Internal Dispute Within the Young Earth Creationist Movement

[Anti-Babylon]

(2 of 2)

Q. Is this really all over one discovery that may suggest that some dinosaurs had feathers?

Unfortunately no. There seems to be no end in sight for AiG (and ICR by the way) "calling out YEEs". Take a look at the latest article posted by AiG on "Walking Whales on Noah's Ark?" (March 10 entry in YEE section of their website).

Q. Walking whales? What?

It's an ad hoc attempt at dismissing a paper by Dr. Kurt Wise on transitional forms and the need for YEC to account for transitions that fall short of full speciation but still evidence profound phenotypic differences over 1300 - 2000 years.

"Walking whales" would include pennipeds (seals, sea lions, otters et al). Animals that spend long periods in water but need land long before the Flood waters would have receded.

The evidences for widespread challenges to how the sedimentary record shakes out is something Dr. Wise was trying to account for scientifically within the framework of YEC:

"Some of the changes that have occurred among organisms seem to be evidenced in vestigial structures (feathers that had a strong function in the past but now seem to have reduced function or no function at all) and genetic throwbacks (past structures that appear spontaneously in a small percentage of offspring in the present). Hip and leg bones that appear in some foetal sperm whales, for example, are vestigial structures. They suggest that modern whales might be descendants of whales in the past that had hind limbs"

He goes on to say that the vast evidence for a challenge comes from the fossil record:

"whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments. This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales."

The "author" of the AiG article disputing Dr. Wise did not dig any further into his paper for the actual meat of his case which in fact would buttress and strengthen YEC further. Rather, the "author" chose to claim he is abandoning YEC orthodox:

"Wise does believe that most semiaquatic mammals might have been on the ark or might have been represented by fully terrestrial ancestors as well (in contrast to the Ark Encounter’s stance)." (Emphasis added)

and unqualified objections such as:

"The level of change goes way beyond inter-baraminic generation and speciation. It would require a complete body-plan overhaul and several adaptations arriving at exactly the same time for the creature to survive. And “evolution” (or YEE [young-earth evolution] hyper-fast speciation) [ignores this]"

Why do they think Dr. Wise ignores it? The "coup de grace" comes at the end:

"YEEs tend to play up supposed evidence for evolution while playing down evidence for creation. Is this because the evidence is truly equivocal and we creationists have been overstating our position? Or is it because YEEs are philosophically opposed even to the possibility that the evidence could strongly favor creation? . .."

There it is: "YEEs" (rather conscientious YEC scientists) are just as blindly motivated as atheistic evolutionists according to AiG.

Q. But is it possible that they might be blind to some areas where a slippery slope is legitimately being constructed without their knowing?

A fair question. I think it is obvious that Dr. Wood and Dr. Ross while acknowledging the legitimacy of presuming these long-tailed feather bearers in amber are dinosaurs does not in any way directly challenge their creationism.

It is far different when Dr. Wise talks about transitional forms in a technical paper.

But AiG "buried the lead" in Dr. Wise's paper. The following are quotes directly from the paper, and let the reader that has understanding, judge rightly for themselves:

"Creationist palaeontology is an immature field, the resources of creationists are severely limited, and the ‘transitional form’ issue has a low priority in the creation model. It is thus premature to engage in a rigorous evaluation of transitional form claims. It is suggested that creationists not divert resources or concern in the direction of ‘transitional form’ arguments. As a creationist response to evolutionary claims of transitional forms is developed, a new vocabulary should be adopted. It is suggested that distinctions be made among morphological, stratigraphic and stratomorphic intermediates ..."

[Helpful interlude here:

DEFS: Morphology is a branch of biology dealing with the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features.
This includes aspects of the outward appearance i.e. external morphology, as well as the form and structure of the internal parts like bones and organs, i.e. internal morphology (anatomy). This is in contrast to physiology, which deals primarily with function.

stratigraphy, scientific discipline concerned with the description of rock successions and their interpretation in terms of a general time scale. It provides a basis for historical geology Stratigraphic studies deal primarily with sedimentary rocks but may also encompass layered igneous rocks (e.g., those resulting from successive lava flows) or metamorphic rocks formed either from such extrusive igneous material or from sedimentary rocks.

Stratomorphic intermediate fossil (or stratomorphic intermediate fossil group) is a fossil (or fossil group) which is BOTH a stratigraphic intermediate AND a morphological intermediate between two other fossils or two other fossil groups. Though it is a stratigraphic intermediate between trilobites and cetaceans, the ‘tully monster’ is NOT an example of a stratomorphic intermediate because it is not a morphological intermediate between the trilobites and the cetaceans.]

Dr. Wise directly rejects the Darwinian evaluation of stratopmorphic intermediate fossils:

" if predictions from Darwin’s theory were re-stated in these terms, one would expect to find:— "

followed by highly technical objections to the Darwinian frame of transitional forms in stratomorphic intermediate fossils.

