Deceiving the Nations.

[vossler]

But not all of reality. You are not taking the reality of creation into account. You act as if the scriptures exist in a vacuum sealed off from God's creation and can be used as a judge of creation. Does God judge God, God's Word or God's work? How can you assign a priority of truth-value to God's inspired scripture vis-a-vis God's created world? Are not both a product of the Word of God?

O.K. let’s put it this way, I deal with reality whenever and wherever it presents itself. I certainly don’t believe the Scriptures exist in a vacuum, that’s about as far from the truth as anything I ever been accused of. God judges man, not God, His Word or Work. I assign no priority of His Word over Creation or vice-versa, both complement one another. The problems arise when we try to use our finite minds and understanding to measure and comprehend something beyond our comprehension.

But it is your interpretation of scriptures that tells you this occurred about 6,000 years ago, that the six days were ordinary solar days, that the presentation of the six days is wholly chronological and that the dust of the earth was instantly transformed (rather than, as scripture says "formed") into an adult human being. So it is not reality speaking here, but your interpretation of the text.

No reality has been more plainly written for all to see. Last I checked, six days means six days, there is nothing confusing or hidden there. If there was then God could legitimately be called the author of confusion.

Creation is reality and it comes straight from God. One of the reasons I object to YECism is that its rejection of nature's evidence leads logically and inevitably to the proposition that creation is either unreal or unknowable. This I take to be a disavowal of the doctrine of creation. (Granted most YECs think they are defending the doctrine of creation and do not intend this disavowal. Strikes me a bit like that oxymoron of the Vietnam war: "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it." The YECist defence of creationism leads to undermining the doctrine that God created a real, knowable world.

As a YEC I have no qualms with reality and any logical inferences being presented. Creation is obviously very real and knowable, I find no problem with either. I’m not looking to destroy anything other than the lies of the devil.

And what God clearly and emphatically tells us in His creation is that it is billions of years old and that humanity is a product of evolution.

Let me ask you something and see if this is a feasible explanation. If God created everything ex nilo, wouldn’t it then stand to reason that things would appear to be older than they actually are?

So you accept the evidence, yet reject the conclusion. I wonder, given this, why you do not at least affirm Old-Earth Creationism.

Yes that’s right, I reject the conclusion because it doesn’t align with the Scriptural account. If I were looking solely from a scientific perspective then yes I would probably be an OEC, but that theory isn’t supported very well by the Bible.

Oh, it is far more than conjecture and speculation. However, to fully understand it, I think you need a better foundation in the role of hypothetical prediction/retrodiction.

Obviously to you and many others this is true. For as long as evolution has been around and the degree of certainty that people place on its precepts one would think that it would be a slam dunk for all, yet it is far from that.

I think, as the evidence is usually presented in these forums, in little snippets without context, it does appear weak. Although in part this is because people sometimes have unrealistic expectations of what the evidence should show--witness laptoppop's thread on beneficial mutations. However, I would say that there is a context needed to appreciate the strength of the evidence. Some important parts of that context are:

1. The role of hypothesis and prediction in science
2. A clear understanding of cladistics and phylogeny in order to understand why the nested hierarchy is such a strong support of the theory of evolution.
3. A fairly detailed knowledge of areas which creationists sources of information tend to treat superficially e.g. the fossil record.

I'm not that strong on 3. myself, but it never ceases to amaze me how much information is available that the average layperson knows nothing of. The more one learns, and the more detail one learns, the more clearly the picture of and old earth and evolution emerges from the evidence--not as conjecture or speculation, but as derived directly from the testimony of nature.

The reason the average layperson knows nothing is because most of this stuff is way over their head and doesn’t comply with what they see. If we need an ‘expert’ to show us things that in the natural don’t make sense to us no one should be surprised when we reject the conclusions, especially when it contradicts the Word of God.

As you know I don’t argue the science because I’m just a layperson who doesn’t have the qualifications to do so. However, even if I did I would most certainly take on all evidence with my biblical glasses on before rendering a judgment.

Well this accurately describes the physics and geology which date the universe and the earth in billions of years and the paleontology and biology which support the theory of evolution.

I agree with the first half of this but not the latter.

But science does need an outside source. Science is held accountable to the reality of nature. And the reality of nature is the work of God's Word. So, in effect, science (whether scientists acknowledge it or not) is accountable to the Word of God.

I do agree that science is accountable to the reality of nature. Sadly though, over time the line of what is science and what is fiction has become very clouded, it’s now to the point that they intermingle and where what was once fiction now is seen as science.

I believe you. I even agree with you. Where we part company is that you equate absolute truth with a literal, factual presentation of the truth. To me, the story of Adam and Eve is absolutely true as an inspired myth.

Then we don’t agree because, in my view, there is no myth within Scripture.

Agreed, but are you listening to all of God's Word or only to the scriptures, or actually, only to your interpretation of the scriptures?

That is always the question, am I hearing or seeing everything that God has said. Everything I’ve heard and seen has proved only what was already evident.

I see two errors here. First, you are not looking at how those precepts became established. Check out the history of science. It is not a fact that scientists jumped enthusiastically onto the bandwagon when first presented with the new concepts of Copernicus, Galileo, Hutton, Mendel, Darwin,Lemaitre or Wegener. Every one of their hypotheses was questioned, criticized, analysed and judged against the evidence.

That’s interesting because they sure jumped onto the bandwagon of evolution. Why is that? I think it was because it set them free, free to do what they wished because God was no longer a player.

Second, you are not looking at the rewards of successfully challenging a scientific paradigm. Lemaitre and Wegener were both practically laughed out of court when the concepts of a big bang and continental drift were first launched. It took evidence, evidence which had no other comparable explanation, to convince the skeptics. But, in spite of the fact their hypotheses went against "established precepts", the funding was scraped together and the evidence was found. So "established precepts" and accepted world views are not really a barrier to changing paradigms in science. In fact, today a Nobel prize is often the consequence of changing a scientific paradigm. What scientist would overlook the chance to win such prestige?

Oh I understand there are rewards but let’s be honest they won’t be received well at all. If I were a worldly scientist and bought the lie of evolution why would I pursue disproving it if I knew my research wouldn’t be funded and wouldn’t be well received? Sounds pretty foolish to me as I’m sure it is to them.

Yet in all ages there have been controversies over the correct interpretation of scripture, and many of these controversies continue today as witnessed by denominational differences. By contrast, science has successfully resolved many controversies in its domain and there is no scientific equivalent to denominational divisions.

Of there’s been, whenever you’re told to do something that you don’t want to do there will be controversy. So you’re saying that because science doesn’t have as many controversies as Scripture it is more inerrant?

 

[Melethiel]

Then we don’t agree because, in my view, there is no myth within Scripture.

