Questioning Answers in Genesis

[Canuckster1127]

Came across this new blog and thought it was worth a mention. It's a Christian Geologist's examination of resources and articles from AIG.

http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/

Take a look and feel free to comment.

[jlay]

Bart,

The most recent geological article was from ICR, out of Dallas. I see no problem in relating modern day events to reflect on what might have happened in the past, on a greater scale. This is a fundemental philosphical difference in two world views. We have a giant chasm in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. We have mountain ranges tens of thousands of feet high. Through observation we can assume that the earth's tectonic activity was much higher in the past. We do not see ANY observable events today, (Uniformity of Kind) which can explain the account for such these dramatic geological results. That isnt' to say that there aren't events today, that can't explain other deological features. For example, we can see volcanoes form today. And we can rightly assume that this happened in the past.

I read through a few, and I see as much comments on philosophical differences as I do anything.

Young-Earth creationists commonly misunderstand the concept of uniformitarianism, and strive to present it as antithetical to their own interpretation of Earth history. In short, uniformitarianism is the two-fold, guiding principle in geology that: 1) physical laws have remained constant throughout time; and 2) past geologic events should be interpreted in light of known, modern processes when possible. Until recently, most young-Earth researchers have upheld (1), and I would argue that all geologists (“Flood geologists” included) would uphold (2) in principle. Although most young-Earth advocates claim adamant opposition to uniformitarianism (Mr. Patterson terms it an “unverifiable assumption”), they regularly employ it within their own research (e.g. sedimentary structures, sorting of fossils, erosional features, etc., all of which are interpreted through modern processes by adjusting variables like water depth/velocity). The confusion is a result, I believe, of their general disdain for Charles Lyell—whose contributions to geology resulted in a mainstream shift away from Noahic interpretations of sedimentary strata—but without discernment that Lyell’s Steady-State Earth hypotheses do not constitute uniformitarianism.

As, you can see, he begins the entire argument with prejudicial conjecture. This attempts to sound rather scientific, but it is nothing more than an attack on one's philosophy perspective.
This young man gives a very vague defininition of uniformitarianism to make the YECers look narrow minded and stupid. The fact is that YEC interpretations hold to uniformity of nature, but not to the whole of uniformitarianism. There are four principles, and YECers hold to the first. It is with the other that the disagreement occurs. And I think for good reason. Primarily that what we see happening in nature today is the BEST explanation for the past. Sounds great, but it doesn't always line up with the evidence. In fact quite frequently. I'm not saying it is entirely wrong. It isn't. For example, we can observe errosion today. Volcanic activity. Earthquakes. No question. No one disputes these things did and still do have an impact on the earth. It is the rate and amount for which there are observational reasons to find exception. Just observing the geological strata should cause one to call into question the theory. We see massive layers of successive sedimentary rock. Each distinctive from the layer above and below. Do we observe this happening today?


The geology (STUDENT) did comment on AIG regarding their homseschooling conference dispute. but it was noticible in that it was not addressing evidentiary arguments, but simply mocking AIG for believing in a 6,000 year old earth. We've already got a thread on that. It isn't surprising that an ardent OECer would gladly take a jab at AIG in regards to this dispute.

[RickD]

IMO a very well written article about Ken Ham and the homeschooling topic. I happen to agree with neither biologos, nor AIG. So, it's interesting to see the contrast of the tone used by Ham, and the tone used by the other side. I pray that Ham will see the damage he's doing to brothers and sisters in Christ, by equating his INTERPETATION with the bible itself.

[Canuckster1127]

So to sum up then, Jlay, your objections are that he's a PhD student as opposed to an actual PhD, that he's prejudicial in terms of holding to uniformitarianism and he's willing to point out when YEC proponents take one of their own to task?

I'll drop him a line and invite him to respond directly to your comments.

[jlay]

Brilliant Bart. All I wrote and thats the nit you pick out. It's a wonder we don't get along better. I pointed it out because its a fact. And often people want to overlook that AIG and other YEC groups do have phd specialists in this and other fields. The impression is given that AIG, along with other YEC groups are psuedoscience. I'm not saying Ham is right and the other wrong. But based on the positions of most here, I'd say the judgment is to condemn first, examine second. I know most of you don't agree with Mr. Ham. But the question I ask is, "is he acting consistently with what he believes and what he teaches?"

YEC proponents? I don't know all the inner workings of what is going on with this disagreement. And I certainly don't have the statistics to see whether that is actually the case. I do recognize the virtual explosion of glee from many on the OEC side, as they chide Mr. Ham for his divisive stance. That's not divisive is it?

