geocreationism.com

I previously discussed an example of how Young Earth Creationists often discard scientific evidence, due to their preconceived notions regarding a young earth.  However, their rejection of scientific discovery is not a rejection of the scientific method per se.  Or at least they do not mean it to be.  After all, Christians who argue theology are quite familiar with the idea of making arguments, supporting them with evidence, and revisiting their arguments when new evidence arises.  In fact, they do this all the time when it comes to eschatology (end time prophecy).  Yet, they seem to have blinders on when it comes to the scientific pursuit of understanding the earth’s past. 

I would respect a YEC Christian who argues for his views in the following manner: “I understand why atheists believe in Evolution.  When God is removed from the picture, the remaining evidence points you unavoidably to it.  What they miss however is how Evolution conflicts with God’s nature, and hence separates them from God.”  Or something like that.  When framed this way, it is quite a respectable argument in my opinion, and should cause Christians such as myself to pause.  After all, why would God create the world in a way that would separate us from him?  Well, I agree He wouldn’t, some YECs do argue exactly that point.  However, it is surprising how many do not start there.  Instead, they argue that the science is false on its face, and they do so without a true understanding of what they are arguing against.  In my opinion, they should argue from what they know, which is the nature of God and His desire to love us and know us personally.  However, arguing against scientists without an understanding of the science itself does the YEC cause no favors, and tends to create a rather unflatteringly foolish picture of an otherwise faithful Christian who fears God.

Because I do not state it often enough in my writings, let me stress that I am not trying to convince faithful YEC Christians that they are wrong.  Their relationship with Jesus is far more important, and their realization that God can in fact create a universe in 6 days (whether He did so or not) is confirmation of that faith.  I believe He could do it, too.  I simply think He did not.  So no, I am not writing to faithful YECs.  However, there are Christians out there who secretly suspect that the earth is old, and that secular scientists are correct about the earth, and are therefore fearful that if the science is correct then God might not exist, and/or the Bible might not be true (or at least not literal).  Nothing could be further from the truth! 

My passion is that the scriptures are literally correct (where written in a literal style), and that a YEC interpretation historically dismisses details of the Genesis account that we all just take it for granted now.  We (the Church) then accept that the only possibility is that earth is young, or the scripture is not literal.  Well, the scripture is literal, and the earth is old.  I firmly believe that.  However, as part of my effort to help those Christians who are on the fence with their beliefs, I believe I must therefore address those arguments they may be hearing from sincere YECs who do not understand the science they argue against. It is in that vein that I show how their arguments falter.

Following as an analysis of an article by Kenneth Ryland entitled, “What are the seven most RIDICULOUS claims of evolution?“  I believe the article is representative of the most common misunderstandings of science by the Young Earth Creationists (YECs) whom I encounter.  The headings are Ryland’s, in case you want to open the article and read along.  I quote the key paragraphs however for your convenience:

1. Acquired characteristics can become inherited characteristics.

One of the things that has always fascinated me about the theory of evolution is the insistence of its proponents that animal and plant species “learned” to adapt in order to survive. Of course, this assumes that a particular species was dying off due to lack of adaptation and continued to die off over a period of thousands, or perhaps millions, of years until the animal finally mutated a gene that changed its behavior allowing it to survive. But wait a minute! If it took the animal thousands or millions of years to develop the “survival gene,” then it was obviously able to survive during that time without the genetic mutation that evolution says it needed for survival. So, in reality, it did not need to evolve because it was already surviving for that length of time without the need for genetic change. The logic of evolutionists on this point is truly baffling. Most would fail a college course in basic classical logic.

