Creationist abuse of 2 Peter 3

[shernren]

The biggest difference between YEC and evolution is a global flood

To someone holding the YEC viewpoint, uniformitarian geologic interpretation and denial of a global flood is a direct fulfillment of the prophecy in II Peter 3:

2Pe 3:3-6 KJV Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (5) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

To me this is a very unhelpful and inaccurate interpretation of 2 Peter 3. Note that the charge has been made against "uniformitarian geologic interpretation and denial of a global flood" in general. This I take to mean that any individual whatsoever who subscribes to these scientific beliefs is in fact standing as a fulfilment to 2 Peter 3. Since no mention of any personal characteristics is mentioned, this is the most sensible interpretation of the charge.

I'll use the ESV translation:

... scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

First note that Peter describes "scoffers in the last days". In other words, these are people who are certainly not Christian and who have no intent whatsoever to respect any teaching of the Bible. I would ask laptoppop if "scoffers" as a term is ever applied to honestly misguided Christians anywhere else in the Bible or the New Testament.

This is important because the modern idea of "uniformitarian" geology has always found support in conservative Christian circles from its inception, no matter how hard creationists try to forget it. Theological luminaries like Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield (and the latter developed the very concept of "inerrancy" that modern creationists utilize without any questions) readily accepted the antiquity of the earth. Were they "scoffers ... following after their evil desires"? This is character misjudgment at best and outright slander at worst.

Secondly, what is the purpose of the scoffers' statements? It is to deny the second coming of Christ. Again I would ask whether the conservative Christians who accept the antiquity of the earth have went on to deny the second coming of Christ. And if they have not, then they clearly cannot be under the ambit of this passage.

Thirdly, note that modern creationist movements are as much guilty of believing that the present is the key to the past as flood-deniers. Here's an analogy to help illustrate this. Suppose a child's sandcastle collapses after it has been battered by waves. The next day, a tsunami hits the coastland of some countries, resulting in the destruction of beachside buildings and the loss of many lives. The father tells the child that "What happened to your sandcastle has happened to these buildings, only on a much larger scale."

In doing so, hasn't the father told the child that the exact same physical forces are operating on the buildings and the sandcastle?

AiG and other creation-science ministries interpret past evidence on the basis of present laws just as much as evolutionists do. They do postulate a global flood; but they don't postulate that a global flood looks any different from basically a large flood. Whenever geological evidence is said to support a global flood, this description is made on the basis that smaller evidence is found in local floods. No other geological reasoning in support of a global flood is ever given. Have they postulated that nature in the past works any differently from nature today? No, they have not.

To give a practical example. One objection raised against local flood ideas is that "the water rose ten feet above the mountains". The logic goes that since water seeks out its level, there is no way that water could do this without the flood being global. Hermeneutical considerations aside, isn't this as uniformitarian an assumption as any? Aren't the creationists simply saying that "ever since the fathers fell asleep, water has been seeking its level, just as it has since the beginning of creation"? After all, creationists have no warrant to assume that water sought its level four thousand years ago even if it seeks its level now.

As such, if uniformitarianism is of the devil, then AiG is as much of the devil as any evolutionist. Clearly that cannot be the desired conclusion of this claim!

 

[Mallon]

Thirdly, note that modern creationist movements are as much guilty of believing that the present is the key to the past as flood-deniers.

Of course they are. Remember this thread?
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7305564

I remember when my old pastor confronted me about my subscribing to evolution. He made the point that uniformitarian assumptions are entirely baseless and unwarranted. I didn't have the heart to remind him that in the basement of his church, he's got a YEC poster that, among other things, advocates a young age for the earth based on uniformitarian recession of the Niagara Falls.

 

[laptoppop]

Awww, c'mon guys -- you're smarter than this! Please don't pull things out of context.

First of all, my primary point in that section was that an absolutely crucial key difference in the way TEs and YECs view the fossil record is whether or not they accept the concept of a global flood. The first part of the section quoted went like this:

The biggest difference between YEC and evolution is a global flood
One of the key issues between YEC and evolution is how the geologic strata and fossils are interpreted. A YEC viewpoint would contend that the majority of the strata was formed during the flood period (including a couple of hundred years after the flood), with some formations representing the pre-flood world, and other formations coming after the flood. An evolutionary viewpoint would contend that the majority of the strata has been formed over millions of years using basically uniformitarian processes.

Proponents of each viewpoint will tend to interpret the fossils and formations in light of their viewpoint. The viewpoints quickly become data filters, and outlying data points are often discarded or discredited.

Then there was the section quoted.

