pauluc: @Bob Helm: “This all sounds fine and it appears …

Comment on Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results by Bob Helm.

pauluc:
@Bob Helm:

“This all sounds fine and it appears you are open to change your mind if the data indicates you should. I actually dont think you would for I think in every Christian there lurks a little bit of Kurt Wise.”

I appreciate much of Kurt Wise’s work in geology and paleontology, but I don’t completely buy into his philosophy. I am a young life creationist (different from Kurt Wise) because I honestly think both the scientific and theological evidence points in that direction, and recent scientific discoveries are actually bolstering my confidence in YLC. Let me explain where I am coming from. As a child, I developed a fascination with dinosaurs after visiting the Sinclair dinosaur exhibit at the World’s Fair at age four. And in my childhood immaturity, I actually bought into theistic Darwinism because that’s what the books on dinosaurs, ancient man, etc. presented, and I didn’t know anything else. Also, about 25 years ago, I gave some serious consideration to progressive creationism, but I decided against it. And my decision was not merely on theological grounds or because it was contrary to what Ellen White said. There are too many logical and scientific contradictions in progressive creationism. It is not a well thought out paradigm. But hold on Paul. You also claim to be a Christian, and in spite of our differences, I affirm you as my brother in Christ. But when you say that a little bit of Kurt Wise lurks in every Christian, are you including yourself in that statement?

“I have been there with literal creationism as an undergraduate student but I no longer consider that a tenable position. I remain a creationist for that is a Christian doctrine but in terms of a theory of creation based on miracles I am no longer there.I have no issue with long ages for the earth or of life on it. That is not informative for my life of faith as a Christian.For you it seems it is,So I have serious doubts that a little bit of carbon or argon dating would make any difference when the bulk of science when viewed objectively says that the earth and life are very old.You have already produced lots of argument from the bible for a scientific position (extraordinary assumptions about the anteluvian atmosphere,cosmic radiation levels and the rate of radioactive decay) to negate obvious scientific data obtained by scientists with no axe to grind who are simply following the scientific tradition.”

Wow, there is a lot to respond to in this statement. First, please be careful about what you assume I am advocating. I have said nothing about cosmic radiation, and my only comments about the rate of radioactive decay are to affirm its stability. I have never suggested a change in the decay rate. Second, I have discussed careful exegesis of Gen 1, but my discussion of scientific issues is usually based on data presented in accepted scientific literature and presentations. For example, the data on radiocarbon in dinosaur bones did not come from some crackpot journal; it was presented at a very mainstream geophysics conference in August 2012. Third, I’m not sure what you consider “obvious scientific data,” but I have no desire to reject what is truly obvious in science. However, when certain assumptions in science do not make sense to me, I am willing to think outside the box and go against the dominant paradigm. That is not anti-science; that is how science advances.

Let’s take an example that has nothing to do with the Bible or theology – dark energy. In recent years, the majority of cosmologists have bought into this concept, although there is still a minority who reject it. Now I am certainly not a cosmologist or astrophysicist, but as an interested “lay” observer, I still have my doubts about dark energy because it is messy – it seems to go against Occam’s Razor. Perhaps dark energy is valid, but Dr. David Wiltshire’s timescape cosmology makes a lot of sense to me because it proposes what seems like a valid alternative to dark energy and the supposed acceleration of the universe. In timescape cosmology, the universe is precisely balanced between continued expansion and collapse, and dark energy is a relativistic illusion, which seems more in line with Occam’s Razor. Again, I am not a cosmologist or astrophysicist, but that is my current very lay perspective on this matter.

In the same way, I believe that there are many valid scientific objections to the modern application of the theories of Lyell and Darwin, and recent discoveries are adding to these objections. Perhaps I can see these objections more clearly because of my perspective on Genesis, but I cannot envision how these objections would disappear if I changed my perspective as you did. Fourth, I believe in an orderly universe, and I am not looking for miracles under every bush. But as a Christian theist, I do not reject miracles either. What about the origin of the universe Paul? Do you think there was anything miraculous about that?

