet I inferred them and responded as I did.



More or less. I mentioned discomforts I had with Ross's. I spent more time on Ham just because he is so abrasive and such an easy target.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In John 2, Jesus created wine--instantly--that was judged to be the finest. If our own modern judgments are of any comparison to those of ancient sommeliers (an idea I think is demonstrable from other Scripture texts, such as Is.25:6) then his wine came from grapes "that never existed [and] information is coming to us from no source at all." The wine Jesus produced at the wedding of Cana was surely "vintage" quality, but only minutes "old."

Water Christ certainly called for and may have substantively transmuted into the resulting wine; but since we aren't talking alchemy here, there's no dodging the fact that someone with an accusatory bent could find Jesus guilty of "deception" on the same grounds that God (it is said) would be so guilty for creating things with an appearance of age or "in motion" as another poster posited.

I think most miracles partake at some level of the same "problem." Natural rules: be they physical, temporal, chemical, biological, etc., are supervened and overruled, in order to bring about a revelation that demands accepting God's explanation, as much as he wills for us. Some of the miracles of the Bible are executed under a form of subjection to natural phenomena and environment; Jonah's great fish actually swam around in the salty Mediterranean. The "cloud the size of a man's hand" must have been laden with vapor lifted from the same then-present Sea, soon to deluge the parched territory of Samaria.

Yet, other miracles are intrusions from beyond this universe. Jesus created meals for 5K and 4K people, whatever it was he made of the presentation items he was shown. We creatures may not be able to create or destroy matter, but God is not bound to the reliable habits he instituted for the preservation and propagation of the cosmos.

I am not the "crusader" for YEC or a young earth I once was, though I still regard my unaltered positions on those questions as the "fittest." There are more important theological issues, even to be found in and around Gen.1&2. There are arguments I consider "worthy" against my position, the existence of which drive me to deeper thought, reflection, humility, and devotion. But any claim that undermines supernatural intervention in the universe, on the challenge that God might otherwise appear _*deceptive*_, is not worthy. These may as well cross out most if not all the miracles in the Bible, as made up stories or as events otherwise explainable on naturalistic grounds.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## RamistThomist

Contra_Mundum said:


> In John 2, Jesus created wine--instantly--that was judged to be the finest. If our own modern judgments are of any comparison to those of ancient sommeliers (an idea I think is demonstrable from other Scripture texts, such as Is.25:6) then his wine came from grapes "that never existed [and] information is coming to us from no source at all." The wine Jesus produced at the wedding of Cana was surely "vintage" quality, but only minutes "old."



As it stands, that's fine. As long as we all agree the miracle isn't "science." Reasoning by extension, if the creation acts were miracles, then one is hard-pressed to call it science. That doesn't attack YEC (in fact, it raises some difficulties for OEC), but it does put "creation science" out of business.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

I wanted to add one thing that makes starlight a little different than things on earth w/r/t appearance of age and the deception question. When we view an event such a supernova, if the distances and the speed of light as commonly accepted is correct (apart from what Lisle has shown with one-way velocity problem of SR), then we would have been viewing a star that never existed. God would then just be putting on a light show as it were. That's why the charge of deception is a little stickier. Although I happen to not have a problem with God putting on light shows, or giving us "data" that leads the unbelieving heart to conclude His word can't be trusted. The only question then becomes whether He did so before the Fall, which may raise another set of problems.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

RamistThomist said:


> As it stands, that's fine. As long as we all agree the miracle isn't "science." Reasoning by extension, if the creation acts were miracles, then one is hard-pressed to call it science. That doesn't attack YEC (in fact, it raises some difficulties for OEC), but it does put "creation science" out of business.


I fundamentally agree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Eyedoc84 said:


> I wanted to add one thing that makes starlight a little different than things on earth w/r/t appearance of age and the deception question. When we view an event such a supernova, if the distances and the speed of light as commonly accepted is correct (apart from what Lisle has shown with one-way velocity problem of SR), then we would have been viewing a star that never existed. God would then just be putting on a light show as it were. That's why the charge of deception is a little stickier. Although I happen to not have a problem with God putting on light shows, or giving us "data" that leads the unbelieving heart to conclude His word can't be trusted. The only question then becomes whether He did so before the Fall, which may raise another set of problems.


I don't agree with the postulate that goes: if a supernova explosion, measured at Xmillion light years distant; then universe equal to or greater than such age; or else God is deceptive. We know exactly how "old" the wine was at the moment it was drunk; yet it's _apparent age_ was far older. That's part and parcel of the taste-test. Neither were there any such grapes as were pressed or formed into the resulting substance. Those are exactly the form of the starlight objection: 1) alleged appearance of age that isn't so old in fact; and 2) no actual grapes used.

There cannot be a pure supposition along the lines of the proposed postulate, denial of which impugns divine integrity or truthfulness; or else, abandon miracles entirely. The supremacy of observation, over _revelational _supremacy, is what is at stake. I'm willing to grant the person who wants to accept the unutterable antiquity of the universe his honest commitment to natural evidence as he interprets it, along with his genuine faith in the Bible and what God has chosen to reveal therein--even if it dissents from my interpretation of the Bible, and of natural evidence.

What I'm not willing to grant: Unless I accept the speed of light _inviolate, _and all implications therefrom, God (on my other suppositions) must be "deceptive." False; if for God's own purposes an "already formed" universe, like an already formed wine, better suits his intermediate and final purposes--which have been sufficiently explained to his creatures for their good. When God instructs me not to accept the final authority of my sense experience or another observational mechanism, but to allow for his better/truer explanation, I recognize his right to redefine reality for me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84

Contra_Mundum said:


> if a supernova explosion, measured at Xmillion light years distant; then universe equal to or greater than such age; or else God is deceptive


That's not what I said.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Eyedoc84 said:


> That's not what I said.


OK, nevertheless I'm trying to put a postulate together that sets out in an argument style what has been set out already, but rhetorically. Instead of a dismissive retort, I welcome either a rephrasing of the postulate, or a challenge to incorrect reasoning on my part as another judges it.


----------



## Eyedoc84

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't agree with the postulate that goes: if a supernova explosion, measured at Xmillion light years distant; then universe equal to or greater than such age; or else God is deceptive. We know exactly how "old" the wine was at the moment it was drunk; yet it's _apparent age_ was far older. That's part and parcel of the taste-test. Neither were there any such grapes as were pressed or formed into the resulting substance. Those are exactly the form of the starlight objection: 1) alleged appearance of age that isn't so old in fact; and 2) no actual grapes used.
> 
> There cannot be a pure supposition along the lines of the proposed postulate, denial of which impugns divine integrity or truthfulness; or else, abandon miracles entirely. The supremacy of observation, over _revelational _supremacy, is what is at stake. I'm willing to grant the person who wants to accept the unutterable antiquity of the universe his honest commitment to natural evidence as he interprets it, along with his genuine faith in the Bible and what God has chosen to reveal therein--even if it dissents from my interpretation of the Bible, and of natural evidence.
> 
> What I'm not willing to grant: Unless I accept the speed of light _inviolate, _and all implications therefrom, God (on my other suppositions) must be "deceptive." False; if for God's own purposes an "already formed" universe, like an already formed wine, better suits his intermediate and final purposes--which have been sufficiently explained to his creatures for their good. When God instructs me not to accept the final authority of my sense experience or another observational mechanism, but to allow for his better/truer explanation, I recognize his right to redefine reality for me.


The "deception" lies not in the age, but in the appearance of the star (and the subsequent supernova) at all. If a star is currently 2bLY away, then it blows up, what have I seen if the universe is less than 2b years old? In its current position, the light from the star/supernova takes 2 billion years to reach me. If you hold to "light in transit" theory, then the image of the supernova was also "in transit". But that means the star was never there to begin with.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

Eyedoc84 said:


> The "deception" lies not in the age, but in the appearance of the star (and the subsequent supernova) at all. If a star is currently 2bLY away, then it blows up, what have I seen if the universe is less than 2b years old? In its current position, the light from the star/supernova takes 2 billion years to reach me. If you hold to "light in transit" theory, then the image of the supernova was also "in transit". But that means the star was never there to begin with.


Wouldn’t that apply to the water to wine analogy? The grapes were “never” there to begin with to be fermented (nova).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Eyedoc84 said:


> The "deception" lies not in the age, but in the appearance of the star (and the subsequent supernova) at all. If a star is currently 2bLY away, then it blows up, what have I seen if the universe is less than 2b years old? In its current position, the light from the star/supernova takes 2 billion years to reach me. If you hold to "light in transit" theory, then the image of the supernova was also "in transit". But that means the star was never there to begin with.


OK, that response grants half of the "deception" rejoinder, if the recent-creation view (rep'd by light-in-transit theory) is admitted as a possible solution. But it retains the "deception" challenge on the matter of the star, as if there was no second half of the rejoinder.

