Discovery Institute May Have Hit a New Low?

There are a few cases. Certainly Dean Kenyon and Michael Behe were to some extent ostracized by their departments. But is that wrong? Apply the flat earth test. If a professor in the geography department of Prestigious U (Go Elitists!) comes out as a flat-earther, should he be trusted to teach round-earth geography? Will his publication record nose-dive as he tries to publish openly flat-earth research?

9 Likes

Those who criticize uniformitarianism do not understand what they are criticizing.

If time travel were possible, and I could send one of our rulers back to, say, 4004 BC, then it would still work for measuring length just as it does today. That’s an example of what uniformitarianism says. It says that the methods we use today very likely would have worked just as well at other times and in other places.

It does not say that the world today is the same as it was 6000 years ago. Everyone knows that have built bridges, highways, dams, etc and that those have changed the shape of the world. That’s consistent with uniformitarianism. And, actually, the Bible itself gives pretty good support to uniformitarianism. It describes how people live several thousand years ago, and most of those descriptions are consistent with our ideas of uniformitatianism.

3 Likes

That, my friend, is how you shouldn’t do science.

Even if it goes against empirically established science?

Antivaxxers, flat-earthers all have “rebuttals’” to objections raised against their claims, but these replies don’t comply with data and are sometimes downright ridiculous. YEC responses typically exhibit the same qualities. The moment you treat your YEC beliefs, especially the ones making empirically testable claims as purely scientific hypotheses and look for evidence to falsify them, its all going to come apart.

3 Likes

That’s a different issue. His point is that the numbers are skewed because of the difference in consequences for going public. That is probably true, but not enough to discount the overwhelming consensus.

1 Like

Not at all.

If you are a dendrochronologist, you begin with counting and characterizing tree rings. You can conflict with YEC without any intention, and never have given the slightest thought to those philosophical questions in your entire career.

If you are a oil geologist, you begin with looking for formations that coincide with periods of accumulation of organic matter which has been concentrated in a dome and capped with impervious overlay. Again, everything in your job can be incompatible with YEC, all without any thought about theological questions.

Most scientists begin with the empirical, and just follow the evidence where it leads. The presuppositions are based on prior work and state of knowledge. Should you be planning your next business flight, would you give any consideration to the flat earth discussion? That is how much YEC is typically in the thoughts of scientists.

8 Likes

How could any such effects possibly outweigh the alleged fact that creationism is right, and evolutionary biology is wrong?

What’s the point of critiquing (with mere rhetoric) conclusions derived from enormous amounts of observational and experimental evidence?

2 Likes

Yes, just about every day I’ve been trying to find time to get back to that one. Haven’t forgotten. Just didn’t want to give a quick reply to that one without thinking it over. And unfortunately in the meantime I’ve managed to kick over a hornets nest here. I’ll probably just let everyone take their jabs at me here (was expecting them), and move over to that thread.

BTW, i don’t mind the jabs. I really am satisfied in my belief in a young universe!

That’s sad… People who are taking time to patiently explain something to you from an evidence-based perspective are characterized as “taking jabs at” you. Really nice characterization.

9 Likes

Thousands of scientists who possess orders of magnitude more expertise and knowledge than you disagree with you vehemently.

That there are some loose ends in the data does not point to fundamental problems; the loose ends point to the need for further research and refinement.

There is no scientifically credible way to get from 13.8B years to 8000 years as the age of the universe. There is no scientifically credible way to get from 4.5B years to 8000 years as the age of the solar system.

Nope!

Not a chance!

YES!

Overall, I do not regard the Scripture as a guide to science facts or the details of the scientific method. The Scripture does not teach anything about trilobites, dinosaurs, bacteria, viruses, galaxies, solar systems, radioactive decay, the speed of light, electromagnetic radiation not visible to human eyes, calculus, trigonometry… And this list could go on and on and on and on and on. The key point is that if God had laid these out by revelation, our forebears 2500 years ago would have rejected the Scriptures outright.

For some reason, God chose instead to allow humanity to slowly, corporately acquire scientific knowledge.

There are a variety of ways to interpret the early chapters of Genesis in light of this stance. You could, like Saint Augustine of Hippo c. 400 AD proclaim the six days as a purely didactic, symbolic scheme not intended to be scientifically valid. (And he said this based on internal evidence from the Scriptures.) You could adhere to the 6 days of revelation school of thought. You could adhere to the temple imagery school of thought.

Faithful scholars (such as Augustine of Hippo) have come up with many choices for you, Jeff. I have no inclination to urge a particular interpretation on you; you can surely conduct your own investigation.

Best,
Chris

9 Likes

I remember feeling that way for about 15 years. People I cared about taught the YEC doctrine. They convinced me the scientific community was populated with ungodly atheists and fools who were blinded by their presuppositions to obvious flaws in mainstream science.