To me this is a very unhelpful and inaccurate interpretation of 2 Peter 3. Note that the charge has been made against "uniformitarian geologic interpretation and denial of a global flood" in general. This I take to mean that any individual whatsoever who subscribes to these scientific beliefs is in fact standing as a fulfilment to 2 Peter 3. Since no mention of any personal characteristics is mentioned, this is the most sensible interpretation of the charge.

I'll use the ESV translation:

... scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

First note that Peter describes "scoffers in the last days". In other words, these are people who are certainly not Christian and who have no intent whatsoever to respect any teaching of the Bible. I would ask laptoppop if "scoffers" as a term is ever applied to honestly misguided Christians anywhere else in the Bible or the New Testament.

This is important because the modern idea of "uniformitarian" geology has always found support in conservative Christian circles from its inception, no matter how hard creationists try to forget it. Theological luminaries like Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield (and the latter developed the very concept of "inerrancy" that modern creationists utilize without any questions) readily accepted the antiquity of the earth. Were they "scoffers ... following after their evil desires"? This is character misjudgment at best and outright slander at worst.

Secondly, what is the purpose of the scoffers' statements? It is to deny the second coming of Christ. Again I would ask whether the conservative Christians who accept the antiquity of the earth have went on to deny the second coming of Christ. And if they have not, then they clearly cannot be under the ambit of this passage.

I am NOT calling TEs scoffers. I quote another part of my post:

Respect
I may be wrong, but I am not a liar. I may be mistaken, or even fooling myself on some particular point, but I am not deliberately deceiving anyone. I love the Lord, and seek to follow Him daily.

I can believe that you are wrong. I can believe you are mistaken. You can disagree with me, and still be intelligent and honest. You can be wrong in various beliefs, and still love the same Lord, and seek to follow Him daily.

I can be deeply concerned about the theological and even the practical implications of particular beliefs, and yet still respect the intelligence, honesty, and faith of those who disagree with me.

Now I am either wildly inconsistent, or I am making a different point. It is the latter.

As we all know, there are TEs, and there are also militant atheistic evolutionists, who use evolutionary theory to mock Christianity. I believe that the scripture is specifically referring to those people as the "scoffers." Note that they have three characteristics:
1) They deny that the Lord is coming back
2) They subscribe to a uniformitarian view of history
3) They deny the global flood

Since TEs around here do not fit the first part, they are not included as "scoffers." Period.

The three attributes are all signs of the Lord coming back. It is of concern that the two attributes are shared with scoffers, but we often share beliefs with unbelievers -- some true, some false.

Thirdly, note that modern creationist movements are as much guilty of believing that the present is the key to the past as flood-deniers. Here's an analogy to help illustrate this. Suppose a child's sandcastle collapses after it has been battered by waves. The next day, a tsunami hits the coastland of some countries, resulting in the destruction of beachside buildings and the loss of many lives. The father tells the child that "What happened to your sandcastle has happened to these buildings, only on a much larger scale."

In doing so, hasn't the father told the child that the exact same physical forces are operating on the buildings and the sandcastle?

AiG and other creation-science ministries interpret past evidence on the basis of present laws just as much as evolutionists do. They do postulate a global flood; but they don't postulate that a global flood looks any different from basically a large flood. Whenever geological evidence is said to support a global flood, this description is made on the basis that smaller evidence is found in local floods. No other geological reasoning in support of a global flood is ever given. Have they postulated that nature in the past works any differently from nature today? No, they have not.

To give a practical example. One objection raised against local flood ideas is that "the water rose ten feet above the mountains". The logic goes that since water seeks out its level, there is no way that water could do this without the flood being global. Hermeneutical considerations aside, isn't this as uniformitarian an assumption as any? Aren't the creationists simply saying that "ever since the fathers fell asleep, water has been seeking its level, just as it has since the beginning of creation"? After all, creationists have no warrant to assume that water sought its level four thousand years ago even if it seeks its level now.

As such, if uniformitarianism is of the devil, then AiG is as much of the devil as any evolutionist. Clearly that cannot be the desired conclusion of this claim!

The rest of your post, and Mallon's post seems to be deliberately confusing two separate issues.

Issue 1: can we gain understanding of how the universe usually works by studying how it works now? You seem to think that it is hypocritical for YECs to use the scientific method to try to understand as much as possible. This is plainly ridiculous. The scientific method has limits, but it absolutely has it's place. We just have to be VERY VERY careful when extrapolating from the present into our understanding of history, and we absolutely must recognize that the scientific method does not and cannot allow for the supernatural. Since we understand that God exists and He is not silent, we MUST account for this in our understanding.