The second half also makes use of the same miracle-at-Cana instance: the first is the appearance of age of the wine; the second is the absence of any grapes to produce the "substance" of the wine. On the deception-theory, 1) Jesus must create wine that tastes fresh-squeezed, so as not to leave the appearance of age; and 2) he must use actual grape substance already present somewhere in the world that he relocates in the ceremonial water jugs, so as not to make wine apart from the known source of wine.

I don't think Jesus was under either obligation; and by argument from the lesser to the greater, neither was God at creation obligated to prevent "supernova" light from relaying time-information, if it was allowed to relay true distance information. Such is unreasonable constraint, if God explains in other ways that creation was in fact more recent than the light/time indications would otherwise teach.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

ZackF said:


> Wouldn’t that apply to the water to wine analogy? The grapes were “never” there to begin with to be fermented (nova).


I’m not sure the analogy works. THe water was there. The assumption is that if wine, then grapes. To press the analogy, if supernova, then star. Was the star there?


----------



## Afterthought

I don't see how there can be creation ex nihilo without "deception." The big bang is on its way out for the big bounce as we speak, and cells in the human body are in various states of growth and decay (as would be needed in the case of mature creation of Adam). The whole universe is in process and at any time one can infer events that came before. Why not believe that rather than being deceptive, God told us how he made things, and we, knowing it was created in process, know that the inferences we make are true?

Nevertheless, another philosophical solution: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/rapidly-matured-creation-dr-byl.96430/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

Contra_Mundum said:


> OK, that response grants half of the "deception" rejoinder, if the recent-creation view (rep'd by light-in-transit theory) is admitted as a possible solution. But it retains the "deception" challenge on the matter of the star, as if there was no second half of the rejoinder.
> 
> The second half also makes use of the same miracle-at-Cana instance: the first is the appearance of age of the wine; the second is the absence of any grapes to produce the "substance" of the wine. On the deception-theory, 1) Jesus must create wine that tastes fresh-squeezed, so as not to leave the appearance of age; and 2) he must use actual grape substance already present somewhere in the world that he relocates in the ceremonial water jugs, so as not to make wine apart from the known source of wine.
> 
> I don't think Jesus was under either obligation; and by argument from the lesser to the greater, neither was God at creation obligated to prevent "supernova" light from relaying time-information, if it was allowed to relay true distance information. Such is unreasonable constraint, if God explains in other ways that creation was in fact more recent than the light/time indications would otherwise teach.


To be clear, I am a young-earthier, and no I don’t think God is under any obligation. I was simply pointing out why the charge of deception upon YEC light-in-transit theory is different for stars than water-to-wine miracles. If we grant that a star is billions of light years away and we see it, then it disappears, what have you seen on the light-in-transit view? Light-in-transit may explain the star, but it can’t explain the supernova. Something else must be added to the theory in order to maintain the star was real. Unless you start tinkering with the other assumptions that I granted in my initial post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

If God created light in transit and then said to Mankind, "guess how old the Universe is and how it was made from scientific observations", we might claim deceit.

But God told us everything we need to know about the universe, its age, and its origins. If we still decide to make scientific observations and then accuse God of fudging, _we're_ wrong. Not God.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Eyedoc84 said:


> To be clear, I am a young-earthier, and no I don’t think God is under any obligation. I was simply pointing out why the charge of deception upon YEC light-in-transit theory is different for stars than water-to-wine miracles. If we grant that a star is billions of light years away and we see it, then it disappears, what have you seen on the light-in-transit view? Light-in-transit may explain the star, but it can’t explain the supernova. Something else must be added to the theory in order to maintain the star was real. Unless you start tinkering with the other assumptions that I granted in my initial post.


We're both on a similar page, as to YE and God-does-what-he-wants. I don't think ill of your question or of your pushback. Inquiry is valuable in order to find understanding. There could be better reasoning than mine, or yours; open discussion should be a path to clarity if not definitive answers.

Phenomena tell a story. God's story has the unique benefit of being more than an idea, or an idea committed to writing or other media; his narrative is formed out of real time/space. Analogous to the work of a writer of a novel, or a work of SF or high fantasy, I don't believe it is common to call the author _deceptive_ regardless of how much of the "real world" or ordinary-life expectations he includes/presumes/excludes as background to his story. For the sake of the narrative, the main character has "ancestors," even if the author dispensed with creating a family tree. The world of the story is furnished with all the useful components, irrespective of whether each part has a complete historic rationale.

It still isn't obvious to me that the phenomenon of a supernova must, in the nature of the case, bear witness to a prior created (or evolved) star with space/time existence unrelated to the presence of an observer. The stars were brought into being, according to Gen.1:14, in conjunction with a design element oriented to earth and actually attuned to the human observer. The light from stars is naturally produced by superheated gas; but even on old-creation assumptions the visible star firmament is not comprised of stars of equal age and composition. Age discrepancy is built-in to the representation; but Gen.1:14 is (at least) unconcerned with the issue of distance/dispersal/time. At most, it correlates creation closely with observation/utility.

The supernova or exploding star, or the light that "goes out" (as from a star that, if it had begun eons ago, shined for a time and then went dark) is simply a phenomenon to the observer. He may assume that there could/must have been a physical star emitting light, which took millennia to arrive here; the outage effect took place still later on, and that effect also arrived here to be noted. In the story God has ordained--what we call history or real space/time--that on-then-off effect is what is significant, not whether there was "enough time" on a naturalistic cosmological scale to create an accidental coincidence between the event and the observer.

It doesn't seem inherently deceptive for God to desire that effect, even if the story he tells from start to finish doesn't have a space/time prologue with time for instantiation of a star that went through a life cycle from birth to death, the only way to allow the effect to be observed "without a doubt." That seems to tie God's hands without justification. Could God have started the story of our universe with a lengthy (eons) set-up period, in part to obviate certain objections and charges that sinners might bring against him? I suppose so, but it isn't apparent to me that's the route he chose or had to choose. The stars he set in space are widely dispersed, yet they were needful for man to tell "signs, seasons, days, and years." Therefore, by means of eons OR by means of instant creation, he brought them "to light" to an earthly observer. The latter would include permitting the sign of a star "going out," _as if_ it had shone until it couldn't any more.

The wine of Cana is, I believe, justly comparable. To the MC of the wedding, he experiences the phenomenon and deduces (incorrectly, but not to the detriment of Jesus' reputation of honesty) the wine is of another vintage, i.e. not created a couple minutes earlier. In the second place, no water naturally turns to wine, regardless of the time allotted, regardless of the injection of ingredients. Watered-down wine IS deceptive, according to Is.1:22, implying the two things (water and wine) are essentially distinct. Jesus did not need one physical substance for the purpose of reorganizing its molecules, and "scientifically" justifying the presence of the wine. He simply made the water to be wine instead, and the men who drew the water KNEW what they put in the jugs, Jn.2:9.

So, there's no "source" for the wine in grapes. The wine is not "sourced" in the water. There is no "origin" for the phenomenon of the wine other than the will of God. It is seen, tasted, and its benefits taken, all without a single grape. The phenomenon of seeing a supernova, or after effects of glowing gas cooling off _as if_ for an eon already, do not meet any true criteria for deception, unless one posits that men have otherwise a legitimate excuse for doubt or casting aspersion on the divine character. God is justified if he has shortened the "real-time" duration of the universe to the plan of redemption; or he is justified if he chose the "long version."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jwright82

Contra_Mundum said:


> OK, nevertheless I'm trying to put a postulate together that sets out in an argument style what has been set out already, but rhetorically. Instead of a dismissive retort, I welcome either a rephrasing of the postulate, or a challenge to incorrect reasoning on my part as another judges it.


I think it is safe to say that, with all do respect, the whole "water to wine" vs "supernova" thing is the fallacy of a false analogy. I can't for the life of me see what "water to wine" has to do with a star exploding whenever in the past? 
We can call that deception or miracle or whatever but if we stretch the term miracle to that limit than it means nothing at all or everything, making it not miraculous. I'm not singling you out, I have nothing but respect for you, but you mentioned incorrect reasoning so I thought I'd point that out to include others.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

jwright82 said:


> I think it is safe to say that, with all do respect, the whole "water to wine" vs "supernova" thing is the fallacy of a false analogy. I can't for the life of me see what "water to wine" has to do with a star exploding whenever in the past?
> We can call that deception or miracle or whatever but if we stretch the term miracle to that limit than it means nothing at all or everything, making it not miraculous. I'm not singling you out, I have nothing but respect for you, but you mentioned incorrect reasoning so I thought I'd point that out to include others.



How is it a false analogy?

Wine comes from grapes. In this case there were no grapes.

Supernovas come from stars. In this case (hypothetically?) there was no star.

It's incredibly straight forward.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jwright82

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How is it a false analogy?
> 
> Wine comes from grapes. In this case there were no grapes.
> 
> Supernovas come from stars. In this case (hypothetically?) there was no star.
> 
> It's incredibly straight forward.


Stars aren't grapes. False analogy. That is whats true of of one isn't necessarily true of the other. Plus that doesn't even touch the miracle problem.


----------



## Knight

jwright82 said:


> Stars aren't grapes. False analogy. That is whats true of of one isn't necessarily true of the other. Plus that doesn't even touch the miracle problem.