He then has an entire section titled It Appears Explainable in the Creation Model

"The following is a possible creationist scenario of earth history:"

followed by highly technical proposals to account for transitional forms that either are neutral towards affirming creation or possibly outright necessarily true for creationism.

After highly technical explanations, he concludes:

" Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model’s incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory." (Emphasis added)

Q. What is the takeaway here?

It is up to each reader to judge for yourself if Dr. Wise is guilty of leaning towards evolution so far, he should be called an "evolutionist".

It is however beyond dispute that AiG has ignored Dr. Wood's qualification of dinos with feathers. It is objectively true that in the latest article on "YEE", AiG has ignored the full body and argument of Dr. Wise that indeed denounces Darwinism and champions creationism in his call for an approach to transitional forms.

Do you know how many YEC articles there are in Journal of Creation (formerly Creation Ex Nihilo) that calls for careful consideration of secular scientists' findings and tweaking methodology to allow humble learning while never giving an inch on the principles of creationism?

A lot.

A cynic might imagine Ken Ham knows that too, and he can make a series about a new problem generating more support while defending his "YEC papacy" against these reformers.

I am not sure I feel confident saying that outright, but it is getting harder to dismiss this idea out of hand.

Links Not Yet Cited:

Walking Whales on Noah’s Ark? | Answers in Genesis

Wise's original paper:

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Dr Ross and those being called 'young earth evolutionists' (YEE) deny the claim that they are open to evolution any more than the aspects of evolution which AiG themselves accept. Dr Ross says in this video that all YECs believe that after the animals left the ark, the animals we have today are vastly different as they adapted to their environment etc. Both parties agree that the animals remained within their kinds, however.

The disagreement seems to lie with the fact that some YEC scientists have admitted that some scientific data is currently better supported by evolutionary theories, though they deny that that proves evolution is true. Ham and AiG has taken issue with this admission and see it as (1) leading the average creationist into doubt and (2) giving cause for the evolutionists to celebrate as YECs admit they have evidence on their side. Then there are some specific areas of agreement between evolutionists and these 'YEE' folks on things like dinosaurs having feathers, which AiG have also criticised.

So, in answer to your specific question, while they don't cover these theological issues in the video, I think Ross and those accused of YEE are in complete agreement with all the typical YEC beliefs. It wouldn't make much sense if they did believe in death before the fall as YECs honestly. From what I can gather there is total agreement on the biblical/theological issues and this is about interpreting the scientific data.

I’m not sure if this answers my question or not so help me out if you can- I’m trying to learn whether Dr. Ross and others in his camp are open to there having been death before the fall. I’m not understanding what he means by being open to evolution (unless he’s talking about microevolution, which I think AIG agrees with and teaches?)

 

[Anti-Babylon]

I’m not sure if this answers my question or not so help me out if you can- I’m trying to learn whether Dr. Ross and others in his camp are open to there having been death before the fall. I’m not understanding what he means by being open to evolution (unless he’s talking about microevolution, which I think AIG agrees with and teaches?)

They are not at all open to there having been death before the fall nor a common ancestor nor any other tenet of atheistic evolution whatsoever.

 

[RamistThomist]

I’m not sure if this answers my question or not so help me out if you can- I’m trying to learn whether Dr. Ross and others in his camp are open to there having been death before the fall. I’m not understanding what he means by being open to evolution (unless he’s talking about microevolution, which I think AIG agrees with and teaches?)

The simple answer is, we don't know as of yet. Ken Ham has a track record of thinking everyone who disagrees with him has surrendered to godless human thought.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

The disagreement seems to lie with the fact that some YEC scientists have admitted that some scientific data is currently better supported by evolutionary theories,

I think Jeri's confusion lies here. The evolutionary theories some YEC scientists are willing to employ are merely comparative anatomy and short term phenotypic drift. When science texts in the early 20th Century used these theories to sound the trumpet call for evolution being taught widespread, creationists obviously objected and now, it is a matter of simply "Wait, there are vestigial elements and we do need objectively to account for transitioning forms" but the transitions observed do not require long scales of time, never include speciation, and "death before the fall" and "common ancestor of all life" are not even in the conversation at all.

 

[Ulster Fry]

@Anti-Babylon Brad, many thanks for your excellent posts. You are much better informed than I am on both the science and the controversy itself. I would encourage anyone with questions to read his Q&A posts above. It's really encouraging to see that there are serious YEC scientists fairly interpreting the data, not at the expense of their YEC, but as a means of strengthening the YEC position through credible scientific research.

As I alluded to earlier, I am actually quite optimistic with where this dispute might lead. The only reason I did watch the linked video was because that channel is usually hostile to YEC and I was surprised to see them give a fair hearing to a YEC scientist. Cameron, the interviewer, seemed keen to continue the conversation and hear from more YECs on his show.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

@Anti-Babylon Brad, many thanks for your excellent posts. You are much better informed than I am on both the science and the controversy itself. I would encourage anyone with questions to read his Q&A posts above. It's really encouraging to see that there are serious YEC scientists fairly interpreting the data, not at the expense of their YEC, but as a means of strengthening the YEC position through credible scientific research.

