Which must be tempered with the knowledge that YECs reject even important work done by those creationists. Linnaeus originated the taxonomic system the provided important evidence for evolution - and classified men with the apes. Cuvier’s geological survey of the Paris Basin concluded that multiple floods - widely separated in time - would be needed to explain the fossil sequence. Agassiz drove the last nail into the coffin of the worldwide flood. (And if you want to appeal to Newton don’t forget that he was a Unitarian and a believer in alchemy).
More importantly science cannot go back on discoveries already made. Young Earth Creationism is a significant hinderance in many fields now, when it would not have been two hundred or three hundred years ago.
Informed creationists should know better.
Creationists are the ones who believe in miracles. And really they are in no position to forbid others from believing in consistent regularities in the universe. Every creationist should realise that this one is untrue
Creationists make up excuses for rejecting science they don’t like. And yes, that is all it is. There is no clear cut distinction, no compartmentalisation that really works.
Even if they have a few - and so far you’ve only alluded to unsolved problems where science seems very likely to be correct anyway - they pale besides the evidence against Young Earth Creationism. And really you ought to know that if you’ve really researched the issues.
It seems that they want to drag science back to the 17th Century, forbid science from discovering anything about “origins” (that they don’t like) and likely force scientists to agree with the “evidence” for a young Earth. Just from those four assertions of yours. In my view that would count as destroying science,
How is this relevant? Polytheists invented math. Pagans contributed much of the foundational theology of western civilization. The astronomer Tycho rejected a heliocentric solar system. Early doctors prescribed bleeding. Newton and Bacon were people of their day, not time travelers. They lived prior to the evidence for geology and biology being brought to light, and the transition to modern science. The YEC appeal to recognizable names in the history of science is a purely rhetorical device; a comfort blanket for creationists, but is utterly meaningless for understanding nature in the here and now. If you indulge such anachronisms, you may as well undergo surgery after a shot of whisky.
Isn’t there a word for consistency in nature? Oh yes - uniformitarianism. But in the YEC lexicon that is all that is evil in science.
Why creationists assume the world should be absurd without a lawgiver such as for the ten commandments, I can never figure. One moment, lead is heavier than air, the next it floats among the clouds; I jog and enjoy the scenery, and suddenly the trees run along beside me. Why would anyone expect that? All science involves generalizations from specific observations to universal inferences applied to time and space. It cannot be proved that our physical laws apply on the planet Zorg, or will not change wildly on waking tomorrow, but I very much doubt that nature is so fickle.
This is an arbitrary distinction. See above - science involves observation and validated generalization, both of which are entirely and in fact unavoidably applicable to origins.
With “others” being the actual, hands on experts dedicated to advancing understanding in their fields of research. Authentic YEC evidences do not exist, namely because there is massive and incontrovertible evidence for a continuous and detailed history of life on earth which demonstrate that the earth is ancient. This is not an open question, and that is due to many many lines of evidence and has nothing to do with presumptions or unwillingness to acknowledge or consider YEC arguments.
It is already more than 100 years ago that Alfred Wegener proposed his ‘continental drift’ theory. Part of this theory was not only the shape of the continental margins but also the continuity of certain geological features from one continent to another, now separated by entire oceans. How could he talk about that if he and his contemporaries never looked at the rock record across mutiple continents simultaneously?
In actual fact comparative geological studies across multiple continents are very common, precisely because they can be so informative about the history of the planet. They are also done by the hydrocarbon and mineral industries to help with predictions of potential deposits.
The statement is ludicrous and utterly false. It is like saying that weather forecasters never look at what is happening on the other side of the ocean. Who wrote that is either incredibly ignorant of geology, or he is lying. In either case, why would you listen to him, let alone pay money for this book?
The problem with the distinction between “operational science” and “origins science” is that it overlooks one very important point. Namely: both forms of science share a common set of rules.
