AiG accepts evolution!!

[jereth]

No, that title is not just an attention grabber - it's true.

I'm sure that many other perceptive people will have noticed this. When AiG embraced Russell Humphrey's "white hole cosmology", they embraced a scientific theory which allowed the universe (galaxies, stars, nebulae etc.) to evolve over billions of years.

They then fudge this by saying "relativity means it could all happen in just 3 days".

I'm sorry, but we don't buy it. AiG has compromised their own principles of miraculous, instantaneous, ex-nihilo, recent creationism.

Here's a telling quote from Dr Humphreys' book:
"The shrinking event horizon reaches earth early on the morning of the fourth day. During this ordinary day as measured on earth, billions of years worth of physical processes take place in the distant cosmos… The newly formed stars find themselves grouped together in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. As the fourth day proceeds on earth, the more distant stars age billions of years, while their light also has the same billions of years to travel to the earth.” Dr. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books 1994, pp. 37, 38. Emphases added.

For more detailed musings, (if you are interested) please see:
home.iprimus.com.au/jereth/jereth/genesis&origins/creation_science.html

From the horse's mouth:
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

 

[Mandrake]

Meh. AiG doesn't have a clue anyway.

 

[shernren]

I hate to burst bubbles, but while that provocative title is true, it isn't true in the way you think it is. Looks like even TEs need to go for some neo-creationism detoxification, especially when it comes to using the terms of the debate.

Hope you'll consider my comments constructive criticism, jereth. PM me if you're not sure what I mean.

Looking through your site's take on it, the phrase that jumped out at me was "evolutionary cosmology". I'm afraid that the qualifier "evolutionary" hasn't really been used properly. The exact meaning of "evolutionary cosmology" would really be cosmology in the context of atheistic evolutionism philosophy, part of which hypothesises that at every point in the universe's evolution conditions have favoured life of some sort - spacetime defect lifeforms, quark-gluon plasma lifeforms, matter and antimatter lifeforms, dark matter lifeforms - and hence we are alive simply because the random fecundity of spacetime spit us out. Which really isn't what you're trying to talk about, right?

What's happened is that you've fallen into the same old hole so many other creationists do: splitting science down the middle and saying that this side doesn't agree with the Bible (or with an interpretation of the Bible) while the other side does. In fact it doesn't work that way. You either have all of science or nothing of science. (Believing in miracles isn't rejecting science, it's a completely different ball game altogether.) You can't say "You can only have the non-evolutionary science if you want to believe YECism" as if you're skimming fat off milk. Any assault on science ultimately reaches into every corner of it.

For example, in radiometric dating the decay rates of radionuclides are assumed (and measured) constant because of what we know about quantum physics. Creationists say "evolutionary assumptions", but what does "evolutionary quantum physics" mean? Quantum physics dominates the electronic world, so are we going to have "evolutionary electronics" next? Or "evolutionary nanotechnology"? At the other end of the scale, what does "evolutionary cosmology" mean? Does it get its data from "evolutionary astronomy", collected through "evolutionary telescopy", photographed using "evolutionary CCDs"?

So you can't really label one part of science "evolutionary" and stop it from spreading to the whole field unless you carefully apply the word in the one place where it is relevant: when it talks of the theory of evolution. Theories of speciation are "evolutionary", we can talk about "evolutionary genetic drift", etc. That's because evolution is a conclusion about nature which is logically separate, though methodologically united, with other forms of science. In fact, Gap Theory can have what you'd call an "evolutionary cosmology" (the universe is 13+ billion years old, and the earth 4.5 billion +) but without any evolution in its biology (all animals and plants and humans were created separately and specially 6000 years ago).

Having said that, I agree that AiG believes in evolution - although they'd never admit it baldly. Why so? Because they have to believe in a period of hyperspeciation right after the Flood. Because of the dimensions of the Ark they have to postulate that what Noah put into the Ark were really one pair each of every kind. In other words, in lieu of the lions and tigers and panthers and leopards and every other feline they could only stow away one pair of cats. And after so many days cooped up in the Ark, the poor pair miraculously speciated into all the extant (and most of the extinct) felines known to man within 1,000 years (and that's giving an extreme amount of time - I'm sure there are accurate descriptions of modern animals dating back to 1,500 BC). If evolution can do that I don't see how creationists can claim that it can't account for all life on earth given another 4.5 billion years.