As I alluded to earlier, I am actually quite optimistic with where this dispute might lead. The only reason I did watch the linked video was because that channel is usually hostile to YEC and I was surprised to see them give a fair hearing to a YEC scientist. Cameron, the interviewer, seemed keen to continue the conversation and hear from more YECs on his show.

Thank you for starting this important thread!

 

[Afterthought]

Trying to come up with good YEC models to explain the data is a much better approach than just questioning the motives of evolutionary scientists.

It isn't just about questioning their motives but a recongition of the fact that people interpret data according to their prior commitments. It isn't about evolutionists deviously trying to make data fit a theory: it is an unconscious thing. They accept evolution as a given, so all data starts to fit into their scheme: truth builds on truth, so if evolution is a fact, then it makes sense to use it when interpreting data. Or if they seek to use dino feathers to provide support for evolution, they accept the non-existence of a Creator as a fact, so it makes sense to their minds to use that fact when interpreting data.

In fact, atheists do this with God's existence in general. They know that he exists, but they then suppress the truth of his existence. This suppression is so strong that they believe that the data does not support his existence, even though it objectively does. Their hearts are devious, even if they are not consciously aware of this suppression.

Failing to recognize this fact of prior commitments swaying a person to one interpretation or another leads to poorer science in general as conclusions become adopted without sufficient data to adopt them: this happens a lot in fields where there are low amounts of data and unrepeatability of the scenarios. Recognizing this fact, YECs that dispute dino feathers say that we can't simply accept what evolutionists say on the matter but most look at the reasons they give to see if the reasons are good.

 

[Ulster Fry]

It isn't just about questioning their motives but a recongition of the fact that people interpret data according to their prior commitments. It isn't about evolutionists deviously trying to make data fit a theory: it is an unconscious thing. They accept evolution as a given, so all data starts to fit into their scheme: truth builds on truth, so if evolution is a fact, then it makes sense to use it when interpreting data. Or if they seek to use dino feathers to provide support for evolution, they accept the non-existence of a Creator as a fact, so it makes sense to their minds to use that fact when interpreting data.

In fact, atheists do this with God's existence in general. They know that he exists, but they then suppress the truth of his existence. This suppression is so strong that they believe that the data does not support his existence, even though it objectively does. Their hearts are devious, even if they are not consciously aware of this suppression.

Failing to recognize this fact of prior commitments swaying a person to one interpretation or another leads to poorer science in general as conclusions become adopted without sufficient data to adopt them: this happens a lot in fields where there are low amounts of data and unrepeatability of the scenarios. Recognizing this fact, YECs that dispute dino feathers say that we can't simply accept what evolutionists say on the matter but most look at the reasons they give to see if the reasons are good.

I'm certainly not denying that prior commitments aren't involved, but I disagree with the notion that 'there's no neutrality'. I do believe that, despite being tainted by sin, we all have rational faculties and we all live under natural law.

In terms of reasons regarding dinosaur feathers, see the Q&A from @Anti-Babylon above in which you can see why some YEC do believe some dinosaurs had feathers. As he makes clear, and this is really where there might be conflict in terms of presuppositionalist thinking, those scientists believe the data supporting dinosaur feathers is being handled in a neutral manner, i.e., not being manipulated in a way that would lead to evolutionist conclusions.

I guess I should also respond to this point about suppressing the truth of God. I could be entirely wrong, but I don't think I agree with what some typically mean when they claim atheists do know or believe that there is a God. My own reading of Romans 1 and other passages is that the creation itself, including both the phenomena itself and the physical laws, as well as moral truths, political order, etc, all scream out to the unbeliever 'There is clearly a God!' and it is this sort of knowledge which they are suppressing. They are constantly faced with these realities, and furthermore they want to enjoy these realities, but they don't want to acknowledge that God is behind them (because of sin). And so they create idols, they deny the Creator, etc. It becomes an 'anything but God' reaction and we can see this when, say, Richard Dawkins claims that any sort of evidence or revelation that came from God he would put down to hallucination or madness before acknowledging it could possibly be God. To me this is a more credible way of understanding the sort of knowledge that is being suppressed as opposed to an innate knowledge of God, the nature of which I can't quite grasp (for example, do infants possess such knowledge?). To me, our knowledge of God comes from his communication with us (including through the natural world). But I might be missing something here.

 

[Ulster Fry]

This is a little off topic but I just thought I would link to this given my comments above. I had a quick google search regarding innate knowledge of God and Hodge's ST came up. Some very interesting observations here, and the sort of innate knowledge he is referring to is a lot more nuanced than people might realise. For example, this is the sort of innate knowledge of God he believes is universal, which is basically that to which the ancient philosophers reasoned themselves towards:

'It is in the general sense of a Being on whom we are dependent, and to whom we are responsible, that the idea is asserted to exist universally, and of necessity, in every human mind'.

https://ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1/theology1.iv.i.i.html

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Ken Ham has a track record of thinking everyone who disagrees with him has surrendered to godless human thought.