Take a look and feel free to comment.

As Steve Martin once said. Well EXCUUSEEE Me!! Maybe you should ammend this to, "Feel free to comment, and then have Bart sick the biology student on you, if you take exception."

[Canuckster1127]

Geology .... not biology and nobody's sicking anybody on anyone. I'm simply asking the person whom your comments are directed toward if he wishes to respond he can and will. I would think you'd welcome that. If he doesn't, I'll try to address your comments more directly. If there's any tone developing in this conversation though Jlay, you're the one setting it. I simply provided a link for an MS of Geology who is a PhD student and who worked in a Geologic Lab. He's also a Christian and member of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Hardly divisive or unusual on a forum dedicated to resources.

I make no apology for my comments and drawing attention to Ken Ham's current situation. He's a public figure, who makes public statements and he's fair game. He isn't the whole of YEC. He does however represent a very vocal and very divisive element within YEC and fundamentalism and many look to him for leadership.

Ken Ham, by the way, has a BS to teach science in High School in Australia. Is that OK to point out as well?

[jlay]

Obviously you are welcome to point out whatever you wish. And I'm going to point out something when I see it as well.

I'll try to address your comments more directly. If there's any tone developing in this conversation though Jlay, you're the one setting it.

Sorry Bart but I'm not buying it. Your OP clearly said, "Take a look and feel free to comment." I've reread my 1st post and the only place there might be a 'tone,' was my last statement regarding his piece on Ham. That was not directed at you or anyone. The reason I pointed it out was well, it is a fact. And I found his stabs at AIG and Ham to be completely out of harmony with the rest of his blog, which deals with evidentiary issues.

Your reply said,

So to sum up then, Jlay, your objections are that he's a PhD student as opposed to an actual PhD, that he's prejudicial in terms of holding to uniformitarianism and he's willing to point out when YEC proponents take one of their own to task?

My objection was clearly pointed out in first of my post, which never mentioned him being a student. I also clearly presented his prejudical bias, which had NOTHING to do with the Ham article. NOTHING. Completely unrelated. So, you misstate two of my positions, and then you quip at this 'invite.' And yet I'm setting the tone? It would appear to me that you ignored the context of my post because I included (student) at the end of the post, which was dealing with a completely seperate issue than what I addressed before. So, yes, when my statements are misrepresented, and something I view as a bit of a personal jab, then I suspect we'll sense some 'tone' .

I'm not here to defend Ken Ham. Unlike some, I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of this dispute and all of what is going on here. I know that Ham and AIG are very strict in their positions. In some ways they consider YEC as orthodoxy, which is a position I most definately do not hold. I guess that is why I see their response as consistent with what they beleive and teach.

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks Jlay. I'm not being drawn into the modus operandi of the past of arguing about how you said something. It's a recurrant pattern and I've got better areas to direct my efforts toward.

I stand by my comments and I hope the blogger will accept the invitation to address your comments. I see that as a positive opportunity for you both and I hope he accepts the invitation. I'd be happy to discuss some of these things with him as well to understand some things better. I'm definitely not an expert in the area of geology.

I agree with you on your comments about Ken Ham. I think he does view YEC as orthodoxy and I appreciate and know that you don't hold that opinion and I repect that of you. What I note is that this situation doesn't involve people with whom he disagrees or who disagree with him in substance. He's being called on his attitude and behaviors by other YEC proponents. His position in the conferences was replaces by Dr. John Safarti, whom I know you're familiar with.

[jlay]

Fine then. Maybe the young man will join us.

[chemostrat1646]

Greetings, gentlemen! Thank you both for the opportunity to interact on some of these points. I only have time to comment briefly, so I will try to be succinct. [Note: I'm not sure yet how to use this system in citing previous comments, so I apologize if it's hard to follow along]

"It isn't surprising that an ardent OECer would gladly take a jab at AIG in regards to this dispute."