This Christian has misunderstood a major cornerstone of Evolution.  Whether you believe in Evolution or not, Evolution does not assume that an animal or plant was dying off before developing a key survival gene. It assumes that genetic changes simply occur over the course of time that make the plant or animal either more or less capable or surviving than it already is.  Changes that make it more capable of surviving will become more common over time.  Sometimes, these changes correspond with gradual climatic shifts, and those shifts will determine which changes are beneficial and to what degree.  Christians already agree this happens on a micro-evolutionary scale.  Ryland even acknowledges that toward the end of his article.  Where Evolutionists part with  a YEC Christian is on whether an accumulation of changes can, over time, render a hypothetical descendant incapable of reproducing with its ancestor (temporal barriers notwithstanding).  I will agree with the author Ryland on one point: He is certainly baffled the Evolutionists’ logic.  He then goes on:

“Add to the above the assumption that plants and animals somehow “learn” through the process of evolution. In the evolutionary explanation there is an almost mystical implication that there is a conscious process going on that has allowed species to become other species or to evolve new processes or appendages for the sake of survival. The assumptions involved in this kind of thinking are staggering.”

Well, I have never actually heard a Darwinian Evolutionist claim there was a mystical consciousness behind Evolution, but it is what a Theistic Evolutionist would think.  And what would that conscious process be for the Theistic Evolutionist?  God.  Ryland obviously believes in God, and must believe God is capable of overseeing such a process (whether God actually did it or not).  Why then would God then be such a staggering assumption?  For an atheist Evolutionist on the other hand, the process is what I described above, a bunch of micro-evolutionary changes that eventually add up to single macro-evolutionary change when viewed over time.  This misunderstanding of the two Evolutionary camps makes Ryland seem like he has an awful lot at stake in his YEC beliefs, if he cannot cannot comprehend the non-conscious theory an atheist would believe, and the God-centered theory a Theistic Evolutionist might believe, not to mention the shades of grey that exist in between.

2. Matter came into existence from nothing.

Taken at face value, this is exactly what the book of Genesis says that God did. In our case however, we have evolutionists making the same statement with no causal agent. I have done quite a bit of research on this point, and it is evident that most evolutionists agree that matter is not eternal, that it came into existence at some point in the past. On the other hand, if matter were eternal, then it would be completely inert and disorganized because all energy tends to render itself less usable over time as it changes form; that is, it follows the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing in the universe would be radioactive because all radioactive matter would have exhausted its half lives in aeons past. Of course, the whole idea of radioactivity and half lives is not even workable in a universe in which matter is eternal. Half lives assume a beginning, and if matter is eternal, radioactivity can have no beginning. Again, it’s a matter that most evolutionists do not understand the logic of their own premises or are not willing to take those premises all the way out to their logical conclusions.

Ryland’s logic here is quite interesting.  He acknowledges the Evolutionist belief that matter is not eternal.  He then flawlessly explains the ramifications of matter being eternal, which is that concepts like radioactivity would have no meaning.  And he’s absolutely right about those ramifications, which is why an Evolutionist believes matter is not eternal.  But, to Ryland, the conclusion is that Evolutionists don’t understand their own logic! Apparently Ryland doesn’t his own logic!

Ryland goes to explain the Big Bang Theory.  Pretty good explanation. He then says:

If I were in a classroom, I would have to ask a few questions at this point. Where did the subatomic particles come from? What physical laws in a nonexistent universe caused the Big Bang to occur? Why 12.7 billion years ago? Why not 107.7 billion years ago? What was the causal agent of the Big Bang? Where did the physical laws originate that govern the cooling and coagulating of the matter into stars and planets that was hurled outward by the Big Bang.

These are all excellent question.  In order, I believe the answers are: the big bang, none (because there are no physical laws in a non-existent universe), because of the rate at which the stars appear to be speeding away from us, nothing (because such a cause implies something existing outside the universe), the big bang.  Then, a theist (such as myself) would add the following to each answer, in order: God, God-authored physical laws, God’s timing, God, and God. 

Notice that Ryland posed the questions as his argument, rather than impartially representing the answers, and arguing against them.

He goes on:

One of the problems with the Big Bang theory is the concept of time. Time is important to us on earth, but in the rest of the universe there is only mass, motion, and energy. So, when we say 12.7 billion years, can we say for certainty that time has always been a constant factor in determining the age of the universe? 

