Reconsidering YEC with an open mind

[Ploutos]

Thanks. I didn't know the term had been around that long, although the fact that scientists see the two as overlapping doesn't exactly dispel my aversion to the terminological formulation.

 

[JesseC]

Call me pedantic about semantics, but I have always, and shall always for the foreseeable future, object most strongly to the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution. This is an ungodly word game, designed to elide two vastly different concepts by making them appear to be degrees of the same principle.

First, off: micro-evolution is not evolution in any sense of the word. The word evolution conveys progressive development. That the concept which is termed micro-evolution is an actual, verifiable, and true concept: about this there can be no doubt. Evolution, however, it is not. There is no addition of genetic information; there is no linear progression from one thing to another. It is merely adaptation based on the genetic material already present. To call this "micro-evolution" is to use a grossly inaccurate misnomer.

Now - macro-evolution. Something more different from "micro-evolution" falsely so-called cannot be imagined. Macro-evolution: addition of genetic information. Change from one species into another. Progression from simple life forms to the complex. In my opinion, we ought to do away with this similarity of appellation for two concepts that have no similarity. There may be genetic drift within a species and it may get to the point where the two species can no longer inter-procreate - and there may be creative ways to breed certain species with a particular level of dissimilarity. You can cross a zebra and a horse or a lion and a tiger but you cannot breed a cat with a dog or a marmot with a salamander, nor will the one ever turn into the other. You can hybridize closely-related waterfowl but you cannot hybridize a hawk with a cormorant and neither one of them will ever turn into a stork. There may be fluidity within species, genus, and perhaps even family, but at some point one runs into a line that cannot be crossed with any scientific technique or vast eon of time.

So I deny both: I deny that macro-evolution exists, and I deny that micro-evolution, though it is patently plain that it happens, ought to be called any such thing.

I was going to answer the earlier response to my post but you said everything I was thinking far better than I could.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

Seeing as this thread has, at various points, touched both astronomy, physics, and biology in relation to YEC, all of which digressions I found to be immensely informative and edifying, might there be some interest in broaching the third pillar of related scientific disciplines that almost inevitably crops up in these sorts of discussions; that being geology and the ways in which believers in the inerrant inspiration of Holy Writ have interpreted the geological strata, fossil record, and other data points (e.g. radioactive isotope decay rates) with respect to the age of the earth, as well as either critiquing or else critically engaging the prevailing secular theories regarding geological phenomena (e.g. plate tectonics, strata formation, and so forth)? I say this as someone who, despite having an immense interest in contemporary physics and their implications with respect to God's providence in time, as well as a relatively comfortably working knowledge of modern biology and mechanisms of heredity and genetic drift over time, has never had the formal mathematical grounding that would allow me to appreciate either the comparative soundness or 'leaps in logic' basked into radiometric dating methods with respect to fossils or other artifacts found in strata.

I guess my initial questions, if there are indeed folks with robust knowledge in this field, would cluster around the following: What is the current state of the field of geology, either in terms of methodological debates or major contentions with the discipline, as well as shifts in research emphasis? What, if any, challenges or recent developments in how radiometric dating is performed have been put forward by scientists or geologists who subscribe to YEC, and have these resulted in any serious scholarly output? What do contemporary Creationist geological models now incorporate in terms of either additional baseline assumptions or theoretical developments that were not featured in geological models of times past (e.g. the 'flood geology' of Morris and Whitcomb)? How have these developments served to further hone or refine the YEC geological perspective, and render it either more coherent or else falsifiable as a scientific theory (meaning that the theory entails falsifiable predictions concerning potentially forthcoming geologically phenomena)? I am aware that around twenty or so years ago, the RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) pointed towards helium retention in zircon crystals as evidence that God drastically accelerated the rate of radioactive decay during creation week and/or the Noahic Flood, but this creates a problem wherein accelerating billions of years of radioactive decay into a small time frame of a few years would release enough thermodynamic energy to melt the Earth's crust.

A few bonus questions for everyone in the thread: How has the fossil evidence of sauropods informed your reading of Job's descriptions of Behemoth (Job 40:15–24) and Leviathan (Job 41:1–34), if at all? Do you take the reference to the erets being split in Genesis 10:25 as referring to the dispersion of the peoples (the common view) or an oblique reference to a geological event? And, lastly, based on both the intra-textual evidence as well as the geology, do you subscribe to a localized or worldwide deluge in the days of Noah?

If this post extends past the core concerns of the OP, or otherwise requires some revision to conform to board rules, then the moderators can feel free to step in and branch this off into a new thread, if so desired. I am simply interested in hearing from the wisdom of board members on these matters, and have been greatly edified by both the charity, breath of knowledge, and zeal to honor the LORD's work in creation that this thread's participants have amply demonstrated. Here's to more enlivening discussion!