I think this illustrates a point Martyn Lloyd-Jones once pointed out. There is a danger of pushing a 'one issue' approach to truth. We need to align all important issues into our theology. Thus a full-orbed theology will help us avoid doctrinal hobby horses.

There are things about Ken Ham's ministry that I appreciate. However it troubles me he does not approach his creationism in the context of a fuller theology.

 

[Elizabeth]

I think this illustrates a point Martyn Lloyd-Jones once pointed out. There is a danger of pushing a 'one issue' approach to truth. We need to align all important issues into our theology. Thus a full-orbed theology will help us avoid doctrinal hobby horses.

Yes. I knew a person who was so into proving YEC, they rather forgot about God (in a redemptive sense). Very sad.

 

[Ulster Fry]

Yes. I knew a person who was so into proving YEC, they rather forgot about God (in a redemptive sense). Very sad.

Another issue that I have seen happen in my own life is when people have tied their faith in God to YEC. So if they were to doubt YEC they would doubt the very gospel itself. I think there is something very unbalanced about this and I think AiG are partly to blame for it. To me, they are guilty of causing the very doubts in people which they are supposedly trying to alleviate.

I think that's why the so-called 'YEE' crowd are not afraid of admitting the strengths and weaknesses of their own scientific position. They can argue for their position without it being an existential thing.

 

[MyCrows]

Another issue that I have seen happen in my own life is when people have tied their faith in God to YEC. So if they were to doubt YEC they would doubt the very gospel itself.

Hmmm....

This and it seems that within cultural Christianity sometimes belief in YEC itself is elevated to the place of saving knowledge of Christ.

Which in a sense leads to what Elizabeth has described.

Yes. I knew a person who was so into proving YEC, they rather forgot about God (in a redemptive sense). Very sad.

 

[retroGRAD3]

To add some balance to the last two points. I do think believing in YEC is very important as it appears to be plainly and clearly taught. I do agree with Ham that other belief models do not come from scripture, but come from secular science or other outside influences. This is why it is held as such an important belief. The thought is that if you don't take Genesis 1-3 as literal, then why take anything else as literal? This is not to chastize anyone here directly but to try and give context to why Ham and other YEC go so hard on this issue.

However, I agree with the previous two posts as well that it shouldn't take the place of repentance and faith in Christ and other more central theology. I believe creation is a primary issue, but as I understand it oec is not denying creation. We also shouldn't go kicking each other the kingdom because of this. I will say though that I believe evolution as Darwin states it, is anti God and someone professing to be a Christian that holds to it should be challenged.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

To add some balance to the last two points. I do think believing in YEC is very important as it appears to be plainly and clearly taught. I do agree with Ham that other belief models do not come from scripture, but come from secular science or other outside influences. This is why it is held as such an important belief. The thought is that if you don't take Genesis 1-3 as literal, then why take anything else as literal? This is not to chastize anyone here directly but to try and give context to why Ham and other YEC go so hard on this issue.

However, I agree with the previous two posts as well that it shouldn't take the place of repentance and faith in Christ and other more central theology. I believe creation is a primary issue, but as I understand it oec is not denying creation. We also shouldn't go kicking each other the kingdom because of this. I will say though that I believe evolution as Darwin states it, is anti God and someone professing to be a Christian that holds to it should be challenged.

Thank you for your response here.

1) I absolutely agree with you that YEC is important, and seems plainly taught in Scripture. I am not sure I would classify it as a "primary issue". Rather I would say that the doctrine of creation is primary while YE vs. OE is secondary (as long as OEC agree fully with the special creation of all kinds and Adam separate and higher order than primitive primates so it is consequential that in the first Adam, death entered our world for the theological significance of the second Adam Christ in which eternal life enters our world.) Most OEC are fully onboard and lots of them are 5 Solas Reformed.

2) Forgive me but I feel I must object lightly here on a point of defining terms: "secular science". Part of the use of this term as applied by AiG is directly connected to the ongoing crisis. Science is not secular. Science is a gift from God - a tool by which to further knowledge of the Creator, His attributes not the least of which is His sovereign providence that simultaneously seems askew - as if the world could have been better, so when one asks "How so?", they can turn to Genesis and start the road to the full Gospel of Christ.

Jason, my friend (if I can be so presumptuous and not in any way sarcastic in that expression), I know you know and believe the above paragraph, but when Ken Ham and many others deride "secular science" as opposed to "Biblical science", they are creating a confusion of categories - mostly unintentional in my view. Rather, they should deride "secular philosophy of science" as opposed to "Biblical-theological science". At that point, they would have my full-throated agreement.

The reason for this distinction is very important. Human scientific achievement has grown so exponentially in the last 2-3 centuries, that multiple levels and methods of scientific investigations are needed to really make any new discoveries anymore. Battalions of specialists are needed to sometimes even consider how to even ask the question in a new way to get "unstuck".

Creation paleontology is currently "stuck" regarding a few issues. Employing the technique of comparative anatomy to investigate further into the sedimentary mysteries for the sake of the Creation model is no more warranted for correction/rebuke by Ken Ham - or anyone else - than a field medic running out of dressing and using a contraband bottle of hooch he had in his pack to pour over the sucking hole of a wounded soldier who happens to struggle with alcoholism.

