He knows his physics, but his theory is totally without physical evidence. It merely “saves the appearances” of having an old Universe and a young Earth.

He’s also Australian, like Ken Ham, and for that fact I am sincerely sorry. As an Australian I feel sorry that we have inflicted Barry Setterfield (who I quite like as a person and whose ideas I like most amongst YECs), Ken Ham (who I detest) and John Hartnett upon the global Christian community. That two otherwise very clever physicists should perpetuate the cause of YECism and be Australian is a lamentable fact.

The main issue is, if the universe is 6,000 years old, how can we see starlight that is much older? YEC theorists agree this is a problem and has come up with several theories to explain this. Two have been rejected (the light was created ‘in-transit’, and decaying speed of light) by most in the YEC community. A newer theory, that talks about varying time, has not been accepted by the scientific community and has cautious hope from the YEC community.

When I bring this up, it is interesting to note that I get accused of being an ‘evolutionist’. I know very little about the topic, and never even discuss evolution.

Since there is nightly observable evidence that the universe is much older than 6,000 years old, I will believe these theories. If YEC scientists can back up a 6,000 year universe, then I will believe that.

And finally, a great post from Michael Spenser from last month, Answers Not In Genesis. Michael describes himself as “ashamed and discouraged” to read about a creationist rally at which Ken Ham teaches children to take on their science teachers with …

The age of the earth should not be an issue when we discuss creation with an atheistic materialist. If the YECs insist on arguing for a few-thousand-year-old earth, Christianity will be dismissed as obscurantist nonsense. This view will eventually be listed right next to Cardinal Bellarmine’s comment during the trail of Galileo, “To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”

Second, while I don’t agree with everything that Hugh Ross says, his reading of Genesis 1 is spot on. He says that the proper way to read it is as if it were being told from the viewpoint of a hypothetical observer on the face of the earth. (Of course, the days refer to indistinct periods of time.) Read this way, it fits exactly with the current scientific understanding of how the earth was formed. It also resolves the problem of light appearing before the sun.

Rod

My brother (Bill Griffin) is a Ph. D in ancient near east languages, and no less credible for being my brother… He maintains that the point of the Genesis creation story is that “God” created the earth, not “gods”. In other words, the writer is speaking to the rampant polytheism of the dominant cultures, and arguing that it was Yahweh who created the world, not all these other gods. It’s not an attempt to be a textbook (sorry, Ken)– especially considering how the ancients actually viewed the physical world, e.g. a plate supported on the back of huge turtles swimming in the sea, etc.

My wife had a biochem course at CU back in the early ’80s. The prof started out the first day by reading out of Genesis 1. The students were laughing at him. Then he went on to explain that it made perfect sense from a biochemical standpoint to do it in this order: first you need an energy source (sun), then you need a solution (sea), etc. If nothing else, it was an interesting way of looking at it.

johnlnk makes some good points, particularly on the lack of a mechanism at the biochemical level for progressive evolution. I disagree when he says “Genesis 1 is painfully clear in it’s efforts to say that those days were basically literal days and the genologies go on from there giving a general sense of the age of the earth.” See above for why.

I just don’t see how any observer of nature can say that it’s only 6,010 years old. However, I also don’t see how anyone who studies anatomy or physiology can accept the premise that all of these incredibly complex, interlinked systems just developed on their own. It strains logic like a guitar string tuned an octave too high.

What do I believe? That God is true. What do I believe on this topic? Who cares? I just add my hearty “AMEN” to Eric’s remark:

“I don’t know the exact answer to these questions, but I know enough to know that a belief in young earth creation is not key to knowing or understanding of God, and that the debate is a distraction to Christian discipleship. Now who would have an interest in creating that kind of diversion? ”

Oh, and Ken Ham’s a bozo.
-Jim Bob

Johnlnk-in a way, I think I agree with you. How evolution happens isn’t clear and is beside the point for our faith.

I can see that I’ve been misunderstood. That was not my point at all. My point was that evolution in the
“Mold to Gould” sense did not happen at all! I was challenging my fellow readers to answer the basic question “What evidence is so compelling that we must abandon a plain reading of Genesis and insert man made theories?”

DunderEric I appreciate that you did give some answers. Namely, the apparent clear chain of human evolution, as shown by fossils. Also you mentioned rock stratification and the age of the earth, based on the various forms of radio metric dating. I would be more than willing to discuss these or any other apparent proof for evolution in detail.

But for now I would like to say it this way: Genesis 1 is painfully clear in it’s efforts to say that those days were basically literal days and the genologies go on from there giving a general sense of the age of the earth. Also Genesis says that Adam was made from recently created dirt and Eve from his rib as the first and only humans. That is just a plain reading of what is there. So, it seems that the burden of proof will always lie upon those who want to propose an alternate theory for what “actually” happened. A person who just wants to believe in God’s word may get a little annoyed at having to constantly defend that stance among fellow believers.

