Grand Canyon National Park - Arizona
The Grand Canyon National Park website includes much information also about the Geologic formations in this masterpiece of God's creation.
"The Grand Canyon of the Colorado River is a world-renowned showplace of geology. Geologic studies in the park began with the work of Newberry in 1858, and continue today. The Grand Canyon’s excellent display of layered rock is invaluable in unraveling the region’s geologic history. Extensive carving of the plateaus allows for the detailed study of the Earth's movements. Processes of stream erosion and vulcanism are also easily seen and studied."
Grand Canyon is well-known to all US school kids and natural part of the school curriculum, it is favourite visiting place for families on vacation and often depicted in the media from movies to TV documentaries. In short, one of those places that everyone knows something about.
As such Grand Canyon is a direct challenge to the American Christians and others who hold the view that God created the world around 4000 before the birth of Christ.
So what to do?
Well, with practical skills and energy and courage the people in the Creation, Evolution and Science Ministries take the bull from its horns and challenge the prevailing teaching about the way Grand Canyon was created and about its age.
The website offers guided Christian Rim and Raft tours to the torrents of Colorado river. They have built a Grand Canyon observatory where the truth about the world is demonstrated and published numerous papers to show that talk about the ancient age of the canyon is a mistake.
The arguments against scientific dating and for Biblical date are presented in popular way in several articles on this page that also takes a generic hit at Darwinism.
The general idea is that waters did actually dig the Grand Canyon as people say but that they were the waters of the Great Flood described in the Book of Genesis.
This is not so new idea as the early 19th century debate on the uniform theories of one the founders of modern Geology, Sir Charles Lyell that first suggested much greater age for the Earth than the Ussher chronology inidcated. These included similar hypotheses of catastrophic floods called Fluvialism. According to these ideas there were several floods shaping the surface of the Earth and the last and biggest one was the Great Flood of the Bible.
First of all, I'd like to ask what exactly was your main point here, this being not the first time I've found it difficult to discern that from your various entries. Did you want just to introduce a theme, or demonstrate some idea you claim to be a fact?
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, I think there is an explanatory gap here:
"Grand Canyon is well-known to all US school kids and natural part of the school curriculum, it is favourite visiting place for families on vacation and often depicted in the media from movies to TV documentaries. In short, one of those places that everyone knows something about.
As such Grand Canyon is a direct challenge to the American Christians and others who hold the view that God created the world around 4000 before the birth of Christ."
AFAIS, being a well-known place is quite a different thing from being a direct (or even indirect) challenge to any Christians (or, for that matter, anybody else). What you might have meant, instead, could perhaps be that what is taught "to all US school kids" about Grand Canyon as a "natural part of the school curriculum" might be such a challenge.
To me, these seem as different things altogether.
Yes, you put it more accurately what I was trying to say with this.
ReplyDeleteI have had so much fun studying trilobite evolution. Here in Israel geologists do not expect to find such fossils because according to their current knowledge Paleozoic layers are deep down under the Mesozoic rocks of Israel.
The 200 years of geological research has given facts that help to explain the lack of trilobite fossils from Israel.
The Biblical chronology explains nothing - it does the opposite, it totally confuses our understanding of God's creation.
Science is not a purpose in itself - it seeks to explain things and in this way it helps us not only to understand God's world as it is but enables to use it for our benefit.
There are numerous religious Jews living here in Israel who believe like the YEC ministers that God created the world 5772 years ago.
ReplyDeleteBut they also do not roam around with the geologists the hills and valleys of Israel knocking rocks with their hammers and studying the evidence with every possible tool at their disposal.
The haredim are, in fact, not at all interested in the Geology of Israel and they use their power in the government so that their children do not have to learn godless science in their schools in Jerusalem or Bnei Brak.
Yet, the haredim frequently use mobile phones that rely on modern understanding of the speed of light and electro magnetic radiation.
Grand Canyon is a bit far off.
ReplyDeleteYou probably live in Finland. So every day you walk on the bedrock there and see the works of Ice Age on the hard rocks and the erosion on the stones on sea shore.
But if you want to see Ordovician animals you must cross the Gulf of Finland to Estonia where there are magnificent fields where the Paleozoic rocks have survived and are exposed.
Geology can explain the fact that you do not find ordovician fossils in Finland but you do find an abundance of them in Estonia.
Biblical chronology of 4000 BC cannot explain this. In fact, it does the opposite and totally confuses the facts and obscures the wonderful works of God.
Creationism at its worst twists both the Word of God, the Bible, and our views of His works in Nature.
Repent!
In another blog you wrote "AFAIS, you have engaged yourself in the business of "proclaiming the truth about the grave errors of YEC", yet lacking any solid grounding for that kind of enterprise."
ReplyDeleteI think I have very SOLID GROUND for my claims.
Well, there were many points here, but speaking about "solid grounds", I'd like to know exactly what makes you believe the following as true:
Delete"Geology can explain the fact that you do not find ordovician fossils in Finland but you do find an abundance of them in Estonia.