I think the problem here is you are using "myth" in different ways.

1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

gluadys seems to be using the first definition, while you are using one of the latter ones.

 

[shernren]

Why do you [busterdog] put your replies in the quote itself? Firstly, that gives the false impression that your replies were actually stated by the person you are replying to, and secondly, they make it difficult for anyone to quote you. One wonders why indeed.

But, the freakin' poison is in the water, everywhere, regardless of whether you have acquired an immunity.

While creationists poison the well all the time, this is the first time I've ever seen one admit openly to it. Hehe.

As for the more standard brand of conspiracy theories, as TE, your basis of belief has been asssaulted by billions of dollars of counter-incentives. In China and Russia alone, massive institutions are conspiratorially slanted against you, not to mention the YECs. Certain interpretations of C14 are conspiratorially censored and suppressed. You can argue that the effect is minimal if you wish, but the conspiracy is quite well-accepted. The bias in this country is somewhat different. But again, the conventional bias is against the beliefs of TEs. Belief in the actual resurrection of Jesus is actively supressed in American institutions. You can argue that this affects geology and physics minimally, if at all. But, the freakin' poison is in the water, everywhere, regardless of whether you have acquired an immunity. Its effects on TE scientists are at best more subtle, if there is any effect at all, but they are in fact shoulder to shoulder with card-carrying members of a hostile conspiracy. We are just arguing about in what relative proportions and to what effect.

Wow. You're really getting paranoid about this. Here are some facts and figures for you:

1. Aberrant C-14 dates are reported openly in scientific media. Where do you think AiG gets fodder for their articles? Baumgardner once wrote an entire paper on the plethora of C-14 dates reported in mainstream journals which don't make sense (to him, at least). C-14 dating is important not only in evolutionary research but in paleoclimatology, a field which sees absolutely zero contribution from creationist "science" (probably because it isn't sexy enough), and which is vitally important for conservation efforts today. And the age of the earth was not determined through C-14 dating but through more long-lived isotopic chains such as uranium and potassium decay chains. Are you going to claim that there's a massive scholarly cover-up there as well?

2. A typical evolutionary research project receives about $100,000 in grants from US research funding groups like the NSF. These funding records are publicly available online. In comparison, when AiG had $27 million to spend, they didn't spend it on scientists, they spent it on their Creation Museum. Given that they could have funded about 270 research groups, any one of which could have come up with killer evidence against evolution, why didn't they? If anyone is propagandizing it's them.

3. While we're on the subject of public funding and image, AiG managed to raise $27 million for their museum. Why is it that in the midst of your supposed "evolution conspiracy", the American National Museum of History couldn't find a single corporate sponsor for their exhibition about the life and work of Charles Darwin? Do "wealthy individuals and private donors" a conspiracy make? Public opinion is so disproportionately anti-evolutionist that, if anything, I would say evolutionism is suppressed - perhaps not in academia, but in millions of homes by throngs of unaware parents and Net-wise but scientifically naive nerds. (I should know. I was once one of them.)

4. Russian biology is years behind Western science not because it supported evolution but because it suppressed it. From the 1940s to the 1960s, genetics research was suppressed in the Soviet Union and many geneticists executed or sent to jail, most (if not all) of them obviously Darwinian. Instead, the state supported a pseudoscience called Lysenkoism which claimed to be able to give better yields in Russia's cold climate using outdated Lamarckian concepts. The USSR was communist at the time, and according to creationist conspiracy thinking atheism and communism are all based on evolution. Isn't it queer, then, that an atheist communist state would be executing evolutionists instead of supporting them?

If there is a conspiracy, it's doing such a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-poor job that it might as well not exist for all intents and purposes. And even if it were, the current wave of fashionable atheism can have nothing to do with evolution. If you want to prove that it does, then answer this question, which I have never seen answered: if you pray before you look into the microscope, do you get different results?

If yes, then do tell me what god you worship because it sounds awfully unlike the Christian God so many scientists know, worship, and obey.
If no, then logically speaking whether or not I pray makes no difference to the results I obtain in my microscope. The question then becomes how on earth can atheist indoctrination cause evolution to flower? After all, if there is physical evidence for creationism, then even the most hardcore atheist will have to admit that it exists because he cannot see anything to the contrary in his microscope (which is in fact the entire premise of all creationism ministries, isn't it?), which means that all the work of atheist indoctrinators will never flower. Any scientific experiment is an investigation into nature, and if the creationists are right, somewhere somehow one of those experiments will point in the right direction and find proof of creationism - so are the evolutionist cabal really stupid enough to fund research, when they should be suppressing it?

So no, there is no conspiracy. Then again, between conspiracy and sheer intellectual barrenness, guess which is easier for the creationist community to claim?

 

[gluadys]

Science thought the unverse always existed. Steady state theory. Light was thought of as having an infinite speed. Science (not the BIble) thought the earth was flat (actually, I don't think this was every really taken seriously except for a few nuts in the face of corrupt governments or in the case of some really backward societies. Theories of infection and spontaneous generation. Everything before Lorentz and Einstein misunderstood reality, fundamentally. Therafter, it is a different misunderstanding. How about cloud formation? Only recently has science had the first clue that cosmic rays could be an essential ingredient, though science never would have suggested that it failed to understand the process of cloud formation. How about medicine? Lobotomies? Science had a theory of agriculture that just lacks the long term viability of modern organic methods.

Is this a new technique of YECism---to present scientific successes as scientific failures?

In several cases listed, the old point of view was a pre-scientific assumption. It was never presented as something known to science; it was just never doubted until people began to observe and question the issue scientifically. That the universe has always existed is a given of many ancient paganisms which view deities as younger than the heavens and the earth, as formers and shapers of the universe, not its creators. The Hebrew religious tradition turned this on its head, affirming instead the eternity of God and the temporality of the universe.

But creation was an article of faith, not a scientific falsification. As late as medieval times, St. Thomas Aquinas made note of the fact that reason unaided by faith could not come to the conclusion that the universe was created ex nihilo.

Science did not look at this question until the 20th century and then successfully showed that the knowable universe did have a beginning.

Ditto with a flat earth. (And though scripture does not teach this concept, it certainly assumes it. Nothing in scripture speaks against a flat earth and several passages make more sense if one assumes a flat earth than not.) But in any case, this is the default position we would expect a pre-scientific culture to take. After all, the earth appears on first glance to be relatively flat with a "roof" overhead. It was scientific observation that successfully showed this is not the case.


Spontaneous generation was also a pre-scientific assumption that was believed to be supported by some superficial observations, especially prior to the invention of the microscope and the discovery of micro-organisms. But with this new tool and some much more careful and in-depth observation, science successfully proved the falsity of spontaneous generation.