3) Hopefully, in your agreement with the YECs that I quoted and whom Ken Ham is denouncing as "YEEs" that Darwinian evolution is objectively anti-Biblical and can never be superior to the Creation model, you will find this discussion uplifting to your faith and encouraging that God uses conflict at times to reveal more of His truth. Who knows how many unsaved scientists may yet pick up a Bible through all this? God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

God bless you.

 

[retroGRAD3]

2) Forgive me but I feel I must object lightly here on a point of defining terms: "secular science". Part of the use of this term as applied by AiG is directly connected to the ongoing crisis. Science is not secular. Science is a gift from God - a tool by which to further knowledge of the Creator, His attributes not the least of which is His sovereign providence that simultaneously seems askew - as if the world could have been better, so when one asks "How so?", they can turn to Genesis and start the road to the full Gospel of Christ.

Yes, when I say secular science I do mean science where God is removed. As you state "secular philosophy of science"

Jason, my friend (if I can be so presumptuous and not in any way sarcastic in that expression), I know you know and believe the above paragraph, but when Ken Ham and many others deride "secular science" as opposed to "Biblical science", they are creating a confusion of categories - mostly unintentional in my view. Rather, they should deride "secular philosophy of science" as opposed to "Biblical-theological science". At that point, they would have my full-throated agreement.

This makes sense. Defining terms accurately is very important.

 

[Ulster Fry]

On the primary issue stuff, I believe part of the problem is that some have made creationist views and certain social issues the main test of orthodoxy, while ignoring or absolutely butchering the real primary issues - the doctrine of God and Christology. It's a problem when you have Christians well versed in AiG creationist talking points, but who couldn't give me a coherent statement on the Trinity without committing some ancient heresy.

 

[retroGRAD3]

On the primary issue stuff, I believe part of the problem is that some have made creationist views and certain social issues the main test of orthodoxy, while ignoring or absolutely butchering the real primary issues - the doctrine of God and Christology. It's a problem when you have Christians well versed in AiG creationist talking points, but who couldn't give me a coherent statement on the Trinity without committing some ancient heresy.

Orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity whether they can give you a perfect definition or not. I don't believe we worship a God that requires a lay person to give a perfect or even great definition of the Trinity. The error lies in rejecting the doctrine outright. Most Christian's don't keep the Sabbath as they should, so I don't think it should surprise anyone they also don't have deep knowledge of the Trinity. I would say the primary issue is ensuring people have a proper doctrine of grace and the gospel (which of course includes the doctrine of God).

 

[Taylor]

...I believe part of the problem is that some have made creationist views and certain social issues the main test of orthodoxy...

While I don't believe OEC in and of itself amounts to heresy, I believe it can be a useful barometer for detecting other issues. In other words, while I believe someone can hold to OEC and be a fine Christian, in some individuals OEC can and sometimes does stem from deeper theological and/or hermeneutical issues which themselves are significant problems—e.g., the desire to placate the scientistic zeitgeist in order to gain "a seat at the table" with the world or (see below) the placing of science above the Word of God. The same goes with "Young Earth Evolutionism."

In the end, I agree with Vos:

Must someone who holds that the days are long time periods be regarded a heretic?​

No, in this sense the question is not an essential one. It would only become so if it provided the occasion for granting priority in principle over the Word of God to the so-called results of science.​

​

—Geerhardus Vos, Theology Proper, ed. Annemie Godbehere, Roelof van Ijken, and Kim Batteau, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 1, Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 169; italics original.​

 

[BRK]

@Ulster Fry, while I was not aware of the internal YEC debate currently taking place, I watched the video and am very grateful to hear Dr. Ross approach the issue with charity and conviction. He is a pleasant and gracious man who I believe is trying to faithfully interpret empirical data without violating the doctrine of creation. I share the same disclaimer as yourself, that I am not committed to a young earth view; however, I must affirm, as you do, the biblical creation model over and against the metaphysical naturalistic materialism of secular Darwinists. With that in mind, there are real challenges in interpreting the data from natural revelation in a biblically consistent model, not because there are no answers, but because we may not yet know enough to be able to thoroughly explain it. I think it is possible for well-intended Christians to quickly put aside models developed by non-Christian scientists without carefully separating the underlying metaphysical assumptions from the raw data. Naturalistic evolutionary models are opposed to biblical creation, yet there is some value in recognizing that the empirical phenomena of natural selection, genetic drift and shift, gain-of-function mutations, and some degree of change within species are not inherently at odds with creation provided we view them in light of the biblical narrative. That naturalists require those things to make their model work does not mean that there is no truth to them at all.