Biblical chronology of 4000 BC cannot explain this."
The creationist page on Grand Canyon tells me so .
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLack of paleozoic from Finland is explained by the razor work of the latest glacial. Climatic changes have been studied for example in the Huleh valley by drilling deep soil samples and vanalyzing the pollen in them.
ReplyDeleteAll that YEC people are doing is to provide alternative explanation that would eliminate glacial periods.
This is so disgusting falsification of God's great works in nature that it really makes me feel YECHH
What I've heard some YEC people proclaiming suggested they were emphatically in favor of an Ice Age, which makes me rather sceptical of this line of critique.
DeleteUsually, broad generalizations are not a good way of argumentation, as counterexamples may abound.
To avoid generalizations I try to be specific and talk about concrete examples.
ReplyDeleteLet us just be sure that we are both talking here about the Grand Canyon type Christians who fervently believe that God of Israel created the world about 4000 BC as calculated from the genealogies of the Bible.
Anyone suggesting anything older than that, let us say something happening 9000 BC is out of this ring and must explain why he or she abandons the Biblical date.
So if these Young Earth Creationists can fit Ice Age into this time frame so good for them. You know them better and I believe if you say that they do so.
Personally, I fail to see how such an idiotic claim advances our understanding of the reality of God's creation. Rather, it obfuscates the truth and is a catastrophic mixture of religion and science. Poison to the young minds to whom it is fed in the name of the Holy one.
For example, how would a divinely revealed 6k rule for the maximum age of everything help us to explain the absence of trilobites from the rocks of Israel. The rule would rather force us to explain how this ... and everything else in the nature ... has happened in 6k.
And how does such a religious belief help us to understand why there is no Ordovician deposits north of the Gulf of Finland? The Bible knows nothing about any Ice Age, it is a scientific discovery made during the past 200 years and based on numerous observations concerning the nature God has created.
YEC gives creation a bad name.
I'm glad you'd take just my word for the reality of there being some Young Earth Creationists supporting there having been an Ice Age. Actually, independent evidence for my claim is also easy to obtain: googling "creationism ice age" and taking the first suggestion brought me here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/ice-age after which taking the link to what seemed like the first article about the topic went here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/where-does-ice-age-fit - a concise summary of a YEC position concerning the Ice Age, I'd say.
DeleteAs I got from your text the impression that you weren't familiar with the YEC Ice Age position already beforehand, it would be interesting to see your comments about the contents of these Internet resources, especially the last one.
Metorologist Mike Oard, Mr Ice Age, Has written a monograph Ice Age caused by Noah's Flood and partcipated writing to the Answers from Genesis.
ReplyDeleteHe has calculated that the Ice Age caused by the flood and not mentioned in the Bible was rapid lasting 700 years.
As i mentioned the 6k dogma leads smart people to write stuff like this in order to fit scientific discoveries to the religious framework of authoritative Bible.
To begin with, a pertaining excerpt from the article:
Delete"A Rapid Ice Age
Most creationists agree that there was one major Ice Age following the Flood. ... To estimate the time for a post-Flood Ice Age, we need to know how long the volcanism lasted and the cooling time of the oceans. Once these two mechanisms for the Ice Age wane, the ice sheets will reach a maximum and then begin to melt. So, an estimate of the time for the Ice Age can be worked out based on the available moisture for snow and the cooling time of the ocean (the primary mechanism) in a cool post-Flood climate.
I used budget equations for the cooling of the ocean and atmosphere, which are simply based on heat inputs minus heat outputs—the difference causing the change in temperatures. Since there is no way to be precise, I used minimums and maximums for the variables in the equations in order to bracket the time. The best estimate is about 500 years after the Flood to reach glacial maximum with an average ice and snow depth of about 2,300 feet (700 m) in the Northern Hemisphere and 4,000 feet (1,220 m) on Antarctica.<11>
Once the conditions for the Ice Age ended, those ice sheets in unfavorable areas melted rapidly. Antarctica and Greenland, possessing a favorable latitude and altitude, would continue to grow during deglaciation and afterward. To calculate the melting rate for the ice sheets over North America and Eurasia, I used the energy balance over a snow cover, which gives a faster rate than the uniformitarians propose based on their models.
An energy balance equation is a straightforward and more physical method of calculating the melt rate. Using maximum and minimum values for the variable in the melt equation, I obtained a best estimate of the average melt rate along the periphery (a 400-mile [645-km] long strip) of the ice sheet in North America at about 33 feet/year (10 m/year). Such a melting rate compares favorably with current melt rates for the melting zones of Alaskan, Icelandic, and Norwegian glaciers today. At this rate, the periphery of the ice sheets melts in less than 100 years. Interior areas of ice sheets would melt more slowly, but the ice would be gone in about 200 years. The ice sheets melt so fast, catastrophic flooding would be expected, such as with the bursting of glacial Lake Missoula described later in this chapter.
