New Blog Address

I have set up an independently hosted blog: www.intelldesign.com.  Please refer there for all future posts and comments.  There are a couple of the most recent comments that didn’t get imported.

A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part VI

And then did there exist a “warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found.” (1) But that fellow died of course, and we did come to know things to be different than originally conceived by our prophet, who liberated us from oppression and superstition. Though we are grateful, we realize he is quite dead and buried, and his ideas have little to do with what we think now. And being very very intelligent, we did discover that biopolymers possibly did arise (of course not by ‘chance’ or ‘random processes’). (2) Of course, we know that the prophet was correct with his notions of a primordial soup, because life is not observed as arising from anything other than life today. So, we do remain thankful, although not in a direct way, to the Great Prophet. (Continued in Part VII; I don’t think this will take billions of years to complete, but who knows?).

(1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
(2) http://www.pnas.org/content/93/2/839.full.pdf+html

A Naturalistic Fairy Tale-Part V

And then was there thought for a long time to be a giant impact upon the Earth that resulted in the moon. (1) Or later, perhaps not. (2) Indeed, the Earth was in fact very different from today. There were no oceans and no oxygen. Then was the Earth bombarded by left over planetoids and other early material. The left-over heat and bombardment caused the planet to be fully molten. During this stage, the ‘iron catastrophe,” did cause the heavier elements to sink, whereas the lighter elements did float. Although the early atmosphere would have been composed of hydrogen and helium, the winds of the sun and the heat of the Earth, would cause this to be taken away. And then as the radius of the Earth did increase, temperatures did plummet. And as the crust did solidify and form, so did the atmosphere. Between 4 and 3.8 billion years ago, did the Earth undergo a heavy bombardment of asteroids providing water, which condensed into clouds. And then did life begin to originate… (Continued in Part VI).

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

(2) http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/older_earth_020828.html

On Christian Views of Creationism–Part V (Continued: Young Earth Creationism)

Some commentators read my general overviews, and they assume that I don’t know the basic cosmological views, such as the cosmological view of the starlight and time problem. However, I have been reading about cosmology for the last 16 years or so, and I am quite acquainted with how the views on cosmology “have evolved.”

Some commentators note different arguments that have been made from cosmology on the starlight and time problem. I’m well aware of these arguments, and they always make reference to things unmeasurable (e.g., dark energy and an initial inflation of the universe at a speed faster than the speed of light). For anyone who has followed cosmology closely, this theory was used to explain things that were completely unpredicted by previous cosmological theories (such as the apparent accelerated expansion of the universe). Completely imaginary concepts as Dark Energy are invoked to explain this problem. Additionally, commentators assert that nobody but traditional scientists have been trying to research this problem. That is a blatantly false assertion, as creation scientists have also been researching the problem and providing possible explanations. For each viewpoint, I must admit, there is nothing more than speculation, but there are possible explanations from each point of view.

On Christian Views of Creationism–Part IV (Continued: Young Earth Creationism)

In Part II, I laid out an overview of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), and in Part III, I began addressing some of the controversy with YEC. I will continue addressing the controversy and potential problems with YEC in this post.

Radiocarbon Dating

Radiocarbon dating is used for dating the age of fossils or formerly living matter (organic matter) up to 60,000 years old. (1) This method of dating poses an apparent problem for YEC, because dates obtained from Carbon 14 dating are frequently greater than the 6,000 year-old age as purported to a literal biblical interpretation. The basic assumptions of Carbon 14 dating are challenged by YEC proponents. Namely, that the initial amount of Carbon 14 in organic materials can be known, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, and the amount of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere was much higher before the global flood. (2)

Star Light and Time

If you look up into the sky at night you will see stars. The speed of light in a vacuum is a known rate (186,282 miles/second). So, the distance that light travels in a year is known (5,878,625,373,183 miles), and the distance to stars and distant galaxies has been estimated. The distance to the most distant objects in the universe is estimated in billions of light years. So, the assumption is that the light from these objects originated billions of years ago. YEC proponents do not question the distance to these stars and galaxies.

One argument is,

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. (3)

However, it is also noted that,

It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument.

Again, YEC proponents challenge uniformitarian views. Although some creation scientists challenge the speed of light, others approach the challenge with respect to time.

Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. (3)

And then there is the time zone argument,

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility. (3)

Challenging the assumptions of naturalism is also an argument. It states that although God sustains the universe in a certain way presently, this tells us nothing about how He actually created things in the beginning.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. (3)

Cosmology is also examined, and it is noted that there is a star light and time problem with current cosmological theories as well. This perspective forces a detente between the creationist view and the naturalist view by asserting that both perspectives are faced with the same basic problem.