"Stars aren't grapes" - right... hence, it is an analogy... lol.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

jwright82 said:


> Stars aren't grapes. False analogy. That is whats true of of one isn't necessarily true of the other. Plus that doesn't even touch the miracle problem.



"Stars aren't grapes" is utterly non-sequitur as to whether it's an analogy or not.


----------



## RamistThomist

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How is it a false analogy?
> 
> Wine comes from grapes. In this case there were no grapes.
> 
> Supernovas come from stars. In this case (hypothetically?) there was no star.
> 
> It's incredibly straight forward.



I think it is more of a category confusion than a false analogy. We are still receiving information from stars that appear to be more than 6,000 years old. We aren't currently drinking the grape juice from John 2.


----------



## Knight

RamistThomist said:


> I think it is more of a category confusion than a false analogy. We are still receiving information from stars that appear to be more than 6,000 years old. We aren't currently drinking the grape juice from John 2.



Someone could have been drinking the miraculous wine during the wedding and made the same analogy. 

In the future, perhaps people might make the analogy who will no longer receive information from what we might - all else being equal - have thought were stars older than a YEC would posit as possible.

In what way would either person still be confused?


----------



## Eyedoc84

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How is it a false analogy?
> 
> Wine comes from grapes. In this case there were no grapes.
> 
> Supernovas come from stars. In this case (hypothetically?) there was no star.
> 
> It's incredibly straight forward.


That's where the deception charge comes in, though. Nobody saw grapes. But if there was no star, what were you seeing?

Again, I have no problem with God weaving supernovas into creation to inspire awe of him, or even using them to deceive unbelieving hearts just as he can send lying spirits and give people over to strong delusion in punishment for their refusal to give him glory.

In my mind, God told us approximately when and how he created, and we shouldn't use science inappropriately to contradict him. And distant starlight isn't exactly solved by Big Bang cosmology anyhow.


----------



## jwright82

RamistThomist said:


> I think it is more of a category confusion than a false analogy. We are still receiving information from stars that appear to be more than 6,000 years old. We aren't currently drinking the grape juice from John 2.


Either way its a logical fallacy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Knight

I'm honestly mystified by the pushback against the analogy Bruce introduced. Was Jesus' action in Cana deceptive or not? If not, why not? By parity of reasoning, why can't the same reasoning be applied to creation?

That is, can someone please clarify for me what is the "fallacy" or relevant element of disanalogy? Stating that stars aren't grapes is hardly helpful.

Jacob mentioned that we aren't currently drinking grape juice from John 2. While pithy, in what way is the duration of the effects of a miraculous action relevant to whether the analogy works as it needs to (cf. my questions above)?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Knight said:


> Jacob mentioned that we aren't currently drinking grape juice from John 2. While pithy, in what way is the duration of the effects of a miraculous action relevant to whether the analogy works as it needs to (cf. my questions above)?



We aren't using grape juice (to quote John Macarthur) from Cana to do continued scientific discoveries today. We are using starlight (among other things).


----------



## alexandermsmith

greenbaggins said:


> There is no way to know that the light has been traveling longer than the universe has been in existence. Measurements of the speed of light do not tell the whole story. You say in your other response that it is ad hoc. I would respond that it doesn't seem to be any more ad hoc than the acknowledgment that Adam and Eve were created as adults with the appearance of age, yet being seconds old. The other common objection (which you have not voiced) that this would constitute a deception on God's part hardly holds water, since it is an argument from the silence of Scripture. We don't know what God told Adam about the appearance of age. We can deduce from God's establishment of the stars for signs and seasons that God told Adam at least that. There is no problem here. The most reasonable and simple solution is that God created the stars with their light already reaching earth. This is at least hinted at in the text of Scripture already. If you think this is just ad hoc, then please answer how it is that the stars could be created with God _already and immediately_ giving them the rule of the calendar, which implies _immediate visibility_.





Anti-Babylon said:


> I think it's deeper than that as the analogy leaves out the exegetical difficulties in terms of age.
> 
> Also, something to think about here: when I was OEC, Lisle challenged me (indirectly as he made a statement in general) that if we had access to Adam and Eve's physical non-infantile forms a couple of days after creation, we would age them visually - I don't know - but certainly more than ~2 days old. Lisle said that if we could have access to their somatic cells, we could see no mutations and age them at about 2 days old microscopically.
> 
> I was determined that God could not be deceptive in any way and wanted to see if there was some analogy in the cosmos that would allow evidence that secularists are missing/ are discounting.
> 
> Now while I have yet to find any analogous cells that put a forensic sign to a younger cosmos, I do watch with bemused interest at secularists positing an infinite universe of universes - a *multi-verse* - with no fewer assumptions or lack of mathematical rigor to their hypotheses than God creating the heavens and the earth.
> 
> But _this theory gets popularized by media_! This idea gets to go into the passive consciousness of the everyday man on the street as it gets featured by Marvel movies etc.
> 
> We live in a fallen world indeed.





RamistThomist said:


> As it stands, that's fine. As long as we all agree the miracle isn't "science." Reasoning by extension, if the creation acts were miracles, then one is hard-pressed to call it science. That doesn't attack YEC (in fact, it raises some difficulties for OEC), but it does put "creation science" out of business.





Eyedoc84 said:


> The "deception" lies not in the age, but in the appearance of the star (and the subsequent supernova) at all. If a star is currently 2bLY away, then it blows up, what have I seen if the universe is less than 2b years old? In its current position, the light from the star/supernova takes 2 billion years to reach me. If you hold to "light in transit" theory, then the image of the supernova was also "in transit". But that means the star was never there to begin with.



I, also, agree with Lane. Why is it deception for God to have created a star which has the appearance of age but was, in reality, only a few moments old? For one thing: who was measuring the age of stars? Who created the equations and measurements to "discover" the age of stars? It wasn't God anyway. Nowhere that I know of does God say the stars had been in existence for billions of years when in fact they had not; nor does He instruct us to be taken up with the pursuit of such knowledge. And as mentioned by Lane I think, why would we assume God told that to Adam? Why do we assume the apparent age of the universe was a major topic of conversation in the first place?

The question we should be focusing on, in my opinion, is the purpose of the stars. We are told this explicitly: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so." (Genesis 1:14-15) God did not create the stars to be a subject of astronomical study but to give light and to measure time. The whole universe was created with the Earth and Man at its centre therefore that should guide our understanding of the Creation. The manner in which the universe was created gave it the appearance of great age even at its beginning: this was in the wisdom of God, to His purpose and to His glory. This created universe operates on certain physical rules but as was said above God is not bound by these rules and His intervening or setting aside these rules is not deception otherwise many of the miracles are deception. The stars are where they are and under ordinary circumstances one can grant it would take so long for the light to reach Earth. Why this prevents God from having created the stars giving light on Earth from the beginning I don't know.

We have been given the ability to probe into the workings of Creation and to understand the rules which govern them. But we are not given the ability, or the permission, to probe into the secret and sovereign counsel of God on matters He has chosen not to reveal to us. Deception could only be present if God lied about something. We have no record of His doing so and the very notion is blasphemous. Whilst I am of the YEC view myself I don't say any of this out of a motivation to defend the YEC at all costs. For argument's sake the YEC position could still be wrong for other reasons. But I fail to see how the apparent age of the universe is problematic. It is an age arrived at by _human_ inquiry and science, assuming a particular purpose to the Creation (a materialistic, rationalistic purpose) and setting aside other purposes. I don't believe it is wrong for scientists to pursue inquiry into the universe but these seems a good example of the pitfalls of pursuing such inquiry in a materialistic spirit. It does not consider the purpose of the Creation.

The stars were created to give light and measure time and not to be reconciled centuries later to a specific school of human science.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Knight

RamistThomist said:


> We aren't using grape juice (to quote John Macarthur) from Cana to do continued scientific discoveries today. We are using starlight (among other things).


Okay, but so what? How is that _relevantly_ disanalogous?

Again, could not the people at Cana made the same analogy while they were drinking? If so, then how would you have replied to them at the time?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

jwright82 said:


> I think it is safe to say that, with all do respect, the whole "water to wine" vs "supernova" thing is the fallacy of a false analogy. I can't for the life of me see what "water to wine" has to do with a star exploding whenever in the past?
> We can call that deception or miracle or whatever but if we stretch the term miracle to that limit than it means nothing at all or everything, making it not miraculous. I'm not singling you out, I have nothing but respect for you, but you mentioned incorrect reasoning so I thought I'd point that out to include others.


I appreciate having my proposals reasonably challenged. I certainly want to own better ideas than ones I came up with on my own.

I'll echo what some others have said,
1) in analogy, the important thing is not the sum of the similarity comparisons between the original instance and the analogue, but the accuracy of the specific comparison. So, saying _one [potential source] is a star, the other [potential source] is a grape, ergo... false analogy _is another dismissive retort. "How exactly does the analogy fail?" is a critical question. A good analogy is valuable precisely when it renders an incommensurate concept accessible at a simpler level. A truly false analogy comes apart when the supposed comparison is exposed as illusory.