Therefore, the total length of time for a post-Flood Ice Age is about 700 years."
Now, let's scrutinize a bit what we have just read.
In addition to openly expressing his basic beliefs about the scientific cogency of the Genesis account of our distant past, he also tells about having obtained the results of his by using quantitative mathematical models (cf. the Global Warming people out there). Furthermore, he tells about having compared the presently assessible results of his models with relevant available empirical data, and that these results have fared better with empiria than what the uniformitarian models were capable of scoring. To enable independent validation and precise criticism of these various claims, he also offers reference to the primary source of this information (end-note 11).
According to up-to-date Philosophy of Science (as well as my personal intuition), whether giving right or wrong results in an ontologically ultimate meaning, this report counts as a description of a true scientific approach (although, naturally, not "the true scientific approach", i.e., some kind of "one and only True Method of Science", something which actually is to be found absolutely nowhere, the uniformitarian camp included).
Hence, when speaking about people who "give creation a bad name", I seriously doubt meteorologist Mike Oard could honestly be classified as one.
He is indeed working within a basically religious framework, all right. So is, according to up-to-date Philosophy of Science, anybody else: the ultimately religious kind of commitment to one's basic beliefs is always there, only the contents of the respective beliefs do vary.
Michael Oard
ReplyDelete1973–2001 Meteorologist, National Weather Service — lead forecaster, Great Falls, Montana from 1981 to 2001 — now retired.
Married to Beverly Muoth, 4 children ages 20 to 30, four grandchildren.
...
There is an impressive bibliography of Michael's writings in http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/m_oard.asp
There are two sections of articles, Secular publications and Main Creationist articles.
He has also published four books
Oard, M.J., 1990. An ice age caused by the Genesis Flood, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California.
Oard, M.J. and B. Oard, 1993. Life in the great ice age, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas.
Oard, M.J., 1997. Ancient ice ages or gigantic submarine landslides?, Creation Research Society Books.
Oard, M.J., 1997. Wonders of creation — the weather book, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas.
Live in the Great Ice Age was published in 1993. There Bevelry and Michael provide educational material about the subjcet for Christian children.
ReplyDeleteIt is intended to be used by parents in home prayer time and devotional with the open Bible in one hand:
"In this colorful novel, your whole family will learn what life was like during the Ice Age after the Flood. Packed full of scientific facts that can be used to defend creation and the Flood, and oppose evolution. Read through this book as a devotional with your children!"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Life-in-the-Great-Ice-Age,4327,185.aspx
The idea of how to solve the 6k problem came to Michael early on
ReplyDeleteOard, M.J., 1979. A rapid post-Flood ice age. Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(1):29–37,58.
Petri, we have here a classic structure of how the mind of a truly believing person works.
ReplyDelete1. Divine revelation is an unshakeable fact
2. How can we understand what we know about reality in light of the fundamental fact
Although you suggest that all research has pre-understandings and built-in assumptions and belief systems, there is a big difference.
Natural scientist goes out there to find out new facts, evidence in support or against established hypotheses.
A believer is satisfied with the work of a single writer with academic credentials to adopt any view as long as it confirms with what the believer already knows for fact.
Do you see the difference between seeking the truth and having the truth?
I commented on the children book in another post on this same blog.
DeleteTo establish a dichotomy, one has to present at least two valid and distinctively different examples of the respectively different alternatives he seeks to establish as a dichotomy. What you have done so far is but presenting exactly one example of "a truly believing person".
DeleteAs I have already mentioned, according to up-to-date Philosophy of Science, everybody has a set of basic beliefs that are preconditions to any research efforts. Hence, using your vocabulary, everyone could be called "a truly believing person". You have not presented any example in order to deny that yet, i.e., any example of a researcher without basic beliefs as preconditions to his research.
Were you able to do that, you'd become famous as one of the leading Philosophers and Historians of Science of our time.
Any and all allusions to "established hypotheses" are first and foremost allusions to certain ideas that are themselves based on some basic beliefs. Thus, there is no profound difference from what, e.g., Michael Oard has "established". Some basic beliefs do differ, the societal status of the hypotheses does differ, the openness in airing one's basic beliefs may differ, but the preconditioning to some set of basic beliefs remains the same anyway.
Hence, I must admit that in this regard I truly do not see a "difference between seeking the truth and having the truth": in order to seek any truth you have to believe you already have got something you consider as basic truth, utilizable in your seeking efforts - otherwise you've got no idea how to proceed in order to uncover some currently unknown further truth, either.
The kind of dichotomy you've pictured here seems to me, sorry to say, a symptom of having fallen prey to certain Naturalistic obfuscation tactics. Professor Puolimatka has demonstrated the reality of there being such tactics in his public lecture hold in a session of Finnish "Skepsis ry", and the lecture (in Finnish) is to be seen in YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1PyUDdPT-0&feature=gv&hl=en
Given ample opportunity for counter-criticism, the Skepsis people preferred to refrain from further public argumentation, even when obtaining embarrassing publicity when disavowing their previous promises of engagement (see, e.g., http://perustelu.fi/Huuhaa-palkinto_2008).