It also required the microscope and the observation of micro-organisms to develop the germ theory of infection to replace such pre-scientific concepts as infection by vapours and humours (or demons, the usual NT explanation).

In short, these scientific "failures" are merely looking at scientific successes through the wrong end of history--and often misrepresenting common folk beliefs as valid, acepted science rather than as beliefs which had not yet received scientific scrutiny.

 

[vossler]

I think the problem here is you are using "myth" in different ways.

1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

gluadys seems to be using the first definition, while you are using one of the latter ones.

Even using the first definition you propose my statement stands.

 

[Deamiter]

busterdog -- it's nearly impossible for me to read your red text, and really hard for me to focus on it when it's italicized in the quote box -- could you use quote tags like everybody else?

Well, Moses took alot of dictation on Mt. Sinai and in the tabernacle, by some reckonings. Whether or not this was dictation, we stil have the same problem. The problem is, since we cannot self-authenticate, where do we find revelation? I argue that TE simply refuses to abide such dilemmas and rushes on to determine that will authenticate for itself, thank you very much!

So... a better approach is to declare that both the Bible and your interpretation of it HAS been authenticated and then refuse to give it another thought?

About your view on science, I don't understand why an incomplete or flawed model that explains all available evidence is a failure. The Israelites thought that the world rested on pillars and that there was a dome above their heads with water above that. They thought that if you could dig far enough you'd find Sheol... and their understanding fit all the evidence they had to work with.

Our understanding of the universe will never be perfect, but it will always be improving. Newton wasn't precisely correct, but his understanding of gravity still holds in most situations (certainly all those we experience on Earth). So was he wrong to not include a time-dilation term... when there was no data to suggest that such a term was necessary in describing acceleration?

 

[Deamiter]

Even using the first definition you propose my statement stands.

So... you're claiming that the first few chapters of Genesis are NOT concerned with dieties and that they don't at all explain the origin of the universe...?

 

[Xaero]

[...]paleoclimatology, a field which sees absolutely zero contribution from creationist

Because here they have absolutely no answer for the climate cycles that are a clear sign of an old earth. Why would god set up such signs into the earth?
A recent created world may look old at the first sight, but when looking at the details one must find either signs of recent creation or plain chaos.
But insolation cycles calculated by astronomical data aligns quite nicely with the measured cycling ratios from isotopes in varves and core drills.

Instead, the state supported a pseudoscience called Lysenkoism which claimed to be able to give better yields in Russia's cold climate using outdated Lamarckian concepts. The USSR was communist at the time, and according to creationist conspiracy thinking atheism and communism are all based on evolution. Isn't it queer, then, that an atheist communist state would be executing evolutionists instead of supporting them?

Good point, reminds a bit of Deutsche Physik

Deutsche Physik stands in history as being an explicit intersection of science and politics, comparable in ways to Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, the treatment of many scientists (especially Big Bang cosmologists) in China during the Cultural Revolution, and the controversy over state support for Intelligent Design in the United States.

 

[vossler]

So... you're claiming that the first few chapters of Genesis are NOT concerned with dieties and that they don't at all explain the origin of the universe...?

No...I'm saying that nothing within the Bible, that is of any importance to me or anyone else, is a mythical story.

 

[gluadys]

The problems arise when we try to use our finite minds and understanding to measure and comprehend something beyond our comprehension.

Do you think God intended the world he made for us to be beyond our comprehension?

Why do you think there is no problem comprehending scripture and insurmountable problems comprehending creation?

Let me ask you something and see if this is a feasible explanation. If God created everything ex nilo, wouldn’t it then stand to reason that things would appear to be older than they actually are?

First it is ex nihilo (from "nihil" Latin for "nothing")

No, they would not appear to be older than they actually are. They could appear mature, but they would not appear to have a history. At a tissue level, for example, there is no reason Adam would show signs of age. He could be 6'2" but still have new, unworn, unscarred, unwrinkled skin.

The scientific evidence in favour of an old earth, or an old heavens, resides in the history rocks and stars have acquired in their passage through time, not in the mere fact that they look mature. In geology, we do not just have stacks of sediment; we have angular unconformities, paleosols, fossil forests stacked on top of other fossil forests, thrust faults and foldings, volcanic eruptions, cave-ins, burrows, one ancient river bed cutting through an even more ancient river bed, all sorts of things that make no sense given a recently created earth. There is no logical reason for God to plant such events in the geological record if he simply wanted to create an earth prepared for human habitation.

In biology we get similar evidence of history when we examine genes.

Creation is obviously very real and knowable...

Yes that’s right, I reject the [scientific]conclusion because it doesn’t align with the Scriptural account.

I see a disconnect here. You have to reject what you agree is a logical and scientifically valid conclusion from the evidence, in effect to assert that nature is not real or not knowable, in order to preserve your understanding of scripture. This is exactly the YECist retreat into undermining the reality of creation I was referring to.

To me, when you get to this point, you are saying that your perspective on scripture is so immune to question that even God's creation can be called a lie, so long as you are justified in your opinion.

The reason the average layperson knows nothing is because most of this stuff is way over their head and doesn’t comply with what they see.

That is true of a lot of science. To ancient people, the idea the earth is a sphere did not comply with what they saw. The concept AFAIK was not proposed before the 5th century BC and nearly 1,000 years later there were still some who argued against it. (Of course, there are still a few dozen flat-earthers today).

Aristotle, who was a fairly intelligent guy, rejected Democritus' idea of atoms as the fundamental unit of matter and no one looked at the idea again for nearly 2,000 years. When they did, they got an even further shock when they discovered atoms were composed of still more fundamental particles, and mostly of empty space. That is certainly not an idea that complies with our ordinary perception of things.

Quantum mechanics frankly turns my mind inside out. Way above my head and not at all in accord with what I see or can even follow logically.

So, it is true, science does not accord with a layperson's naive view of the world. But that doesn't make the lay perspective right. Again and again, it is the science that is right in contradiction to what is easily understood or apparently obvious.

However, even if I did I would most certainly take on all evidence with my biblical glasses on before rendering a judgment.

And do you think this would change what you see through a microscope? Would you get a different sequence for a strand of DNA than someone not wearing biblical glasses?

I agree with the first half of this but not the latter.

More and more illogical. You agree to the validity of science supporting a conclusion you reject, but don't even agree to the validity of the rest of the science. Why not take the same stance toward both? Why not agree with the validity of paleontological and biological support for evolution, but reject the conclusion anyway, just as you do with the age of the earth?

I do agree that science is accountable to the reality of nature. Sadly though, over time the line of what is science and what is fiction has become very clouded, it’s now to the point that they intermingle and where what was once fiction now is seen as science.

Unless you give some examples, this is just a meaningless generalization.

Then we don’t agree because, in my view, there is no myth within Scripture.

