As a follow up to these 12 insights of young earth creation (YEC) scientist - Jeremy Walter, PhD, (1 of 2) I offer up 12 more from this well qualified man before I move on to other young earth creation (YEC) scientists.
(1).jpg)
"The implications of the science of thermodynamics were instrumental in convincing that long periods of time are not only unnecessary, but also lethal to theories of gradual and natural development of intelligent design."
"Man's conscious and spiritual aspects defy strict scientific definition, much less a natural process of development."
"The passing of long periods of time cannot constitute or facilitate an independent cause for the development of human bodies, aptitude and ability."
"The false goes of Mother Nature and Father Time are inferior substitutes for the great and awesome Creator of the Scriptures."
"Science cannot prove the universe to be of great age, and that prodigious age would in fact be detrimental rather than beneficial to the development of complexity and order."
"The interpretation of observed data hinges solidly on the concepts of truth held by investigators, not the facts themselves."
"Faith commitments to either human reason or biblical revelation influence what hypotheses are considered and how data is accepted or rejected."
"...false notion established during the modern age that reality and truth are limited to the empirical, and that man's knowledge and reasoning are our supreme gods."
"The concept of a living, volitional, personal and loving First Cause is willfully rejected even though it is completely compatible with both science and the Bible."
"If the mainstream academic community accepts an unproven concept as fact and excludes alternative thinking by decree, then the potential for error to be systematically preserved and promoted is institutionalized."
"Our universe was created fully functioning in six 24-hour days."
"The priniciples and observations of true science do not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but in fact offer support for the creation of all things in six days."
That's one scientist that agrees with me.
Thoughts?
The entire essay can be found here.
Comments
This pitiful recitation of scientific illiteracy - not unexpected from a YEC - demonstrates yet again the utter bankruptcy of creationism. Thanks for further proof that creationism is not science.
Thoughts, as requested... ;)
I think YEC is a Biblically untenable position. It's biggest weakness is that it doesn't pay attention to genre, context or Hebrew grammar in interpreting Genesis.
I would wholeheartedly recommend Dr. David Snoke's "A Biblical Case for an Old Earth" for a scientifically and exegetically more accurate position than that of YEC.
For a better understanding of the Genesis text itself from an Evangelical Christian perspective, I recommend John Walton's commentary in the NIV Application series as well as Victor Hamilton's in the NICOT series.
Blessings,
JMS
Methodist Examiner
@Paul...I guess if you say so then it must be so. But, I don't see a mention of creationism here...just want a scientist has to say about his YEC position and why. Would you like to expand?
@James - thanks for the reading suggestion. 300+ times when the Bible uses the word day it refers to a 24-hour day. Why should Genesis be any different?
Because it has at least 3 different meanings just in the Gen.1-2:4 account! First use of "day" (Heb. "yom") = just the daylight, as opposed to the night. Second use = both evening and morning. Final use (2:4) = entire period of creation, translated in NIV as "when" instead of literally "in the day of..." as it appears in Hebrew.
300+ times isn't that significant when you consider that the total number of occurrences of "yom" found in the OT is 2,304! :)
Whatever type of "yom" the 6 are, they aren't regular solar days...as the Sun doesn't appear until yom 4.
Consult any Hebrew lexicon and you'll see that 'yom' has 5 meanings regularly found in Scripture.
This is why very few *Evangelical* OT scholars that I'm aware of who have specialized in Genesis hold a YEC view. I'm not even counting mainline, liberal or non-Christian scholars who reject YEC interpretations of Genesis...Rather, most YEC proponents are engineers or others whose field of study is not Biblical theology.
@James...thanks again for the response, however, no need to shout.
The word day associated with a numeral occurs in the OT over 200 times and in ALL of those cases a 24-hour day is indicated...including Genesis 1-2. Apparently we are not using the same sources, lexicons and such, eh?
Bill, I wasn't shouting. I promise. ;)
I'm using Bibleworks 8 for morphological searches. I'm using the standard Hebrew Lexicons by Holladay and Kohlenberger (HALOT) which are used by OT scholars, seminarians and translators.