 

[jereth]

Thanks Shernren for your detailed and useful reply. I think I understand the point you are making, and appreciate you going to the effort to make it.

I agree with you on one level -- that we have to be careful how we use the word "evolutionary". I also agree that you can't split science in half and take one half while rejecting the other. This is one of the fundamental flaws of so-called "creation science".

However, while your definition of "evolutionary" is perhaps "technically" correct, I am using the word in a more "popular" sense. This is how AiG uses it, I think. This "popular" meaning of "evolutionary" would be something like: "slow, gradual, smooth, uniformitarian processes acting over millions of years and driven by natural forces".

I believe (though am prepared to have my mind changed) that it is legitimate to use the word "evolutionary" in this way, where the context is appropriate. In this case, the context is debate with YECs and creation "scientists", who would define "evolution" in a similar way. My goal here is to demonstrate that they have violated their own creationist (i.e. instantaneous, miraculous, recent) principles by adopting "white hole cosmology" and the like.

Could you please explain what exactly you meant by "neo-creationism detox" ?

 

[shernren]

Neocreationism is chaoschristian's neologism (coined term) for YECists. He says "creationists" shouldn't get to monopolise the word creationist for themselves - "hey, I believe that God created the heaven and the earth too! I just happen to think He used evolutionism ... " and so we have "neocreationism" to describe YECism. Methinks it sounds cool. Neocreationism. Neocreationists. Rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? "Detox" because I think this whole idea of "evolutionary assumptions" is really a YEC / neocreationist smokescreen which adds nothing but confusion to the discussion.

My point was that trying to divide things like that doesn't really make sense. I'm not going to force my jargon and vocabulary on you but if I were in your shoes (which I'm not, yeah) I would avoid using the word "evolutionary" like that the way others do. Because I don't see any useful way to define evolutionary. Here's an example.

If I say, "Continental drift has acted on the earth for 4,000 years" that isn't 'evolutionary', is it? Creationists admit as much.

If I say, "Continental drift has acted on the earth for 5,500 years"? That still sounds reasonable, right?

What about for 5,501 years?
For 5,502?
5,503? ...
(rinse and repeat 1.5 billion times)

"Continental drift has acted on the earth for the past 1.5 billion years" - hold it! That's something any creationist would condemn as being "evolutionary".

And yet, there is no qualitative difference between my first statement and my last. I've just been adding on one year at a time. Which year made it an "evolutionary" statement? Was it year 6,001? (But the Bible never supplies that precise figure.) Year 6,002? 6,003? ... do you have some sort of cutoff where anything that doesn't last this long is okay and anything that lasts longer is somehow "evolutionary" and "uniformitarian"?

I do quite see your point, I just wouldn't use the words you use. But hey, I'm anal retentive on a lot of other things too . Keep it going brother - it's a delight to see people think.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Having said that, I agree that AiG believes in evolution - although they'd never admit it baldly. Why so? Because they have to believe in a period of hyperspeciation right after the Flood.

this is a BIG point, we ought to really concentrate on the ramifications of AiG and YECism teaching hyperspeciation following the flood.
like what caused it to slow down to what we see today?
or the link to biogeography, how did the right animals get to the islands without leaving any bodies on the way?

...

 

[ChetSinger]

I'm a newbie here, but this subject interests me, so I'll chime in.

I'm happy to see scientists like Humphreys tackle issues like these. Is he on the right track? Beats me. I bought his book, but couldn't follow the math, of course.

I'd still call his book a YEC book, because it does promote a 'Young Earth'.

 

[jereth]

I'd still call his book a YEC book, because it does promote a 'Young Earth'.

You're missing a vital point, ChetSinger. Yes, "YEC" stands for "Young Earth Creationism", but YECists, when they are consistent, also believe that the universe is young (YUC anyone?)

Have a look at the AiG website. It is full of "proofs" that the universe is young -- galactic structure, supernova remnants, etc. When it comes to the solar system, they definitely believe that it was created in the last 6000 years (on Day 4 to be exact).

