Hi, Doug and Terence.
Doug, you first:
Hey, if I can say "Jupiter" instead of "Venus," then I'm sure you can say "10,000 miles" instead of "10,000 light-years." Though, of course, the distance variances in our mistakes are quite different. ;-)
We all make tipagraficle errors and the like from time to time, and I'm sure not going to make a deal out of anything like that. I think we all know and agree that the substantive details of the relevant information and the logical conceptions are what are important, not piddly stuff like that.
You wrote, "Christians should have nothing to fear from an open and honest investigation of evidence."
I thank you for stating this. As, I hope, you and others have seen, so far, even against strong YEC opposition, the information I have presented regarding SN1987A is accurate, and quite real. And, as has been noted by others (was that you, or David Willis; I don't remember) as well as me, SN1987A is only one example out of everything else in the universe. I could just as easily have chosen the Andromeda galaxy as my focus for discussion, or some other astronomical observation. (A side note: The Andromeda galaxy was, in fact, the example I used many years ago, before I changed to the more clear-cut example of SN1987A.) But to get back to the point — if you can't handle the evidence, you have only two choices: (1) Modify your position to bring it into line with the evidence. (2) It's time to get out of the business of claiming that you respect the truth.
To Terence: I want to clear something up before I continue. Here is the exchange:
[Todd to Terence:]
|
Second, in no case have I even discussed your belief in revelation in anything I have said in posts to mars-list. I have not argued against God. I have not argued against the Bible. I have not argued against believing that the Bible is inspired by God. I have not even argued against believing that the Bible is inerrant. (Yet I have read a number of posts here in mars-list over the last few days in which the writers assume that this is what I am doing, even though their assumption has been completely wrong. This is called "prejudgment," otherwise known as prejudice.)
| |
[Terence to Todd:]
|
I find this statement puzzling since you most certainly revealed several days ago that you thought YECs were wrong AND that the Bible was not inspired.
| |
In fact, the only things I have discussed with regard to biblical revelation at all is when I wrote the following in response to Jack Wirtz in my 10/29/00 5:40 pm post:
|
The true basis — as everyone here knows — for YEC has nothing to do with science but has to do with a particular literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 and a few other verses in the Bible that touch on the subject. Since that YEC interpretation teaches a young universe, and since the real world that we directly observe shows us an ancient universe, then this leaves five options (and only five, that I can see):
|
| 1. | The Bible is inspired by God, in the "strong" sense of divine inspiration, and the YEC interpretation is wrong. |
| 2. | The Bible is inspired by God, but in the "weak" sense of inspiration, and the YEC interpretation is wrong. |
| 3. | The Bible is inspired by God, but in the "weak" sense of inspiration, and the YEC interpretation is correct. |
| 4. | The Bible is not inspired by God, and the YEC interpretation is correct. |
| 5. | The Bible is not inspired by God, and the YEC interpretation is wrong. |
| |
Position 1 is, in fact, the position of many "evangelical Christians" (i.e., those who espouse belief in Jesus as the divine son of God, his death, and resurrection, and who advocate the doctrine of biblical inerrancy), such as Hill Roberts, Tom Couchman, John Clayton, Davis A. Young, Alan Hayward, Glenn Morton, Hugh Ross, and Howard J. Van Till. Positions 2 and 3 would be of those traditionally referred to by the term "liberal Christianity" or "liberal denominations" (note the "weak" sense of biblical inspiration). Finally, positions 4 and 5 would be those who are skeptics regarding God having inspired the Bible. (Incidentally, in many ways I happen to hold position 5.)
| |
That is the most I have said on this particular topic (until this post, as you will see below). Pointing out what the various positions are and identifying which one is mine does not constitute discussing your beliefs in revelation. I'll say it again, Terence: I have not argued against God. I have not argued against the Bible. I have not argued against believing that the Bible is inspired by God. I have not even argued against believing that the Bible is inerrant.
Your insinuation to the contrary is unfair, and I'm calling you on the carpet on this one. Do not make insinuations. State what you are going to state forthrightly. If you think I'm being dishonest or have stated something that is wrong, then just say so, show why, and keep your insinuations out of it.