2) I don't know what I can say to make my point clearer. The particular wine Jesus made had no "past;" the particular visible phenomenon supernova lacks (on YE criteria) the space/time past assuming natural propagation.

3) to address Jacob's comments: we "experience" the biblical miracle _along with_ the living participants. Calvin wrote that we don't need the RCC "miracles" still happening; we have the superior miracles of the NT as our own experience. Therefore, _in the moment_ of 2K years ago, same objections to the starlight phenomenon may be transferred to the wine phenomenon. The wine appears much older than it is in real time, and there is no natural source grape for the wine. We may be observing now this light with eye or instrument; but we also observe the miracle of Jesus through the instrument of the written page.

4) Back to Jamey's comment: obviously, on a YE reading, creation in toto is miraculous. The discrete elements all form a vast system, with an array of subsystems, all which in complete state form a stable, interconnected whole. That God (on YE reading) took his time over 6 days to complete the work indicates to me that the interplay of forces is not left to function "normally" in a natural-law pattern until the whole is prepared (analogy: a car comes off the assembly line, under its own power, but not because the engine was inserted to the frame and instantly started in the first hour of build).

If, after such a long time from creation to now--however long that is--we are able to observe a phenomenon on a cosmic space/time scale virtually identical to Adam's observation; that simply compresses our relative remove from our first father. It is close to the experience we have generally of the biblical miracles, but in a different manner (not mediated entirely through the page). That divine creation would be a unique experience doesn't seem like much of an objection. I don't think of everything _in creation_ as a miracle in the same way as "intervention" miracles; the natural order has been God's ordinary providence since the beginning.

But to rephrase my previous statement: regardless of whether God inserted a real star in the space time continuum, then blew it up and brought that information to the observation station called Earth, regardless of whether he let that information propagate at standard light speed or hasted the transmission; or if God simply provided the phenomenon of a star "burning out" within the history of observation, and left the star-source to the theoretical realm--calling the latter _deceptive_ impugns not just the single idea that God must respect the laws of physics once he brought the universe into existence. It challenges every miracle of the Bible that violates those laws, and all other laws of nature.

Sure, if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle. The word has lost its meaning. By the same token, if a single disregard of the laws of nature qualifies as deception, then all such disregard is deception. Every "miracle" that could have a natural cause _*must have*_ that natural cause in real space/time, and God has to utilize his own ordinary regulative mechanisms for the universe, even if he "games" the system in a way we failed to see--like he was a magician using sleight of hand... which is also deceptive. The charge of deception fatally breaks down, if miracles are once admitted.

I don't think it's a good idea to play the "miracle" card, and cease looking for knowledge, or sources, or improvements on our theoretical understanding of the universe, etc. I don't favor the "real" star or the "as if" star. I think its vitally important that we admit divine miracles, whether God adjusts natural phenomena or simply intrudes against all natural laws, and he does it without man's permission or right to call him deceptive when he does.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> I, also, agree with Lane. Why is it deception for God to have created a star which has the appearance of age but was, in reality, only a few moments old? For one thing: who was measuring the age of stars?



And I think I agreed with Lane in that it isn't deceptive. What it does, however, is refute creation science as a science. We assume the rationality and contingency of the created order in order to justify Christian approaches to science. Since this starlight communicates information that isn't, strictly speaking, accurate, we really can't pursue that line of apologetics any more.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> What it does, however, is refute creation science as a science.



Why? All science is limited to the natural and outside supernatural - not just creation science.


RamistThomist said:


> Since this starlight communicates information that isn't, strictly speaking, accurate, we really can't pursue that line of apologetics any more.



How so? Secular science is just as limited in regards to the supernatural and they also have their unproveable hypotheses like the multiverse.

Unlike creationists, their hypotheses are created wholesale without other links to evidences like creation has.

Why should we creationists concede science to the secularists in lines of apologetics?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Contra_Mundum said:


> I appreciate having my proposals reasonably challenged. I certainly want to own better ideas than ones I came up with on my own.
> 
> I'll echo what some others have said,
> 1) in analogy, the important thing is not the sum of the similarity comparisons between the original instance and the analogue, but the accuracy of the specific comparison. So, saying _one [potential source] is a star, the other [potential source] is a grape, ergo... false analogy _is another dismissive retort. "How exactly does the analogy fail?" is a critical question. A good analogy is valuable precisely when it renders an incommensurate concept accessible at a simpler level. A truly false analogy comes apart when the supposed comparison is exposed as illusory.
> 
> 2) I don't know what I can say to make my point clearer. The particular wine Jesus made had no "past;" the particular visible phenomenon supernova lacks (on YE criteria) the space/time past assuming natural propagation.
> 
> 3) to address Jacob's comments: we "experience" the biblical miracle _along with_ the living participants. Calvin wrote that we don't need the RCC "miracles" still happening; we have the superior miracles of the NT as our own experience. Therefore, _in the moment_ of 2K years ago, same objections to the starlight phenomenon may be transferred to the wine phenomenon. The wine appears much older than it is in real time, and there is no natural source grape for the wine. We may be observing now this light with eye or instrument; but we also observe the miracle of Jesus through the instrument of the written page.
> 
> 4) Back to Jamey's comment: obviously, on a YE reading, creation in toto is miraculous. The discrete elements all form a vast system, with an array of subsystems, all which in complete state form a stable, interconnected whole. That God (on YE reading) took his time over 6 days to complete the work indicates to me that the interplay of forces is not left to function "normally" in a natural-law pattern until the whole is prepared (analogy: a car comes off the assembly line, under its own power, but not because the engine was inserted to the frame and instantly started in the first hour of build).
> 
> If, after such a long time from creation to now--however long that is--we are able to observe a phenomenon on a cosmic space/time scale virtually identical to Adam's observation; that simply compresses our relative remove from our first father. It is close to the experience we have generally of the biblical miracles, but in a different manner (not mediated entirely through the page). That divine creation would be a unique experience doesn't seem like much of an objection. I don't think of everything _in creation_ as a miracle in the same way as "intervention" miracles; the natural order has been God's ordinary providence since the beginning.
> 
> But to rephrase my previous statement: regardless of whether God inserted a real star in the space time continuum, then blew it up and brought that information to the observation station called Earth, regardless of whether he let that information propagate at standard light speed or hasted the transmission; or if God simply provided the phenomenon of a star "burning out" within the history of observation, and left the star-source to the theoretical realm--calling the latter _deceptive_ impugns not just the single idea that God must respect the laws of physics once he brought the universe into existence. It challenges every miracle of the Bible that violates those laws, and all other laws of nature.
> 
> Sure, if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle. The word has lost its meaning. By the same token, if a single disregard of the laws of nature qualifies as deception, then all such disregard is deception. Every "miracle" that could have a natural cause _*must have*_ that natural cause in real space/time, and God has to utilize his own ordinary regulative mechanisms for the universe, even if he "games" the system in a way we failed to see--like he was a magician using sleight of hand... which is also deceptive. The charge of deception fatally breaks down, if miracles are once admitted.
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to play the "miracle" card, and cease looking for knowledge, or sources, or improvements on our theoretical understanding of the universe, etc. I don't favor the "real" star or the "as if" star. I think its vitally important that we admit divine miracles, whether God adjusts natural phenomena or simply intrudes against all natural laws, and he does it without man's permission or right to call him deceptive when he does.


I'm glad you appreciate the reasonable response and I have nothing but respect for you. But I still think the comparison is apples and oranges there not the same. If one were to have lets say carbon dated the wine they would know it was instantly created not old. So no comparison but Jacob is probably right in calling it a category mistake. I honestly don't get involved in date of the universe stuff because I have an opinion but I don't care to debate it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

jwright82 said:


> If one were to have lets say carbon dated the wine they would know it was instantly created not old.



How do you know that?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How do you know that?



I'm not a scientist but I think it can tell how long the atoms were in existence or something. (My understanding of science is akin to Col. Jack O'Neill on Stargate when he tries to explain science).

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

jwright82 said:


> I'm glad you appreciate the reasonable response and I have nothing but respect for you. But I still think the comparison is apples and oranges there not the same. If one were to have lets say carbon dated the wine they would know it was instantly created not old. So no comparison but Jacob is probably right in calling it a category mistake. I honestly don't get involved in date of the universe stuff because I have an opinion but I don't care to debate it.


Maybe. or maybe it would have "scientifically" tested as water. or maybe in every way similar to the finest vintage of the day.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

RamistThomist said:


> I'm not a scientist but I think it can tell how long the atoms were in existence or something. (My understanding of science is akin to Col. Jack O'Neill on Stargate when he tries to explain science).



All carbon dating does is measure the amount of Carbon-14 compared to the amount of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13.

We have no idea which mix of isotopes of Carbon our Lord Jesus chose to use in his excellent vintage.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor

Are we talking about the science that says there are 72 genders, that men can get pregnant, and that the species that invented the Hubble Telescope evolved from swamp slime?