I guess that speaks volumes of the shaky foundations of their intellectual position in these matters, and of that of all the "truly believing" followers of the outdated Philosophy of Science, as well.
BTW if you are interested I wrote about Adam Sedgwick, a highly respectable diluvialist with many interesting ideas from the time the battle about Sir Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin was high in the Victorian British Commonwealth
ReplyDeletehttp://cambrilife.blogspot.com/2011/12/adam-sedgwick-and-diluvialism.html
Adam has much important to say and is worth a closer look by all interested in the subject.
Hi Petri and thank you for your many comments. The links have given me better insight into Creation Ministries and the careers and opinions of people who are active there, especially those in Australia. However, these people and their work does not interest me - I am simply warning of the abyss that lurks there.
ReplyDeleteI am personally in a special situation working through these blogs like a climber. The amazing tools of internet and the connections allow me to learn every day so much more about God's wonderful creation and also about the people who have been there to find out new facts about it.
It is like moving from base camp to base camp trying to reach Mt Everest on Himalajas. The challenges are remarkable and I welcome everyone who likes to join me / or help me by showing where I go wrong.
This is my invitation to you, Petri, also. Join me on the climb and participate by contributing insight and top research references and ideas to the latest blog on evolutionary genetics.
Here is the heart of the battle in hard sciences about the soul of modern man.
However, it is not an easy climb and I am afraid you will stay on this base camp showing me a shortcut to knowledge instead of studying with me the way to the top of the mountain. I think so because Mr. Ice Age you recommended is showing us all the way to an abyss from which there is no return and you do not recognize the difference between truth and pious lies.
http://gdnaev.blogspot.com/
I feel it necessary to point out what I now see as the most striking "take-home-lesson" of this thread. - Demanding some elaboration, this entry cannot be as short and concise as one might wish.
DeleteUp-to-date Philosophy of Science recognizes basic beliefs as a fundamental factor in every research effort. Nevertheless, that does not mean every set of basic beliefs were equal. Some may be more conducive to research as others, and some might be demonstrably flat out wrong. That's why a reasonable person should be willing to assess his basic beliefs against possible deniers - observations, facts, or arguments that might challenge the trustworthiness of even one's dearest beliefs.
I cannot help having noticed that, in this respect, there seems to be a true and profound dichotomy between, e.g., Mike Oard and yourself:
Mike had the beliefs (1) that there had been an Ice Age, (2) that the Biblical record is "literally" correct, so (3) the Ice Age should have been rapid enough to fit in the Biblical time-frame of a few thousand years only. In addition, he had the belief (4) that had there been a rapid Ice Age, the mechanism and duration of it should be scientifically accessible via some plausible quantitative mathematical model. That's why he took on the task of developing such a model, and of assessing its empirical plausibility. As any throughbreaking scientific research effort, this was a major challenge to him, especially as he had to do it mostly in his leisure time (I guess).
According to the report cited here, he was successful. From the up-to-date Philosophy of Science point of view, one should be happy of his efforts, as now we know his task was a possible one - as was Darwin's task of writing "On the Origin of Species". Our common Western cognitive space is richer this way, and if in error in their claims and arguments, both of these works can subsequently be freely scrutinized by all of their critics.
You are free to pick your subjects of interest, of course. What I still don't understand is your overtly hostile attitude against, e.g., Mike Oard's efforts and achievements: by doing what he saw the best he could do, has he somehow wronged against you?
About the dichotomy:
By acting as he did, Mike Oard did make his dearest beliefs vulnerable against the mathematical-empirical results of his very own efforts: what if he had been convinced, by his own first-hand experience, that what he had hoped to establish was truly an impossible goal - that there were no plausible way of mathematically modelling any genuine, large-scale Ice Age within the demanding framework of Biblical Chronology? He had got a denier of his set a basic beliefs, then, which had caused a grave and bitter disappointment, perhaps even with some more of less dire ramifications.
That threat must have been immediately evident, yet he willingly took the risk. You, on the other hand, seem to have chosen a far easier and, actually, quite the opposite way: just warn everybody against Mike Oard and his ilk, while neither interested in nor intimately familiar with their work at all. That seems by far the shortest and easiest way of keeping your own mostly cherished basic beliefs out of the harm's way, I guess. If that truly is your goal here, well... congratulations for having so effortlessly achieved it!
Surely enough, there is an alternative: taking the task of scrutinizing Mike's findings in order to see whether there really is something wrong with the math or its empirical plausibility. You seem having insinuated that, as "a truly believing person", Mike must have been fudging somewhere in order to achieve the results he hoped for. If that's your position, well, just go ahead and prove him wrong - you have the whole Internet at your disposal, plus your personal networks of like-minded meteorological experts. Being convinced Mike is wrong, give a cogent argument against him! Wanting to warn your neighbors of an abyss, just go ahead and show us the abyss, then!
