Recently I received a comment which you can check out HERE if you feel so inclined. I wanted to alert those few people who are gracious enough to visit my blog about this comment and about the rebuttal. The comment was friendly enough, which I appreciated very much. But clearly the commenter called “The Word of Me” [I have just noticed the irony in their name!] has problems with the creationist’s modus oporandi.
As many of you know, I am limited in time because of life which has changed in a major way for me in the last year. So, I thought I would go straight to the people who defend the creationist model professionally with the claims made by “The Word of Me”. It was Lita Cosner Information Officer of Creation Ministries International who replied in only TWO days. Thankyou Lita 😀
It is clear that “The Word of Me” and I disagree in one key area; that being ‘Historical Science’. ‘Historical Science’ is not observable and is therefore subjective science. ‘Historical Science’ is very different from ‘Operational Science’ which is observable. Again, the obvious area of disagreement is between ‘Historical Science’ only. When it comes to ‘Historical Science’ it is the interpretation and inferences about the past that has laid down a preconceived presupposition. Basically ‘Historical Science’ cannot be proved and it rests heavily on theory only. We, as imperfect humans, much try and figure out which lens to look through; the ‘Word of God’ or the ‘word of me’! Sorry couldn’t resist the pun of words 🙂
So, without further ado. The Word of Me” starts out by saying this. [ Please note that everything is italics is from “word of me” and the rebuttal is as is from Lita Cosner]:
The Word of Me writes: Yeah, I think the majority of scientists or science oriented lay-people do think YEC’s are kind of crazy lot. There is so much implied in your stance that flies in the face of known facts…yes, I know you reject the facts and have your own group of scientists who mostly also have a Doctor of Divinity degree. And I purely know that nothing I say will convince you otherwise. Of course you already know that the science that I back is testable and provable by 99% of the scientists in the relevant fields…whereas your scientists (1%) cannot provide evidence that is testable or checkable or peer-reviewed…and that is fine by me, the world needs diversity. 🙂 But I feel the need to address a couple of the things you are writing here…in a friendly way.
The Word of Me writes: Living Journey said: “There are fossils and there are layers and the list goes on and on and on. How we choose to interpret why and how those fossils and layers got there in the first place is speculation on BOTH sides!”
You probably know that the science of stratigraphy was actually started in England in the 1700’s and has been proved over and over again ALL over the world…there really is no speculation about its viability or truth. It truly is proven, but I know you reject it.
Reply: But how the fossil evidence is interpreted is quite another matter. It seems to me that billions of fossils preserved in rock laid down by water all over the world fits much better with our belief in the Bible’s record of a global watery cataclysm than the gradual burial of organisms over millions of years. Also, there are ephemeral markings between layers that could not have been exposed to the elements for millions of years, e.g. animal tracks. This shows a lack of time between the layers. So do ‘flat gaps’ or ‘paraconformities’. To explain, think of the jagged surface of most landscapes, due to erosion. Streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys. But often the layers below them are completely smooth. Yet they are often claimed to have been deposited millions of years apart. But if the top of each layer had been exposed for millions of years, it should be as jagged as the surface.
The Word of Me writes: I know** at least 40 scientists that would strongly challenge that DNA and any kind of genetics leads to an ID view or in any way proves any of the tenets of ID. ID is just a concept that has no scientific work behind it…no one is experimenting or making and testing hypothesis and trying to prove any of the assertions some ID people have put forward.
Reply: It would be great if there was some substance to reply to, rather than just an ambiguous argument from authority and a couple of assertions. The founders of every major area of science were creationists, and belief in God allowed science to flourish where it was stillborn in other cultures (see http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science).
Michael Behe of course wrote his book about the ‘irreducible complexity’ of life parts and forms and the need for an Intelligent Designer to make them and was shortly thereafter proven verrrryyy wrong. There are other examples out there on the web and I won’t bore you with repeating them.
Perhaps you could have given some of the ways in which ID was proven “verrrryyy” wrong. Argument from the Internet is not valid.
The Word of Me writes: I keep seeing and hearing from the creationists and YEC’s and fundamentalists that evolution is dead or somehow being proven wrong on a daily basis, but the relevant scientists seem to know nothing about this assertion, and go about their work still believing it and using it to predict and hypothesize and prove its relevance to our world…but, I know you reject it.
Reply: It would be nice, once again, if you gave examples. Creationists have used our theory to make scientific predictions as well. See http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young and http://creation.com/rate-group-reveals-exciting-breakthroughs. So if the mark of a legitimate scientific theory is being able to make accurate predictions based on it, creationism qualifies.