Issue 2: Has the history of this planet been dominated by a global flood, or not? This is the key point of differentiation because it directly affects how we interpret the physical evidence. THIS was the primary point of that section.

 

[Mallon]

my primary point in that section was that an absolutely crucial key difference in the way TEs and YECs view the fossil record is whether or not they accept the concept of a global flood.

You almost make it sound like we need to make up our minds about the global flood BEFORE we examine the fossil record. Is that the right way to go about it, though? Should we not instead examine the fossil record FIRST and then decide whether the evidence fits the scenario for a global flood or not, rather than deciding beforehand and pigeonholing the evidence into one of our pet hypotheses post hoc?

To be honest, I'm not even convinced that the biggest difference between neocreationists and evolutionary creationists is how they interpret the fossil record. It's how they interpret the Bible.

I am NOT calling TEs scoffers.

That settles it for me! Thanks, pop.

 

[juvenissun]

2Pe 3:3-6 KJV Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (5) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

To me this is a very unhelpful and inaccurate interpretation of 2 Peter 3. Note that the charge has been made against "uniformitarian geologic interpretation and denial of a global flood" in general. This I take to mean that any individual whatsoever who subscribes to these scientific beliefs is in fact standing as a fulfilment to 2 Peter 3. Since no mention of any personal characteristics is mentioned, this is the most sensible interpretation of the charge.

The misinterpretation (exaggeration) is obvious.

 

[gluadys]

can we gain understanding of how the universe usually works by studying how it works now? You seem to think that it is hypocritical for YECs to use the scientific method to try to understand as much as possible. This is plainly ridiculous. The scientific method has limits, but it absolutely has it's place. We just have to be VERY VERY careful when extrapolating from the present into our understanding of history, and we absolutely must recognize that the scientific method does not and cannot allow for the supernatural. Since we understand that God exists and He is not silent, we MUST account for this in our understanding.

I would like to tease this out a little bit.

Can we we gain understanding of how the universe usually works by studying how it works now?

You would agree that we can. Would you agree that a key word in this is "usually". IOW when scientists study an phenomenon, they are trying to figure out if it can be explained on the basis of what we know about how the world usually works, not on the basis of an exceptional divine intervention--the sort of thing often called a miracle.

When we speak of science and scientific method, I believe we need to remember that science pursues the usual--not the exceptional. Even when events are exceptional: a tsunami, an asteroid stiking the earth, a massive volcanic eruption--what science tries to do is see if these events can be explained in terms of the usual, ongoing forces of nature.

And think what the alternative is. We can see it in paganism. Before lightning was seen as a natural phenomenon, it was thought to be hurled directly from the hand of Jove or Thor as an expression of his anger. So the next question becomes: how shall we appease this angry god? And the priest or shaman or oracle then seeks the answer as to who is to blame and what is to be done about it.

But to get back to science as the study of the usual. Clearly, uniformitarianism goes along with this study. We count on things to operate as usual because we count on the uniform reliability of natural causes. We count on the regularity of the seasons, which in turn depends on the regularity of the earth's orbit, which in turn depends on the uniform nature of gravity.

the scientific method does not and cannot allow for the supernatural

I think this is poorly worded. To say science doesn't allow for the supernatural sounds as if scientists are actively looking for ways to exclude God. But that would be poor theology, both on the part of the scientist and on the part of a Christian critic, since it would amount to saying that nature excludes God and God has no relation to nature.

Better, I think, to say that science does not seek the supernatural. Given a phenomenon, the scientist looks to see if there is an affirmative answer to the question: can this be explained on the basis of what we know about the way nature works? (Or can a study of this phenomenon give us greater understanding of how nature works?)

The scientist hypothesizes a natural cause not in order to disallow the supernatural but to test out whether there is a natural cause.

If there were a consistent way to test out supernatural causes, I expect the scientific method could work on those too, but almost by definition a supernatural cause is not a uniformitarian cause. So one could not count on similar circumstances producing similar results.


Since we understand that God exists and He is not silent, we MUST account for this in our understanding.

In our scientific understanding? Absolutely, as Christians, we must account for God in our understanding, including our understanding of nature. But this is a theological, not a scientific endeavour.

Science studies the usual, (therefore uniformitarian) ways of nature. These certainly pose no threat to a Christian understanding that God exists and that nature is both God's creation and God's providential gift to us and all creatures sharing our world. Indeed, we even understand the uniformitarian characteristics of nature as part of that gift, providing a reliability and consistency to our experience of creation.