Mike is a specialist on his field and has written also a book about the "Biblical Ice Age" and has worked on the idea at least since 1979. In comparison to him I am a complete amateur.
ReplyDeleteHis bibliography contains both secular and creationist writings. This collection shows that he has not published anything on the secular side on his staggering rewriting of Earth's geological history.
From where he gets the 6k dating of Earth if not from the Bible.
It is not a scientific date but a date given by people studying the genealogies of the Bible. This is made very clear on the Grand Canyon pages FAQ and others.
If you give up the 4000 BC you also give up the genealogy of Jesus Christ. This is a statement of faith in the authority of the Bible, not human curiosity about the creations of our God.
As an ardent student of Philosophy of Science you should recognise the difference between faith in some authority and between pursuing scientific research by the rules of the disciple.
ML: "Mr. Ice Age you recommended is showing us all the way to an abyss from which there is no return and you do not recognize the difference between truth and pious lies."
DeleteCompare with the following:
ML: "Mike is a specialist on his field and has written also a book about the 'Biblical Ice Age' and has worked on the idea at least since 1979. In comparison to him I am a complete amateur."
According to your ethical code, then, it is OK to call someone you understandably could never prove wrong, a liar?
ML: "His bibliography contains both secular and creationist writings. This collection shows that he has not published anything on the secular side on his staggering rewriting of Earth's geological history."
He might have offered articles, might have been denied the opportunity by some of your ideological compatriots, for similar reasons you had for calling him a liar.
ML: "From where he gets the 6k dating of Earth if not from the Bible.
It is not a scientific date but a date given by people studying the genealogies of the Bible. This is made very clear on the Grand Canyon pages FAQ and others."
According to up-to-date Philosophy of Science, there is no principled way of telling one's basic beliefs apart (some as "scientific", others "unscientific"), so there is no merit in this line of arguing. - I think you knew it already, I had told you.
If Mike had just been reassuring that the Biblical chronology must be right simply because that is our Christian faith, that could not justifiably be called a scientific approach. But, actually, he had done basic research, had construed mathematical models, had compared their results with empirical data, and had published his findings for anyone to check out, and that pursuit is to be called science, not faith.
ML: "If you give up the 4000 BC you also give up the genealogy of Jesus Christ. This is a statement of faith in the authority of the Bible, not human curiosity about the creations of our God."
Mere adherence to this or any other kind of statement of faith does not give anybody, e.g., a plausible mathematical model of a rapid Ice Age. The models must be found out by genuine research efforts, and are to be assessed according to their empirical plausibility, on which everyone should be able to agree, not based on whether they were sought after for "scientific motivations", about which there can and need never be any consensus among research communities. Empirical results are repeatable, thus controllable, opinions, on the other hand, do vary according to persons and situations.
ML: "As an ardent student of Philosophy of Science you should recognise the difference between faith in some authority and between pursuing scientific research by the rules of the disciple."
In this context, "the rules of pursuing scientific research" might just be part of Naturalistic obfuscation tactics, of which I've already warned you. Up-to-date Philosophy of Science does not acknowledge such normative "rules", as the whole Demarcation Project of Science ultimately turned out as a huge embarrassment without merit. Science does not work according to some rigid rules, and never has.
On the other hand, one might call a rule of science the principle I've already posited: to assess everything according to its empirical plausibility, nothing according to whether you like the basic beliefs of the people that did it, or not. - In that case, I do recognize a difference, and have applied it, too: just re-read my previous post, and you'll find a clear distinction between Mike Oard's basic beliefs, on one hand, and his scientific achievements as the modeller of ice age dynamics and duration, on the other. The basic beliefs were, naturally, not science but mere beliefs, while the quantitative modelling and its empirical assessment were not mere believing but scientific efforts - based on a particular set of basic beliefs, of course.
The international discussion on creationism largely concentrates on the efforts of the Southern Baptists of USA and their colleagues in Australia.
ReplyDeleteI was very happy to find BioLogos pages that are also trying to navigate on the waters of truth avoiding both atheism and creationism, which are two sides of the same rationalistic coin.
It is a new discovery so I cannot say that my views are similar to those but at least there is a fundamental idea that I share with them. Christians who believe in God, respect the Bible and who do not wish to abandon truth.
http://biologos.org/
ML: "... BioLogos pages ... are also trying to navigate on the waters of truth avoiding both atheism and creationism, which are two sides of the same rationalistic coin. ... at least there is a fundamental idea that I share with them. Christians who believe in God, respect the Bible and who do not wish to abandon truth."
Delete"Houston, we have a problem..."
On one hand, you have repeatedly invited my participation to your intellectual blog-projects, on the other, you're at least as often insinuated the difference between us being that you're abiding to truth whereas I'm abandoning it.