Thanks.
To Doug and Terence:
Now, at this point, before proceeding in my discussion of the apparent age concept, I find that I must address another false YEC assumption that has been "hidden" in this discussion thus far, but that is now being used in this discussion. (Note to Terence: Yes, this will be the first time I will have actually discussed any particular aspect regarding your belief in revelation.)
Doug, you wrote:
|
I have evidence from a credible source that stars were created suddenly and distributed into space at great distances from earth. According to this credible source, light from some of these distance stars was nevertheless visible on earth from early in earth's existence.
| |
Obviously, the "credible source" you are referring to is the Bible. Revolving around this same point, Terence and I had the following exchange:
[Todd to Terence:]
|
You stated, "When Joe Schmoe looks at a layer of rocks, he does not see 'age,' he sees rocks." Yes, okay, so what? I couldn't care less about what Joe Schmoe sees or doesn't see. I care what people who know what they're talking about see based on their experience and expertise with handling the relevant details — namely, geologists. By the way, fossils are rocks and have become part of the matrix of rock. ...when a geologist (an experienced professional) looks at a layer of rocks, he does see age.
You also stated, "When he looks up in the heavens he sees no discernable difference between the light from the stars and the lights from an airplane passing overhead." Again, I don't care what Joe Schmoe see or fails to see. The professional experts (astronomers) do see discernable differences, and it is the discernable differences that we are discussing.
| |
[Terence to Todd:]
|
And, I in turn, may object that I couldn't care less what scientists say if God has said something different. So what's your point?
| |
Besides the fact that it was Terence (and not me) who referred to "Joe Schmoe," both of you are basing your arguments on a false hidden assumption. I will illustrate this with a quote from Martin Luther, in which he expresses the same sentiments as you do:
|
Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.
(Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw
Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.)
| |
And yet "presumptuously interpret them in conformity with [your] understanding" is precisely what you have done. You have mistaken your YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 as being exactly the same thing as your "credible source." Terence even refers to his YEC interpretation as being the exact same thing as what God says. It is not the same thing. This is a completely false assumption. Luther's statement above was based on this same false assumption.
What I believe you are failing to recognize is that human fallibility is involved in biblical interpretation just as much as in science. You and Terence talk about your "evidence" from the biblical text, yet you don't seem to recognize that you are completely ignoring the objective evidence from the real world itself in favor of hanging on to your personal interpretations of the biblical text. I have to say that not once have I read of the apparent age concept, or "light created in transit from the stars," anywhere in the Bible, so I know that this is stuff that you guys have added to the Bible based on your YEC interpretation. Of course, I've never yet got around to reading the book of Hezekia, so perhaps it's all to be found in there and I just don't know it yet. ;-)
After John Byl, a young earth creationist, made some comments very similar to yours in criticism of an article by Davis A. Young (who advocates biblical inerrancy and who is a professional geologist; Davis' father is Edward J. Young, the well-known conservative Old Testament scholar) several years ago, Young responded to him very explicitly and eloquently on this specific point. I shall end my post by simply quoting Young's response. I can't say it better than he did.
Here, by the way, are online references to the articles for your further perusal, should you be interested:
Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part 1)
Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part 1)
Scripture and Geologists
Scripture and Geologists: A Reply to John Byl
Regards,
Todd S. Greene
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
From: Scripture and Geologists: A Reply to John Byl
|
Is Interpretation of the Bible Unproblematic?
Because Byl was troubled that established geological theories conflict with literalistic or concordistic interpretations of parts of Genesis 1-11, he questioned the validity of the allegedly "secular" geological theories. He asked, "Is it not more plausible that any deficiency lies in our fallible scientific theories rather than in God's written Word?" (p. 147). He asserted that "rather than modifying the contents of Scripture, a better approach would be to base our science on biblically valid presuppositions" (p. 150). And he said that "since Genesis deals with the distant past, it can conflict not with our present geological data but only with certain theoretical extrapolations of that data" (p. 145).