Now, no understanding of the usual and natural precludes the unusual and supernatural. We can understand that normally people do not come to life again after 4 days in the grave. Since science is a study of the usual and normal ways of nature's working, we understand that the raising of Lazarus was not due to natural cause and no amount of scientific study will show us how it happened.

This is the easy part of the issue. We have a report of an unusual phenomenon---and unlike a volcano--it is not simply rare, it is completely unexplainable through science. In fact, it is contra-indicated by nature as we know it through science. The only explanation available is supernatural power.

The issue raised by the flood is the opposite. Here we have a geological record for which we do have a coherent and consistent natural explanation. Why then should we replace it with a supernatural explanation?

 

[juvenissun]

II Peter 3: 4-5

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water

:

Thanks for the reminder on II Peter 3. It is eye-opening. I particularly appreciate the verse 5. The geological implication of the highlighted half verse is amazing. Another critical information in the first few verses is on the description of time. The words in verse 4 was valid then and is still valid now.

 

[laptoppop]

You almost make it sound like we need to make up our minds about the global flood BEFORE we examine the fossil record. Is that the right way to go about it, though? Should we not instead examine the fossil record FIRST and then decide whether the evidence fits the scenario for a global flood or not, rather than deciding beforehand and pigeonholing the evidence into one of our pet hypotheses post hoc?

Yes, that sounds good in theory. In practice, I don't think virtually anyone works that way. For whatever reason, the geological aspects seem to interest me the most - so excuse me if I use them as an example. When someone comes to a location to examine it, do they throw out all their previous knowledge and learning and start from scratch? No, they look for ways to use the information to expand and build upon what has gone before. Knowledge builds upon knowledge. For the most part this is a good thing -- it lets us progress. The issue becomes what do we do when presented with evidence which conflicts with our viewpoint? Do we start from scratch, or do we look for ways in which the new evidence can be accommodated within the older framework? For example, lets look at the Lewis overthrust -- hundreds of miles of "out of order" lamination. There have been various efforts to rationalize it with the conventional timetables. To me, the arguments have been unconvincing. But I come from a mindset in which I expect out of order laminations to occur.

It is a case where we have to look at the overall body of evidence and determine if it fits a model of flood deposition or not. This is a huge task and it is a huge twist of the mind as well.

To be honest,

Oh, you aren't always honest? <evil evil grin> -- sorry Bro -- just kidding, but you left me such a great opening!

I'm not even convinced that the biggest difference between neocreationists and evolutionary creationists is how they interpret the fossil record. It's how they interpret the Bible.

1) never heard of the term "neocreationists" -- offhand my first reaction to it is very very negative. I prefer YEC

2) yah, I've gotten other folks reacting to "biggest" difference as well. We could have a whole list of biggest -- theological biggest, exegetical biggest, etc. The flood is probably the biggest in terms of affecting geological interpretation.

 

[laptoppop]

Some good thoughts, Gluadys, but let's dig in a bit here. I want to make a careful distinction between "Science" and "the scientific method". I'm not trying to nitpick - I really think there is a difference we need to apply to this discussion.

The scientific method is well understood and has a decent meaning for most of us. By design, it requires that elements be testable and repeatable. Given such requirements it precludes God, because we cannot order God to do our bidding at a particular time so that we can perform the proper experiment. However, investigations using the scientific method gives us great insights into how things normally work.

The term "Science" has a much broader definition, and I've seen a huge variation in how it has been applied around here. The problems arise when we allow "Science" to refer to that which includes things which cannot be directly tested using the scientific method. In particular, if we expect "Science" to speak about history, such as creationism versus evolution, we need to include any factors that relate to the possibilities.

I am not concerned with whether something is "scientific" -- but whether it is true -- whether it really happened. History cannot be proven scientifically. We cannot "prove" that Abraham Lincoln ever existed. What we can do is to gather evidence and determine if the weight of the evidence is in favor or opposes Lincoln existing.

As believers, we recognize more than just the physical evidence. We also believe in God, and in His ability to act, and in His loving desire to reveal truth to us.

In the geologic record, we have evidence that can be interpreted in different ways. One way is consistent with a global flood, the other is not. In each case, the "fit" is not perfect because reality is more complex than a trivial model. We need to understand the dynamics of reality to handle the exceptions and issues that arise. I believe the flood model matches the physical evidence better than the alternative, even outside of a faith perspective. To me, the huge geological deposits across continents, such as the Sauk Sequence and the Tippecanoe Sequence, combined with huge "out of order" items such as the Lewis overthrust, combined with the need for most of the strata to form in very short timeframes stands as a huge witness shouting to us about the validity of a global flood.