If you don't believe me, look at an interview with YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner, published Creation Magazine issue 19(4), 1997. On the cover of the issue are the words: "Astronomy prof: universe young".

Quote from article:
"How old do you think the universe is?"
"Probably six to eight thousand years."


What Humphreys has thus done is commit "YEC theological (and intellectual) suicide". He admits that the universe is billions of years old, and clumsily incorporates this fact into YECism with his cosmology. What this demonstrates is that YECists are quite willing not only to be utterly inconsistent, but also utterly self-contradictory.

 

[jereth]

Shernren, thanks for explaining "neocreationist".

Re: "evolutionary". There is nothing in what you said that I could criticise or disagree with. You explained it very well.

Still, I personally believe that it is fair to call a theory "evolutionary" if it relies on natural processes (as opposed to miracles) -- which tend to occur over longer periods of time. When I call something "evolutionary", I am primarily addressing the natural/uniformitarian vs. miraculous/instantaneous paradigm, and not so much the millions of years vs. thousands of years paradigm. Do you see what I mean?

Even more importantly, I think it is right to attack the absurdities of YECism on YECism's own terms. YECists consistently equate "slow and gradual, millions of years" with "evolution". Therefore, Russell Humphrey's cosmology is, by their own definition, "evolutionary".

Your thoughts?

 

[shernren]

Don't get me wrong, jereth, I'm not trying to disagree with you. I can see what you're doing - exploiting the inconsistency with which the creationists use "evolutionary" and throwing it back into the face of an apparently old-earth universe. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, I'm just saying I'd prefer to do something else different from what you're doing, for no real reason besides the way my personality works:

If it's not precise enough chuck it in the bin.
Don't tell me mutations can't add information, give me a formula for it.
Don't tell me mutations are bad all the time, define a universal fitness function.
Don't split science into "evolutionary" and "non-evolutionary" or "origins" and "operational" if you can't define down to the microsecond when one becomes the other.
If you give me qualitative impressions without quantitative explanations they'd better be extremely good.

I'm just that sort of person. Details-oriented, analytical, banally anal. So what I'm saying is that I personally would not argue the way you would: I'd just say it's ridiculous to use the word "evolutionary" at all. 'That's how I'd argue' is all I'm saying: I don't need or intend you to become a carbon copy of me.

If you understand what you're doing twisting the word "evolutionary" around like this (I'm convinced that you do, seeing your response) then by all means continue.



Keep it up!

 

[ChetSinger]

You're missing a vital point, ChetSinger. Yes, "YEC" stands for "Young Earth Creationism", but YECists, when they are consistent, also believe that the universe is young (YUC anyone?)

Have a look at the AiG website. It is full of "proofs" that the universe is young -- galactic structure, supernova remnants, etc. When it comes to the solar system, they definitely believe that it was created in the last 6000 years (on Day 4 to be exact).

If you don't believe me, look at an interview with YEC astronomer Danny Faulkner, published Creation Magazine issue 19(4), 1997. On the cover of the issue are the words: "Astronomy prof: universe young".

Quote from article:
"How old do you think the universe is?"
"Probably six to eight thousand years."


What Humphreys has thus done is commit "YEC theological (and intellectual) suicide". He admits that the universe is billions of years old, and clumsily incorporates this fact into YECism with his cosmology. What this demonstrates is that YECists are quite willing not only to be utterly inconsistent, but also utterly self-contradictory.

I don't see a problem with a YEC organization like AIG signing on to Humphrey's cosmology. What matters to me (and I think to them too) isn't a label like YEC, but whether what they promote can be fit into the Genesis history.

In that regard, Humphreys works hard to pass that test, including a section in his book that studies the Hebrew words used in various creation verses. So I'd guess that's why AIG has no problem including his stuff on their site.

I believe that some of the young-universe issues like galactic structure aren't a problem, because even if the galaxies are very old now, by our reckoning, the light we're seeing from them came from when they were much younger.

As for Dr. Faulkner, perhaps he just doesn't agree with Dr. Humphreys ideas. Creationist cosmology is a pretty undeveloped field, I think. Lots of room for different opinions.