The quotations imply that interpretation of the Bible is unproblematic. The content of the Bible was repeatedly confused with his interpretation of it. Byl seemed to assume that "Scripture" is identical to "the traditional understanding of Scripture." In response to the three quotations we may assert that, of course, there is no deficiency in God's written Word. Maybe, however, the deficiency lies in our fallible theological theories rather than in God's creation. My original article suggested that not God's written Word but our exegesis of parts of that Word may be deficient.9 I no more advocated any modification of the contents of Scripture than Byl advocated a change in the contents of the created world. I advocated the possibility of a modification of interpretation of those contents. And Genesis can't conflict with the realities of creation, but our fallible exegesis can conflict with our fallible scientific interpretation.
Byl's critique implied that natural science, especially geology, is the only discipline that needs to distinguish between observation and theory. He ignored the fact that our understanding of the biblical text is also filtered through theoretical frameworks. All one needs to do is to look at the profession of biblical studies to realize how value-laden and subjective is that discipline! Exegesis and theology are as strongly affected by the approach one takes as is science. There is more consensus among geologists about the proper interpretation of rocks than there is about the proper interpretation of the Bible among theologians and biblical scholars, even among those guided by the Holy Spirit.
Christians do well to remember that church history is rich in examples of scientific discovery and theory assisting the church to arrive at an improved interpretation of the text. Ps 93:1 says: "The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." But we do not question the rotation of the earth, its revolution about the sun, or its movement through the galaxy. Although the heliocentric theory of solar-system mechanics flagrantly violates the literal interpretation of the text, it is compatible with the Bible. Ps 93:1 does not affirm heliocentricity, but the verse's pronouncement about the immobility of the earth is not a comment on the physical motion of the planet, so there is no inconsistency. Heliocentric theory "agrees" with Scripture by not being inconsistent with it. Heliocentricity and Ps 93:1 are complementary.
We could insist that any valid theory from the realm of physics, chemistry, or geology must also be consistent with biblical knowledge. A scientific theory, for example, the kinetic theory of gases, may not necessarily be in clear harmony with Scripture for the simple reason that Scripture may say nothing directly relevant about that theory. Nevertheless a valid theory must not be inconsistent with the biblical data properly interpreted.
Given the rapid developments today in biblical studies we need caution in making pronouncements about what is certain in Genesis 1- 11. We cannot always assume ahead of time that we already have the correct biblical interpretation when a new scientific theory comes along. Frequently it has required establishment and acceptance of a valid scientific theory to point out that what was thought to be valid biblical knowledge needed to be rethought and that a new interpretation of the Bible had to be developed. Such may be the case in the matter of geology and the early chapters of Genesis.
| |
•••• Terence Sheridan, 11/3/00 10:16 PM ••••
Todd wrote:
|
Just to be clear, I copy David Mathews' question here to keep it at the forefront:
|
I want to know if there are any objective standards by which one may ascertain that an object or entity possesses apparent rather than actual age. If there are any objective standards, please specify them and provide some example of their use in the real world.
| |
From your "Origins of Universe" post (and, please note, I have not discussed the origin of the universe at all in any of my posts; there appears to be some confusion about this), it appears to me that your answer is something like the following (I'm drawing out the implications; this is not a quote):
|
There are no objective standards by which one may ascertain that an object or entity posses apparent rather than actual age. In other words, if the "age" is only apparent rather than actual, it is completely impossible to tell the difference.
| |
Please tell me if this is an incorrect interpretation of your response to the question. Oh, by the way, this consideration is highly relevant to the discussion.
| |
Actually, Todd, to some extent this is a correct summary of my beliefs. It is true to the extent that people fail to deal with their presuppositions. It happens all the time in other aspects of life. Two people, for instance, look at the Bible and come away with different interpretations. If the presuppositions of both parties are not dealt with, then their enterprise is doomed to subjectivity. You MUST deal with the presuppositions.
|
Along with this, I must response to two statements you made.