The Word of Me writes: Another thing I know you reject is the current 40+ methods of dating artifacts and materials and rocks even though they support each other when cross checked and even though there are some YEC’s and fundamentalists that actually work in the field and are confident that the methods work…but, I know you reject it.
Reply: There are problems with the assumptions involved in the various dating methods. See http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf and http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-failure. Rather, over 100 dating methods indicate a much younger age than goo-to-you evolution requires http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
The Word of Me writes: You write about Richard Dawkins and his talking about “Panspermia” and seemingly ridicule the idea and Dawkins admitting the possibility. He is not necessarily promoting ID here, at least not in the way you think about it. Another vision of Panspermia is that life, in its simplest form, was propagated by meteors or comets (and we know the earth was bombarded by billions of them over time) and then evolved from that point over billions of years. There is nothing at all illogical about this concept and many scientists do accept this as a possibility. The thought of an advanced race doing the seeding I guess could be a possibility, but I would think the meteor/comet theory is more viable (travel time vs. lifetimes).
Reply: Bacteria on a comet couldn’t survive entry into earth’s atmosphere. See http://creation.com/panspermia-theory-burned-to-a-crisp-bacteria-couldn-t-survive-on-meteorite.
The Word of Me writes: The trouble with the religionist ID is that it depends on a god who performs magic, and science does not deal with magic…at all.
Reply: No, creationism involves a God who usually upholds His creation with what we describe as natural laws. But such a God is capable of adding to these laws. To discount the effects of His actions is a serious deficiency, because natural processes would not be able to explain His actions. The Biblical view, unlike the evolutionary one, explains the idea of natural laws in the first place, due to a non-capricious God of Order, who is nevertheless not restricted to His normal means. See http://creation.com/miracles-and-science
The Word of Me writes: Those same scientists reject religion and the Bible solely on the basis of the impossibility of magic.
Reply: At least my miracle stories involve a supernatural Person who is able to perform those acts. You’re the one who believes everything exploded out of nothing, assembled itself into a universe containing a solar system with a planet conducive for life, and that molecules on that planet assembled themselves into the first cell (whether that first cell originated on earth or another planet), with incredibly complex machinery and a vast amount of information encoded in DNA. Then you believe that this cell multiplied and its descendants eventually gave rise to all the vast forms of life we find on earth today. Special creation of the various life forms seems more plausible than such a run of blind luck.
The Word of Me writes: Magic has never been demonstrated or proven to work, now or in our past, in our world, but I know you accept it.
Reply: Materialistic bigotry! There is one supernatural event that has not been explained away yet—the resurrection of Jesus Christ, without which the success of Christianity in the first century makes no sense. See http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html. Your argument is circular: you don’t trust the miracles because you distrust the reports, but the only reason to distrust the reports is that they tell of miracles. G.K. Chesterton rightly pointed out: “The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”
The Word of Me writes: Boy does Panspermia ever have ramification for religion. 🙂 All that Adam and Eve and Original Sin (which Paul invented) and humans being so special in god’s eyes stuff just goes out the window.
Reply: Phew, good for Christians, then, that panspermia has been conclusively ruled out as an origin for life on earth.
The Word of Me writes:You know there is a line in the Bible where Jesus says to ‘suffer not a witch to live’ and the early church took and killed up to 3 million poor people before they realized that witch’s are not possible because there is NO magic. And the same early church killed un-numbered poor people in the various Inquisitions, who they thought were guilty of such crimes as heresy and blasphemy and atheism and other essentially non-crimes. That’s neither here nor there in what we are discussing here, but it just bothers me, and I have to vent occasionally. 🙂
Reply: The Inquisition executed fewer people in three centuries than the State of Texas, and only had authority over professing Christians. The witch trials hardly decimated the population of Europe either, your numbers are obscenely inflated, and your comments reek of modern bigotry. And the Salem witch trials killed fewer than 20 before they were halted—by Christians. In a society where it was believed that witches could exercise influence over the spiritual realm to harm others (whether or not they actually could do so is irrelevant), it was necessary to punish people claiming to be such for the good of the community. Compare the hundreds of millions killed last century by atheopathic regimes like the Stalinist Soviets, Mao’s Chinese and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, as well as the evolution-inspired Holocaust.
The Word of Me writes: “…doomsday prophet astrophysicist Stephen Hawking wants mankind to respond to the problems of global warming by colonizing the Moon or Mars evidently forgetting that the Moon’s daytime temperature is over 200 degrees (107 C) and that neither location has liquid water or oxygen.”
We have already figured out that we can get oxygen from moon rock and how to do it, and recent explorer surveys have found frozen water on the moon’s surface. I don’t know about Mars at this time, but will research it.
Sources would be great.
Creation Ministries International