Good. For a change you acknowledge that this is your view, your interpretation. You do not acknowledge myth in scripture, not because it could not be there, but because the hermeneutic you adopt (as set out in your signature) does not permit it.

On this basis we can then question whether this is a valid hermeneutical principle.

That’s interesting because they sure jumped onto the bandwagon of evolution.

What makes you think that? There were plenty of scientists, good ones like Cuvier and Agassiz, who never accepted evolution, and others who only came to gradual acceptance after much study and analysis. Darwin's own mentor, Owen, did not jump on the bandwagon of evolution, though he eventually concluded Darwin was right.

A little bit of historical study would show that evolution had to earn its credentials the same as any other new theory.

If I were a worldly scientist and bought the lie of evolution why would I pursue disproving it if I knew my research wouldn’t be funded and wouldn’t be well received? Sounds pretty foolish to me as I’m sure it is to them.

And if you were not a worldly scientist? I think this brings us to the question as to why creationist organisations do not do research. Why does AiG spend $27 million on a museum and not devote even a third of this to research instead. Funding can be found, even if with difficulty, and researchers can be found for all sorts of off-the-beaten track investigations.

So you’re saying that because science doesn’t have as many controversies as Scripture it is more inerrant?

Nobody claims science is inerrant. And there are plenty of controversies in science. But science seems to have a better track record of resolving controversies. I think that has something to do with the availability of physical evidence, the inter-subjectivity of observation and the commitment to be guided by evidence rather than by authority. By contrast, religion deals with invisibilities, with realities that are not inter-subjective, and with commitment to teaching authorities and cannot agree on which authority or whose subjective experience is determinative. So controversies on matters of faith tend not to be resolved as there is nothing objective to judge who is right.

That is why I have always contended that the inerrancy of scripture is irrelevant. Even inerrant scripture is subject to fallible interpretation, and what we need is inerrant interpretation. But we don't have that, nor, in regard to scripture, do we have a universally accepted way to test interpretations against reality, so that the controversies can be resolved.

 

[Assyrian]

Time again, the people of Israel are asked to differentiate between what their eyes seem to tell them and what God says He will do for them.

I mean, isn't it clear to absolutely everyone that this is the essence of the stories of Moses crossing the Red Sea, the feeding of Israel in the wilderness, the water from the rock, the testimony of Caleb and Joshua, the reduction of the walls of Jericho, the crossing of the Jordan, the killing of Goliath, the slaughter of the Assyrian army, the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, and the birth of the Messiah?

I find it amazing YECs keep bringing up this point. We are not talking about what God says he will do, no matter how wonderful or seemingly impossible from a naturalistic point of view. We are talking about what God has done, or rather what people claim he has done. In every case you mentioned, when God acted the evidence was completely undeniable. If Joshua claimed the walls of Jericho had fallen while they stood there towering over the Israelites, If Ezra and Nehemiah had claimed 'mission accomplished' standing on a pile of burnt rubble, if David had claimed to have had a miraculous victory while Goliath still stood there thumbing his nose at the army, rather than having his head and nose a considerable distance from the rest of him, no one would have believe the alleged miracle.

If God had created the world 6000 years ago then as YECs claim, then the evidence would agree with it. In the bible, people who claimed to speak for God were rejected as false prophets when the evidence showed they were wrong.

Apparently it means little to our TE brothers that academic consensus has more failures than successes, historically. A philosophical basis to be skeptical of science itself is apparently rejected, simply because YEC are allegedly uncomprehending of things like cosmic background radiation, the unchanging speed of light and various models of the volume of water for a global flood and our inability to find that water presently.

Philosophy has been rejected in favour of science since Galileo showed science could give much better artillery trajectories than the philosophy based 'physics' of the day. Since then philosophy has been left behind in the dust. It has never caught up, never shown a understanding of the universe that can produce any kind of results in any way comparable to science. A philosophical basis for rejecting science will never get anywhere a long as science is able to show it has a much better understanding of how the universe works.

Again, the point about science validating itself is really a good insight.

Science is constantly being tested against the real world. You tested it out the last time you flew in an plane, used a cell phone, or typed out a message on your computer.

Must not God have provided something that is self-authenticating? Is there anything in Scripture to suggest that anything but Scripture is self-authenticating?

But who authenticates the scripture interpretations?

In the TE responses, I am having a hard time finding the problem of deception. I don't see how it fits into their world-view. Obviously there are individual problems. Ted Haggard is deceived and falls prey to a call-boy. Etc., etc. But, the testimony is that satan is deceiving "the nations" and actually has the power to deliver the very nations to Jesus in the temptation. Are the academics exempt? Is a really good radio-carbon dating method going to be exempt from such powers? I really don't understand how to make this shadowy aspect of our reality fit the TE model.

What about Rudolph Bultman? http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_760_bultmann.htm Was he not deceived? Did not his philosophy (and similar philosophies) overtake academia? Nations have been ruled by Marxist doctrine, which is founded upon such scientific rejection of things like the resurrrection. How does one so carefully dissect and segregate clear, biblical thought from systems of education that are founded on rejecting every literal application of the Biblical history and prophecy?

As political force, deception has been very, very powerful in academics. Clearly. No question about it. For a hundred years, billions of dollars have originated from people with these agendas. Has the TE movement simply emerged miraculously, like the children of Israel from Egypt? Is there no fear that they have emerged with more Egypt than they thought? Again, I am not asking for immediate conversion, just critical thinking about the supposedly self-authenticating system that gives us evolution.

Forgive me for seeming a little strident. Obviously I am trying to erode TE self-confidence and get a foot in the door of TE logic. But, the suggestion that deception may be the predominant model in this world is a basis for fear, not confidence in any human model. What is fear of the Lord in TE thinking?

Well if there is a Satanic deception afoot, then our only hope is for the bible to warn us what to look out for. We have been warned of deceptions denying who Christ is, or of false prophets setting themselves up to be worshipped as God or in Christ's place. But there was no mention about the age of the earth. Even in the passage beloved of YECs 2Pet 3, he makes it clear that the length of time God take is not an issue because, referring to Moses statement in Psalm 90, God's 'days' are very different to ours. While the Nt insists that all things were created by God, there is no suggestion that the method God used to create us was an issue. If Satan's great deception is to deny a six day creation, how is it that a six day creation seemed so unimportant to the Nt writers that no one even mentioned it?

On the other hand if we are going to say that any scientific theory that contradicts a bible interpretation could be a Satanic deception then I suggest you think very seriously about your casual rejection of geocentrism, simply based on the claims of science.

Even in the early church there were lone voices like Cosmas Indicopleustescalling for a rejection of pagan theory of a sphere and a return to the biblical view of a flat earth. Do you think Satan left his scientific deception of the nations to the last few centuries?