Let me start by reiterating (I've done so in my blog) that my intention is not to mock anyone for believing in a young Earth. I reject the notion that YECs are uneducated, narrow-minded, uncritical, etc., and starting the discussion with such pejorative (and unfounded) categorization is the downfall of secular commentators on science education (e.g. Dawkins) in reaching the public. Despite my criticism of AiG, it was AiG that first sparked my interest in the Earth sciences. I applaud their ability to communicate scientific topics to the public, and believe we (scientists in academia) should all take notes. For this reason, I felt it necessary to comment on the situation with Ham and GHCs—I sincerely believe that his rhetoric toward Dr. Enns worked against him, and that a more compassionate approach would have produced better results for all. If we believe that Dr. Enns is walking on the fringes of orthodoxy (some believe he's already fallen off), then our approach should be compassionate and ultimately committed to Christian unity (a 'kingdom approach', if you will). Call him back to orthodoxy, by all means, but recognize that God's word—not Christian tradition—is the standard. We must be humble (willing to admit that we may have missed something he rightly critiques), and take him seriously (dismissing his work by calling him "liberal" and saying he doesn't hold to a biblical view of inspiration hardly does any him justice). Responses to Enns by D.A. Carson, G.K. Beale, etc. show how this approach can be done, but fewer people, understandably, will take the time to read/apply it.

" I see no problem in relating modern day events to reflect on what might have happened in the past, on a greater scale."

Neither do I. My criticism of Brian Thomas's article was rather that he took superfaults and melting along fault planes to represent much larger earthquakes than occur today. His method by which he 'scaled up the magnitude' was founded in a misunderstanding of tectonic processes.

"We have a giant chasm in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. We have mountain ranges tens of thousands of feet high. Through observation we can assume that the earth's tectonic activity was much higher in the past."

Yes, we have observational evidence that tectonic activity varied over Earth history (regardless of the timeline). A scientific approach would be to formulate a hypothesis by which we can falsify or corroborate this assumption. In other words, we need a proxy of tectonic activity. The simplest step is to date the ocean floor over time (unless you reject the interpretations of radiometric dating, which I assume you do). But we don't stop there. Isotopes of strontium, calcium, magnesium, carbon, molybdenum, and other elements are measured in ocean sediments to construct an independent model of tectonic activity over time. These record agrees with those from radiometric dating of the seafloor, where they can be matched. We can also observe rates of uplift today in mountain ranges vs. rates of weathering to provide yet another independent model for mountain building. Carbon/oxygen isotopes in ecosystems from the Tibetan Plateau corroborate those models, because they record altitude changes during sedimentation. The point is, geology uses multiple independent approaches to the same problem. When those independent models agree, we have built a good case for the proposed solution.

"We do not see ANY observable events today, (Uniformity of Kind) which can explain the account for such these dramatic geological results."

Modern geological processes (rates of Mid-Ocean Ridge spreading and continental collision) actually explain very well the features to which you referred. I may have missed something in your comment, though, so please feel free to correct me here.

"As, you can see, he begins the entire argument with prejudicial conjecture. This attempts to sound rather scientific, but it is nothing more than an attack on one's philosophy perspective."

By "prejudicial conjecture", are you saying that YECs *do* accurately represent the principle of uniformitarianism and I have stated otherwise without proof? I made this claim because I have rarely seen an accurate representation in my reading of YEC literature. Due to the nature of my post (a personal blog) I did not deem it necessary to exhaustively document each case. I provided at least one example (in Mr. Patterson's article), and would be happy to provide more.

"This young man gives a very vague defininition of uniformitarianism to make the YECers look narrow minded and stupid. The fact is that YEC interpretations hold to uniformity of nature, but not to the whole of uniformitarianism."

I'm not sure how this would make YECs look "narrow minded and stupid"—that was certainly not my intention. My argument was that for the most part, YECs do not reject uniformitarianism any more than other geologists (the notable exception was the idea of accelerated nuclear decay). You claim that I provided a "very vague definition", but I disagree. What I provided is...pretty much it. Geologists do not simply suggest that "what we se happening in nature today is the BEST explanation for the past". We don't assume uniformity of rate or process. This concept has long been rejected by geologists. Rather, we apply Occam's razor to each situation: "Let's not posit complexity without necessity. It's not enough to say the rate *could have changed* in the past; we need a way to document such a change." The isotope studies above are a perfect example.

"Just observing the geological strata should cause one to call into question the theory. We see massive layers of successive sedimentary rock. Each distinctive from the layer above and below. Do we observe this happening today?"

The short answer is: Yes, we do. Every marine platform in the world contains "massive layers of successive sedimentary rock", where each is distinct from the bounding layers. Intercontinental basins (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Great Lakes, Great Basin, Mississippi River Valley) provide more examples, but on a slightly smaller scale.