 

[Afterthought]

I guess my initial questions, if there are indeed folks with robust knowledge in this field, would cluster around the following:

This is not my field. I do have a some general thoughts. I think mature creation can help with a lot of the radioactive decay stuff. I don't see the heat objection to accelerated decay to be a problem either. Creation is a miracle week with miracles happening, so a miracle could protect from the energy released.

As for the flood, it is within the bounds of historical reformed thought to consider a miracle during the Flood to preserve the trees, so it seems reasonable to me to extend that idea to protection from the energy released due to accelerated decay during the Flood. I know though that many prefer to find an actual testable model, and there may be one, for all I know. (I am not advocating for a solution; just explaining why I find the heat objection unconvincing)

Poole's commentary on Genesis 8. I thought I remembered him talking about how the Israelites' shoes were preserved and so the trees during the flood might be preserved by a powerful providence. However, he does not say that here, so I may be remembering something else.

"Quest. Whence was this leaf, when trees had been so generally overthrown and rooted up by the deluge?

Answ.

1. Many trees might be preserved by an advantageous situation, between the rocks or hills which broke the force of the waters.

2. It is probable that God, by his powerful providence, preserved the plants and trees for future ages; and therefore there is no mention of any of their roots or seeds preserved in the ark.

3. The olive-tree especially will not only stand, but live and flourish under the waters, as Pliny, 1. 13. c. 25, and 16. 20, and Theophrastus, 4. 8, observe. Add, that the word here rendered leaf signifies also a tender branch."

I adhere to a global flood on textual reasons. I do find it fascinating though that water at levels that are high elevation today is acknowledged even in the secular realm, e.g., I'm thinking about the rocky formations out in the West in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. I recall as well while out in Utah, I spoke with one of the people at a dinosaur tracks museum about the pattern of the footprints. The tracks seemed rather chaotic, and it was explained to me that they were running. I asked how some footprints were able to cross on top of others: it was explained to me that they would have had to been made within a short amount of time. I asked how short, and I was told these kinds of tracks would have to have been made and then flooded very quickly: flooded within hours to a day (or maybe she said two?) at most after they were made. Lots of fossilized imprints from raindrops in that museum as well, and a fossilized track from a dinosaur resting, likely after injury. I recall seeing tracks while out in the wild that were pointed in the direction of higher ground: probably the terrain there has changed, so it could be a useless observation, but I found it striking nonetheless at the time. All this to say: rapid burial--of which flooding is one way for that to happen--is the mainstream explanation for fossil-making, but the rapid burials and floodings are not connected together into a single global flood.

I think I remember searching some Creationist pages after that musuem and seeing that there is a view that the global food happened in stages, so that there could be flooding and recession locally at various places before the whole globe became flooded.

I have no idea how sound any of this is scientifically. Certainly some of it would not be scientific due to the miraculous nature and speculation about what may have happened with little to no textual data.

 

[Ploutos]

@RamistThomist - since this was your thread, I'm curious. Has anything in this thread moved the needle for you? I'm not even presuming you've followed or read every post in here. It's been exceedingly illuminating for me, partly because the presentation of YEC views cogently argued on the basis of presumptions that even the secular scientific world has to grant has removed one source of hesitancy on my end that has kept me from being more firm in my own personal conviction here. So, I'm curious what effect it has had on you - that, or maybe it's re-confirmed you in your OEC views, in which case I'd also be very curious to hear from you.

 

[Ploutos]

Incidentally, I've recently discovered evidence for the earliest known proponent of the appearance-of-age theory. Actually, it's in the Bible: John 2:9-11.

(Oh wow, everybody brought tomatoes to tonight's show? I wonder why...)

(With sincerest apologies to @No Other Name )

 

[No Other Name]

Maybe because it's late

 

[RamistThomist]

@RamistThomist - since this was your thread, I'm curious. Has anything in this thread moved the needle for you? I'm not even presuming you've followed or read every post in here. It's been exceedingly illuminating for me, partly because the presentation of YEC views cogently argued on the basis of presumptions that even the secular scientific world has to grant has removed one source of hesitancy on my end that has kept me from being more firm in my own personal conviction here. So, I'm curious what effect it has had on you - that, or maybe it's re-confirmed you in your OEC views, in which case I'd also be very curious to hear from you.

It's been informative and helpful, and I think I can accept YEC in good consicence, but I still don't think I can die on either hill.

 

[Ploutos]

It's been informative and helpful, and I think I can accept YEC in good consicence, but I still don't think I can die on either hill.

What factors figure most prominently there in creating greater openness to YEC but also keeping you from coming down firmly on either side? Not a trap question - I'm just genuinely curious to see how other people process this, since it's a journey similar to what I've been on.