Resources for teaching about creationism

[shernren]

Wow. I never thought AiG was that bad off.

1. Missing Origin. The Big Bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.

Nope, the net energy sum of the universe has been and will be zero. Positive energy constitutes conventional mass-energy and negative energy constitutes the expansion of the universe (as I remember). Therefore there is no difficulty within quantum theory for zero energy to spontaneously produce a large amount of positive energy (mass-energy) and negative energy (that causes it to "inflate" furiously) at the same time. Which is precisely what happened.

2. Missing Fuse. What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from expanding outward.

Gravity on such small scales isn't as simple as we'd expect, fullstop. I don't know much more beyond that.

3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.

Dark matter concentrations and initial anisotropies in the universe would have caused local matter clumping. The study of the initial universe's anisotropies in the CMB (cosmic microwave background) has been a very important source of information for this. Taking the scale of the whole universe as macroscopic and the scale of individual galaxies as microscopic, on a microscopic scale matter clumps together while on a macroscopic scale the microscopic clumps of matter are going outwards. That is both self-consistent and consistent with experimental observations.

4. Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.

Note "some", not "all". Besides, it is experimentally verified that some reactions (proton to antipion, if I remember - I barely do after all this while. Must go read heavily Buddhist-ified quantum mechanics book to refresh while praying I'll be smart enough to write a heavily Christ-ified quantum mechanics book someday) that produce matter from antimatter do not follow the T (time) symmetry. Basically if one runs the reactions forward in time an excess of matter results while if one runs the reactions backward in time an excess of what we call antimatter results. (I say "what we call" because had we lived in such a universe we would call matter antimatter and antimatter matter, but that doesn't really matter much to this matter anyway. )

5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the Big Bang to unfold. A short time span would not allow for the gradual evolution of the earth, heavens, and mankind.

What experiments, specifically?

6. Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode, and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are a hundred times smaller than expected. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass is "missing."

Mmm? Steady state theories have been out of vogue for the past 50 years. Note that this does not actually disprove the Big Bang, it just disproves oscillatory Big Bang models, which is perfectly fine for the TE. Also, there is experimentally verified dark matter existence which might (although it might not, either) balance the scales properly.

7. Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?

Where is everybody? Gazillions of light-years away from us, obviously. Go google the Drake equation and see what the odds are. If there are any civilizations more than 200 light years away from us they're probably asking the same thing - and that's spitting distance in galactic terms.

I wonder if Dr. Humphreys proofreads AiG's cosmology?

From what I've read, even those who promote the Big Bang recognise it is based on a number of arbitrary assumptions.

What arbitrary assumptions? I hope you don't mean arbitrary parameters.

Maharg: Your balloon example is a standard example and is in fact used by YECs as well - Dr. Humphreys in particular in Starlight and Time. You can't go too far wrong with it. Just be clear that:

as two dots move away from each other
on a two-dimensional surface
embedded in an expanding three-dimensional object,

so two galaxies move away from each other
in three-dimensional space
embedded in expanding four-dimensional spacetime.

If you think going 4-D is going to be a bit too much you can always cut it.

 

[Micaiah]

Obviously the stories trotted out by the theorists sound convincing enough for some. Others remain skeptical.

 

[random_guy]

If you want to have more fun and be slightly more accurate, instead of a balloon, bake raisin bread. Raisins represent the galaxies, the bread represents the space. Notice that the raisins remain stationary in the bread (they don't move in the bread), but they move away from the other raisins. This is because the bread is expanding.

 

[Micaiah]

Make sure you take plenty of butter and strawberry jam. I think raison bread is a much better example to use.

 

[shernren]

You're right, random_guy, but do you think they'll allow him to bring an oven into the classroom? "Hey! I thought you're teaching us Physics, not Housewives 101!" XD

Micaiah - what makes you sceptical about it?

 

[Micaiah]

Have a look at the extract from the AIG site posted above for a start.

I understand people like to theorise about what happened. Some people really enjoy playing around with the physics and mathematics associated with this question. A problem occurs when they fail to acknowledge their limited understanding, fail to consider what God has plainly revealed in His word about Creation, and then dogmatically promote their own theories and claim others are wrong.