Why should we be afraid of some great Satanic deception in science, when it says nothing that contradicts the teachings the Nt writers said were important for us to believe? If instead we are to adopt you fear based skeptical approach to science, how do you propose we tell the flat earthers, geocentrists and YECs apart?

 

[shernren]

That is true of a lot of science. To ancient people, the idea the earth is a sphere did not comply with what they saw. The concept AFAIK was not proposed before the 5th century BC and nearly 1,000 years later there were still some who argued against it. (Of course, there are still a few dozen flat-earthers today).

Aristotle, who was a fairly intelligent guy, rejected Democritus' idea of atoms as the fundamental unit of matter and no one looked at the idea again for nearly 2,000 years. When they did, they got an even further shock when they discovered atoms were composed of still more fundamental particles, and mostly of empty space. That is certainly not an idea that complies with our ordinary perception of things.

Quantum mechanics frankly turns my mind inside out. Way above my head and not at all in accord with what I see or can even follow logically.

So, it is true, science does not accord with a layperson's naive view of the world. But that doesn't make the lay perspective right. Again and again, it is the science that is right in contradiction to what is easily understood or apparently obvious.

In quantum physics (and the general philosophy of science) there is an idea called the "correspondence principle". It means, in quantum physics, that any quantum principle must reduce to normal physics when quantum numbers become large: electrons are allowed to delocalize, but not baseballs or buildings. For example, one principle of quantum physics is that energy is quantized: an electron can have only this energy or that energy, and nothing in between. Imagine driving on the road with a car that can only go 30km/h and 60km/h, and nothing else! However, the same quantum theory that states that energy is quantized also shows that as mass increases, the quantum states become so close together that for all practical purposes, there is no quantization of energy for a car.

In the general philosophy of science a new theory has to replicate all the conclusions of an old theory within the domain where that old theory was applicable. For example, relativity gives a strange formula for the total energy of a particle due to its motion and rest mass. At first glance one would wonder how this reduces to the Newtonian formulation E = .5mv^2 - but it turns out that when you assume that the speed of the particle is much less than the speed of light, the Einsteinian formula reduces pretty closely to the Newtonian one. Again, the new theory replicates old theory in all the domains where the old theory held true.

Modern theories seem strange to us because they describe regions unfamiliar to our experience: quantum physics describes the world of the very small, and relativity the world of the very massive and very fast. In the same way, evolution and old-earth sciences seem unfamiliar to us because they describe the domain of processes that take large amounts of time to complete. Evolution predicts that quite a bit of selection occurring in any population is stabilizing selection, thus precluding much change over the short term in many cases; and geology certainly doesn't allow for mountains to move overnight barring earthquakes or meteors. Both of these sciences reduce, over the average lifespan of the human, to the Biblical ideas that life reproduces after its kind and that the mountains stand forever, respectively. And this actually counts for them, and not against them. It is the creationist theories which have difficulty including and satisfying the correspondence principle.

Anyways, that's my sidetrack. (I should explain what sparked it: gluadys spoke of science being right "in contradiction to what is easily understood or apparently obvious." That can be a misleading image for science. Every scientific theory has to encapsulate its predecessors: quantum mechanics explains what is easily understood and then - and only then! - some more. A theory cannot go on to explain that "and then some more" before covering all the ground its predecessors did. People cannot run before they walk, and neither can science.)

 

[busterdog]

Do you think God intended the world he made for us to be beyond our comprehension?

Absolutely He did.

To me this is one kernel of the problem. This rhetorical question. One assumes that God would not have made C14 as clear as it is if He was the loving God that we know Him to be. Rocks would not look as old as they do and there would be no cosmic background radiation. It is this assumption about God's nature and whistling past the enemies "deception of the nations" that is essential to a absolute TE confidence in its position. (I am not directly attacking TE based upon a mere preponderance of the evidence.)

Luk 10:19
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Luk 10:20
Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Again, astute observation is not the beginning of wisdom. Fear of the Lord is.

God appears to be deceptive to the proud and those who do not wish to be follow His Word. Indeed God seems to participate by allowing this deception.

People say it is paranoia, but is God determined to bless Harvard University with revealed wisdom where Harvard University rejects the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus? How about M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University under the reign of Stalin?

1Ki 22:20
And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.


1Ki 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

One answer is that the TEs here are not worshipping power and the world as Ahab or Stalin did. But, TEs do make use of the science of people who have no idea in the world who God is. No doubt God can and does use these people. But, how you are so confident in the rhetorical question when the observation you rely upon come through manifestly corrupt processes?

 

[vossler]

Do you think God intended the world he made for us to be beyond our comprehension?

Much of it yes!

Why do you think there is no problem comprehending scripture and insurmountable problems comprehending creation?

I never said there wasn’t a problem comprehending Scripture, it was given to us for the express purpose for us to understand. If we desire to know the Word the Holy Spirit will guide us unto all we need to do just that. Creation was given to us, I believe, for the primary purpose as a witness to God’s awesome splendor and majesty. There isn’t anything I’ve ever come across from God that tells us we are commanded to understand or comprehend Creation for anything other than to give glory to God. Evolution doesn't even remotely do that.

First it is ex nihilo (from "nihil" Latin for "nothing")

Thanks, I’ve seen it spelled both ways so I just chose the easier one. After actually looking it up I see it supposed to be spelled the way you did so that’s the way I will spell it from here on out.

No, they would not appear to be older than they actually are. They could appear mature, but they would not appear to have a history. At a tissue level, for example, there is no reason Adam would show signs of age. He could be 6'2" but still have new, unworn, unscarred, unwrinkled skin.

Of course that’s true but he would still appear older than he is. Are you saying that if you saw a 6’2” man you wouldn’t think he would appear to be more than 10 years old? C’mon be honest.

The scientific evidence in favour of an old earth, or an old heavens, resides in the history rocks and stars have acquired in their passage through time, not in the mere fact that they look mature. In geology, we do not just have stacks of sediment; we have angular unconformities, paleosols, fossil forests stacked on top of other fossil forests, thrust faults and foldings, volcanic eruptions, cave-ins, burrows, one ancient river bed cutting through an even more ancient river bed, all sorts of things that make no sense given a recently created earth. There is no logical reason for God to plant such events in the geological record if he simply wanted to create an earth prepared for human habitation.

Yet even as Mount St. Helens has shown us, there is a lot about geology, sedimentary processes, etc., that we clearly don’t understand. Catastrophic events, like a worldwide flood, cannot be tested and known by any means of measurement that we’re capable of undertaking.

I see a disconnect here. You have to reject what you agree is a logical and scientifically valid conclusion from the evidence, in effect to assert that nature is not real or not knowable, in order to preserve your understanding of scripture. This is exactly the YECist retreat into undermining the reality of creation I was referring to.