Reactions: Like 5 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## jwright82

Eyedoc84 said:


> Maybe. or maybe it would have "scientifically" tested as water. or maybe in every way similar to the finest vintage of the day.


Ok the point is if you could date it however it would date it then.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor said:


> Are we talking about the science that says there are 72 genders, that men can get pregnant, and that the species that invented the Hubble Telescope evolved from swamp slime?


I think we all know that isn't what we mean. That isn't science. That is sociology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

jwright82 said:


> Ok the point is if you could date it however it would date it then.


My point was that I'm not sure you could. 

And at any rate, you would have to make certain assumptions and bake them in to any method you used. If you didn't already know that the wine was only seconds old, you may have come up with some pretty oddball conclusions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

jwright82 said:


> If one were to have lets say carbon dated the wine they would know it was instantly created not old.



I am sorry and respectfully, I have to point out you are assuming here and claiming it as fact. There is no way you can know what the original ratio of the parent-to-daughter nuclides were instantiated in the miracle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> (My understanding of science is akin to Col. Jack O'Neill on Stargate when he tries to explain science).



1) Funny. But head up, my friend. Sometimes I feel so dumb that my understanding of science is akin to Dr. McCoy on Star Trek when he frustratingly paraphrases Spock's intelligent analyses in protest.

2) I am still bothered by your claim that creationists are not practicing real science and should abandon the scientific "lines of apologetics".

The big bang model has its own starlight problem in the uniform temperature of the CMB and the inflationary hypotheses long embraced before it was solidly proven seems to be crumbling around them. (Incidentally, since OEC scientists joined in the full embrace of big bang inflation, they are coming up on a possible crisis alongside their cosmological kin).

I know I am just a guy here and no one of note, but if you could elucidate, I would appreciate it.


----------



## iainduguid

RamistThomist said:


> And I think I agreed with Lane in that it isn't deceptive. What it does, however, is refute creation science as a science. We assume the rationality and contingency of the created order in order to justify Christian approaches to science. Since this starlight communicates information that isn't, strictly speaking, accurate, we really can't pursue that line of apologetics any more.


I've argued something similar in my book "Thinking about Science , Faith and Origins: a (Very) Short Introduction": science is the wrong tool with which to approach what is fundamentally a historical question. Science only works correctly if the assumptions on which it is based prove valid. For example, Newton's laws don't work when applied to non-Newtonian fluids. So too both Creation Science and Secular science are the wrong tools to evaluate origins since we have no means of knowing for sure what laws were operating. It's not so much that the information is "inaccurate"; it is that we are always potentially operating with the wrong paradigms, which means that our results will inevitably be uncertain. There's no deception, however, since God never told us that science was meant for such purposes (it isn't), and he provided humanity with a clear revelation of what we need to know about origins. It's on us if we neglect the latter, and insist on misapplying the former.






Thinking About Science, Faith, and Origins: A (Very) Short Introduction - Kindle edition by Duguid, Iain. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.


Thinking About Science, Faith, and Origins: A (Very) Short Introduction - Kindle edition by Duguid, Iain. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Thinking About Science, Faith, and Origins...



www.amazon.com

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 1


----------



## Afterthought

If creation science rebranded as forensic investigation/attempted historical reconstruction, and if they recognized the limitations of trying to explain miracles by present natural processes (i.e., such theories as S_tarlight and Time _have an inherent problem with knowing whether it is true because trying to do the impossible of explaining a miracle by natural process) I see no issue. They truly are doing the same thing that evolutionists are doing (as I have seen some creation science people admit), but the guesses are more likely to be more accurate given that they are made with better assumptions. The apologetical value is more limited, but it provides a counter to evolutionary theory closer to its own terms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D.

It would seem all bets are off in terms of scientifically explaining the initial creation, since it was _ex nihilo_, which is categorically an unscientific concept. Or is that too simplistic?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

iainduguid said:


> Science only works correctly if the assumptions on which it is based prove valid.



Science - done correctly - has part of its assumptions the null hypothesis meaning the negative holds until the alternative hypothesis is confirmed and provides testable and falsifiable data that can prove useful in further inquiry.


iainduguid said:


> For example, Newton's laws don't work when applied to non-Newtonian fluids.



Nor in quantum mechanics, yet this is not a failure of science. No credible scientist would exclaim explanatory power over and against investigative processes of discovery.



iainduguid said:


> So too both Creation Science and Secular science are the wrong tools to evaluate origins since we have no means of knowing for sure what laws were operating.



Why? You assume a lot - including the role of sole arbitrator of the limits of inquiry. Maybe you misworded this? You seem to be claiming that science cannot evaluate parameters of the origins and discover what laws break down / where they break down / investigate for more laws heretofore unknown.

It is one thing to say we cannot discern the formulaic processes of the miraculous (I agree whole heartedly), it is yet another thing entirely to abandon the pursuit of discovery altogether - to allow secular scientists to spin yarns around complex formulas and stand muted while young people are mesmerized into a Godless spell.


iainduguid said:


> it is that we are always potentially operating with the wrong paradigms, which means that our results will inevitably be uncertain.



Uncertainty is a given in responsibly handled science. It is even factored into all equations to account for the possibility of being misguided or outright wrong.


iainduguid said:


> There's no deception, however



100% agreed. God cannot lie.


iainduguid said:


> he provided humanity with a clear revelation of what we need to know about origins.



Again 100% agreed. This inquiry was always a luxury of societies that were well-off. If civilization collapses and we are huddled in home churches underground, cosmological models and age of the universe fades into absolute nothingness next to survival and boldness in the face of persecution.

God bless


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Phil D. said:


> It would seem all bets are off in terms of scientifically explaining the initial creation, since it was _ex nihilo_, which is categorically an unscientific concept. Or is that too simplistic?



Agree 100%. Not at all simplistic. 

Secularists have their own version of "ex nihilo" and it involves quantum fluctuations in a vacuum borrowing against negative energy density and forming virtual particles that become real in waves of quantum probability. But they deny "ex nihilo" as they claim a vacuum does not count as "true nothing".

They justify this by equivocating magnetic fields appearing "out of nothing" in labs through the Casimir effect and ignoring their own flaws in logic or handwaving that they have to do in order to make the miraculous happen without a God.

All of this is claimed as absolute fact. Even secularists who question the big bang are ostracized to low-tier positions.


----------



## Afterthought

Phil D. said:


> It would seem all bets are off in terms of scientifically explaining the initial creation, since it was _ex nihilo_, which is categorically an unscientific concept. Or is that too simplistic?


This is correct. However, there are unknowns as to where our current laws come into effect and where ex nihilo prevents scientific inquiry (because science must assume cause-effect, which means it must assume from nothing, nothing comes). And it is also uknown whether--having created the universe in process--what natural process might have happened if God created by the laws of ordinary providence. In the process of understanding the uknown, one may find out things relevant to the present.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> protest.
> 
> 2) I am still bothered by your claim that creationists are not practicing real science and should abandon the scientific "lines of apologetics


I said forms of creation science, not creationists


----------



## Anti-Babylon

RamistThomist said:


> What it does, however, is refute creation science as a science.



^ This is what you said. If creationists - by definition - are doing creation science and you deem creation science has been "refuted" as a science, then how is this any different than saying creationists are not doing real science?


RamistThomist said:


> We assume the rationality and contingency of the created order in order to justify Christian approaches to science.



Barring miracles, yes. And always in conjunction with the priority of special revelation in the Scriptures.


RamistThomist said:


> Since this starlight communicates information that isn't, strictly speaking, accurate, we really can't pursue that line of apologetics any more.



You still haven't answered that strictly speaking "starlight communicating information" is a puzzle to be specifically accounted for within ALL cosmological models including the big bang. Why is the starlight problem presumed so especially troubling for creation science in your view than the starlight problem inherent in non-creation science?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Northern Crofter

RamistThomist said:


> I think we all know that isn't what we mean. That isn't science. That is sociology.


As someone else has commented, the study of the origins of the universe isn't science, it's history:


iainduguid said:


> science is the wrong tool with which to approach what is fundamentally a historical question.


We would all need to define "science" before truly settling some of the issues above. In my view, pure science is the testing of a hypothesis that can be observed and replicated. Everything else (the study of history or "social sciences" for examples) is a matter of reasonable speculation and faith. But even "pure science" admittedly has a dose of faith (for example that certain "constants" in an experiment are truly constant)

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Northern Crofter said:


> As someone else has commented, the study of the origins of the universe isn't science, it's history:
> 
> We would all need to define "science" before truly settling some of the issues above. In my view, pure science is the testing of a hypothesis that can be observed and replicated. Everything else (the study of history or "social sciences" for examples) is a matter of reasonable speculation and faith. But even "pure science" admittedly has a dose of faith (for example that certain "constants" in an experiment are truly constant)



I do not necessarily disagree with anything said here. I would merely add that the defining lines between what you draw as science and history are blurred when it comes to the origin of the universe and certain other intellectual pursuits of discovery.

The following is written towards the entire thread as a whole and all those watching it:

God's act of creation itself is a matter of Biblical history I do not deny (quite the opposite!). 