I like the example of a world high jumping champion. People are amazed at his ability. But if the real test was to jump to the moon then his efforts look pathetic. I'd suggest it is a bit like that when it comes to the musings of man about Creation in comparison to with the knowledge of God.

 

[vossler]

I like the example of a world high jumping champion. People are amazed at his ability. But if the real test was to jump to the moon then his efforts look pathetic. I'd suggest it is a bit like that when it comes to the musings of man about Creation in comparison to with the knowledge of God.

Thanks Micaiah, that's a great analogy.

I hope you won't mind me plagarizing it for my own use.

 

[Maharg]

Thanks again for the helpful responses. My role will be to present the arguments rather than to persuade my student to adopt a particular theory, so I will explain to him that some Christians believe Big Bang theory is incompatible with the Creation account in Genesis and therefore wrong whereas other Christians accept both accounts and do not see a contradiction between the two.

In terms of which Big Bang theory I am presenting, the level of explanation I will be giving does not distinguish between theories. The student is studying Religious Studies and therefore is not expected to have an advanced knowledge of the physics involved in the theories - just enough of an understanding to be able to see how it relates to religious understandings of the Creation.

The lesson was due to take place yesterday, but didn't happen in the end because the main teacher who I was supposed to be working with was off sick, so I will be teaching the lesson next week. The raisin bread sounds good (and yummy) but I'd have to check if I'd be allowed - we do work opposite a food technology room with ovens, so it is a possibility. There might be an issue with the analogy though because raisin bread would grow due to air spaces forming between bits of dough, rather than the dough itself stretching.

I have some balloons and a marker pen as a back-up. The dots representing the galaxies is a great idea.

I'll feedback about how it went.

Thanks again,

maharg

 

[random_guy]

Have a look at the extract from the AIG site posted above for a start.

I understand people like to theorise about what happened. Some people really enjoy playing around with the physics and mathematics associated with this question. A problem occurs when they fail to acknowledge their limited understanding, fail to consider what God has plainly revealed in His word about Creation, and then dogmatically promote their own theories and claim others are wrong.

I like the example of a world high jumping champion. People are amazed at his ability. But if the real test was to jump to the moon then his efforts look pathetic. I'd suggest it is a bit like that when it comes to the musings of man about Creation in comparison to with the knowledge of God.

However, even though our knowledge compared with God's knowledge is nothing, does it mean it's useless to try? No high jumper will ever jump the moon, but does that make the accomplishments of any high jumper any less insignificant? Just because we may never reach the stars, does landing on the Moon seem useless?

Also, you seem to have some believe that science is dogmatic. If that's true, then why does it constantly change to fit new knowledge and information? I think the problem is you seem to want Creationism to be accepted as science. Science will only promote scientific theories. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[shernren]

Have a look at the extract from the AIG site posted above for a start.

I understand people like to theorise about what happened. Some people really enjoy playing around with the physics and mathematics associated with this question. A problem occurs when they fail to acknowledge their limited understanding, fail to consider what God has plainly revealed in His word about Creation, and then dogmatically promote their own theories and claim others are wrong.

I like the example of a world high jumping champion. People are amazed at his ability. But if the real test was to jump to the moon then his efforts look pathetic. I'd suggest it is a bit like that when it comes to the musings of man about Creation in comparison to with the knowledge of God.

The quote that has been explained, like, twice or three times already just on this thread?

From what I hear of your answer, I think there are two separate threads of protest against TEism running through your head:

1. For man to try to understand what God made is arrogant.

2. For man to come up with an explanation that goes against what God plainly said is arrogant.

I would say that both of these are misplaced arguments. They are theoretically sound, but practically untenable. Why do I say that? Because if they were sound arguments, this world would have been created a lot differently.