But we also have the scriptures repeatedly referring to the flood, and to the line from Adam to Jesus. I see their testimony as much more in line with interpreting geology using a flood model.

So I have physical evidence and scriptural evidence both lining up behind a global flood. Good enough for me!

 

[gluadys]

I am not concerned with whether something is "scientific" -- but whether it is true -- whether it really happened. History cannot be proven scientifically. We cannot "prove" that Abraham Lincoln ever existed. What we can do is to gather evidence and determine if the weight of the evidence is in favor or opposes Lincoln existing.

I think the consensus around here is that nothing can be proven scientifically. Everything is based on the gathering of evidence and the weight of probability. So history is no different from other science in this respect.

As believers, we recognize more than just the physical evidence. We also believe in God, and in His ability to act, and in His loving desire to reveal truth to us.

Believing in God and his ability to act and his loving desire to reveal truth to us is not a ground for not believing in physical evidence. It is a ground for believing, as the writer to the Hebrews says, in things not seen. It is not much of a reason for not believing what is seen. Especially if one believes that what is seen is God's handiwork.

In the geologic record, we have evidence that can be interpreted in different ways. One way is consistent with a global flood, the other is not. In each case, the "fit" is not perfect because reality is more complex than a trivial model. We need to understand the dynamics of reality to handle the exceptions and issues that arise. I believe the flood model matches the physical evidence better than the alternative, even outside of a faith perspective. To me, the huge geological deposits across continents, such as the Sauk Sequence and the Tippecanoe Sequence, combined with huge "out of order" items such as the Lewis overthrust, combined with the need for most of the strata to form in very short timeframes stands as a huge witness shouting to us about the validity of a global flood.

I can't discuss geological details with you, but I expect that even you would agree that the questionmarks you set up in regard to these formations are not seen to be problematical by most geologists.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, that sounds good in theory. In practice, I don't think virtually anyone works that way. For whatever reason, the geological aspects seem to interest me the most - so excuse me if I use them as an example. When someone comes to a location to examine it, do they throw out all their previous knowledge and learning and start from scratch? No, they look for ways to use the information to expand and build upon what has gone before. Knowledge builds upon knowledge. For the most part this is a good thing -- it lets us progress. The issue becomes what do we do when presented with evidence which conflicts with our viewpoint? Do we start from scratch, or do we look for ways in which the new evidence can be accommodated within the older framework? For example, lets look at the Lewis overthrust -- hundreds of miles of "out of order" lamination. There have been various efforts to rationalize it with the conventional timetables. To me, the arguments have been unconvincing. But I come from a mindset in which I expect out of order laminations to occur.

It is a case where we have to look at the overall body of evidence and determine if it fits a model of flood deposition or not. This is a huge task and it is a huge twist of the mind as well.

You've obviously spent some time thinking about flood models, pop. So I'm curious: when you approach the geologic record, do you ever ask yourself how you could falsify a global flood hypothesis? If so, what specifically would you look for? And how do you distinguish between flood layers and non-flood layers?

1) never heard of the term "neocreationists" -- offhand my first reaction to it is very very negative. I prefer YEC

I use the term neocreationism to refer to all creationists who reject modern natural science (i.e., modern creationism in the vain of George McCready Price). This encompasses YEC, OEC, YBC, gap, ID, etc. Sorry if you think it sounds "very very negative" -- though I'm not sure why feel that way.

 

[laptoppop]

You've obviously spent some time thinking about flood models, pop. So I'm curious: when you approach the geologic record, do you ever ask yourself how you could falsify a global flood hypothesis? If so, what specifically would you look for?

I've thought just a bit about this in the past, but have not spent a good deal of time on it. Some of the best data integration challenges for me have come from this forum.

And how do you distinguish between flood layers and non-flood layers?

This is a matter of some debate between YECs. Some want to regularize the identification with conventional geology, while others do not. I don't believe there is much pre-flood left, and it is hard to distinguish early flood from pre-flood.

I use the term neocreationism to refer to all creationists who reject modern natural science (i.e., modern creationism in the vain of George McCready Price). This encompasses YEC, OEC, YBC, gap, ID, etc. Sorry if you think it sounds "very very negative" -- though I'm not sure why feel that way.

Given that "neo" means "new" -- it disputes a basic YEC belief-- that we are not proposing something "new" at all, but rather just continuing to see the earth in the terms described in the Bible. The most respectful way to refer to any group is to use the naming that the group itself uses. To try to force a different label on a group seems arrogant to me.