The common set of rules is basically the fundamental principles of mathematics and measurement. Disciplines such as arithmetic, trigonometry, geometry, algebra, integral and differential calculus, logarithms, statistics, linear regression, error bars, confidence intervals and the like all provide us with a framework that allows us to place tight constraints on which interpretations of evidence are legitimate and which ones are not, and which challenges to the underlying assumptions are legitimate and which ones are not. It is these rules, and the constraints that they impose, that allow us to figure out what could or could not have happened in the past without having been there to see things happen.
Unfortunately when I encounter YEC claims of evidence for a young earth, time and time and time again, the most obvious and glaring flaw is at best a weak understanding of the rules, and at worst a flat out denial of their validity. YEC “evidences” tend to consist of tiny samples with huge error bars, and their attempts to show that techniques such as radiometric dating are “unreliable” blow the measured discrepancies completely out of all proportion and draw conclusions from them that are simply not warranted.
So when people talk about YEC as “the destruction of all science,” it’s these rules—the basic rules of mathematics and measurement—that they are referring to. When YECs claim that they love science, what they’re usually referring to as “science” are generally just the results that it comes up with—things such as the pretty pictures from the James Webb Space Telescope (especially on a poster with the obligatory Psalm 19:1 reference underneath), or the fine tuning argument, for example. But science is not just about results, it is about understanding the underlying methods and learning to apply them properly—very often in situations where getting them wrong has consequences. And it’s this understanding that YEC gets badly wrong, time and time and time again.
Okay. I think we’re all aware creationists believe something along those lines.
However that is certainly an interesting reply as you effectively state that you’d “compartmentalize” science into “operational science” and “origins narratives”. That you’d deliberately engage in a kind of methodological special pleading around issues that directly pertain to whether the creation narrative actually fits the data, or if it even predicts anything.
Which means the latter(because you forgo the requirement that hypotheses are testable) isn’t actually science, you’d just call it that because, again, you want the perceived respect and legitimacy that comes with that. So you can say your “origins narrative” has scientific support even though it doesn’t.
So just to make it absolutely unambigous. You are aware that is what you’re doing, and you are doing that deliberately for that very purpose, right?
Or, to put it another way, if anything is to claim to be science, it must stick to the rules of science.
There’s another point worth making here. If your arguments about “historical science” do not stick to the rules, you will be sowing confusion in people’s minds about what the rules actually are. If your arguments about “historical science” are riddled with blatant mathematical errors, sloppy thinking, logical fallacies, and misrepresentation of evidence, people in your audience will end up believing that such mathematical errors, sloppy thinking, logical fallacies and even misrepresentation of evidence are legitimate forms of reasoning. Since the rules are common to both the “historical sciences” and the “operational sciences,” this could potentially undermine their ability to progress in their careers, to do their jobs properly, or possibly even open them up to prosecution for fraud or in the worst cases end up killing people.
In other words, undermining people’s correct understanding of the rules of science is participating in the “destruction of all science.” And it very much is something to be concerned about.
What I do believe is 1) Clarey is familiar with existing research, 2) in this book he presented a view of the rock record across multiple continents in a different manner than secular scientists. And I admit, I’ve never seen it presented this way. It’s actually quite impressive evidence of a young earth. In a concluding section of his book, Clarey summarizes his presentation of this data as follows (on page 469):
“Each of the three continents show the same general pattern. This is what makes these data so compelling. It is not just one continent that shows this pattern but three, three that show it simultaneously. This is the strongest evidence I have ever witnessed in my 35 years as a geologist that indicates a global flood as occurred. How can anyone look at these data, these maps, and not realize it showing the exact same pattern and timing of the flood? This is truly compelling evidence of worldwide activity. It should be shouted from the rooftops! [emphasis mine]”
It is compelling data, that has not been combined and presented in this manner by secular geologists.
As for that single statement from ICR’s review: keep in mind, they must keep these reviews short. Perhaps you could make a point that that one sentences should have been worded slightly different. But there’s no way you can extrapolate that to the point of calling it exposed dishonesty and a book not worth reading
BTW, me being “reluctant to share:” is an incorrect assumption.