I'm afraid that it's not just a case of saying "yom + numbers = literal days everywhere in Scripture" because that does not take into account genre or context. Genesis 1 contains poetic refrains--one of which is the "vayehi erev vayehi boqer, yom ___" (There was evening, there was morning, day ____). If this is an ancient near east literary motif (which the majority of Evangelical OT scholars recognize it to be, myself included) then pressing it for literalness is an exegetical fallacy. A student of Hebrew grammar recognizes that YEC cannot rest on the "day means 'day'" argument.
If a Christian believes in anything other than a literal 6 day creation, they must also believe in death before sin....
Both Jesus himself and Paul wrote about the beginning of creation (Mark) and (Romans). If you are calling Jesus (the Word of God) a liar than... that's a heresy.
If you are a believer, please consider this article but more importantly consider what God has also said... "Let every man be a liar and God be true"
Yeah, CPU, even when it was approved, was still an unaccredited distance learning institution. If you don't understand the difference in the quality of education undertook by Bergman and a graduate of your local public university (and the expertise it confers), then I'm not sure what to tell you. It should be evident enough by Bergman's own dialogue.
To believe that Jerry Bergman should be given any special consideration over the overwhelming number of life scientists who accept evolution on the strong merits of the evidence that supports it is just plain silly.
Even if the above where not true, and even one graciously interpreted Mr. Bergman's quotes in the most charitable light possible, it still amounts to mostly nonsense.
And despite the protest otherwise, nothing quoted constitutes science (where are the research citations? the methodologies employed? and on and on). This is simply Creationism attempting to mask itself in the veneer of science.
And thank you J-M
Please forgive me.
My comments where meant for the Jerry Bergman article.
@Diochs...a reference to sources can be found at the bottom of the article. Please check it out.
@Bill
Thanks Bill for the source and the opportunity to reply.
I was able to review the reference. It turns out Walter is an unfortunate validation of the "Salem Hypothesis".
He proposes that the LoTDs (systems and energy/entropy) prohibits evolution, and gives some imaginative reasons why. For example, Walter mentions the second law in particular (and attacks a strawman in the process).
A change in entropy within a system is dependent upon available energy and time elapsed. The earth is system constantly receiving energy from the sun (the very "heat engine" Walter demanded). While an equilibrium will eventually be reached between two systems, entropy in a system can be decreased (at a cost to another source). This is first year physics, likely first quarter. This isn't even argued among physicists.
What I find unusual is that Walter implies that "evolutionists" try to find answers in "statistical thermodynamics". The very laws he's discussing *are* statistica
@Concerned: Notice that in the New Testament, only HUMAN death is seen as the consequence of sin. In the work I referenced previously, David Snoke answers this objection. Here is a brief excerpt from it:
"But what kind of death came into the world when he sinned? Romans 5:12 goes on to say, “death spread to all men because all sinned.”
In Genesis 2:17, God says, “In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Did Adam die physically on that day? No, he lived another nine hundred years or so (unless one is willing to equate that “day” with an “age”). Then did God lie, and prove Satan correct when he said, “You will not die”? No – on that very day Adam died spiritually. Adam lost his soul. This was the primary death; physical death was a later consequence.
This kind of death is unique to humans. Only humans have the image of God (Gen. 1:27). The primary meaning of the death that came into the world when Adam sinned is therefore the spiritual death of alienation from God." p.
Bill, are you looking for a statement by statement refutation? Most of this is incomprehensible drivel. Would you waste your time on nonsense?
"The false goes of Mother Nature and Father Time are inferior substitutes for the great and awesome Creator of the Scriptures." Now there's a scientific assertion, right?
Give me one example of a valid observation, and we can discuss it. Why this examiner chooses this particulalry incompetent writer I don't know. Even the clowns at AnswersInGenesis are slicker in their rhetoric than this guy.
How can 2 YEC's like Jerry Bergman or Jeremy Walter exist if what they say has no substance?
There's also many other PHD's who agree with them. I'm not saying that I'm a creationist, but this confuses me.
Can someone please shed some light?
"Science cannot prove the universe to be of great age"
Science can't prove the age of the universe, any more than it can prove that the Earth goes around the Sun. But scientific theories are based upon the best available evidence. Creationism is based upon no evidence whatsoever. So which would you put your faith in?
"...and that prodigious age would in fact be detrimental rather than beneficial to the development of complexity and order."
Well, that statement is just silly. There's a wealth of evidence that systems can become more complex over time, especially living things. Look at the way bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!