We could live in a world where nothing is cause and effect. We could of course live in a world where God keeps interfering over and over again. God could stop the sun in the middle of the sky every time the bad guys are getting away (instead of once in the world's history), He could make it so that when poor people share a hunk of bread it's magically enough to feed them both (instead of a few times in the middle of then relatively well-fed Palestine), He could make it so that people can walk on water when they're about to drown (instead of just once on a stormy lake to prove a point to disciples who mistook Him for a ghost) ... do you get what I'm saying? Yes, there are miracles. Yes, there are higher powers at work. But for the most part God seems to be content with, well, letting the world run itself. Even today when miracles happen they do not happen on the scale of, say, solving the global hunger problem or obliterating Third World debt? But God appears content with letting the world run on science, even if it causes people to starve to death daily in Africa.

The argument that "it is disrespectful for man to try to study creation" only works if God has indeed hidden His creation in shrouds of doubt. But He hasn't. He's made science deuced easy for us. What would it mean if God made this world so accessible to science, while deeming it wrong for us to study science? It would be like parents leaving cookies in the open on a plate with milk beside them - and then scolding the kids for eating them. Furthermore while there is no command to study science in the Scripture I find no command against it.

To summarize, man is not arrogant for trying to understand God's creation considering God Himself created it to be easy to understand.

I like your high-jumper analogy, too. And compare God's knowledge of Creation to the moon? Well, a man jumping with a few pounds of muscle isn't going to reach the moon. But a man jumping with a few gigatonnes of solid rocket fuel will. And why? Because God never said the moon was off-limits. In the same way, God's knowledge of Creation especially God's science that runs it is not off-limits for man, and given enough hard work and the grace and consent of God, man can get there eventually.

As for the second, I think we've both heard countless enough times how plainly said is not always plainly said. I tired to repeat already.

 

[Micaiah]

1. For man to try to understand what God made is arrogant.

Wrong.

2. For man to come up with an explanation that goes against what God plainly said is arrogant.

Right.

 

[Crusadar]

As for the second, I think we've both heard countless enough times how plainly said is not always plainly said. I tired to repeat already.

That is a most perplexing dilema indeed, think of what God has said that the heart of man is desperately wicked as Ricahrd Dickerson puts it:

"The most insidious evil of supernatural creationism is that it stifles curiosity and therefore blunts the intellect."

Not to say that intellectual pursuits are wrong, it is only wrong when God is taken out of the picture as (evolution does) then we are indeed tampering with God's Truth. When that happens all sorts of things go awry. So just be careful you don't overstep your boundaries in claiming what you believe to be true and replacing the word of God with it.

 

[gluadys]

Not to say that intellectual pursuits are wrong, it is only wrong when God is taken out of the picture as (evolution does)

But evolution does not take God out of the picture and never has. Your problem is not with evolution but with a mistaken perception of evolution.

 

[Crusadar]

The only misconception is that evolution speaks of God. Just one question though, where exactly is God mentioned in any part of evolution? Silence oftens speaks volumes where thunder only becomes deafening.

 

[random_guy]

Not to say that intellectual pursuits are wrong, it is only wrong when God is taken out of the picture as (evolution does)
...
The only misconception is that evolution speaks of God. Just one question though, where exactly is God mentioned in any part of evolution? Silence oftens speaks volumes where thunder only becomes deafening.

I see this all the time. So is the pursuit of learning about gravity wrong since it doesn't mention God? What about lightning? Motion of planets? Germ Theory? Why do you single out evolution when every science makes no mention of God?

 

[Crusadar]

So is the pursuit of learning about gravity wrong since it doesn't mention God?

Not to say that intellectual pursuits are wrong, it is only wrong when God is [willfully and quietly] taken out of the picture..

What about lightning? Motion of planets? Germ Theory?

Why don't you throw in gravity as well while you at it? So what about them? This is a spurious comparison because these are the natural working of the laws of nature in which God has put in place - believe it or not even creationists have lightning rods on their churches and houses, accept that the earth orbits the sun and even get immunized. The point is that natural laws are insufficient in explaining the arrival of life, it may help in explaining the survival of life but not how it came to be - to do that we must look outside of the system itself. Darwinistic evolution however does not do that - it limits everything to the material and natural world where the mention of the supernatural is a no no.