Perhaps I should also define what I mean by “miracle.” For me, a miracle is not magic. A miracle is simply an unexplained event that originates with God and that can strengthen one’s faith in God. From the perspective of God’s greater intelligence, a “miracle” is completely logical, but from the perspective of our limited intelligence, it cannot currently be explained. That doesn’t mean there is no explanation; it simply mean that our current knowledge is not great enough to understand it.

Fifth, you were once what you term a “literal creationist,” but why were you a creationist? Was it because you had been persuaded by evidence or because you were brought up that way? I suspect it was the latter and that you really did not have a carefully thought out creationist model of natural history in mind when you rejected “creationism.” With that said, I believe you are a kind, honest, and fairly open-minded person, and I enjoy our discussions. Also, as I have said, if we can take off our blinders, I actually think the objective evidence for YLC is getting stronger, and I hope that one day, you will be persuaded by the evidence to change your mind again and adopt a more comprehensive creationist view than you once held. With that said, I am also realistic, and I don’t expect to get you over the hump with my brief posts because that would take careful study of the pertinent issues. But for now, I am hoping to crack your mind open maybe 5-10% to this proposition. That’s all I am hoping for at the present.

“From my perspective I think there is only the appearance of equipoise here.As Ervin says C14 dating on fossils is silliness to those that do this for a living.Your position of thousand year old dinosaurs only appears tenable if you disregard all accepted paleontological understanding including stratography and radiometric dating.I am happy for you to do that based on a certain reading of the bible but as you concede that is not really science.”

Paul, I do not concede “that it is not really science,” although I do gladly concede that it is thinking outside the box. That is where we differ! It is so easy to make sweeping generalizations without pinpointing your scientific objections and really evaluating them. But making sweeping generalizations and quoting the mantra about “overwhelming evidence for evolution” will never persuade me because it is so vacuous. I believe the term in logic is “elephant hurling.” If you want to be persuasive, you need to present your objections logically. So far, I have not seen you do this in a way that is very convincing.

And as far as radiometric dating is concerned, C14 dating is radiometric dating! In fact, it is usually deemed the most accurate form of radiometric dating because it is dates organic artifacts/ fossils themselves. No other form of radiometric dating can accomplish this. For now, you are welcome to present your modern carbon objection to the C14 dating of dinosaur bones, although I consider it very doubtful. But if your hypothesis remains unproven, it will eventually become completely nonsensical, at which point, I think you logically should accept this C14 data. On the other hand, if it should be proven, I promise to change my perspective on this issue.

As far as stratigraphy is concerned, it often needs to be re-evaluated from a catastrophist perspective. But if valid reasons can be given for such a catastrophic re-evaluation, this is not anti-science; this is thinking outside the box – especially if it explains scientific phenomena better than the uniformitarian perspective.

Bob Helm Also Commented

Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
@Sharon: I don’t completely agree Sharon. The faith of the fideist is still saving faith that lays hold of Jesus as a personal Savior. And it is possible to have this kind of faith even without believing in a recent creation. Remember – Jesus said that even faith the size of a mustard seed counts. The problem is that Christianity loses its appeal when the rug of evidence is pulled out from under it. For the fideist and the theistic evolutionist, evangelizing intelligent, thinking people is a hopeless task. Without apologetics, evangelism is dead. It is interesting that every denomination that has bought into neo-orthodoxy (fideism) and/or theistic evolution is dying. It cannot be otherwise!


Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
@Sean Pitman: I agree. Scientific revolutions have often occurred because one person or a small group of people doubted the consensus of the scientific community and set out to falsify it.


Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
@pauluc: A few more points. Be aware that not all the rocks visible at the Grand Canyon were laid down by the flood. I believe that the Precambrian rocks in the inner canyon, below the Great Unconformity, are pre-flood and probably pre-creation week. I also believe that the Great Unconformity marks the onset of the flood.


Recent Comments by Bob Helm

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I believe in good medicine and am thankful to God for the Moderna vaccine. Walter Veith deserves to be ignored, and not just on this issue.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.


Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.