That's not a very generous starting point for any common intellectual endeavors - "you may freely participate as long as you keep in mind that I'm the truthful one here, while you're not".
We have scientific matters (as whether a rapid Ice Age is an empirically plausible scenario or not), philosophical matters (concerning, e.g., what is to be considered scientific and what isn't), and theological matters, too (concerning, e.g., who, and on what grounds, are to be called Christians, and under what conditions one can be said truly believing in God the Creator, or respecting the Bible).
In order to see "how far we stand from each other" theologically, too, I'd like to posit some questions (as in a Gallup poll):
(1) Do you think being a Christian is just a matter of one's own will, so that everybody who chooses to call himself "a Christian", truly is one, period?
(2) Do you think respecting the Bible is just a matter of saying so, so that everybody who claims he's respecting the Bible truly is respecting it, period?
(3) Do you think that believing in God the Creator is another issue of just saying so, period?
(4) Do you think abandoning truth is a dissimilar thing from the previous ones, so that some people who claim themselves abiding to truth nevertheless have abandoned it?
(5) What is your criterion of telling apart the questions that are just matters of opinions and human choosing, and those that are not?
"Thank you very much for giving your precious time to answering the Poll!"
I have invited you to use your favourite tools to criticize the work I am doing studying modern science in action. You are still welcome!
Deleteas for the Gallup
(1) Do you think being a Christian is just a matter of one's own will.
"No man can come to Me unless the Father who hath sent Me draw him; and I will raise him up at the Last Day." John 6:44
(2) Do you think respecting the Bible is just a matter of saying so.
No. In my opinion we respect the Bible when we take it seriously as it is.
(3) Do you think that believing in God the Creator is another issue of just saying so, period?
No. In my opinion Atheist/Creationist people try to figure out the relationship between God and His creation. One rejects, the other one adopts the man made image of God in action.
(4) Do you think abandoning truth is a dissimilar thing from the previous ones.
In my opinion we do not own the truth. God wants to give us love for truth. "Abandoning truth" is rejecting this love for truth that can save us.
(5) What is your criterion of telling apart the questions that are just matters of opinions and human choosing, and those that are not?
Since I utterly reject the Chicago 1978 rationalistic view of Bible as the absolute truth about both spiritual and earthly matters I have difficult time answering your question in general terms.
For example, I see the first creation story in the Genesis not as a truthful description how God created the world. I see it God's wonderful signature through the hands of people "I have made all this and you too".
I do believe the first creation story is divinely inspired text - as is the entire Bible - and exactly the way Holy Ghost wants it to be. Full of errors, contradictions and difficulties. For we are not invited to believe in a book but to believe in the hero of that book, Jesus Christ our Saviour, who is the Word of God incarnate.
Thanks for your prompt answers, with which you surely exceeded my expectations!
DeleteMoreover, I think these answers perhaps contain the keys to many otherwise tightly closed locks we've encountered so far. After all, a human conviction is always ultimately about God, and about man in relation to God, and these convictions serve in all human enterprises as a very basic set of beliefs indeed.
Instead of going into details, I'd like to emphasize the "big picture":
According to the Bible, "thus, let God be true, and every man, a liar"; according to your admirably informative answers, the relation seems quite the opposite: "I see the first creation story in the Genesis not as a truthful description how God created the world. ... I do believe the first creation story is divinely inspired text - as is the entire Bible - and exactly the way Holy Ghost wants it to be. Full of errors, contradictions and difficulties."
Instead of a theological critique, I, for now, offer a cultural historical comparison:
Your view seems in beautiful harmony with the pre-reformation "mainline theological" view of the Bible: divinely inspired - even according to the dictation theory of divine inspiration of the Tridentinum - of course, but, at the same time, so dim and difficult that in desperate need of an outward cognitive authority to offer a correct and theologically trustworthy interpretation.
The major difference seems to be that the medieval people sought light for interpretation from the authority of the church, from the divinely endowed spiritual powers of the clergy, from the books of certain established ecclesiastical teaching authority figures, from the decrees of past councils, and ultimately from the Papal Office with the Keys, whereas you seem to seek it from human secular sciences.
Now, the irony lies in that modern natural science, according to up-to-date History of Science, actually emerged as kind of a brain-child of the most literalistically Biblical Evangelical Lutheran reformation, which sternly abode to the "thus, let God be true, and every man, a liar" understanding of the relation between the Bible and our intellect.
As a matter of fact, what could be described as the emerging of critical scientific methodology was actually a consequence of abandoning the Aristotelian type of belief that human intellect were "unfallen" - entirely intact by the Fall that nevertheless had had severe consequences in our will-power, desires, and affections.
That's why our poor intellect was now admitted being in need of "crutches", various ways of checking against error, scrutinizing even what had seemed to be sure and certain for aeons, since Aristotle or so. This led to the rise of the empirical method, for the intellect was in no position of beforehand telling us what exactly God had done in creation.