You stated, "When Joe Schmoe looks at a layer of rocks, he does not see 'age,' he sees rocks." Yes, okay, so what? I couldn't care less about what Joe Schmoe sees or doesn't see. I care what people who know what they're talking about see based on their experience and expertise with handling the relevant details - namely, geologists. By the way, fossils are rocks and have become part of the matrix of rock. Now this could be a launch point into geological considerations, but I'm going to stay with the point, being that when a geologist (an experienced professional) looks at a layer of rocks, he does see age.
You also stated, "When he looks up in the heavens he sees no discernable difference between the light from the stars and the lights from an airplane passing overhead." Again, I don't care what Joe Schmoe see or fails to see. The professional experts (astronomers) do see discernable differences, and it is the discernable differences that we are discussing.
| |
And, I in turn, may object that I couldn't care less what scientists say if God has said something different. So what's your point?
|
You are trying to make the disagreement into simply "a different interpretation of the evidence." I am here to clarify that it is not merely a different interpretation of the evidence. It is a dismissal of the evidence, and that is precisely why young earth creationism is not scientific, and, moreover, completely subjective due to its abandonment of objective determinations.
| |
Your opinion is noted, but you have only made an assertion you need to prove.
|
I do see from your last paragraph that you appear to accept that the apparent age argument is a nonscientific position. Indeed, the argument implies "I accept that the relevant data implies antiquity, but the data is not real." I appreciate your acknowledgement of this implication.
| |
Your opinion is noted, but you have only made an assertion you need to prove.
|
You stated, "You must deal effectively with my belief in revelation and an open universe (where God operates) if you are to prove anything." (Hmmm. Who's begging the question?) I'm the one who's saying, "Look, here is the data. The data shows us that the universe has been around for much, much longer than just 10,000 years or less (your 'hypothesis')." Indeed, it is YECs who work hard trying to dispute the data itself. (Please don't tell me you haven't noticed. ;-) )
| |
And I say "Look, your opinion is noted, but you have only made an assertion you need to prove." ;)
|
First, I have to admit to you that I will never agree with the idea that the data is meaningless.
| |
My graduate studies were in information science, Todd. There is most certainly a difference between data and information. Data requires interpretation before it can be classified as information. Data per se IS meaningless without an interpretive framework.
|
Second, in no case have I even discussed your belief in revelation in anything I have said in posts to mars-list. I have not argued against God. I have not argued against the Bible. I have not argued against believing that the Bible is inspired by God. I have not even argued against believing that the Bible is inerrant. (Yet I have read a number of posts here in mars-list over the last few days in which the writers assume that this is what I am doing, even though their assumption has been completely wrong. This is called "prejudgment," otherwise known as prejudice.)
| |
I find this statement puzzling since you most certainly revealed several days ago that you thought YECs were wrong AND that the Bible was not inspired.
Todd writes:
|
Indeed, I have gone out of my way to specifically refer you to a number of people who agree with your position in all of these areas who yet accept that the universe (and earth) are ancient, because they have learned that this is the truth about the real world.
| |
As far OECs are concerned, I would have more respect for them if they would start with the Bible FIRST and then go to science. Indeed, some do but not all of them. The ones that don't, in my opinion, suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Now, Todd, you alleged a great many things in this post, but only the things that you alleged from the beginning, namely that SN1987A proves an old universe; that your interpretation of the "data" is "objective," etc. I'm afraid you have not dealt with my objections; you have only restated in different words that very things to which I was objecting. To wit, here is how I think you are proceeding in this dicussion ...
|
| 1. | Astronomers KNOW through objective means that light has traveled at a constant rate for eons from SN1987A, because... |
| 2. | It was a natural phenonemon that conformed to our understanding of how the universe works, because... |
| 3. | Miracles couldn't have made a young universe with the resultant light data that we see, because... |
| 4. | Because that means it would appear to have age, and hence would imaginary, as opposed to real, because... |
| 5. | What astronomers have concluded is real data, because... |
| 6. | Go back to #1 |
| |
Again, I find your reasoning to be circular.
Terence Sheridan
|