… since the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. (3)

The most distantly observable matter in the universe is said to be 46 billion light years away from the Earth. (4) If the universe is approximately 14 billion years, old, then it would be impossible for us to see things that far away. Naturalists invoke unverifiable theories such as “dark energy” to explain this problem. So the notion is that both the creationist viewpoint and naturalist viewpoint both have problems with star light and time. The notion is where you place your faith, in those things that are said to be ‘revealed by God,’ or in the theories of humans.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon

(2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

(3) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_universe

A potential cosmological resolution to the star light and time problem is presented in the book, Starlight and Time.

On Christian Views of Creationism–Part III (Continued: Young Earth Creationism)

In Part II, I gave a basic summary of the view of Young Earth Creationism. In this section, I’ll discuss some of the controversies.

Catastrophe versus Uniformitarianism

That naturalist viewpoint is that the rate at which geological and other natural processes occur today, is the rate at which these things have always occurred (geological changes, formation of strata layers, formation of fossils, and so forth). The YEC viewpoint is that many of these things can be explained by global catastrophic processes, and specifically the Great Flood, as described in the Bible.

Plate Tectonics

After naturalistic scientists finally came to a point of resolution about plate tectonics, it became possible to measure the speed of continental drift (.5 to 6 inches per year). (1) And by the uniformitarian view of geology, the separation of the continents from the original single land mass was estimated to have taken 1 billion years. (2) Evidence for the YEC perspective is presented at Answers in Genesis, and computer models related to the catastrophic hypothesis have been developed. (1)

According to AIG,

… a 3-D supercomputer model of processes in the earth’s mantle has demonstrated that tectonic plate movements can indeed be rapid and catastrophic when a realistic deformation model for mantle rocks is included.¹⁰ And, even though it was developed by a creation scientist, this supercomputer 3-D plate tectonics modeling is acknowledged as the world’s best.¹¹

Radiometric Dating

The uniformitarian view receives support from examining evidence pertaining to the rate of decay of radioactive elements. Radiometric dating is used in the dating of the formation of igneous rocks.

Which are defined as,

formed by solidification of cooled magma (molten rock). (3)

So, this type of dating is confined to only certain types of rocks.

Types of igneous rocks include granite and basalt (lava). Sedimentary rocks, which contain most of the world’s fossils, are not commonly used in radioisotope dating. These types of rocks are comprised of particles from many preexisting rocks which were transported (mostly by water) and redeposited somewhere else. Types of sedimentary rocks include sandstone, shale, and limestone. (4)

Different elements are seen to have different “half lives.” Radioactive elements decay into other elements that is extremely consistent in current observations of radioactive decay. YEC challenges the assumptions of the rate of radioactive decay and provides support for their position that the Earth is young (thousands of years) instead of old (billions of years). (5) Additional evidence is provided in book and DVD form. (6) (7)

The RATE group has been criticized by naturalists. ( 8 )

This post is getting rather long, so I will continue in Part IV.

(1). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

(2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

(3). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igneous

(4). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

(5). http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

(6). Thousands not Billions

(7). Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth (DVD)

(8). http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

On Christian Views of Creationism–Part II (Young Earth Creationism)

This view of creationism rests on a literal interpretation of the Bible. The notion is that the Earth was created 6000-10000 years ago. The dating is based on the genealogy listed in the chapter Numbers in the Bible. This perspective says that uniformitarian interpretations of geology and cosmology are incorrect or misinterpreted. They don’t deny the operation of microevolutionary principles (natural selection) operate in the world and use this to account for the wide ranging variation in the “kinds” of life (look at the variation in dogs for example).

The Fall of Man

The fall of man is given a prominent place in this point of view. Before the fall creation was perfect. There was no death (even among the animals). There was no suffering. There was no disease. And living things (animals and humans) were vegetarian. After Adam and Eve ate from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” God proclaimed that they would die and were banished from the garden.

From this view, all of creation in the world fell. Not just human beings. Death came into the world.

The Great Flood

Genesis Chapter 6 (NASB)

⁵ Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

⁶ The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

⁷ The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

….

16 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

…. Chapter 7

⁴ For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land ⁾every living thing that I have made.”

^{5 )}Noah did according to all that the LORD had commanded him.

….

¹¹ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

¹² The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

….

¹⁹ The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

²⁰ The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

^{21 )}All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;

²²of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

Evidence for the global flood is taken from hundreds of legends across all continents. (1)  The uniformitarian view, that rock layers were laid down over millions of years is seen as false, and the notion that the rock strata layers were laid down in a cataclysmic event (the flood) are seen as true.  (2)  The fact that different types of animals are seen in different strata layers is interpreted as a natural sorting process.  The more intelligent animals would run away from the flood waters, and would thus end up in the higher layers of the strata.