To me, when you get to this point, you are saying that your perspective on scripture is so immune to question that even God's creation can be called a lie, so long as you are justified in your opinion.

I guess it all depends on how one defines real and knowable. Truth is reality and God is first and foremost the source of all that is Truth. He’s told us what He did, how He did it, and how long it took Him. Our first job is to believe Him, and then we can go about attempting to find out more knowing that we have an established foundation. In your example above my approach would be from the standpoint that I know the Bible plainly says this and so therefore my measurements should correspond accordingly. If they don’t then I need to make sure of two things, does the Bible say what I believe it to say and can I support it, if so I then need to rethink how I’m approaching my scientific conclusions. Never will I use the scientific conclusions to determine what the Bible says. So reality is always based upon what God said and not what man says or thinks it is.

That is true of a lot of science. To ancient people, the idea the earth is a sphere did not comply with what they saw. The concept AFAIK was not proposed before the 5th century BC and nearly 1,000 years later there were still some who argued against it. (Of course, there are still a few dozen flat-earthers today).

I’m not convinced that ANE people truly believed the earth to be flat, but that’s another discussion. Actually what they saw didn’t comply with a flat earth.

Aristotle, who was a fairly intelligent guy, rejected Democritus' idea of atoms as the fundamental unit of matter and no one looked at the idea again for nearly 2,000 years. When they did, they got an even further shock when they discovered atoms were composed of still more fundamental particles, and mostly of empty space. That is certainly not an idea that complies with our ordinary perception of things.

Not surprisingly, Aristotle couldn’t accept something he couldn’t see, in this case we’re a lot alike. Is there a possibility that at some later date much of what we know today will be different, most definitely but I’m not going to base biblical interpretation upon someone else’s speculation or conjecture and neither should you.

So, it is true, science does not accord with a layperson's naive view of the world. But that doesn't make the lay perspective right. Again and again, it is the science that is right in contradiction to what is easily understood or apparently obvious.

Nor does it necessarily make the scientist right. Again and again the science has been found to be wrong and my contention is let’s wait to see definitely just what actually is true before we start changing our interpretation of Scripture.

And do you think this would change what you see through a microscope? Would you get a different sequence for a strand of DNA than someone not wearing biblical glasses?

Of course not, this is not a question of what we see it’s a question of how we interpret what we see. What is our worldview, does God exist, and is He the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator of the universe? Wouldn’t you agree that depending on how we see that question will determine how we interpret what we see elsewhere?

More and more illogical. You agree to the validity of science supporting a conclusion you reject, but don't even agree to the validity of the rest of the science. Why not take the same stance toward both? Why not agree with the validity of paleontological and biological support for evolution, but reject the conclusion anyway, just as you do with the age of the earth?

I agree with the validity of the science because it doesn’t use speculation or conjecture to come up with its conclusion; however that doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with those conclusions. I use the same standard for both, one uses evidence and measurements that are logical and are supported via a logical analysis the other doesn’t. I don’t see any evidence for evolution at all, so that makes it very difficult to support.

Good. For a change you acknowledge that this is your view, your interpretation. You do not acknowledge myth in scripture, not because it could not be there, but because the hermeneutic you adopt (as set out in your signature) does not permit it.

On this basis we can then question whether this is a valid hermeneutical principle.

That’s true and yes you and anyone else should question a hermeneutical principle to see if it is true consistent.

What makes you think that? There were plenty of scientists, good ones like Cuvier and Agassiz, who never accepted evolution, and others who only came to gradual acceptance after much study and analysis. Darwin's own mentor, Owen, did not jump on the bandwagon of evolution, though he eventually concluded Darwin was right.

A little bit of historical study would show that evolution had to earn its credentials the same as any other new theory.

I’ll give you one example of where they did exactly that. Harvard University, within a short period of time, jumped right onto the evolutionary train and never looked back. Considering the position they were in before that was rather dramatic.

And if you were not a worldly scientist? I think this brings us to the question as to why creationist organisations do not do research. Why does AiG spend $27 million on a museum and not devote even a third of this to research instead. Funding can be found, even if with difficulty, and researchers can be found for all sorts of off-the-beaten track investigations.

I don’t know, maybe it is because they already know the truth that God has proclaimed? Why go out and attempt to prove something already known to you when you could better spend the time and money proclaiming it?

Nobody claims science is inerrant. And there are plenty of controversies in science. But science seems to have a better track record of resolving controversies. I think that has something to do with the availability of physical evidence, the inter-subjectivity of observation and the commitment to be guided by evidence rather than by authority. By contrast, religion deals with invisibilities, with realities that are not inter-subjective, and with commitment to teaching authorities and cannot agree on which authority or whose subjective experience is determinative. So controversies on matters of faith tend not to be resolved as there is nothing objective to judge who is right.

Wouldn’t you say that the reason Scripture has most of the controversies is because people don’t want to do what it prescribes? As far as the nothing objective to judge who is right statement, that view explains why so many don’t see the power and love of God that lie within the Scriptures. We’ve made Scripture just another book no more powerful or significant than any other book.

That is why I have always contended that the inerrancy of scripture is irrelevant. Even inerrant scripture is subject to fallible interpretation, and what we need is inerrant interpretation. But we don't have that, nor, in regard to scripture, do we have a universally accepted way to test interpretations against reality, so that the controversies can be resolved.

Well if you believe the inerrancy of Scripture is irrelevant how will an inerrant interpretation ever help? If the source document isn’t relevant then what use does it have? So the answer is to essentially dismiss it and put our trust in science where reality lives and errors can be resolved?

 

[busterdog]

I find it amazing YECs keep bringing up this point. We are not talking about what God says he will do, no matter how wonderful or seemingly impossible from a naturalistic point of view. We are talking about what God has done, or rather what people claim he has done. In every case you mentioned, when God acted the evidence was completely undeniable. If Joshua claimed the walls of Jericho had fallen while they stood there towering over the Israelites, If Ezra and Nehemiah had claimed 'mission accomplished' standing on a pile of burnt rubble, if David had claimed to have had a miraculous victory while Goliath still stood there thumbing his nose at the army, rather than having his head and nose a considerable distance from the rest of him, no one would have believe the alleged miracle.

I think what we are doing is drawing parallels and trying to say that God is, time and again, concerned with how people regard what he says he has and will do.

Apparently, the TE view is that God was serious about dividing the red sea, but metaphorical about the flood. This seemes to be because there is very little direct evidence for or against a Red Sea crossing (though there is some) outside of what scripture records. Why isn't it enough simply to say that, well water doesn't stand in a heap -- science has proven this time and again. Well, why not? You can observe this as readily as you can do Carbon 14 dating.