To me this post is an example of people looking for any reason to discredit something, and declaring it “dishonest” for an insufficient reason. It makes me question other “dishonesty” and “deception” claims made here.
2) Paul King
First off, I do appreciate you posting that review. I’m reading through it currently, and taking notes (that’s a long document!). So far it’s actually been encouraging to read.
Unlike the moon, indeed the fossil record contains challenges for both sides. Evolution has it’s share of fossil challenges. And each side can use phrases like this author does: “one would expect”, “It is difficult to imagine”, “one should find.” But it’s not just order and appearance, it’s nature of burial. I honestly believe the Global Flood better accounts for fossils. But that’s a debate that will rage on (watch).
But regarding this book specifically, I actually found it addressed fossil order better than most other books I’ve read. It was actually encouraging. To anyone “listening in:” If that’s a topic you’ve been challenged by, I highly suggest reading this book.
Plus, this book was SO much more than about the fossil record.
3) Dan Eastwood
So this made me go back an re-read parts of “Carved in Stone”. The answer to your question is found in Chapter 18: “Flood-Provided Energy Resources: Oil and Coal” Honestly Dan, the more I study this topic, the more I’m realizing that Flood has a better explanation for the origin of oil and coal, as well as why oil is still under pressure, and had not been consumed by bacteria yet. Go read that chapter and you’ll see why.
Getting back to your question: the supposed missing application to the oil industry isn’t because of a lack of evidence, but limited research funding. These creationists are working on donations (and their objective is to honor God’s Word, not develop oil applications). And YET, they’re still able to produce encouraging results! I’m looking forward to further research; and possibly that “practical application” you’re saying doesn’t currently exist.
For those of unwilling to buy the book, would you care to provide some information? For example, what part of the geological record is Flood, what is pre-Flood, and what is post-Flood? YECs have many different notions of this, but what is Clarey’s?
How does Clarey account for the data that cause mainstream geologists to reject Flood geology? E.g., the faunal succession, radiometric dates, angular unconformities, erosional surfaces and paleosols, the Chicxulub impact and K/T boundary clay, to name a few.
Science 10 (it is divided between chem, physics, and genetics/selection, and astronomy at the grade 10 level). I linked the curriculum earlier but it is all public (bc science 10).
That was a pretty good review. What’s your reaction to it? It seems to be a competent demolition of every major claim Clarey makes, yet it hardly scratches the surface of objections to YEC geology. The review doesn’t provide chapter numbers; what is Chapter 18 about?
But it is certainly not compelling evidence for a global flood. Periods of high sea levels in the distant past fit much better. This is a survey of just one of the sequences that supposedly resulted from the mega-tsunamis.
That’s a bit disingenuous. Young Earthers don’t have a problem with the moon because they attribute it to miraculous creation - and their problems with the fossil record are basic, severe and haven’t been solved in 200 years, while mainstream geology has moved well past them.
It doesn’t. If anything it has more problems. To name just one, there is no reason to expect a sandstorm during a flood. Nor is slow burial at the bottom of a lake really an option.
On the basis of what I’ve read, that is damning the other books. There is no viable explanation, nor anything that gives hope of a viable explanation. Which means that the order of the fossil record remains compelling evidence against Flood Geology. And it’s not alone in that. Which means that Flood Geology is still nowhere near being a viable competitor to mainstream geology.
For what it’s worth, the point that I raised about the effect on people’s understanding of science in the workplace (and life in general) is my number one concern when it comes to discussions about science and faith. I speak from painful experience here: I’ve personally had to deal with the consequences of bad attitudes to science, some of them originating from young earth teachings. That’s why I keep hammering home the need to understand and apply the rules of science correctly. If YECs could come up with an approach that sticks to the rules then I would be on board with it in a shot, but I just don’t see that happening.
It doesn’t challenge both sides equally. Not by a long shot.