After a while, the self-proud human intellect of the West, of course, again abandoned this modest view of itself, wanting to be its own master again, calling that pursuit - stealing from the Biblical vocabulary - "enlightenment", and accusing the Bible as "full of errors, contradictions and difficulties".
Nevertheless, it seems, you're seeking light to "a dim Bible" from the clear rational intellect of man - denying the Fall entirely - engaged in the scientific pursuit that without a belief in a clear Bible and a dim human intellect in the first place, never had even emerged.
Your line of argumentation about me as a person and my opinions about the Bible obscure the real issue here.
DeleteI dare to claim, even without asking, that you find the work of Ron Wyatt (1933-1999) highly inspiring and reliable proof for the truth in Bible, as his approach was so similar to the Answers in Genesis - to find creative ways to fool believers to donate thousands of dollars for the good case of our Lord.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt
You may recall how he discovered Pharaoh's chariot wheel in the bottom of Red Sea, Noah's ark on Ararat and a bottle of the blood of Jesus in the Garden Tomb. His lectures were overbooked and eager listeners praising the Lord for these scientific archaeological discoveries were ready to pay entrance fee. His books have been translated to Scandinavian languages, as well.
"part of Naturalistic obfuscation tactics, of which I've already warned you."
ReplyDeletesorry Petri, but this is the "black helicopter" mentality of some US citizens, including Christians.
True scientists, I do not mean atheists or free thinkers who are using science to prove their point that there is no God, study the Nature and are obsessed by the challenges it gives them.
It is an amazing world and highly sophisticated and many natural scientists are experts on a very narrow band of knowledge. They know much about very little.
I am working in these blogs myself on hard sciences trying to learn at least a little of the massive achievements of modern Science.
Grand Canyon Creationism is a grand example how well-meaning Christians can seriously damage the credibility of our God.
I: "... part of Naturalistic obfuscation tactics, of which I've already warned you."
DeleteML: "sorry Petri, but this is the 'black helicopter' mentality of some US citizens, including Christians."
Sorry, Mikko, but I know you either know better than that, or have intentionally preferred not to get acquainted with the information I already offered you within this very thread.
A restatement of the pertaining hard facts:
(1) Professor Puolimatka has publicly demonstrated the reality of the active and wide-spread usage of such obfuscation tactics by naturalists, for their political goals, against their expertise.
(2) When Professor Puolimatka had referred to various professional sources, bluntly revealing the obfuscation practice, in front of the Finnish naturalistic "Skepsis ry", and having been given ample opportunity to publicly challenge his theses, the Skepsis people preferred refraining from further argument altogether, in spite of the public humiliation of disengaging themselves from their earlier promises of telling their side of the story.
(3) The facts (1) & (2) are demonstrably true, and I have in this thread already given links in order for you to be able to see it for yourself. Here, copies of those links, again:
(a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1PyUDdPT-0&feature=gv&hl=en (the Puolimatka lecture video in YouTube)
(b) http://perustelu.fi/Huuhaa-palkinto_2008 (an article containing a record of the historical events that had led to the lecture opportunity, and of those that followed, with links to additional Internet resources)
As should be quite clear by now, my remark about the obfuscation tactics was nothing like you took it to be - no mere conclusion from my set of basic beliefs, but an inference to best explanation of closely seen recent historical events:
I see no possible explanation for Professor Puolimatka so effectively silencing his aggressive public critics, if not for the reason that what he had demonstrated, and what they felt outrageous, was, for they dismay, irrefutable, too.
Hence, from that time on, and despite its somewhat shocking nature, the reality of the naturalistic obfuscation business should be considered a publicly demonstrated hard fact beyond reasonable doubt (cf. the Resurrection of Jesus) by all knowledgeable people - at least here in Finland, and among the readers of this thread.
I'd like to have your reply to this argument before proceeding. A small step forward towards a common reasonableness would be more valuable for me than a month of just fooling around and speaking without listening.
How to make this clear to you, Petri? The problem is not in Philosophy of Science but in simple observation of facts.
ReplyDeleteInstead of time, let us talk about distances.
Let us assume some person X who has adopted the holy knowledge that the entire world is one km2 in size.
Now he looks at a mountain range that seems to be from him at the distance of 15 km and the range seems to be at least 70 km long.
In order to fit the observed reality with his firm faith in the holy knowledge he must do some serious thinking.
Unfortunately, the end result may be that "the mountain range only seems to be at that distance and that long, in fact it fits to my 1 km2 world, because it has to fit to the true world."
right?
this is the answer we get from professor Hartnett about the 2.5 million lightyear distance to the nearby Andromeda galaxy and this is the reference that I get from you about Ice Age.
it only seems so but in reality it fits the world as it must be according to our religion.
ML: "right?"
DeleteWrong!
There never was such component, neither with professor Hartnett, nor with meteorologist Oard - nor with me, either.
There is a grave problem, I think, accompanied with your seeing something there simply is not. Where does that imaginary illustration come from? How can it be so vivid it obviously has to be, in order to be able to so completely black out the bulk of reality from your vision?