 

[juvenissun]

You've obviously spent some time thinking about flood models, pop. So I'm curious: when you approach the geologic record, do you ever ask yourself how you could falsify a global flood hypothesis? If so, what specifically would you look for? And how do you distinguish between flood layers and non-flood layers?

I certainly thought about it a lot. And I can give you several right off my head.

I argued the flood layer ID issue in CvE forum. Of course, I was not talk to any geologist there, so the debate there was very shallow. This is, in fact, a quite hard question. It is closely related to "how" did the flood water run on the earth. It involves A LOT of parameters.

Just to name the most salient one to your question: the fossil sequence. It is, in turn, closely related to stratigraphy. So far, I haven't spent much time to think about them yet. I am not sure what kind of paleontologist you are. I am not sure how much stratigraphy I could explore with you.

 

[Mallon]

I've thought just a bit about this in the past, but have not spent a good deal of time on it.

Hmmm... so you admit to not knowing what the sedimentary record would look like in the absence of a global flood, but you're certain that the majority of the sedimentary record was deposited by a global flood. That is, you haven't reached the conclusion that the sedimentary record records a global flood by the testing and ruling out the hypothesis that it wasn't. Rather, you just assume a priori that the rocks MUST preserve evidence for a flood.
Am I right?

This is a matter of some debate between YECs. Some want to regularize the identification with conventional geology, while others do not. I don't believe there is much pre-flood left, and it is hard to distinguish early flood from pre-flood.

If it's so hard to distinguish Flood deposition from non-Flood deposition, how can you be so certain that the sedimentary record preserves evidence for Flood deposition? I don't get it.

Given that "neo" means "new" -- it disputes a basic YEC belief-- that we are not proposing something "new" at all, but rather just continuing to see the earth in the terms described in the Bible.

But neocreationism is new, pop. This whole insistence on literalism has its roots in the Enlightenment, and the recent advocacy of Flood geology, baraminology, and other forms of "creation science" started with George McCready Price at the beginning of the last century.
I'm sure the argument will come that Christians since the time of Jesus also subscribed to a 6-day creation and global flood model, which I confess, but I maintain their motivation for doing so was quite different from that of the neocreationists. Once upon a time, Christians believed in the historicity of these events because they had little reason to believe otherwise. The same is true of geocentrism, if you think about it. Before the time of Galileo and Copernicus, Christians believed -- on the basis of Scriptural surface text, no less -- that the sun revolved around the earth. Yet, when science showed that to be false, the same Christians were quick to reject their concordist reading of the geocentric passages and adopted an accommodationist understanding of them (Luther and yeshuasavedme notwithstanding). Once upon a time, these Christians were open to reading the Bible in a new light, given advances in our scientific understanding.
That isn't the case with neocreationists, who -- despite their unwitting acceptance of heliocentrism -- insist a priori that the Bible must be understood as a literal, eye-witness telling of events, and that its accounts are scientifically accurate. This is a new mindset, indeed, and was not shared by Christians prior to the Enlightenment. I have little doubt that if we were to bring a 6-day creationist like Carolus Linnaeus into the 21st century and present him with the evidence for the ancient age of the earth and biological evolution, he would be quick to adapt his interpretation of Scripture because he wasn't a subscriber to post-Enlightenment positivism. The first creationists believed in a young earth and "created kinds" by default; neocreationists believe it deliberately on the basis of modern philosophy.

The most respectful way to refer to any group is to use the naming that the group itself uses. To try to force a different label on a group seems arrogant to me.

What word would you use? Simply "creationism" doesn't cut it for me because it is not an accurate use of the word, since I myself -- as a believer in the doctrine of creation -- subscribe to creationism.
Is there another term you prefer I use? Anti-evolutionism, maybe?

 

[laptoppop]

Hmmm... so you admit to not knowing what the sedimentary record would look like in the absence of a global flood, but you're certain that the majority of the sedimentary record was deposited by a global flood. That is, you haven't reached the conclusion that the sedimentary record records a global flood by the testing and ruling out the hypothesis that it wasn't. Rather, you just assume a priori that the rocks MUST preserve evidence for a flood.
Am I right?

Mallon - you're looking pretty petty right now - lets not play "Gotcha!" ok?

I'm an amateur hobbyist and I was admitting ONLY that I haven't spent much time working on what data would specifically FALSIFY the global flood. All of the data I've seen is consistent with a global flood, and I am aware of what I consider major and serious flaws in the alternative model. Since the data I've seen is consistent and it is also consistent with divine revelation, I'm quite satisfied and confident in it.