The manner in which natural laws were suspended and its relation to current laws of physics and relations to potential laws of physics yet unknown (ie, is quantum gravity possible?) are open-ended and firmly a matter of science, not history. History holds the truth of events as recorded in trustworthy sources; science investigates the parameters of the events in subject to the laws of nature. Apply my last statement to the existence of ancient Mesopotamian societies and their religions and laws, not only in terms of the sources discovered but in terms of radiocarbon dating in conjunction with their confirmed claims as to dates, eclipses, etc. 

Sometimes it feels like some believers do not merely protest the perceived mislabeling of the pathway of the origins of the universe as "SCIENCE" when it should be "HISTORY".

Sometimes it seems that some see the pursuits of these inquiries as tainted roads on a pilgrim's journey that skirt too closely to atheistic materialism and while true for some is not necessarily true for all.

I have found quantum physics and its debate between the "many-worlders" and the super-determinists to be an excellent opening to witness not only of a Creator but also His sovereignty!


----------



## hammondjones

A lot of Hamian Creation Science ends up being merely sanctified speculation. For example, they'll say, well, there isn't enough time (6000 years) for some of the erosion we see, so maybe there were super-hurricanes that lasted for hundreds of years. That isn't science. Scientific investigations should be repeatable, and scientific theories should be falsifiable / verifiable.


----------



## Knight

hammondjones said:


> A lot of Hamian Creation Science ends up being merely sanctified speculation. For example, they'll say, well, there isn't enough time (6000 years) for some of the erosion we see, so maybe there were super-hurricanes that lasted for hundreds of years. That isn't science. Scientific investigations should be repeatable, and scientific theories should be falsifiable / verifiable.



No one today was alive to observe what happened 6000 years ago, and no one who conducted experiments 6000 years ago recorded what happened. We can't time travel to investigate what happened 6000 years ago. 

_Any_ inferences about what happened 6000 years ago, therefore, will be theory-laden. This is true of what scientific hypotheses YEC creationists posit, yes. It is also true of what any scientific hypotheses which may be posited.

Ironically, I end up agreeing with you that "sanctified speculation" is an apt phrase.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

hammondjones said:


> For example, they'll say, well, there isn't enough time (6000 years) for some of the erosion we see, so maybe there were super-hurricanes that lasted for hundreds of years.



Not completely true of their claims here.


hammondjones said:


> That isn't science. Scientific investigations should be repeatable, and scientific theories should be falsifiable / verifiable.



Yes it is science.

Hypotheses that do not rise up to the level of repeatable and falsifiable may not justifiably be considered a working theory. You are correct there, but it is unnecessary to denigrate the process of hypothesis-making itself due to preconceived ideas of what will or ever be possibly a working theory a priori - outside of direct Scriptural claims of course. God's limits on our knowledge are definite, true, and sure. Most creation scientists should not be misunderstood as speculative Faustian knights tilting at windmills and throwing elbows at history or theology or hermeneutics. If any are known to be so then they should definitely be called out on it.

[Edited for clarity]


----------



## RamistThomist

I'm pressed for time so I'll try to offer some summary remarks:

1) It is true that all science is theory-laden, but it is also true that the mind works by submitting itself to the internal rationality of a thing and the thing impresses its on rational structures on the mind. This is what Torrance called "kataphysic theology." Knowledge is circular, but not in the way many think. We submit our minds to a thing's rationality (that's the circular part) but the thing itself might shape our mind and we come to a conclusion we didn't expect.

2) Science is testable (as a general rule) and the experiments should be repeatable. This is somewhat problematic for both OEC and YEC.


----------



## alexandermsmith

RamistThomist said:


> And I think I agreed with Lane in that it isn't deceptive. What it does, however, is refute creation science as a science. We assume the rationality and contingency of the created order in order to justify Christian approaches to science. Since this starlight communicates information that isn't, strictly speaking, accurate, we really can't pursue that line of apologetics any more.



I suppose it depends on what Creation science is seeking to illustrate, and how they seek to do this. Obviously Creation science would presuppose God's involvement in the creating process, and the length of time we are told it took (if one is YEC) and thus allow for the fact that the Creation was created already formed, already in motion. Then it would investigate whether there is evidence for these accounts. That is how I have understood the attempts to harmonise Biblical history with geological evidence, for example for the worldwide flood. I cannot claim intimate knowledge of the field of Creation science but I would assume it deals with both physical evidence and theological presuppositions. Perhaps that is what you mean by needing to abandon an apologetical approach. But even making use of different scientific methods of dating rocks can produce, apparently, wildly different results. Surely all Christians start with the presupposition that all scientific inquiry must submit to Scripture and the truths- historical and theological- taught therein. Therefore no matter how often and consistently scientific experimentation may "disprove" a claim of Scripture, it is the science which is wrong. Personally I do not believe the millions, billions, of years scientists tell us has been the lifespan of the Earth is compatible with Scripture (nor, actually, with what is observable in the world but that's something else altogether). And yet we are told that the science has consistently proven this.

But, returning to the starlight question. Is it really true to say that the supernova we see is in some way not accurate because, according to the ordinary physical laws, there hasn't been enough time (under the YEC paradigm) for a star to explode and the result to be visible on Earth? In other words, the necessary star to create the supernova was never there. But the star _is _there: it's there in the supernova. There is no reason why the Creation had to be formed in what we would call infancy and expand out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> But, returning to the starlight question. Is it really true to say that the supernova we see is in some way not accurate because, according to the ordinary physical laws, there hasn't been enough time (under the YEC paradigm) for a star to explode and the result to be visible on Earth?



Yes. Even Ken Ham acknowledges the problem. Most of the responses on this thread implicitly concede the problem by countering that God didn't actually deceive us.


----------



## RamistThomist

Anti-Babylon said:


> 1) Funny. But head up, my friend. Sometimes I feel so dumb that my understanding of science is akin to Dr. McCoy on Star Trek when he frustratingly paraphrases Spock's intelligent analyses in protest.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought

alexandermsmith said:


> But the star _is _there: it's there in the supernova. There is no reason why the Creation had to be formed in what we would call infancy and expand out.


Yes, this is true. The star--or whatever was the star--would still be there/would be present somewhere in the universe: neutron star, black hole, whatever material was ejected and/or whatever interactions the material would have had with surrounding bodies. I don't think I've seen this point brought up when people discuss the starlight problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

alexandermsmith said:


> But, returning to the starlight question. Is it really true to say that the supernova we see is in some way not accurate because, according to the ordinary physical laws, there hasn't been enough time (under the YEC paradigm) for a star to explode and the result to be visible on Earth?



to which you directly resonded:


RamistThomist said:


> Yes. Even Ken Ham acknowledges the problem. Most of the responses on this thread implicitly concede the problem by countering that God didn't actually deceive us.


 
Time out. Time out. No. Of course all creation science (and even non-creation science) acknowledges a problem here with timing (in different ways) but that does not mean supernovae are in any way "inaccurate", more so our pre-conceptions need further tweaking than even what we have tweaked presently.

Wait, class is starting up and I will circle back in a little while.


----------



## alexandermsmith

RamistThomist said:


> Yes. Even Ken Ham acknowledges the problem. Most of the responses on this thread implicitly concede the problem by countering that God didn't actually deceive us.



Well if Ken Ham acknowledges the problem... Personally I don't see it as a problem, _per se_. That may not satisfy some persons here, or the unbeliever, but I don't feel bound to reconcile every little detail Scripture gives me, or which can be observed in Creation, with materialistic science when contemplating the mysteries of God's workings in time. What does time even mean when we're talking about an eternal God? The universe, ordinarily, operates according to certain rules. And God can mysteriously, and wonderfully, intrude upon, interpose Himself between and set aside altogether, those rules when and how He pleases. It's amazing, really.


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> with materialistic science



Who says science is materialistic? Not one of the contributors in the volume is a physicalist or a materialist.


----------



## alexandermsmith

RamistThomist said:


> Who says science is materialistic? Not one of the contributors in the volume is a physicalist or a materialist.



I'm not talking specifically about the book. Are we still talking about the book?

But "science", when generally spoken of today, refers specifically to a materialistic, rationalistic approach to Creation. It excludes from the outset the existence of God and any supernatural phenomena. Such science can discover truth to be sure, but it will also blunder around blindly when it takes to do with fundamental questions such as the creation of the universe.


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm not talking specifically about the book. Are we still talking about the book?
> 
> But "science", when generally spoken of today, refers specifically to a materialistic, rationalistic approach to Creation. It excludes from the outset the existence of God and any supernatural phenomena. Such science can discover truth to be sure, but it will also blunder around blindly when it takes to do with fundamental questions such as the creation of the universe.



Your comment came out of nowhere. No one on this thread is a materialist. No one appealed to a specific materialism. Science is no more materialistic than any other discipline.

Some scientists today exclude God. Some don't.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

RamistThomist said:


> Your comment came out of nowhere. No one on this thread is a materialist. No one appealed to a specific materialism. Science is no more materialistic than any other discipline.
> 
> Some scientists today exclude God. Some don't.