One method of distinction is that science studies the age of the earth, but not the dividing of the red sea . Why should this make any difference? Any science dealing with water presumes it will not stand in a heap, right?

That you can pick evidence you find to be conclusive (C14 dating) and that which can be dismissed is difficult to understand (water not standing in heaps).

If God had created the world 6000 years ago then as YECs claim, then the evidence would agree with it. In the bible, people who claimed to speak for God were rejected as false prophets when the evidence showed they were wrong.

When does the Bible ever, ever, ever, look to physical evidence as opposed to the testimony of its prophets, like Moses, who wrote Gen 1 and Gen. 6?

Does YECs have a problem with being false prophets ? Maybe. But, how are we distinct from TEs, except on the basis of physical evidence, which is just not an issue in Scripture?

Philosophy has been rejected in favour of science since Galileo showed science could give much better artillery trajectories than the philosophy based 'physics' of the day. Since then philosophy has been left behind in the dust. It has never caught up, never shown a understanding of the universe that can produce any kind of results in any way comparable to science. A philosophical basis for rejecting science will never get anywhere a long as science is able to show it has a much better understanding of how the universe works.

OK. Then, let science tell me what the future is. Will the trumpet sound? Will we be changed in the twinkling of an eye? Will the elements melt and a new Jerusalem decend? Seems to me that philosophy is grounded on something science doesn't have, and that is a record of prophecy.

By the way, we are talking about comparing scripture to science, not philosophy to science. The former is revelation v. human thinking. In the latter case, both are human thinking. I am saying that the issue of a self-validating revelation is in issue and it must be equal to or greater than so-called physical evidence. If that is accepted, then we can proceed to the issue of who simply doesn't understand this revelation.

Science is constantly being tested against the real world. You tested it out the last time you flew in an plane, used a cell phone, or typed out a message on your computer.

I am an arm-chair luddite, not a practicing one. No one is really going to smash the machines.

But who authenticates the scripture interpretations?

We agree that this is a problem. But, there must be some admission that it would make sense for God to use the surface text as well as the subtext to deal with a fallen world that is full of deception.

Well if there is a Satanic deception afoot, then our only hope is for the bible to warn us what to look out for. We have been warned of deceptions denying who Christ is, or of false prophets setting themselves up to be worshipped as God or in Christ's place. But there was no mention about the age of the earth. Even in the passage beloved of YECs 2Pet 3, he makes it clear that the length of time God take is not an issue because, referring to Moses statement in Psalm 90, God's 'days' are very different to ours. While the Nt insists that all things were created by God, there is no suggestion that the method God used to create us was an issue. If Satan's great deception is to deny a six day creation, how is it that a six day creation seemed so unimportant to the Nt writers that no one even mentioned it?

Our hope is to be lead by the Spirit and to abide in His protection. I agree that there are interpretive issues that need to be questioned. However, I don't think TE has ever ventured from the impenetrable citadel of physical evidence as the test of all things. I think the default drive rejects all scripture where it fails to square with evidence. If we put the scripture surface text and "conclusive" physical evidence on an equal footing at least, I think the nature of your interpretive process changes. I simply argue that the method of analysis that makes physical evidence sacrosanct is philosophically unsound and scripturally challenged.

On the other hand if we are going to say that any scientific theory that contradicts a bible interpretation could be a Satanic deception then I suggest you think very seriously about your casual rejection of geocentrism, simply based on the claims of science.

Romans 8:28 is may fail safe, not my personal theology. I am sure there is deception on both sides of this issue.

Even in the early church there were lone voices like Cosmas Indicopleustescalling for a rejection of pagan theory of a sphere and a return to the biblical view of a flat earth. Do you think Satan left his scientific deception of the nations to the last few centuries?

See above.

Concern for satanic deception should dethrone the supremacy of "physical evidence" and science. It does not enthrone any particular theology.

Is YEC thinking so pure that it is above theology? No. As much of a paradox as this is, I think it has more to do with how we argue about theology and use scripture. I don't have a great thesis. I am just trying to pull down strongholds.

Why should we be afraid of some great Satanic deception in science, when it says nothing that contradicts the teachings the Nt writers said were important for us to believe? If instead we are to adopt you fear based skeptical approach to science, how do you propose we tell the flat earthers, geocentrists and YECs apart?

Lots of us have managed to do a great many things in life through desperate prayer and without any understanding at all. I think of Churches that thrive, marriages restored, businesses that sustain and broken bodies that heal. Why should I approach question differently? The evidence is that God is more than able. I doubt any of us has ever tested that truth to its full extent by putting aside our own habits, world-views or other stand-bys of our own construction.

Do I need to have a systematic theology or philosophy of science to survive? Well, they are somewhat useful. But the current question, at least in my view, is whether even that process should be informed by a view that honors what the Word say above what the physical evidence may seem to say in this world of deception. Personally, I think that such ideas will give way to the Lord's own presence and teaching after His return.

 

[Mallon]

One method of distinction is that science studies the age of the earth, but not the dividing of the red sea . Why should this make any difference? Any science dealing with water presumes it will not stand in a heap, right?

That you can pick evidence you find to be conclusive (C14 dating) and that which can be dismissed is difficult to understand (water not standing in heaps).

I don't think you understand the TE application of science to claims of Bible miracles. Christian scientists don't just say, "People can't rise from the dead, therefore Jesus never rose from the dead" or "Water doesn't stand in heaps, therefore Moses never parted the Red Sea." Obviously, as Christians, we admit that miracles can and do happen. But for such specific claims, we must look for specific evidence to support them scientifically. We cannot falsify the statement that "on June 11th, 1954, an elephant flew overhead at 9:43 am" by simply noting that elephants cannot normally fly.
In the same way, we cannot say that Moses did not part the Red Sea by noting that water does not normally divide into towering walls. What we would need to do is go back to the specific 'crime scene' and look for evidence for such an occurance. As it stands, there is no evidence either for or against this miracle now. So I take it on faith that it happened.
By contast, we can also verify claims made about a global flood by going back to the 'scene of the crime' (the rock record) and verifying that not only is there no positive evidence for a global flood, there is in fact much positive evidence against such an event. In cases like this, it is clear to me that the scale of Noah's Flood stands apart from the spiritual truths that God intended through the story.

shernren had an excellent post on this very topic a while back. Maybe he'll be so kind as to link to it again.