If it's so hard to distinguish Flood deposition from non-Flood deposition, how can you be so certain that the sedimentary record preserves evidence for Flood deposition? I don't get it.

It actually works in exactly the opposite way. Because of the dynamics of a global flood it is easy to incorporate various sedimentary layers and harder to exclude them. There are lots of layers where it is easy to say YES this is a flood layer. It is much harder to say NO this cannot be one. The vast majority of the record was made during the flood.

What word would you use? Simply "creationism" doesn't cut it for me because it is not an accurate use of the word, since I myself -- as a believer in the doctrine of creation -- subscribe to creationism.
Is there another term you prefer I use? Anti-evolutionism, maybe?

As I said, the respectful thing to do is to to use the terms that the groups choose for themselves. I prefer YEC.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon - you're looking pretty petty right now - lets not play "Gotcha!" ok?

I'm an amateur hobbyist and I was admitting ONLY that I haven't spent much time working on what data would specifically FALSIFY the global flood. All of the data I've seen is consistent with a global flood, and I am aware of what I consider major and serious flaws in the alternative model. Since the data I've seen is consistent and it is also consistent with divine revelation, I'm quite satisfied and confident in it.

With all due respect, pop, I'm not trying to play "Gotcha!". I'm trying to understand your scientific hermeneutic. You appear to approach the sedimentary record having already decided that it must have been deposited by the Flood, and then try to fit all evidence to that conclusion. If I'm wrong, please elucidate. But this is how you're coming across to me now.

It actually works in exactly the opposite way. Because of the dynamics of a global flood it is easy to incorporate various sedimentary layers and harder to exclude them. There are lots of layers where it is easy to say YES this is a flood layer. It is much harder to say NO this cannot be one. The vast majority of the record was made during the flood.

Again, though, how can you say this if you don't know what a non-Flood layer looks like? How can you say that overbank deposit A was deposited by a global flood rather than a simple annual flooding event (which happen all the time all over the world)?
What characteristics, specifically, do you look for that allow you to say, "Aha! This was deposited by a GLOBAL flood, rather than a localized one"?

It is much harder to say NO this cannot be one.

Now you're making it sound like your position is unfalsifiable. Is it?

As I said, the respectful thing to do is to to use the terms that the groups choose for themselves. I prefer YEC.

Make no mistake -- I use the term YEC when speaking specifically about YEC. But when I speak of YEC, OEC, gap, ID, etc. as a whole, I use the term neocreationism which, again, has its roots in modern philosophy.

 

[laptoppop]

With all due respect, pop, I'm not trying to play "Gotcha!". I'm trying to understand your scientific hermeneutic. You appear to approach the sedimentary record having already decided that it must have been deposited by the Flood, and then try to fit all evidence to that conclusion. If I'm wrong, please elucidate. But this is how you're coming across to me now.

OK, I'll take your word for it.

My path has been a long one. I started out as a fairly strong evolutionist and was convinced about YEC the hard way. I went through a long process of weighing the evidence for and against a global flood in particular. At this point, I am settled that the body of evidence supports a global flood. If I were presented with evidence that was completely irreconcilable, I would reevaluate -- but I don't expect that to happen. In this manner, I suspect I am much like a conventional geologist. I doubt if they ask themselves "Would this evidence better fit a YEC framework"? every time they encounter an out of order fossil, or overthrust or underthrust or intrusion or any of the other ways they have modified the model to fit the evidence. For the most part, as I am presented new evidence, I typically wonder how it can be integrated into the model as opposed to deciding to throw the model out.

Again, though, how can you say this if you don't know what a non-Flood layer looks like? How can you say that overbank deposit A was deposited by a global flood rather than a simple annual flooding event (which happen all the time all over the world)?
What characteristics, specifically, do you look for that allow you to say, "Aha! This was deposited by a GLOBAL flood, rather than a localized one"?

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification. For certain deposits, given the amount of material displaced, it is difficult to envision anything but a global flood sufficing, given their extent and depth, etc. ICR has a modest supercomputer and has done some solid preliminary work investigating the expected flows in a global flood. They also have identified a number of areas for additional study. For example, I recommend the paper from the sixth international conference on Creationism, August 2008 entitled "Ocean Circulation Velocities over the Continents during Noah's Flood." (http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICC08_Ocean_Circ_Velocities.pdf)(Warning - it's a 5 meg download) For more modest deposits, it can be difficult to identify a localized flood versus a global one because of the extreme temporal and spatial variety to be expected in the global flood. However, given the short timeframe of the YEC model, the question often becomes more "can they be accounted for in a global flood model".