I used to read the content from Answers in Genesis quite often when I was younger but began to find that their scientific explanations were put aside to either lambast "evolutionists" or accuse Christians who wanted to think through the problems as undermining scriptural authority. They also seemed to make the age of the universe a matter of orthodoxy which was hard to get past when you were reading more for a biblically and scientifically consistent explanation of the data against the Darwinian interpretation. I pray that more Christians like Dr. Ross continue to make thoughtful contributions to our understanding of natural revelation because I think it, much as special revelation, is truth which God has revealed of himself to us for his glory and our enjoyment of him.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity whether they can give you a perfect definition or not. I don't believe we worship a God that requires a lay person to give a perfect or even great definition of the Trinity. The error lies in rejecting the doctrine outright. Most Christian's don't keep the Sabbath as they should, so I don't think it should surprise anyone they also don't have deep knowledge of the Trinity. I would say the primary issue is ensuring people have a proper doctrine of grace and the gospel (which of course includes the doctrine of God).

The first statement is true, so far as it goes. I'm less comfortable with the second, which implies (to my reading it) that God might not require accuracy in coming before him and knowing who he is with whom we have to do. But he does, and what the believers should be doing is always growing more accurate, sure, and secure in their knowledge of him. We are not the 1C church, so it isn't the case we don't have good, creedal definitions. The earliest were hammered out in the fires of doctrinal crisis. The Athanasian Creed (no, he didn't write it) is long and complicated and makes very strong statements about what it is necessary for someone to believe respecting the Trinity, if he would be saved. Do those statements go too far? If one consistently improves in his understanding of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, he should be agreeing more and more with the Athanasian Creed; hence to depart from it is to depart from true knowledge of God, to defect and apostatize. God alone knows how deep the rot actually goes, or if the creedal anathema is final.

I argue that in the first few centuries church teaching on the nature of God is substantively what the creeds contain. Even without the term "Trinity" it remains vital for the Christian to be growing in his knowledge of God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When it becomes needful for the integrity of the church moving forward to exclude ideas like modalism or adoptionism, the new demand on the church and doctrinal teaching is to take care to explain, repeatedly to the same people, what is true and what is false. We cannot leave people to make the same mistakes of doctrine as the first go around, a sincere attempt at first, but stubbornly to cling to it after correction is the danger.

I think I understand your intent is mainly to affirm that articulation is a non-issue for those who are true to the Bible's teaching; but on this particular and essential thing (greater than Sabbath keeping for example, as much I value truth and accuracy there too) I think we need to say there is a general duty to learn where one may go and read especially important doctrine in faithful summary, if not memorize a simple creed or a catechism answer. We cannot always be babes with our milk. We must grow in the grace and knowledge of our God.

 

[retroGRAD3]

The first statement is true, so far as it goes. I'm less comfortable with the second, which implies (to my reading it) that God might not require accuracy in coming before him and knowing who he is with whom we have to do. But he does, and what the believers should be doing is always growing more accurate, sure, and secure in their knowledge of him. We are not the 1C church, so it isn't the case we don't have good, creedal definitions. The earliest were hammered out in the fires of doctrinal crisis. The Athanasian Creed (no, he didn't write it) is long and complicated and makes very strong statements about what it is necessary for someone to believe respecting the Trinity, if he would be saved. Do those statements go too far? If one consistently improves in his understanding of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, he should be agreeing more and more with the Athanasian Creed; hence to depart from it is to depart from true knowledge of God, to defect and apostatize. God alone knows how deep the rot actually goes, or if the creedal anathema is final.

I argue that in the first few centuries church teaching on the nature of God is substantively what the creeds contain. Even without the term "Trinity" it remains vital for the Christian to be growing in his knowledge of God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When it becomes needful for the integrity of the church moving forward to exclude ideas like modalism or adoptionism, the new demand on the church and doctrinal teaching is to take care to explain, repeatedly to the same people, what is true and what is false. We cannot leave people to make the same mistakes of doctrine as the first go around, a sincere attempt at first, but stubbornly to cling to it after correction is the danger.

I think I understand your intent is mainly to affirm that articulation is a non-issue for those who are true to the Bible's teaching; but on this particular and essential thing (greater than Sabbath keeping for example, as much I value truth and accuracy there too) I think we need to say there is a general duty to learn where one may go and read especially important doctrine in faithful summary, if not memorize a simple creed or a catechism answer. We cannot always be babes with our milk. We must grow in the grace and knowledge of our God.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying here.

 

[Anti-Babylon]

The same goes with "Young Earth Evolutionism."

Without embracing the ad hoc moniker coined by AiG, may I ask how the conscientious YECs studying the transitions and being accused of this are indeed either "trying to get a place at the table with the world" or "placing science above the Word of God"? This seems unwarranted.

Would it help all those YECs here concerned that Ham may have a point in having a quick view into what Creationist comparative anatomy entails?

I think most YECs that are concerned have in their minds, the wiki version of comparative anatomy that assumes a priori the "fact" of homology: "the similarity of structures in different species that proves a common ancestor by divergent evolution ie. the forelimbed structures of cats and whales proves common descent".

"YEEs" - there has to be another name for this because they are NOT evolutionists in any way - (but I digress) they outright reject homology.

This has historically been a rejection of any serious or widespread use of comparative anatomy at all.