 

[busterdog]

oops

 

[busterdog]

I don't think you understand the TE application of science to claims of Bible miracles. Christian scientists don't just say, "People can't rise from the dead, therefore Jesus never rose from the dead" or "Water doesn't stand in heaps, therefore Moses never parted the Red Sea." Obviously, as Christians, we admit that miracles can and do happen. But for such specific claims, we must look for specific evidence to support them scientifically. We cannot falsify the statement that "on June 11th, 1954, an elephant flew overhead at 9:43 am" by simply noting that elephants cannot normally fly.
In the same way, we cannot say that Moses did not part the Red Sea by noting that water does not normally divide into towering walls. What we would need to do is go back to the specific 'crime scene' and look for evidence for such an occurance. As it stands, there is no evidence either for or against this miracle now. So I take it on faith that it happened.
By contast, we can also verify claims made about a global flood by going back to the 'scene of the crime' (the rock record) and verifying that not only is there no positive evidence for a global flood, there is in fact much positive evidence against such an event. In cases like this, it is clear to me that the scale of Noah's Flood stands apart from the spiritual truths that God intended through the story.

shernren had an excellent post on this very topic a while back. Maybe he'll be so kind as to link to it again.

Well, I think I understand (and respect) the TE position on these miracles. I just don't think it is entirely consistent. The basic form of reason is similar to the way YECs look at Gen. 1 and Rev. 21, for example. There are differences, but I think TE makes too much of them. The ability of water to stand in a heap is very much like the ability of many miles of granite to be formed in a day. Or, put it this way, the process of reason is close enough that I don't see the confident dismissal of the latter process on the basis of so-called evidence.

 

[Mallon]

Well, I think I understand (and respect) the TE position on these miracles. I just don't think it is entirely consistent.

What is inconsistent about it?

 

[shernren]

shernren had an excellent post on this very topic a while back. Maybe he'll be so kind as to link to it again.

I can find two:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=23643223#post23643223
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30460664#post30460664

out of which the second one was made in direct response to busterdog over pretty much the same issue. By the by, that's one thing that absolutely rankles me about most creationists: the selective memory that remembers raising arguments over and over again without remembering them being rebutted over and over again. I can count with one hand the number of creationists I have seen who have not thrown out an argument, have it torn to shreds, and then come back with that argument again as if it had never been raised before - or worse still, say that "I've pointed this out many times and each time evolutionists have no answer!" when in fact the argument has neither been raised many times (normally only twice or thrice) nor gone unanswered. I see this everywhere I see creationists online. And frankly, it is getting on my nerves.

But at least this is a new argument.

To me this is one kernel of the problem. This rhetorical question. One assumes that God would not have made C14 as clear as it is if He was the loving God that we know Him to be. Rocks would not look as old as they do and there would be no cosmic background radiation. It is this assumption about God's nature and whistling past the enemies "deception of the nations" that is essential to a absolute TE confidence in its position. (I am not directly attacking TE based upon a mere preponderance of the evidence.)

If you assume that the physical world is a deception, why stop there? Why not assume that Satan has deceived us elsewhere? Why not assume that Satan has corrupted the Bible as well?

Think about it. What makes you think that Satan has corrupted the realm of science and physical data? After all, the Bible itself expressly states that God created the heavens and the earth, and nowhere does it explicitly state that Satan corrupted it. If you are a literalist you know exactly how the Fall affected nature - snakes crawl on their bellies, women experience labor pains and marital tension, and men eat by toil and find thorns and thistles in the field. Nowhere does it say anything about Satan corrupting nature or corrupting scientists. (While we're at it, many responsible scientists are Christians. Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, outspoken anti-creationists, are Christians, and Russell Humphreys himself has come out strongly against Setterfield. Are they all deceived by Satan too?) Nowhere does the Bible state that Satan has the power to make scientists see anything other than what they see. Where the Bible proclaims that Satan can deceive, it talks of him deceiving people in general, being able to deceive anyone, even the elect.

Given that, what would stop me from saying that Satan can deceive the theologians, and the interpreters, and the people who translated and wrote the Bible? "The Bible claims its own inerrancy!" you may say. But when the Bible tells us that "The heavens declare the glory of God", or that the characteristics of God "have been made known in creation so that man has no excuse", and when the Bible never at all claims that Satan can distort nature, how much attention did you pay it then? You ignore the Bible when you say science is deceptive; so it is only fair that I can certainly say that the Bible might not talk of itself being deceptive, either. You can point to atheist scientists and smear the whole lot - I can point to liberal theologians (heh, heh) and smear the whole lot of theology too! And do you have a Biblical precedent for scientists being deceived? Because I have plenty of Biblical precedent for theologians being deceived - Job's friends, the Pharisees, and the Judaizers. And in all those cases they were the theological conservatives of their time, championing Biblical inerrancy pretty much as modern fundamentalists do.

Have I attacked the Bible? Yes, but only by using everything you have said against science and scientists. Face it. You begin by assuming that scientists have been inherently deceived by Satan into believing that the earth and the universe are old and that evolution happened. This ignores the fact that plenty of the work that proved it was done by Christian scientists, from Cuvier and Agassiz to Lemaitre, Ken Miller and Francis Collins - since they reach conclusions heretical to you, they must be somehow deceived as well. Does this deception have any Biblical basis? No! The Bible never states that Satan alters our perception of physical reality, as if we're living in a Satan-controlled Matrix where everything we touch and taste does not really exist but is somehow manipulated by the forces of hell. But you assume that all the same. You assume that there is a giant evolutionist conspiracy going on, although I showed that many facts argue against it (by the by, do you understand the arguments I put forth against your conspiracy theory, and do you accept them, or not?), and therefore you cannot trust anything scientists say at all. You begin by assuming that science isn't trustworthy, and conclude the exact same thing, without a shred of actual evidence appearing anywhere along the chain of logic.

Well, two can play that game, and atheists have enough fun with it. If you're allowed to assume that God's creation isn't trustworthy, then they're certainly allowed to assume that God's Bible isn't trustworthy either! They assume that the Bible isn't trustworthy, pull it apart, and then conclude that the Bible isn't trustworthy - again, a viciously cycling circular logic which is actually entirely self-consistent. Absence of evidence makes for fun logic and crappy conclusions. You're not willing to allow outside evidence to influence your views? Well, outside evidence is the only thing that can shake an atheist from his entirely self-consistent view that the Bible is a pack of lies, and something that can convert an unbeliever must certainly be beneficial for the believer.

I leave the last word to Galileo, who confronted the very same prejudices (among many other complicating factors) centuries ago in his fight against geocentrism.

But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible. Of astronomy; for instance, so little is found that none of the planets except Venus are so much as mentioned, and this only once or twice under the name of "Lucifer." If the sacred scribes had had any intention of teaching people certain arrangements and motions of the heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive such knowledge from the Bible, then in my opinion they would not have spoken of these matters so sparingly in comparison with the infinite number of admirable conclusions which are demonstrated in that science. Far from pretending to teach us the constitution and motions of the heavens and other stars, with their shapes, magnitudes, and distances, the authors of the Bible intentionally forbore to speak of these things, though all were quite well known to them.

- Galileo Galilei, 1615