 

[Soldat_fur_Christ]

Granted I probably won't sway your opinions, but I'm a YEC. Think about this, why couldn't have God made the universe appear old? You're trying to understand an infinite being, with a finite mind. The universe is a brilliant masterpiece.... The things God created are a marvel, and is impossible to fully understand, but he did it. So why isn't it possible for a star to be 13.7 Billion light years away, to instantly shine its life on earth. He's God!!

Regarding the rapid speciation after the Ark, why not? The Bible says that he didn't forget about Noah, and the ark while the earth was flooded. That also could mean that as a supernatural being he could have thrown some of the animals into a hibernation. I know it doesn't say it... but you're trying to apply standard laws to an infinite being. The rapid speciation afterwards, again, why not? He's God!! He created everything, and obviously gave them all of the genotypes for everything. So why wouldn't it be possible for him to help the animals? The earth needed to be repopulated quickly, and granted some animals went extinct, but that doesn't mean that God left everything to work on its own terms.

Regarding the Kangaroos, and other animals afterwards, and how they made it where they're at now. Look at the Bering straight, after the flood, the continents had just been shifted, and there obviously was a land bridge. So all of the animals easily could have populated and spread across the earth, and went across the bridge and into what is now North and South America. Look at Australia, and Indonesia, it looks like it use to be connected... another bridge. Regarding the other islands around the world; obviously as humans repopulated the earth, and spread out among the islands, they also could have easily taken the smaller animals on boats. Birds wouldn't have much of a problem, as they could fly. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

For my closing point. Stop putting God into human terms. We cannot fully understand him that way. He's God!!! What isn't possible?

 

[Mallon]

you're trying to apply standard laws to an infinite being.... Stop putting God into human terms. We cannot fully understand him that way. He's God!!! What isn't possible?

Just so we're all clear, it's the creationists (especially the YECists) who are trying to put God "into human terms"; not the other way around. It's YECists who extrapolate natural occurrences (fossil record, Big Bang, etc.) from biblical events (Noah's Flood, Creation, etc.). If you didn't bring natural evidence to the table in an attempt to support a belief that ought to be rooted in faith instead, you wouldn't be in the spot you're in.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So why isn't it possible for a star to be 13.7 Billion light years away, to instantly shine its life on earth. He's God!!

the issue is the evidence that He is working in such a way. It is not over His power but over the issue of what happened. No Christian argues that God can do whatsoever He desires, the issue is what did He actually do.

Can God cause light to travel 13.7B light years in an instance? i suppose so, but why would He introduce disorder of that magnitude into such an orderly systematic world?

Regarding the rapid speciation after the Ark, why not? The Bible says that he didn't forget about Noah, and the ark while the earth was flooded.

so hyperspeciation within kinds, roughly 2 orders of magnitude greater than any evolution proposed by biological science is not only possible within a YECist framework but necessary. As well as the fact that none of these animals left any dead bodies or descendents along the way to where they were headed? this is the YECist solution to biogeography? yech.

again, why not? He's God!! He created everything, and obviously gave them all of the genotypes for everything.

do you see why science doesn't propose a deus ex machina to elevate itself out of all the problems it encounters in the universe? because it is both nonsense and a great science stopper.

 

[Willtor]

Shernren, thanks for explaining "neocreationist".

Re: "evolutionary". There is nothing in what you said that I could criticise or disagree with. You explained it very well.

Still, I personally believe that it is fair to call a theory "evolutionary" if it relies on natural processes (as opposed to miracles) -- which tend to occur over longer periods of time. When I call something "evolutionary", I am primarily addressing the natural/uniformitarian vs. miraculous/instantaneous paradigm, and not so much the millions of years vs. thousands of years paradigm. Do you see what I mean?

Even more importantly, I think it is right to attack the absurdities of YECism on YECism's own terms. YECists consistently equate "slow and gradual, millions of years" with "evolution". Therefore, Russell Humphrey's cosmology is, by their own definition, "evolutionary".

Your thoughts?

I'm going to tentatively agree with Shernren's response. Certainly, in the context of people who agree to science (as a whole; including biological evolution), it is quite poetic to liken these things in this way. But then again, in this context, everybody understands the semantics of "evolution" as it applies to a particular grand unified theory of biology.