Or, let us assume, perhaps it's just me who is the blind one around here. In that case, please show me the light by giving some credible cognitive justification for your "distance parable": what is the "simple observation of facts" you claim Hartnett and Oard (and I, too, if you can add something new there) are neglecting, respectively?
Please, be precise, for I honestly could not see any solid grounds for your comparison yet. So, give the details:
- What is the fact, currently in question?
- How is it simply observed?
- How is it neglected?
Were you able to do that, we'd be breaking some new ground here, instead of just waving our hands.
Please, forget my clumsy attempt to compare time and space. It is not relevant.
DeleteToday I learned more about YEC visiting virtually the 27 million dollar Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, that presents an account of the origins of the universe, life, mankind, and man's early history according to a literal, young earth creationist perspective of the Book of Genesis.
The facility's stated mission is to "exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer", to "equip Christians to better evangelize the lost", and to "challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord".
The one-millionth visitor was announced on April 26, 2010, just over a month away from the museum's three-year anniversary.
The headquarters of Answers in Genesis is located in the premises, the publisher of Mr Ice Age papers and books.
Kenneth Alfred Ham (born 20 October 1951) is the Australian President/CEO of Answers in Genesis USA and a prominent member of the young-Earth creationist movement. He is an advocate for a young Earth and a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
Petri, you have surely also visited the web site and seen the vegetarian Tyrannosaurus Rex with Adam in Garden of Eden.
What are you aiming at now?
DeleteAnd, please, do not proceed by triumphing over being able to point out that "to 'exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer', to 'equip Christians to better evangelize the lost', and to 'challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord'" are religious aims, not scientific ones.
I've got tired of every now and then reminding you of the fact that, according to up-to-date Philosophy of Science, there are no special "scientific basic beliefs", nor, as the Demarcation Project went bankrupt, water-tight separate realms of science, and of religions.
As a matter of fact, any self-coherent set of basic beliefs that is conducive to empirical research will do as a starting-point for possibly valid scientific research efforts, and these efforts, especially by promoting their presuppositions and best results, may often have large overlapping areas of interest with other human activities.
A reasearch effort is to be accepted as scientific if only the basic beliefs, the methodology, the empirical results, and the conclusions thereof are openly and reasonably reported, to meet any and all criticisms by anyone interested. Science itself is an open endeavor, just as the Creation Museum.
BTW, the very idea of having a special museum to exhibit the creation point of view about paleontological findings, as well as about current natural phenomena, was probably just a meager measure of counterbalancing against the way the naturalists have, all the time, used the publicly funded natural history museums as tools of promoting their type of beliefs among the public.
Another dead end would be to commit the Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy in order to undermine the legitimacy of the YEC people to express their view of reality in a dedicated Museum, if they so choose. A way of committing that Fallacy could be by appealing to the assumed ludicrousness of the very idea of there ever having been a vegetarian Tyrannosaurus Rex.
I myself have been to Finnish Natural History Museum when there was an exhibition with a plastic model of the rear limbs of Tyrannosaurus Rex in comparison to those of a modern chicken, in order to convince the visitors that current chickens were direct descendants of Tyrannosauri. To help achieve this educational/propaganda goal, the models had no heads or upper bodies at all, as if victims of some kind of chainsaw massacres.
Pretty ridiculous way of promoting a pretty ridiculous idea, one could say - but this remark, per se, bears no validity against the evolutionary idea of birds having descended from dinosaurs. Winning the laughers for your side is in no way tantamount to having proved your opponent is wrong.
Rather, that kind of rhetorical scare tactics may be effectively used as "conversation-stoppers", a way of instantly punishing those who might have violated the concurrent set of modern taboos: "Oh, and in which corner did you intend to place the Cave of the Flintstone Family in your pretty Museum, you Stone Age Bible Belt Folks?"
This your answer is exactly what I was aiming at.
DeleteTo be sure about your position on Answers in Genesis because I have not seen this clearly from your posts mostly on Philosophy of Science.
The Kentucky Creation Museum is a clear indicator for both of us how far we stand from each other while we both believe in God the Creator.
"I'd like to have your reply to this argument before proceeding. A small step forward towards a common reasonableness would be more valuable for me than a month of just fooling around and speaking without listening."
ReplyDeleteYour criticism is justified as I am ignoring the line of argumentation you are introducing. To get into the debate on that track would require another blog and demand much work and very different type of argumentation.
Instead, I have invited you and others to walk with me in the Nature our God has created trying to figure out what humanity has learned about it.
For example, I am currently studying the evolution of life and the genetic code in DNA. It is a heavy subject, indeed. All help, critical notes and additional ideas and observations from you would be very welcome!
I would be happy if you would contribute to that DNA discussion using the tools Professor Puolimatka is giving you. That would satisfy the requirements of doing both good Science and good Philosophy of Science.
ReplyDelete