Ryland says he’s read up on this stuff, but he betrays himself.  Time is just another dimension of the universe, and it’s just as physical as space.  Einstein’s Theory of Relativity wouldn’t be true without time as a factor.  In other words, if Ryland is going to allow for mass, motion, and energy to be the same throughout the universe, then time must be as well.  And because time is part of the universe, then time is the same going back to the beginning of time.

Probably the biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is that it starts with a preexisting “something” instead of “nothing.” No matter how far back you push the beginning of the universe, you still have to answer the question of how the first matter and energy came into being.

On this point, Ryland is only partially correct.  It turns out that the Big Bang theory assumes a preexisting nothing.  Then, suddenly, all matter appeared.  To overly simplify things, the theory is that all positive sub-atomic particles have a negative sub-atomic particle counterpart.  Should they collide, they will both cease to exist. Should they never collide, then the positive particles are free to interact and combing with other positive particles, and negative with negative.  In fact, both have mass, and scientists have theorized that it is the negative particles that make up the majority of the universe’s unaccounted mass that appears to be affecting the mass they have accounted for.  So, the theory goes, if the positive and negative mass can combine to create nothing, then we shouldn’t be surprised if “nothing” can produce the positive and negative mass that makes up the universe.  There are entire books written on this, and I have read enough to believe it.  The one thing the books cannot explain however is why it happened.  To Ryland, the obvious answer to a Godless theory without a cause is to discard the theory.  To me, the obvious answer is to add God as the cause and then consider whether it conflicts with God’s nature.  In my opinion, it does not conflict.

3. Evolution is statistically possible.

Ryland lists quotes from many reputable scientists, making the case that Evolution cannot happen, from a statistical perspective.  Here is the first such quote:

“The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place” (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability).

As a counter argument, let me submit that there are over 400 Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.  If every prophecy had even a 1 in 10 chance of being fulfilled, that would be a 10 followed by 400 zeros.  Add to that the requirement that their fulfillment be through the same person, and within a short period of time, and I submit that the number of zeros several orders of magnitude larger.  According Ryland’s reasoning therefore, Jesus didn’t fulfill any prophecies.  Yet clearly Ryland believes Jesus fulfilled them all, even though the odds of it happening intervention are staggeringly small.  Same goes for Evolution.  Of course, Ryland should respond that when Jesus fulfilled scripture, God planned that result from the beginning.  The correct conclusion therefore is not that Jesus could not have fulfilled all those prophecies, but that God must have been involved.  Well, same goes for Evolution, which is why I believe God was involved.  Ryland then says:

I have about two more pages of quotes from famous scientists, some Nobel laureates, putting into doubt the notion that evolution is at all possible. However, even from the sample of quotes given above, the reader should be able to see that even evolutionists often embrace their theory as a matter of faith (like a religion), and not because there is any evidence to support it.

I suppose this means that the fossil record is not evidence, and that aging techniques are not evidence, and that God’s ability to do what scientists believe happened is not evidence.  Of course, atheist Evolutionists do not believe God is the responsible agent, but that is not Ryland’s point.  His point is that Evolutionists of any ilk shouldn’t believe Evolution happened at all, even if they attribute it to God.  And why? Because it’s impossible?  Well, without God, it would be impossible.

4. Evolution produces improvements in species and a more highly organized universe.

Theistic Evolutionists believes that God produces the improvements, or puts in place the mechanisms by which they occur.  However, Ryland isn’t arguing against that.  He states:

However, the second law of thermodynamics (called “entropy”—the universal law of decay) states that matter tends toward chaos and that energy becomes less usable over time. This universally known and recognized law directly contradicts the brazen postulation of the theory of evolution that matter has become more organized over time and that the evolution of living organisms has somehow produced greater order and provided us with more usable energy.

Again, he misunderstands the science he invokes.  The 2nd law of Thermodynamics does not prevent isolated increases in order within a closed system. It only requires that the overall amount of usable energy be decreased by the effort.  For example, building skyscraper is clearly an increase in order.  However, the energy required to make it represents a net decrease in the universe’s usable energy, creating a net decrease in order overall.  Evolution is no different.  If plant life became more ordered over time, it was at the expense of a lot of energy, representing a net decrease in the universe’s order.