It has been my (humble and limited) experience on these forums that one of the greatest hurdles in demonstrating evolution is distinguishing it from abiogenesis, formation of planets and stars, the big bang, etc. I'm not at all concerned that a poetic use of "evolution" will undermine the work that has been done to correct these misconceptions (if people don't get it, they don't get it). My greater concern (again, to echo Shernren) is that your words will be used against you, and you may not appreciate the new forms they have taken.

There are people who will miss entire arguments merely to pick on the lack of precision in a particular choice of words.

 

[jereth]

As for Dr. Faulkner, perhaps he just doesn't agree with Dr. Humphreys ideas. Creationist cosmology is a pretty undeveloped field, I think. Lots of room for different opinions.

That's the problem, my good friend.

We're not dealing with simple, everyday, scientific "disagreement" here. We're dealing with utterly inconsistent and contradictory paradigms. A bit like alchemy vs. modern atomic theory; or perhaps witchcraft vs. modern medicine.

"Undeveloped... room for different opinions" : in my mind, this means "Let's all be as creative, imaginative and speculative as we want, since we are totally clueless, and furthermore, why worry about the facts?"

 

[jereth]

So why isn't it possible for a star to be 13.7 Billion light years away, to instantly shine its life on earth. He's God!!

It's precisely because he's God that I cannot believe he would do this.

God is by his very nature a God of truth (see 1 John). How could a God of truth make it appear as if the light travelled 13.7 billion years, when in fact it didn't? That would make him a deceptive god indeed.

 

[jereth]

Shernren:
Please be assured that, at a deep level, I fully agree with you. And I am grateful that you have challenged me to rethink how I use the word "evolutionary". Your thoughtfulness and clarity in these matters is refreshing.

Nevertheless, I will continue to do what it takes to show YECists how illogical and inconsistent their arguments are!

P.S. I can be quite obsessive and analytical myself, heh heh...

 

[ChetSinger]

That's the problem, my good friend.

We're not dealing with simple, everyday, scientific "disagreement" here. We're dealing with utterly inconsistent and contradictory paradigms. A bit like alchemy vs. modern atomic theory; or perhaps witchcraft vs. modern medicine.

"Undeveloped... room for different opinions" : in my mind, this means "Let's all be as creative, imaginative and speculative as we want, since we are totally clueless, and furthermore, why worry about the facts?"

I'm disappointed to hear you use words like 'alchemy' and 'clueless' when referring to brothers in the Lord who are working hard to advance the gospel. PhDs, no less.

Are you aware that there is a secular cosmology, published by Drs. Smoller and Temple, that begins with the same basic principle as Dr. Humphreys? That is, that the big bang was an explosion of finite mass, with a center and an edge? They are shock wave mathematicians. Their paper was published in the PNAS. Do you believe them to be 'clueless', too?

 

[shernren]

Are you aware that there is a secular cosmology, published by Drs. Smoller and Temple, that begins with the same basic principle as Dr. Humphreys? That is, that the big bang was an explosion of finite mass, with a center and an edge? They are shock wave mathematicians. Their paper was published in the PNAS. Do you believe them to be 'clueless', too?

Given the enthusiasm with which you cite Smoller and Temple, it is quite obvious that you are taking AiG at its word when it tells you that their argument supports Humphreys':

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1006cosmology.asp

without having looked at the actual paper:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/20/11216

The paragraph from AiG which has got you high is:

The standard assumption upon which big bang thinking is built (an assumption is a belief for which there is no proof either way) is that the universe does not have a center or an edge. Smoller and Temple’s paper assumes the opposite, just as does Humphreys in Starlight and Time. And just as Humphreys’ model has the universe expanding out of a white hole (a black hole running in reverse) so too does their paper!

Really?

I don't know too much about the intricate mathematics of GR, but from what I'm reading in the PNAS paper I'd say that AiG is ... right. For once. But in all the ways that don't matter. Why?

(In their model, the event horizon (the hypothetical boundary around a black or white hole at which time slows down dramatically) is still ‘out there’, whereas Humphreys has it touching the earth during Creation Week. So the Smoller-Temple paper is not concerned with time dilation.)

That's right. Because even if Humphrey's paper is real, his time dilation is absolutely imaginary, and doesn't work at all. Schwarzchild time is not physical time.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main