Then a Christian geologist pointed out to me that he had participated in a study of core samples dredged from the Pacific that conformed quite exactly with the predictions of mainstream geology. Because I wasn’t coming to a public forum and announcing a conflict with science, he didn’t beat me over the head. He just pointed to the evidence he had personally worked with.

After that, a mental dam broke in my thinking. I was liberated to look for the first time at the evidence I had previously refused to see.

I thought I had been carefully considering the evidence of mainstream science, but in fact I had not. I had deceived myself. It took me 15 years to get to the point where I could recognize that.

Blessings to you on your journey forward, @jeffb.

Chris

8 Likes

The problem is that creationist “flood geology” doesn’t just posit unique phenomena that conform to the laws of physics. Instead, flood geology posits fictitious laws of physics that no one has ever observed.

For example: In order to explain radiometric signals that look like billions of years old but are (supposedly) only thousands of years old, “creationist” scientists and organizations (ICR, AIG) have resorted to claiming that the strong and weak fields changed drastically during the flood, causing an acceleration of radioactive decay.

Here are a few small problems associated with this proposal:

  • Most elements aside from hydrogen could not even exist in such a scenario.
  • The amount of energy released would raise the entire planet to tens of thousands degrees Celsius, and every drop of water would evaporate in an instant.
  • Noah and his family and all the animals would literally incinerate in fires hotter than steel forges, instantly, due to the accelerated decay of potassium in their bodies.

Two questions for you, our friend @thoughtful:

  1. How would you rate the plausibility of this proposed acceleration in radioactive decay?
  2. Does the text of the book of Genesis mention anything about accelerated radioactive decay?

Best,
Chris

8 Likes

I really don’t understand this. Why anyone needs to die on that hill. Jesus said nothing about it. It affects the tenets of Jesus’ Christianity not one jot.

6 Likes

Inflation has been observed (it’s happening today). Dark matter and dark energy have been detected at very high confidence levels by contemporary astronomers. So incorporating these ingredients into origins models is in fact an extrapolation of observations back to origins.

You are correct, however, that the multiverse has not been detected, at least in an uncontroversial sense. (“Dark flows” are your friend if you want to do a google search.).

However, whether we live in a multiverse or not is irrelevant to the questions asked in this thread. Astronomical numbers of astrophysics observations point irresistibly to the conclusion that the universe is 13.8 B years old.

Best,
Chris

4 Likes

As a newby here, something that I’m taking note of is that it’s difficult to have a conversation with all parties on the same page when the conversation is “evidenced based science” and “trying to reconcile science and belief” that are talking to one another.

Both puruits represented are worthy, in my opinion. And “trying to reconcile” can learn from “evidence based”, for sure. But sometimes “trying to reconcile” can’t hear what “evidence based is saying” until “trying to reconcile” sorts through some theology issues.

Also, “trying to reconcile” and “evidence based” have different vocabulary and goals.

We should absolutely engage in these discussions. I’m just sorting through the challenges…and now posting about them. :slight_smile:

I’m an example of a Christian who affirmed the science before I got the theology sorted out. So that can happen. But I don’t know that that’s the rule.

4 Likes

Indeed. Many of the responses were kind, thoughtful, and well reasoned. To simply characterize them pejoratively and move on is quite telling.

5 Likes

Yes, smugly so. Whatever you may suppose, that’s not a virtue.

3 Likes

Those are questions that I take as a bit insulting or silly. 1. I haven’t evaluated any claims of creationists on this matter. Further, an area of ignorance or incomplete hypotheses doesn’t mean something could never be known or is impossible. 2. Of course not, and why should it.

Creationists have been wrong in their scientific proposals many times. If they can come up with scientific proposals that have merit, great. If they can’t, then maybe a few decades from now. Honestly, I’m not a creationist because of creation science. I am because I don’t believe interpretations other than YEC hold any water philosophically or holistically when we look at all of scripture. And I just don’t believe we’ve reached such a pinnacle of science that the current scientific consensus in any area of the science that touches origins or age of the earth can’t be overturned. There are a lot of possible YEC biblical and scientific interpretations that haven’t been explored.

Early Christians were pointing to marine fossils found in mountains as evidence of a global flood long before modern science came along. Sometimes it’s the really obvious that points to modern science choosing only one acceptable model as being bereft of creativity.

And “trying to reconcile” often claims to be dealing in evidence, when in fact it is dealing in nothing but hearsay.

Especially with respect to evidence!

2 Likes

They may be willing to grab ahold of things that you wouldn’t consider evidence because they’re looking for a lifeline more than looking for evidence.

They’re trying to get out of a theological bind and are looking in the wrong place.

4 Likes