5. The geological strata prove organic evolution.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. If the strata prove anything, it is that evolution has never taken place. What we observe in the strata are fully-formed animal and plant species. We do not see half-lizard-half-bird species, but we do see lizards and birds embedded in the rock layers as fully-formed lizards and birds.

Again, Ryland misunderstands the science.  If Evolution is true, then everything is a transitional species, and the supposedly missing fossil records are more a reflection of those periods of time when conditions were less conducive to fossilization.  They are also a reflection of when God directly interacted with the His own process.

I use the example of lizards and birds because evolutionary biologists contend that birds evolved from reptiles. However, nowhere in the geological strata do we find any evidence of this. Science required evidence, and there is none.

Yet again, Ryland betrays himself, and on several levels.  First of all, science deals with the evidence it has.  It doesn’t “require” more, dealing only with what evidence is there.  Second, commonalities between birds and reptiles would be explained by a common ancestor if there is one, and so constitutes valid evidence for it.  To say therefore that there is no evidence is disingenuous.  Finally, evidence isn’t proof, and that is why it is called evidence.  To fault a scientific theory because it is based only on evidence is to fault any pursuit that comes to conclusions without solid proof (Eschatology and the jury system are two examples).

When fossils are found in rock layers, it is most often the result of alluvial sedimentation. What occurs in every flood event that causes these deposits is a natural sifting of sediment. Small particles settle to the bottom and larger particles are on top. The same is true of the animal and plant species that are caught in the watery catastrophe. Because of this natural phenomenon, we cannot assume that “older and less complicated” species are found in the lower layers of rock. It is very possible that small and large animals were deposited together in the same flood, and that the smaller plants and animals sifted to the bottom of the layers. Where a fossil is found in the strata proves nothing about the age of the fossil—only that the layering of sediment is exactly the same as can be observed on any river shore or beach in the world.

While this sifting process is valid, and does occur, Ryland misses a big point about multiphasic rock formations.  For example, an underwater cave of sedimentary rock could not have been dug until the multiple layers of sediment were laid.  The stalagmites and stalactites could not have formed until the cave was dug, and the water levels dropped due to formation of the the glaciers in Antarctica or the lifting of a mountain due to plate tectonics.  The fossils found laid within the holes of the stalagmites and stalactites could not have formed until the holes had worn into them over time. Now, even if you are optimistic about the time frames required for each phase to occur, there are still more phases involved in forming many of the world’s most beautiful features than can be accounted for in a single global flood.

But that aside, there is still the fact that Ryland overly simplifies his description of the scientific process for aging layers.  While it is true that scientists tend to view lower layers as older, it is not only because those layers were laid first.  After all, scientists acknowledge the fact that sometimes fossils are sometimes exposed over time, worn down into sediment, and then relaid in new layers.  Scientists therefore takes great care in determining the true age of fossils and sediments.  To simply say that scientists determine age from a given layer betrays a gross ignorance of what scientists really do.  I refer you to my article on Zircon Crystals Revisited.

6. We can date the age of fossils by looking at the surrounding strata.

This is a long one, so let me summarize.  There is something called the geological column that scientists have figured out from studying and comparing the various layers of fossils throughout the world.  As the dates for some fossils are discovered, they are used to inform scientists on the ages of other fossils found within that layer.  As Ryland puts it, “the strata are dated by the fossils, and the fossils are dated by the strata.”  He then calls it circular reasoning, but it is not circular.  If A is computed to be a certain age, and B is in the same layer and has no other means to identify its age, then B is assumed to be same age.  Now, if that conclusion about the age of B was then used to confirm the age of A, then that would be circular.  Regardless, Ryland goes on:

In addition to the problem of circular reasoning, there is the dilemma of rapid fossilization. Specifically, what do paleontologists do with fossilized trees that protrude through layers of rock that are supposedly millions of years apart in age? It has always been assumed that fossilization required long periods of time, but that myth was shattered with the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in May of 1980. Since that catastrophe, scientists have discovered that many fossils formed within months or a few years as a direct result of the eruption. In addition to trees poking through “millions of years” of strata, other interesting modern fossils have been found, such as a cowboy boot and a modern human finger.