Well that's not strictly accurate. _I _am. And I think others are as well, that is my reading of this conversation.


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> Well that's not strictly accurate. _I _am. And I think others are as well, that is my reading of this conversation.


You're welcome to to think about materialist scientists. I didn't appeal to them. None of my scientific models demand materialism.


----------



## Northern Crofter

Anti-Babylon said:


> the defining lines between what you draw as science and history are blurred when it comes to the origin of the universe


Agreed. Both history and science are ultimately reliant on faith. I cannot prove George Washington ever existed anymore than I can prove God created Adam and Eve. There is a level of reason (which by faith we believe is God-given) that allows us to draw conclusions from our surroundings which should encourage us in our faith - in God as well as our scientific and historic endeavors - but it still ultimately comes down to faith in something we cannot prove absolutely. I find this (the fact that everyone has faith in something) is important to bring up with colleagues and friends when discussing "Science." Faith in science (Scientism) to explain the universe we live in is just as "religious" as faith in a God Who created and maintains it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

alexandermsmith said:


> But "science", when generally spoken of today, refers specifically to a *materialistic, rationalistic approac*h to Creation. It excludes from the outset the existence of God and any supernatural phenomena. Such science can discover truth to be sure, but it will also blunder around blindly when it takes to do with fundamental questions such as the creation of the universe.



There are a couple of levels here. You are correct in that is how most secular textbooks will define science but that is simply because they have "baked in" or "smuggled" their materialism. You are not correct in that science itself is inherently materialistic. No responsible creationist would object to science being rationalistic but materialistic? Oh my yes, many objections.

Materialism is basically the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and physically observed phenomenon. I think reading your posts you are actually not materialistic and you are using the term "materialistic" as simply dealing with and working with physical material but that is not what the meaning of "materialism" is as preached by high priests of secular science that act as gatekeepers against us who do not bow to that idol.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## itsreed

If not referenced yet, give a listen to this series of lectures from Dr. Johnny Gibson, WTS:









Back to the Beginning: Genesis 1–2 - Westminster Theological Seminary


“The sabbath is not merely a symbol or a type…In order for something in the Bible to be either a symbol or a type it must first be a historical reality. You can’t begin with a symbol. The thing has to first be a historical reality which then symbolizes something.” –Dr. Jonathan Gibson Watch four...




faculty.wts.edu





Thorough and fair expression of positions, coupled with thorough exegetical considerations. A must answer for those not persuaded of the exegetical basis for 6-24.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Anti-Babylon said:


> Of course all creation science (and even non-creation science) acknowledges a problem here with timing (in different ways) but that does not mean supernovae are in any way "inaccurate", more so our pre-conceptions need further tweaking than even what we have tweaked presently.
> 
> Wait, class is starting up and I will circle back in a little while.


To all:

1) Thank you for your thoughtful interactions here.

There are two points of clarity that I would hope all those who commented would consider and that is

2a) regarding supernovae and dating explosions (or really any physical phenomena which presents apparent issues to theoretical models of any kind): 

2i) Philosophy of Science

Correct philosophy of science dictates that any proposition must be treated as suspect. The "null hypothesis" holds true immediately in the face of any alternative hypothesis.

EX: If anyone posits the lack of stage III supernovae remnants proves the universe is younger than it appears, then the "null" ("The lack of stage 3 supernovae remnants make no commentary on the age of the universe") holds until the idea is tested - or alternatively, the paper could propose a test that could be conceived that would falsify the "null" when such materials are made (like a new type of telescope). 

If one could be constructed and an experiment conducted or at least reasonably proposed, the experiment must be universally repeatable (the falsification factor is already accounted for in relation to the "null"). 

2ii) After publication, the experiment is either repeated or the proposed experiment and all its formulas, concepts etc. are analyzed and errors can be exposed at this level which would preserve the "null". 

(In this example, it was shocking that this idea even got published at all. There simply is no lack of stage III SNR in the first place and the original proposal was dismissed outright and post haste by most all YEC).

3) Is Creation Science Really Just History?

There might be overlap as I admitted, but it certainly is not merely a study of the past.

Very soon, the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA) in Germany will be online. A unique and brand new telescope that will be able to measure gamma rays for the first time in outer space before they hit the earth's atmosphere, many measurements that affect proposed experimental models will be revealed.

There are many possible revelations (also possibly none - that is how science works sometimes).

Of primary interest to some (not all) creation scientists is the question of if the CTA will potentially measure quantum gravitational effects on photon propogation though the universe, 

meaning if quantum gravity is true, there should be time delays between photons with different energies across large distances and this would mean the vacuum itself would have a significant refractive index.

If quantum gravity is true, this will have certain implications for all the creation models - both YEC and OEC.

But besides that, the new formulas could have major implications on quantum mechanics itself in the everyday world including earth-shaking advances in computers and information technology.

Or not. That's how science is sometimes.

But these efforts are certainly not merely history. Yes?

Even creation science as apologetics to the young minds coming up is useful as most of them have never once questioned their philosophical materialism. Of course, God alone regenerates and only the Word of God brings faith to one's newly born heart, so is this all really just history? I am honestly curious here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Northern Crofter said:


> Agreed. Both history and science are ultimately reliant on faith. I cannot prove George Washington ever existed anymore than I can prove God created Adam and Eve. There is a level of reason (which by faith we believe is God-given) that allows us to draw conclusions from our surroundings which should encourage us in our faith - in God as well as our scientific and historic endeavors - but it still ultimately comes down to faith in something we cannot prove absolutely. I find this (the fact that everyone has faith in something) is important to bring up with colleagues and friends when discussing "Science." Faith in science (Scientism) to explain the universe we live in is just as "religious" as faith in a God Who created and maintains it.



I agree, but there is more to the story. Knowledge is circular. At that point--and perhaps only that point--presups are correct. But knowledge does not remain circular. We do bring (or presuppose) a certain model, yet we also, whether we intend to or not, submit our minds to the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline. That "submitting-to" can challenge our model or theory.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Anti-Babylon said:


> There are a couple of levels here. You are correct in that is how most secular textbooks will define science but that is simply because they have "baked in" or "smuggled" their materialism. You are not correct in that science itself is inherently materialistic. No responsible creationist would object to science being rationalistic but materialistic? Oh my yes, many objections.
> 
> Materialism is basically the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and physically observed phenomenon. I think reading your posts you are actually not materialistic and you are using the term "materialistic" as simply dealing with and working with physical material but that is not what the meaning of "materialism" is as preached by high priests of secular science that act as gatekeepers against us who do not bow to that idol.



I was referring to the prevailing science of the day which _is_ materialistic; that which the man on the street would understand as science.


----------



## Knight

RamistThomist said:


> I agree, but there is more to the story. Knowledge is circular. At that point--and perhaps only that point--presups are correct. But knowledge does not remain circular. We do bring (or presuppose) a certain model, yet we also, whether we intend to or not, submit our minds to the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline. That "submitting-to" can challenge our model or theory.



You've mentioned this a few times in this thread, and I also read your book review this theory seems to derives from, but I confess I still don't understand it, especially when you refer to "the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline." Can you explain that? When I think of something as "rational," I think of something as either true or, at least, as having good reasons for thinking or believing. But this would typically attach to propositions.


----------



## RamistThomist

Knight said:


> You've mentioned this a few times in this thread, and I also read your book review this theory seems to derives from, but I confess I still don't understand it, especially when you refer to "the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline." Can you explain that? When I think of something as "rational," I think of something as either true or, at least, as having good reasons for thinking or believing. But this would typically attach to propositions.



I am drawing upon the Patristic reflection of the Logos and the logoi inherent in things. Things have a knowable structure to them. The mind "grasps" for patterns (this might be the truth behind Gestalt psychology).


----------



## Knight

RamistThomist said:


> I am drawing upon the Patristic reflection of the Logos and the logoi inherent in things. Things have a knowable structure to them. The mind "grasps" for patterns (this might be the truth behind Gestalt psychology).



That's a bit more intelligible to me. Are you thinking of universals and/or the correspondence theory of truth (both of which I would affirm)?

When you said, "we also, *whether we intend to or not*, submit our minds to the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline," how does that harmonize with those who reject truth? It almost sounds like the epistemic theory you mention is externalist, but even the externalist would say our cognitive faculties may be malfunctioning. Or are you just generalizing?


----------



## RamistThomist

Knight said:


> That's a bit more intelligible to me. Are you thinking of universals and/or the correspondence theory of truth (both of which I would affirm)?



I certainly affirm both, but I think truth is more than correspondence. Following Polanyi and Esther Meek, Truth also involves "integration" of facts into a whole.


Knight said:


> When you said, "we also, *whether we intend to or not*, submit our minds to the intrinsic rationality of a thing or discipline," how does that harmonize with those who reject truth?



I should have been more clear. I probably should scratch that line.


----------



## Knight

RamistThomist said:


> I certainly affirm both, but I think truth is more than correspondence. Following Polanyi and Esther Meek, Truth also involves "integration" of facts into a whole.
> 
> 
> I should have been more clear. I probably should scratch that line.