Homoplasy, however, is the study of analogous structures that is primarily focused on the environment which leads to changes over time within species.

Even atheistic scientists grant that the torpedo-shaped bodies of porpoises and sharks were adaptations to the aquatic environment primarily and cannot be directly applied (or manipulated I would rather call it) into a case for common descent.

When Dr. Jean Lightner was investigating the baraminological similarities and differences between "created kinds" and "ark kinds", she considered the timelines of variations among wild species and the rate of radical transitions - such as the threespine stickleback fish.

These are fish that live in the ocean and have spines along their pelvic area and body armor. Now when they breed, they migrate to freshwater environments and the eggs are laid there before they return to saltwater.

In some cases though, the spinebacks are trapped in the freshwater and never able to return to the sea. In those areas, over time, the successive generations lost their pelvic spines and body armor altogether. This type of genetic drift takes many generations. Atheist scientists assumed that kind of adaptation took thousands of years.

Dr. Lightner used comparative phenology to the genetic drifts of other species and argued in a paper that it need only take a few decades not thousands of years.

In 2017, Paichal and Marques in the journal Evolution "confirmed" her use of comparative phenology but gave her no mention, and got credited as the ones to crack the case.

Comparative anatomy or comparative phenology ... good resources gifted us by a common Creator who designed all life with the same DNA and the ability to adapt to environments for survival that leads to the glory of the Designer of all living things.

No common ancestor in sight. No death before the fall. No long eras of time "needed". Absolutely no speciation from one species into another entirely different species.

If all YEC scientists capitulated to Ken Ham's arbitrary rules against what he determines as "using secular science", we would not be able to do science at all since he is committing a categorical error and confusing methodology with philosophy and worldview.

If Dr. Lightner worked for AiG, then she would never have investigated - or would have had to resign and work somewhere else.

Please consider all this before saying that anyone is "trying to get a seat at the table" of the scientific world or placing science above the Word of God.

If you deem these methods within careful Creation Science to be dangerous and to be marked and avoided, can anyone please address fully the nature of why methods are to be considered secular and case studies where YECs have employed comparative anatomy to their gradual descent into secularism? If no one has yet, can anyone demonstrate how the use of these methods could?

Thank you and God bless you.

 

[Ulster Fry]

While I don't believe OEC in and of itself amounts to heresy, I believe it can be a useful barometer for detecting other issues. In other words, while I believe someone can hold to OEC and be a fine Christian, in some individuals OEC can and sometimes does stem from deeper theological and/or hermeneutical issues which themselves are significant problems—e.g., the desire to placate the scientistic zeitgeist in order to gain "a seat at the table" with the world or (see below) the placing of science above the Word of God. The same goes with "Young Earth Evolutionism."

I think pretty much all of this is completely wrong, but like I said I don't want to go into it without it becoming YEC vs OEC.

More relevant to the discussion, could you clarify what you mean by 'young earth evolutionism' please? Do you agree with Ham and AiG in this case? Have you watched the video and heard from those accused of being 'YEE'?

 

[Ulster Fry]

@Ulster Fry, while I was not aware of the internal YEC debate currently taking place, I watched the video and am very grateful to hear Dr. Ross approach the issue with charity and conviction. He is a pleasant and gracious man who I believe is trying to faithfully interpret empirical data without violating the doctrine of creation. I share the same disclaimer as yourself, that I am not committed to a young earth view; however, I must affirm, as you do, the biblical creation model over and against the metaphysical naturalistic materialism of secular Darwinists. With that in mind, there are real challenges in interpreting the data from natural revelation in a biblically consistent model, not because there are no answers, but because we may not yet know enough to be able to thoroughly explain it. I think it is possible for well-intended Christians to quickly put aside models developed by non-Christian scientists without carefully separating the underlying metaphysical assumptions from the raw data. Naturalistic evolutionary models are opposed to biblical creation, yet there is some value in recognizing that the empirical phenomena of natural selection, genetic drift and shift, gain-of-function mutations, and some degree of change within species are not inherently at odds with creation provided we view them in light of the biblical narrative. That naturalists require those things to make their model work does not mean that there is no truth to them at all.

I used to read the content from Answers in Genesis quite often when I was younger but began to find that their scientific explanations were put aside to either lambast "evolutionists" or accuse Christians who wanted to think through the problems as undermining scriptural authority. They also seemed to make the age of the universe a matter of orthodoxy which was hard to get past when you were reading more for a biblically and scientifically consistent explanation of the data against the Darwinian interpretation. I pray that more Christians like Dr. Ross continue to make thoughtful contributions to our understanding of natural revelation because I think it, much as special revelation, is truth which God has revealed of himself to us for his glory and our enjoyment of him.

Yes, I think you are right here. And as you say, I was really encouraged by Dr Marcus Ross. I believe people like him will give a better platform for YEC than the likes of Ken Ham, and that can only be a good thing. We have much to learn from serious YECs, from those of us who aren't.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I listened to the video from 55 minutes in; that is where it started when I pressed play, so I presume the earlier sections are less relevant. I really do not know why anyone would have that big an issue with saying that certain scientific evidence would appear to superficially support evolution, but that other evidence does not support it. Calling such an approach "Young Earth Evolutionism" is just intellectually dishonest.