Okay, here’s one I haven’t researched.  If you want to read about it yourself, here is an article in Wikipedia that might give you a good start.  The Geologist explanation appears quite rational, and the creationist explanation discussed there points out holes.  However, every such debate that I have studied in detail tends to make a stronger case on the side of an old earth than a young earth.  If I get the time to revisit this topic in more detail, then I will write about the results, whatever they are.

7. Evolution is “scientific.”

Evolution is not observable, it is not measurable, and it is not repeatable—three absolutely necessary ingredients for any theory to be deemed scientific.

The process itself may not be repeatable, but discoveries are.  And understanding some parts of the puzzle can predict other parts of the puzzle.  For example, one possible explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs was a catastrophic meteor strike 65 million years ago.  Nobody knew of one when it was first proposed, but it explained all the evidence at the time.  Then, the KT impact was in fact discovered, and it appeared to date back to 65 million years ago.  That is how science works.

To be scientific, evolution must be based on theories that are falsifiable, which means that such theories can be repeated and disproved (if false) by others. The assumptions for any experiment cannot be rigged to lead only to the conclusion that the theory is true (which evolutionists have done). It has to allow the scientist the option of concluding that the theory is false.

Frankly, I find this argument to be dishonest.  Scientists correct themselves all the time.  For example, scientists used to think that oceans didn’t exist until 3.9 billion years ago.  Now, there is evidence that oceans existed 4.4 billion years ago.  In other words, theories are by definition falsifiable, and we just don’t know how until the evidence for that is discovered.  On the other hand, scientists are pretty set in their conclusions about evolution… but to be honest, I haven’t seen a better theory to fit the evidence, so why fault them if the theory is holding up? 

Okay. What if it turns out that nothing evolved? Well, the fossil record still exists, and things still date to when they do, so another theory will have to come and replace it.  Now, Ryland does suggest that the what we mistake for a long fossil record was actually created by the flood.  That is one theory.  However, he does not address the multiphasic features of the world that could not have been formed by the flood. It looks to me like Ryland is as invested in his conclusions as he accuses Evolutionists of being.

What makes evolution unscientific is that it cannot be tested. Some may object to this statement by saying that we can observe evolution by looking at the rocks and fossils in the Grand Canyon and many other places. The problem with that objection is that evolution, as it is defined, is not rocks and fossils, it is a process of the mutation of one species into another that supposedly continues to this day.

I hate this argument.  If Evolution is true, then it could never be observed happening.  It takes too long.  Therefore, if Evolution is true, Ryland has left us no possible way of realizing it… which is fine with Ryland I’m sure because he has made up his mind.  Ryland should consider this however: can we observe a world wide flood?  I realize we have micro-floods, but what about a real global cataclysmic flood?  One that tear out trees by their roots, drowns animals by millions, and wears down hills into sediment?  Of course we cannot repeat that.  By his own reasoning, the very science he uses to explain the flood should be dismissed as easily as he dismisses evolution.  After all, it isn’t falsifiable, not by his standards.  I realize of course that Ryland’s primary evidence of the global flood is Genesis.  Funny thing though… my evidence that it wasn’t a global flood is also Genesis.  His evidence of a young earth is scripture; so is some of my evidence of an old earth.  The difference however, is that his reasoning (when taken to its logical conclusion) does not leave any room for using science as a tie breaker between the two interpretations of God’s Word.  His belief is purely religious, whereas mine is religious and scientific at the same time.

- - -

I hope the doubting Christian now sees that he need not be threatened by arguments against his scientific beliefs by typical YEC arguments against science.  The arguments seem convincing on the surface, but God gave us minds with which to pursue the truth.  Much of that truth is discovered by studied God’s Word, and much is discovered by studying God’s work.  If your walk with God requires knowing the truth about Creation, then do no limit yourself.  Study God’s Word and His work together.  They are more compatible than you might think.

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 27th, 2007 at 11:54 am and is filed under Creationism, Evolution, Q & A. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.