Sure. I think truth involves coherence and correspondence, even though I only highlighted the latter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Hoping to bring some focus to the discussion, and welcoming any feedback. It is true that we can't scientifically explain the creation origins since science is not equipped to observe the original phenomena. The tools of science can only study the aftereffects and the way the cosmos works _now (i.e. _Adam was created as a mature adult and functioned that way immediately). Science is really more of a tool for exercising dominion, not a tool to understand our origins. Each school of thought (YEC, OEC, Theistic evolutionist, secularist, etc.) can only provide a suggested model, essentially a "paradigm of everything" which can make the most sense of the data we have, and which can also successfully predict answers to future questions when we are capable of finding the data to confirm it. This is where young earth creation scientists need to focus their labors (and often fall short), explaining how their paradigm of everything makes the most sense of all the data we do have compared to the other proposed paradigms, and do experiments to resolve those many points of dispute (i.e. the starlight problem). 

Science will not be able to explain what the laws of nature looked like during the creation week. They can only study the finished product after the laws of ordinary providence take over. Perhaps God did "speed up" the light of the stars initially (I think that most certainly was the case during the creation week). But was it still operating that way now in some way so that we see the light of an "older" supernova? Let's take that as a hypothesis. What data would the aftereffects of such a phenomena produce or leave behind to confirm it? Do we see that phenomena occurring anywhere else? Or take the other hypothesis, that like the wine analogy, God provided the light of a supernova without an actual star, simply to help us mark our seasons. What data can we gather to confirm that as a plausible explanation while still making sense of the data we have? 

Such a pursuit would also likely cause us to tweak other theories too depending on the answers we find (following Kuhn's argument for paradigm revolution...). But that's really all that creation science can propose; trying to find the best paradigm that explains everything we observe today, in light of what we believe the Bible says about our origins and history. And that is the limit of it's apologetic value as well; they can argue that their model currently makes the most sense of all the data science has discovered thus far, and provides the best understanding for why things work the way they do now. While I am a young earth creationists, based upon exegesis of Scripture, I'd like to see a scientific paradigm someday to confirm that narrative based upon a thorough exegesis of the creation. Perhaps such a pursuit is not achievable given the many mysteries still out there, but that to me should be the goal if they are pursuing it as an apologetic venture.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## Anti-Babylon

First, thank you for this post. I would like to reply and do so with some hesitation knowing how many excellent theologians and scientists may be watching this thread.



Puritan Sailor said:


> It is true that we can't scientifically explain the creation origins since science is not equipped to observe the original phenomena. The tools of science can only study the aftereffects and the way the cosmos works _now (i.e. _Adam was created as a mature adult and functioned that way immediately). Science is really more of a tool for exercising dominion, not a tool to understand our origins.



100% agree.


Puritan Sailor said:


> This is where young earth creation scientists need to focus their labors (and often fall short), explaining how their paradigm of everything makes the most sense of all the data we do have compared to the other proposed paradigms, and do experiments to resolve those many points of dispute (i.e. the starlight problem).



I agree 100%. But some creation scientists are doing what you suggest. For example, if you Google the starlight-travel problem, you will get a plethora of ideas. Sussing through the real scientists from the fake scientists can be easy enough but sussing through the real scientists that do not commit errors is a ridiculously Herculean task. Among YEC alone, there are 5 categories of different solutions to the starlight-travel problem. The lack of variation in OEC and secular timeframes is due to the total embrace of cosmic inflation but this introduces new issues for them that YEC models do not have to account for because most of us never accepted cosmic inflation based on lack of evidence (outside of the mathematics published that would govern its operation - YEC concedes the *math* of inflation checks out).

Now to do experiments can be tricky. In astrophysics, we are limited to data released to the public from telescopes run by governmental science agencies that give time to researchers they deem are doing work worthy of scheduling. In short, creation science could propose some tests and experiments that would be a bit more fruitful yet there is no way we can even be heard - even if we had enough money. That's how anti-creation that mainstream culture within science has become.


Puritan Sailor said:


> Science will not be able to explain what the laws of nature looked like during the creation week. They can only study the finished product after the laws of ordinary providence take over.



100% agreed.


Puritan Sailor said:


> But was it still operating that way now in some way so that we see the light of an "older" supernova? Let's take that as a hypothesis. What data would the aftereffects of such a phenomena produce or leave behind to confirm it? Do we see that phenomena occurring anywhere else? Or take the other hypothesis, that like the wine analogy, *God provided the light of a supernova without an actual star, simply to help us mark our seasons*. What data can we gather to confirm that as a plausible explanation while still making sense of the data we have?



I was almost dreading the return of the wine analogy. This part here is where I hesitated before posting my reply.

The fact that Christ made wine from water with no real grapes is recorded directly in the Gospel of John. To take this miracle and superimpose the conclusion that supernovae created without real stars could be analogous is an odd statement to be sure.

Supernovae do not play a role in marking the seasons. They typically only last about 100 seconds in duration. Most all of them leave remnants far too faint to the naked eye to be candidates for that role. Others never existed in the sky until centuries after man appeared - again disqualifying them as markers for the seasons.


Puritan Sailor said:


> Such a pursuit would also likely cause us to tweak other theories too depending on the answers we find (following Kuhn's argument for paradigm revolution...)




Indeed, this is true. Supernovae have now been observed happening in "real-time" (relatively speaking) through our best telescopes (in 2003, 2006, and 2008). Each of these SN were 4 B ly distant, 238 x 10^6 ly distant and 88 x 10^6 ly distant respectively (and in chronological order of discovery). I am sure Dr. Ross added these to his evidences for an OEC model on a website somewhere or in a book by now.

All of these SN events also have revealed accompanying deep mysteries regarding the nature of stars, their sizes, and their behavior during their "death" cycles. (It gets technical but it deals with pre-conceived notions regarding the limits for the radius of white dwarves and more).

These particular "death cycle" issues do not even deal directly with any of the creation models - religious or secular. They pose questions around the defining characteristics of interstellar objects as reported in astronomy textbooks. This is not insignificant - especially in God's role in our post-creation universe.

Of course, it is impossible for supernovae to be "inaccurate" and all models must adjust to new data - even secular scientists agree that these observations must be investigated or accounted for and, incidentally, the very definitions for white dwarves and Chandrasekhar limits currently have an asterisk pending further investigation.




Puritan Sailor said:


> I'd like to see a scientific paradigm someday to confirm that narrative based upon a thorough exegesis of the creation. Perhaps such a pursuit is not achievable given the many mysteries still out there, but that to me should be the goal if they are pursuing it as an apologetic venture.



I dreamed of discovering the paradigm that would unite YEC and OEC. Like Faust, I got into this originally dreaming of being the metaphorical Einstein of creation science.

I was young. I was so stupid. I was in a charismatic denomination with local leaders that encouraged my thinking this way for the possible fame, wealth and - oh yes, all the attending souls it could bring into the kingdom. (Not in that order, of course).

The conflict with apologetic values for all creation models is within its need to be responsible towards the scientific method.

OEC has little apologetic value due to how closely it resembles secular models in all other aspects outside the events of special creation and providential formations. That is not a dig at Hugh Ross and his brethren. I have nothing but love and respect for him as a brother in Christ.

YEC - by its very nature - will have more apologetic value due to a higher volume of unusual predictions within the models and some argue the trade-off is less responsible adherence to the scientific methodology undergirding hypothesis formation and theoretical model construction. (Indeed in some cases, this is unfortunately true).

Thank you again for an excellent post.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Anti-Babylon said:


> Supernovae do not play a role in marking the seasons. They typically only last about 100 seconds in duration. Most all of them leave remnants far too faint to the naked eye to be candidates for that role. Others never existed in the sky until centuries after man appeared - again disqualifying them as markers for the seasons.


I don't disagree with anything you replied to. But regarding this comment, I made it within the broader stated purpose given for the creation of stars in Genesis 1:14 "And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.." I will not pretend to understand how one particular supernova is marking what time or season, but somehow it is fulfilling that God-given design. That was my only intention behind that comment, and I think it would do well for astrophysicists to keep that divine design in the background as they do their research.


----------



## Anti-Babylon

Puritan Sailor said:


> I don't disagree with anything you replied to. But regarding this comment, I made it within the broader stated purpose given for the creation of stars in Genesis 1:14 "And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.." I will not pretend to understand how one particular supernova is marking what time or season, but somehow it is fulfilling that God-given design. That was my only intention behind that comment, and I think it would do well for astrophysicists to keep that divine design in the background as they do their research.



Since supernovae are the death throes of stars, then I see it as they are not directly mentioned in Genesis 1:14. I think as I am reading this, I am not losing sight of the divine design. But if I am missing something, please let me know.

[EDIT: I would also be remiss if I did not mention that I myself am not an astrophysicist. I stopped short of post-grad studies and simply teach HS physics. I just read a lot and I am not pretending to be more than that here]

Reactions: Like 1


----------