I think it highlights a problem with single-issue ministries where people tie their identity almost entirely to playing a harp of one string. Anyone who suggests that they may even be slightly wrong in how they present their pet theory is thought of as an enemy even when they are a friend. Even though I reject the well-meant offer of the gospel (hereafter, WMO), certain anti-WMO people thought I was their enemy because I kept pointing out that they were making bad arguments and overstating their case. In reality, I was actually trying to strengthen their argument against the WMO.

The analogy with textual criticism is likewise all too apparent. Certain people have become idealogues for an unfalsifiable theory and cannot be reasoned out of it with evidence because their minds are made up and it would be inconvenient to confuse them with the facts. So much so, that they fear people learning the truth in case it undermines their belief in the cherished theory. Hence, the need to hide evidence out of a spirit of fear.

 

[Taylor]

More relevant to the discussion, could you clarify what you mean by 'young earth evolutionism' please?

Calling such an approach "Young Earth Evolutionism" is just intellectually dishonest.

I used the term simply because that’s what (I thought) was used in this thread. I actually don’t know precisely what it means, or if it even has only one definition. I just know I don’t believe it, since I disavow evolution altogether. (What is called “microevolution” is, in my opinion, not helpfully named and thus only muddies the waters.)

 

[dhh712]

Personally, as a YEC, 6 day literal guy, I think it's unwarranted to point fingers to other YEC guys and yell "evolutionist" over dinosaur feathers.

I could care less whether dinosaurs have feathers...?

We have mammals with wings (bats), ocean dwelling animals that give live birth (whales) as opposed to laying eggs like fish. Variation and similarity among different species doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything.

Great--thank you! Just my thought (well, I was thinking, "So what if some dinosaurs had feathers? That doesn't mean they were like "changing" into birds or something sci-fi like that).

Whether you're Old earth or Young earth, I feel most Christians can agree that macro-evolution (or is it micro? I always get it confused a lot--species changing into another species. And especially the most fantastical of all and completely void of any scientific support: inorganic material changing into organic material. Absolutely positively 100% supported by scientific evidence impossible in any realm of this physical world--unless of course God changes it, but His natural laws of the physical world prevent them from doing that on their own. They cannot. He set it up that way. My background in organic and inorganic chemistry taught me that. Should be organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry 101 for most scientists... except for those desperate to deny God of course).

But anyway--got off track there--most Christians should understand that evolution in the way it is normally understood (as in the cause for all the different kinds of species) is grasping at straws to deny the truth of God's word. Like, I understand why Darwin and people in the 19th century may have thought that was what was going on--but come on, we've come so far in our understanding of science and DNA and chemistry that that idea should have been thrown out like some other things which were previously marginally understood that our more advanced research and technology which our Lord God has blessed us with has given us the ability to properly understand the majesty and intricacy of His engineering and design of the physical world.

Micro-evolution (or whichever it is, like I said I may have it switched around) however can easily be demonstrated in laboratory experiments and can account for why some dinosaurs have feathers, just because their surroundings may have steered the possible changes which God engineered into their DNA and what-not to evolve into having this feature so that it is more conducive to their survival. Definitely nothing any YEC should be calling out another YEC for and saying, "Hey, you can't talk about evolution in any form or you're leading people astray!" If that's what the video is showing (don't have time for it right now, hope to come back to it) then I don't agree with that at all.

I was going to go onto my view of the whole YEC or OEC but I understand that's not allowed; I think it would be a good discussion though and hope it can be talked about in a civil manner on here. I find it interesting to talk about.

 

[Ulster Fry]

I listened to the video from 55 minutes in; that is where it started when I pressed play, so I presume the earlier sections are less relevant. I really do not know why anyone would have that big an issue with saying that certain scientific evidence would appear to superficially support evolution, but that other evidence does not support it. Calling such an approach "Young Earth Evolutionism" is just intellectually dishonest.

I think it highlights a problem with single-issue ministries where people tie their identity almost entirely to playing a harp of one string. Anyone who suggests that they may even be slightly wrong in how they present their pet theory is thought of as an enemy even when they are a friend. Even though I reject the well-meant offer of the gospel (hereafter, WMO), certain anti-WMO people thought I was their enemy because I kept pointing out that they were making bad arguments and overstating their case. In reality, I was actually trying to strengthen their argument against the WMO.

The analogy with textual criticism is likewise all too apparent. Certain people have become idealogues for an unfalsifiable theory and cannot be reasoned out of it with evidence because their minds are made up and it would be inconvenient to confuse them with the facts. So much so, that they fear people learning the truth in case it undermines their belief in the cherished theory. Hence, the need to hide evidence out of a spirit of fear.

Whoops, I didn’t mean to link it to a particular time. Whole video is relevant but understand why some may not have time to watch it all.