The only challenges that conventional old-earth science faces are questions about the fine details. Did A evolve from B or C? Is that rock formation 250 million years old or 260 million years old? And so on and so forth. Their resolutions usually have perfectly coherent explanations based on existing laws of physics, chemistry, biology or geology.
Challenges to young earth claims on the other hand, tend to be massive deal-breakers for the entire timescale. The distant starlight problem. Lead in zircon crystals. The consilience of radiometric dating with other forms of evidence and measurement. And so on and so forth. Their resolutions usually require the invention of fantasy physics (e.g. accelerated nuclear decay) that by the young earthists’ own admission would have vaporised the Earth’s crust many times over if they had any basis in reality.
That sounded plausible when I first encountered YECism back in the 1980s but it isn’t even remotely credible today.
From 1997 to 2005 the young earth organisations spent $1.25 million on the RATE project, a research project that was supposed to debunk radiometric dating once and for all. That amount of money should easily have been enough to uncover a “smoking gun” pointing to a young earth if there was one. Instead, they ended up admitting that billions of years’ worth of radioactive decay really had happened since Creation, and the only way they could get round it was proposing so much accelerated nuclear decay that it would have raised the temperature of the Earth’s crust to 22,400°C. Since then, Answers in Genesis has spent $100 million on the Ark Encounter.
Young earthists may have problems coming up with a model that allows them to find oil, but a lack of funding isn’t one of them.
Wouldn’t you need to be familiar with existing research to have an informed belief?
You also forgot to mention an equally important belief: that if he is familiar, he is not trying to fool himself or you.
Please explain why presentation would make evidence compelling
Only according to creationists, and “it’s” is a contraction of “it is.”
But only one “side” has testable hypotheses and theories whose predictions have been tested. Your side has to pretend that science is just post hoc explanations. It isn’t.
If creationists truly believed this, there would be plenty of funding in the form of oil exploration investments, not donations. And if successful, they’d still be honoring your and their interpretations of God’s Word.
So why hasn’t this “better explanation for the origin of oil and coal” generated insights that make the fossil fuel industries want to invest their money to expand “research funding” and pay to “develop oil applications”? It’s not as though Clarey lacks the contacts:
From 1984 to 1992, Dr. Clarey worked as an exploration geologist at Chevron USA, Inc., developing oil drilling prospects and analyzing assets and lease purchases.
If he can’t sell his ideas to his own former colleagues, whose criteria would be solely which model does a better job of helping them find oil, not whether the model is creation-based, or ‘secular geology’-based, then why should we buy it?
Most science books are either pedagogical or synthesize and make accessible research spanning a period of already journal published work, and they certainly have their place. With few exceptions, however, groundbreaking research is presented by way of peer reviewed journal papers. May I take this moment to commend those ID and YEC defenders on this forum who understand that and at least reference accessible journal publications.
He basically regards the rise and fall of sea levels as waves of the global flood. Not surprisingly, geological sequences are coordinated globally, given that sea levels are global due to, well, gravity, but Clarey thinks that if the flood was mega, megasequences must be evidence. Egregiously, he misrepresents his own sources and selectively ignores the bulk of research associated with sequence stratiography.
So you don’t believe that scientists have “never looked at the rock record across multiple continents simultaneously.” If Clarey truly is familiar with existing research, he won’t believe it either - and the extract you provide confirms that. Nor does anyone else with even a passing knowledge of plate tectonics evidence believe it.
Keeping them short does not require telling porkies, and there’s no ‘perhaps’ or ‘slightly different’ about it, that sentence is irredeemably false.
To me, your post is a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging a clear falsehood.
Maybe he means that literally. In which case, well, it is the truth, isn’t it? Someone can’t be on more than one continent looking at rocks at the same time.
Wait, so what happens in the book is looking at patterns of onlap and downlap in sequence stratigraphy, noting that the same sort of thing is happening on different contintents at the same time, and calling that a worldwide flood rather than just changes in global, eustatic sea level? Can that be right?