 

[random_guy]

So is the pursuit of learning about gravity wrong since it doesn't mention God?

Not to say that intellectual pursuits are wrong, it is only wrong when God is [willfully and quietly] taken out of the picture..

What about lightning? Motion of planets? Germ Theory?

Why don't you throw in gravity as well while you at it? So what about them? This is a spurious comparison because these are the natural working of the laws of nature in which God has put in place - believe it or not even creationists have lightning rods on their churches and houses, accept that the earth orbits the sun and even get immunized. The point is that natural laws are insufficient in explaining the arrival of life, it may help in explaining the survival of life but not how it came to be - to do that we must look outside of the system itself. Darwinistic evolution however does not do that - it limits everything to the material and natural world where the mention of the supernatural is a no no.

You failed to address my point. All science is naturalistic. It does not mention anything supernatural (God). According to you, this is willfully removing God. So why are you so angry about evolution when every science does this, especially considering evolution doesn't even mention the origins of life?

Evolution is a science, and every science doesn't mention God. Why not admit you dislike science when it contradicts your beliefs?

 

[shernren]

Not to say that intellectual pursuits are wrong, it is only wrong when God is taken out of the picture as (evolution does) then we are indeed tampering with God's Truth. When that happens all sorts of things go awry. So just be careful you don't overstep your boundaries in claiming what you believe to be true and replacing the word of God with it.

I would really be interested to see your input over at the meteorology thread I set up earlier, since it's answering to the exact same issue of: is God left out? Remember that evolution isn't the single theory that's responsible. There's also:

- germ theory: says that God doesn't control diseases, germs do.
- gravity: says that God doesn't hold the universe together, mass self-attraction does.
- meteorology: says that God doesn't control the weather, atmospheric convection and condensation do.

If evolution "takes God out" because it offers a sensible, scientific explanation for nature's coming to be then I'm sorry but God is out of 99.9% of history because that 99.9% can also be sensibly and scientifically explained without God. If God must break the perfectly wonderful laws of nature every time He has to do something then I'm sorry but God has (quite frankly) done nothing for me besides getting me saved (and depending on your brand of psychology even that is sometimes explainable) because I've never had a single, objectively verifiable miracle happen to me science cannot explain. If God only operates by breaking science then to a first approximation all the Christians of the world are Godless.

You see, I don't get it when creationists say:

believe it or not even creationists have lightning rods on their churches and houses, accept that the earth orbits the sun and even get immunized.

and then say

Darwinistic evolution however does not do that - it limits everything to the material and natural world where the mention of the supernatural is a no no.

But aren't those contradictory? Lightning rods don't need God to work, immunization doesn't need prayer to keep people healthy, and the earth doesn't need God to stay around the Sun. Christians understand this tacitly and yet they go right ahead and do those same Godless things the heathens do. So when evolution says that biodiversity doesn't need God to work, why do creationists get so uptight? They've squeezed God out of the rest of their lives anyway when they say science makes no room for God.

 

[Maharg]

Hi everyone

Just writing to say a big thank you for all the helpful guidance, hints and links. I taught the lesson on Monday and it went pretty well. I had enough material for another lesson, so will be finishing off the topic next Monday.

The teacher is going to write a report on the lesson I taught so that I can use it when applying for teacher training.

Thanks again everyone - I'll let you know how the next lesson goes.

Best wishes,

Maharg

 

[charityagape]

I'm a little out of my league here, and trying to learn more, however these words caught my eye.

- germ theory: says that God doesn't control diseases, germs do.
- gravity: says that God doesn't hold the universe together, mass self-attraction does.
- meteorology: says that God doesn't control the weather, atmospheric convection and condensation do.

None of those things; germs, mass self attraction, atmospheric convection, leave God out exactly, they just don't show the whole picture.

Did a paintbrush create the Mona Lisa painting? No. A paintbrush in the hands of DaVinci created the Mona Lisa. It seems to me that observable things, like atmospheric conditions, are simply paintbrushes in the hands of an unobservable Master.