Now you're making it sound like your position is unfalsifiable. Is it?

Of course not. Also, of course, I do not expect it to be falsified.

Make no mistake -- I use the term YEC when speaking specifically about YEC. But when I speak of YEC, OEC, gap, ID, etc. as a whole, I use the term neocreationism which, again, has its roots in modern philosophy.

While I can understand your wanting to use alternative terminology, I suggest you stick to the terminology already extant on these forums, especially when referring to groups other than your own. I'm sure I could come up with names for TE or flavors of TE that I could defend as accurate, but which would be offensive to you. I suggest we don't go there.

 

[juvenissun]

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification. For certain deposits, given the amount of material displaced, it is difficult to envision anything but a global flood sufficing, given their extent and depth, etc. ICR has a modest supercomputer and has done some solid preliminary work investigating the expected flows in a global flood. They also have identified a number of areas for additional study. For example, I recommend the paper from the sixth international conference on Creationism, August 2008 entitled "Ocean Circulation Velocities over the Continents during Noah's Flood." (http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICC08_Ocean_Circ_Velocities.pdf)(Warning - it's a 5 meg download) For more modest deposits, it can be difficult to identify a localized flood versus a global one because of the extreme temporal and spatial variety to be expected in the global flood. However, given the short timeframe of the YEC model, the question often becomes more "can they be accounted for in a global flood model".

Hey, pop, thanks very much for the pointing to this article. I almost attended this conference. I can see the quality of papers dramatically improved as exampled by this one. I may try my best to attend the next one (not sure where it going to be).

 

[shernren]

While I can understand your wanting to use alternative terminology, I suggest you stick to the terminology already extant on these forums, especially when referring to groups other than your own. I'm sure I could come up with names for TE or flavors of TE that I could defend as accurate, but which would be offensive to you. I suggest we don't go there.

Never mind that most "TE"s would actually prefer to be known as evolutionary creationists, if not for the fact that this would cause instant confusion and consternation among the people who wish to claim the name "creationists" for themselves. Indeed, I've heard the more strident atheists actually consider people like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins "creationists".

Alternative labels for our silly boxes are really the least of our worries.

 

[shernren]

Firstly I have to say that I'm very glad to see laptoppop's clarification:

I am NOT calling TEs scoffers. ...

As we all know, there are TEs, and there are also militant atheistic evolutionists, who use evolutionary theory to mock Christianity. I believe that the scripture is specifically referring to those people as the "scoffers." Note that they have three characteristics:
1) They deny that the Lord is coming back
2) They subscribe to a uniformitarian view of history
3) They deny the global flood

Since TEs around here do not fit the first part, they are not included as "scoffers." Period.

Having said that, I think my concern was valid, as not every creationist is as moderate as you:

So it is those who dispute what the Bible says about creation, the Flood, etc., who cause division. Even where such people are &#8220;antievolution&#8221;&#8212;if they teach uniformitarian doctrines, such as big bang, slow cooling of the earth over billions of years, and local flood, no matter how much they profess to be &#8220;evangelical&#8221;, they are clearly in the camp of the scoffers.
​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0101aus_newsletter.asp

Also, I don't think the point made by laptoppop:

First of all, my primary point in that section was that an absolutely crucial key difference in the way TEs and YECs view the fossil record is whether or not they accept the concept of a global flood.

was very valid. We should remember that many conservative Christians, like Louis Agassiz and Charles Hodge, in the late 1800's and early 1900's clearly accepted an old, uniformitarian geology, some even while rejecting evolution. If geology is crucial, how could Christians accept an old-earth geology while rejecting evolution, and what would motivate them to do so?

In this manner, I suspect I am much like a conventional geologist. I doubt if they ask themselves "Would this evidence better fit a YEC framework"? every time they encounter an out of order fossil, or overthrust or underthrust or intrusion or any of the other ways they have modified the model to fit the evidence. For the most part, as I am presented new evidence, I typically wonder how it can be integrated into the model as opposed to deciding to throw the model out.

But perhaps they have.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

... It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,' (Humphreys) 'a heretic' (Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser' (Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful" (John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) " have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

...But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
​

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm (emphasis added)

This is the story of one man and many of his friends who asked themselves precisely the question you posed, and found their answers to be negative.

(Interestingly, Glenn Morton himself gets mixed press on AiG's websites: he goes from "creationist" in 1994 [here] to "claims to have formerly been a young-Earth creationist" in 2002 [here]. It seems that if you fall out of creationism, you can't possibly be trusted even to describe what you once believed!)