I’ll write more about potential problems with this viewpoint and possible answers to these problems in Part III.  The notion with this point of view is that through sin, came death.  Death is viewed as a bad thing and is the result of the original sin of Adam and Eve.  This is contrasted with the view of Darwinism, which is through death comes life.  This viewpoint explains a great many things (disease, suffering, death, social ills, and so forth), that are seen as very negative things by people on the Earth currently.

However, there are a number of problems with this viewpoint, which I will discuss in Part III.  But, if you begin with the assumption of an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator, all you need to provide is one possible explanation for how things could have occurred.  Personally, I lean a bit more towards this viewpoint than OEC, because of it’s explanatory power and consistency with the Bible.  But, for Christians, we need to keep in mind the most important aspect of the theology.  And that is Christ paid the price for our sins and on the day of judgment, the Father will look at us and see Christ.

My own point of view, is that the universe may have been needed to be created in the exact way that it was in order to allow for life to exist on Earth.  As Adam and Eve were created with the appearance of age, the universe was likely created similarly.  When you go to watch a movie, it has a starting point.  The assumption is that things happened before the movie started.  If you were to look at Adam and Eve as fully grown humans, you might infer that they had existed for 20 or 30 years and been born of a woman as we know always happens now.  However, the Bible asserts otherwise.  I think the same thing may apply when we look at the universe and its apparent age.  But again, my faith does not rest on these notions, and there may be superior explanations that are biblically consistent.

(1) http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends

(2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/catastrophe.asp

Creation–In Six Days

Dwilli, my co-author has written a series of posts about the book, In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.

1. “The Alpha and Omega…”

2. “Abundant Life”

3. “Abundant Life” II

Some Basic Concepts in Intelligent Design

Hallmarks of Design

I’ve written before about how things that are designed exhibit function or specific complexity.  I’ll give a definition in a bit more detail here.

Systems that are of high complexity, that is functionally integrated multicomponent systems, systems that are of high specificity where only one or very few of many possible arrangements of these components works, and systems which are of low probability, at least spontaneous occurrence . . . these are the hallmarks of purposefully designed engineered systems. (1)

Teleology

Proponents of intelligent design theory often invoke the notion of teleology.  What is teleology?

…. is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. (2)

Irreducible Complexity (IC)

Charles Darwin specified one aspect of his theory that would allow for falsifiability.  Falsifiability is thought to be an essential aspect of a scientific theory.  Darwin wrote:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. (3)

Although Darwin at least made an attempt to allow for the falsifiability of modern evolutionary theory, modern evolutionists have rejected any arguments that have been made in terms of irreducible complexity. 

Two major proponents of intelligent design theory have defined IC in these ways:

^{The term “irreducible complexity” was originally defined by Behe as:}

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (<emDarwin’s Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition) ….

A second definition given by Behe (his “evolutionary definition”) is as follows:

An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

Intelligent design advocate William Dembski gives this definition:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system’s basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

(4)

Evolutionists today dismiss the idea outright.  To my knowledge, they don’t even present a way that evolution can be falsified.  Although there are a number of credible arguments made for irreducible complexity, there are of course counterarguments for each.  This points to the fact that naturalistic evolution has no clear way of being falsified.  For example, all an object would have to do to falsify the law of gravity, is to fall upward once!  But the fact that the argument continues shows that naturalistic evolution has no true basis for falsifiability.

In the everyday practice of research on evolution, the assumption is that naturalistic evolution is true, because a majority of scientists agree.  A mere agreement among scientists as evidence violates the philosophical assumptions of science.  Research on evolution routinely employs research designs that do not allow for causal conclusions (that the results found imply a cause and effect relationship), but that does not stop evolutionary biologists from inferring causality nonetheless.

The type of research that allows for inferences about causal relationships is an experimental design.  Evolutionists argue that, “How do you propose we construct a multi-billion year research design?”  And I reply that if your theory requires a multi-billion year research design, it’s not much of a scientific theory.

(1) Lumsden, Richard, 1995, quoted by Alters, Brian J., 1995, A content analysis of the Institute for Creation Research’s Institute on Scientific Creationism. Creation/Evolution 15(2): 1-15.

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

(3) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

On Ecological Biodiversity and Irreducible Complexity

The Christian Scribbler has written an interesting post on the macro level of irreducible complexity.  Kliska writes:

I’m in the middle of a book titled: In Six Days; Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation (Ashton, 2000).  All the chapters (which are composed by the different scientists giving their reasons) have been informative and interesting, but one so far really stood out to me.

Read the full post here.