A YEC person may seem to be arrogant or unwilling to consider alternatives and indeed it can lead to personal pride. But it is true that simply standing on God’s word, as if it where the Masada fortress, and looking down on the swirling mess of of man’s ideas can lead to a tremendous amount of courage and boldness.

Very nearly every informed YEC that I know is more than willing to debate the details and is fairly well prepared to do so. We don’t claim to be above error or that any and every YEC claim is perfect. That is the whole idea. Only God is perfect. Man is worse than fallible. So who should we listen to?

GG-Lots of ‘missing links’ have been found. One problem, though is that every time a new Australopithecine or other early hominid is put between man and apes, TWO new missing links are created. We have fossils of creatures that are basically a chimpanzee that walks upright, and then later forms that have gradually more human-like skulls and teeth. Homo Erectus is walked upright and made stone tools, but used the same technology of tens of thousands of years without innovation. No evidence of a jump between species, but certainly something that could be taken to be a gradual change. This is not where the weakness in evolutionary theory lies, but the only way people would know it would be to study evolution.

Johnlnk-in a way, I think I agree with you. How evolution happens isn’t clear and is beside the point for our faith. What I find upsetting is Creation Science and much of ID, which are really bad science and often distort the facts and deny that any good Christian could possibly consider some alternative. And while it is true that evolution itself is not exactly observable or testable, there are these fossils, stratification of rock, and ages of those things that are based upon fundamental principles of physics. I don’t think we need to try to reconcile those with the Bible, but I think it makes sense that people will want to make sense of those things.

Since YEC’s are being generally misunderstood and misrepresented in this entire discussion, incuding Micheal’s article, could we at least get one specific detail correct? Namely, there is only one ‘m’ in Ham. Also, calling his accent “cheesy” seems a little unfair.

But getting more to the point, if the YEC viewpoint is too extreme and causing young people to be driven away etc., then….what? There are dozens and dozens of ‘in-between’ lines of thought. Some of them are fairly well definded, like the Gap theory, ID or Hugh Ross’ progressive creationism. Many people seem to hold to an “I don’t know, but anything other than the YEC view” Still, all of these are ultimately illogical when thought through. None of them really make sense when compared to the Biblical narrative, OR TO current secular science. I.E. the big bang, which is the backbone of Hugh Ross’ progressive creationism but is falling farther out of favor as a secular theory.

In the above comments I see a good deal of acceptance that some or all of evolutionary theory must be true. Yes the theory is “rough” but is the assumption that it is basically true? If so, why?

What evidence or ‘proof’ of the evolutionary hypothosis has us so frightened? What exactly has convinced Biblical Christians to apply Higher Criticism to Genesis 1-11 only? Are the facts of science so overwhelming that we have no choice but to integrate them into our faith where they have historically not been?

As you may have gathered, my answer to the above question is simply ‘no’. The November 2004 National Geographic cover featured the headline “Was Darwin Wrong?” An entire page was dedicated to thier answer, which obviously was “NO” But, read that article! It contains the very best and brightest arguments in favor of evolution. They are no more convincing (and hardly any different, really) than Darwin’s own ideas. In fact, knowing what we do now about the true complexity of life they are almost laughable. No one yet has really even proposed a mechanism (mutation and natural selection are processes)to begin to explain how animal life, plant life, the water cycle, DNA, solar energy, etc came to be on their own.

I know there are not likely to be any hard-core materialistic evolutionists reading this site. My questions are not to them anyway. I’m simply asking the church…”Why must we give in to such man-made theories?” They have yet to produce anything even remotely convincing enough to force a change in how we approach scripture.

Comparisons of YEC Christians to ‘Dark Age’ Christians who held onto such beliefs as a flat earth or earth-centric universe are not valid. Anyone with sharp eyes or a telescope could go to the coast and observe a tall ship rising on the horizon. The roundness of the earth is observable and consistent, therfore to deny it is a willful act of ignorance. The same goes for the earth orbiting the sun. It is observable and undeniable.

But there is simply nothing in the evolutionary hypothosis, on a true nuts and bolts level, that can be observed or repeated. The fact that living things mutate has nothing to do with the basic question of how those things came to be. To be shown an example of mutation is simply that. It takes a fantastic leap of faith to say that enough of these mutations will produce something completely new, differnt and ‘better’.

No, evolution and the round earth are not the same. Any logical person can stil simply say “nope, not convinced yet” and be perfecty consistant when it comes to evolution. So why cloud the church’s thinking with it?

Like I said, maybe I’m missing something.