On a related note, I just left a M.S. thesis defense of one of my colleagues. Her work focused on carbonate cycles in late Cambrian rocks. She concluded that carbonate cycles (previously thought to be sea-level controlled in almost all cases) are not traceable across great distances, and cannot be controlled primarily by sea-level (at least not in the Late Cambrian—a greenhouse climate). By measuring lots of sections in a small area (several km square), she generated a 3D picture of the carbonate platform at that time. The paleo-topography was obvious. One could see migrating sand bars and microbial reefs; deeper-water carbonates in the depressions; evidence of riverine input next to the supratidal (exposed to air) deposits. What should we make of this picture? Again, it is not sufficient to say "well, it *could* have been deposited really fast". One needs to demonstrate how such a model better explains all the evidence.

--------

Okay, so I fail at brevity, but those were my initial reactions. Thank you again, Jlay, for providing a critical perspective. I hope you will consider my clarifications. Again, please tell me whether I have properly understood your statements. I know it is frustrating to be misrepresented, and I hope to avoid such.

Thanks to you, Bart, as well, for the invitation to take part in the discussion.

[Canuckster1127]

Welcome, to the board and thanks for coming to respond. I hope you'll feel free to participate as much as you wish on these or other threads.

We're a mixed bag of different theological backgrounds and various levels of science acumen. It's always good to have believers who have a background in science who can help to shed light on the subjects that come up. In the area of geology, we have a lot of discussions about a local vs worldwide flood perspectives and we also have a lot of discussions in the realm of reformed theology.

Thanks again for your gracious response and again, I hope you'll feel free to remain.

bart

[DannyM]

chemostrat1646 ,

Welcome. I enjoyed your post and a look at your blog which Bart linked. Here's hoping you can stick around and contribute some more.

Danny

[chemostrat1646]

Thanks Danny,

It's encouraging to hear such feedback, and to find others interested in these topics. I'll drop in when I can to keep the discussions going.

Jon

[zoegirl]

Welcome to the board, chemostrat!!! Also enjoyed your response!!

[jlay]

The short answer is: Yes, we do. Every marine platform in the world contains "massive layers of successive sedimentary rock", where each is distinct from the bounding layers. Intercontinental basins (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Great Lakes, Great Basin, Mississippi River Valley) provide more examples, but on a slightly smaller scale.

So, would it be OK to say that the entire globe is a marine platform? My guess is that you will agree. As most geology sources do state that much if not all of the earth's surface was submerged at some point in time. It is speculation to say that sedimentary rock we see at elevations of 20k feet were formed by these methods you reference. So, certainly stratified rock is not limited to what we call marine platforms. Unless I am misunderstanding just what you are calling a marine platform. And I would certianly like to see the explanations regarding these modesl of how each layer is not just distinct but that is is unique in its material make up. That is a consistent attribute of sedimentary layers. That they are not just layered, but the layers are composed of distinct material.

Modern geological processes (rates of Mid-Ocean Ridge spreading and continental collision) actually explain very well the features to which you referred. I may have missed something in your comment, though, so please feel free to correct me here.

Let me clarify. The processes we see today at the current rates would not account for the geological features. You may disagree, but when one takes into account the effects of erosion and sedimenation, this creates a problem for the surface features as we observe them today, if one is holding to gradualism.

By "prejudicial conjecture", are you saying that YECs *do* accurately represent the principle of uniformitarianism and I have stated otherwise without proof?

There are two ways to answer this.
Unless you have interviewed all YECers, you are making an arbitrary statement. You said, "Young-Earth creationists commonly misunderstand the concept of uniformitarianism." I could say, OECers misunderstand YECers rejection of uniformitariansim. It's arbitrary. Now, if you have a specific example of someone misrepresenting the position, I would have no problem with you pointing out where a specific YEC group or person has done such. I'm certainly sure your point is true in some respect, just as is mine.
2ndly, I would not think it is the duty of YECers to 'represent' a principle they do not hold to. They do hold to the idea of uniformity, but do not hold to other prinicples that sometimes make up uniformitarianism. Is it possible, just maybe, that all geologist are not subscirbing to the modern definition of uniformitarianism? A few minutes of research do reveal that there are and have been competing ideas of uniformitarianism. If there are different positions, then that might easily explain your conclusion.

Again, it is not sufficient to say "well, it *could* have been deposited really fast". One needs to demonstrate how such a model better explains all the evidence.

Having witnessed presentations by YEC, phd, Geologists, I do know there are such models. However, I would imagine that ones own philosophical presuppostions are going to determine how 'better' one thinks they are.