ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

She became a Christian 6 later after about 30 students at JMU praying for her. The books I recommended to her were Jastrow’s God and the Astronomers and Denton’s Evolution a Theory in Crisis. She got to about page 60 of God and the Astronomers and that was enough….

One does not need a slam dunk case for every aspect of YEC to win hearts for Christ. I think in many respects, accpeting the existence of God and the miracle of Christ resurrection is the most essential.

That said, let me say, I think it WEAKENS the defense of the faith when the inference from weak evidence is overblown. It is better to be more reserved. The Case for Christ is more believable when the testimony is given by those who show a healthy degree of skepticism….

Where I was headed is that, it remains to be seen how effective the AiG museum will be in persuading people (even believers), and teaching them appropriate defenses of the Christian faith. I’m very content to say, the evidential case for YEC is promising, but it has a long way to go…..

The $27,000,000 investment is of course freely given, but I wonder if there might not be a more effective way to communicate the possibility of the YEC cause, and one that does justice to both the weaknesses and strengths of the evidential case.

Soooooo, where was I headed with this. I think, rather than a $27,000,000 museum, a major motion picture of Noah’s ark with hydroplate theory is in order. Most of the flood movies were kind of bland. But man, a story with Nephilim, Dinosoars, an exploding Earth would be pretty exciting. We can kind of do it with the model of Princiess Bride, where we are taken to the modern day, and we look back as each piece of evidence is studied. I was thinking of tying it to the story of Astronaut Jim Irwin as he examines each piece of evidence and meets with the creation scientists. Then we’re taken back to flashbacks in the Genesis account.

I think the idea of infusing it into popular culture will be a more effective use of money. I could of course be wrong.

I’m going to try to get ahold of illustra media and some investors to at least get a screen play, a live theater play, financed. We don’t have to do the whole ball of wax at once….

Honestly, I see the poverty og creation orgs as indicative of the success of creation. Look at how far we’ve been able to push the paradigm of creation with no resources!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

It may be instructive to consider a few observations about the modern scientific world by the astronomer, Professor Halton Arp: http://www.haltonarp.com/

“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.”

“When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment.”

“Local organizing committees give in to imperialistic pressures to keep rival research off programs.”

“It is the primary responsibility of a scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations.”

“Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order to fix it.”

http://metaresearch.org/publications/books/SeeingRed-Arp.asp

Arp says there are numerous observations of higher red-shift objects by lower red-shift objects that appear obviously to be connected, meaning the idea of red-shift as an indication of speed and distance cannot be supported. Nevertheless astronomers ignore the data.

I do think creationists must openly evaluate data about the universe as much as possible. But I also think there is a limit to what level of scientific conjecture can be accommodated. For example, should Christian creationists submit the idea of resurrection, central to the faith, to the pronouncements of modern medical science? Medical science cannot explain the Biblical story of the resurrection of Christ. It cannot happen in nature. It is a miracle. Yet Christ chastised the Sadducees about resurrection, saying, “You err, knowing neither the Scripture nor the power of God.” God certainly does not mislead anyone by telling us to believe in resurrection even when death seems so irresistibly final.

In my opinion the recent creation of the universe is a similar divine interaction and isn’t necessarily obvious from the inspection of nature (though I think “anomalous” evidence is quite sufficient to seriously question naturalistic propositions). Creationists may often appear to defensively invoke the God of the gaps but I don’t think that’s much different from naturalists invoking just-so stories for what strongly implies divine intervention. Even Crick and Orgel wrote in their book ‘Life Itself,’ “an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

I venture a guess as to why the percentage of professional scientists holding a creationist perspective, whether OEC or YEC or even ID, is rather small. Motivated creationists will seriously weigh the command to proclaim the Good News to the billions of poor non-Christians of the planet, hoping for no more reward than, “Well done my good and faithful servant.” A gifted creationist may feel a career in scientific research is not the most practical way to fulfill the Great Commission. On the other hand bright materialists, agnostics and atheists will not very likely choose theology as a career. The natural world is what materialists revere so materialists will dominate research in natural sciences. I can only wish the heartiest commendation to creationists in science.

I have personally found that I tend to distrust the scientific work of creationists bent on evangelism. Whether right or wrong, I worry that someone’s enthusiasm to prove creationist theory will lead to shortcuts or sloppy research. It is much more compelling when secular quarters will publish data that unwittingly support creationist conclusions.

Very understandable. It’s the “hostile witness” scenario: if someone who is opposed to something is forced to testify in favor of it, the testimony is very impressive because the one offering it does so against his own interests. Everyone expects a person to present his own “side” in the best possible light.

And of course, just as a creationist may be suspected of shortcuts or sloppy research, the “other side” also has substantial motivations for presenting conclusions that under scrutiny would not be above reproach. If anti-Darwin arguments get short shrift, no one can imagine that there would be eagerness among the mainstream to look for or explicitly divulge evidence that supported a young earth: if the earth is of the age indicated in the Bible, there’s simply no time for darwinian evolution to have occurred, so evidence of the former would by definition be evidence against the latter.

I once talked with a pastor who felt that if there were evidence for a young earth, scientists would be eager to publish and garner fame for themselves for helping to break a paradigm. I believe this pastor was idealistic and naive. Yet I wonder how many other people have a similar assumption.

Myself, I’m afraid I have minimal trust in science when it comes to extrapolations into the past. It has nothing to do with the honesty of most scientists, either: if you’ve been trained to see things in a certain way, and if the work you’re necessarily building on was conducted from a certain point of view, OF COURSE your conclusions are likely to point in a certain direction.

Incontrovertible does not mean God’s word cannot be questioned.

Salvador, if I’m understanding what you’re saying here, it’s that the Bible isn’t to be accepted unquestioningly BECAUSE it is the Bible. Rather, it is to be tested and then believed if it’s found to be trustworthy–but it must first earn our trust. I agree. If one insists that the book must be true because it’s the Bible, then this claim appears no more credible than if advanced in favor of any other religion’s holy writings.

No, as with any source of information, the Bible needs to be shown trustworthy. I don’t think it’s inappropriate to assume it was written in good faith–we assume that much of many things we read–but if the book contained the assertion that, say, rocks tossed up in the air will float in the natural course of things, or if it denied the existence of the historical Greek empire, or something of that sort, we’d be justified in doubting its reliability in other matters.

This is why I see so much hanging on the creation account. The Bible does contain records that allow us to calculate how much time has elapsed since God created; and God himself said explicitly how much time he took and the scope of his creative work. I would contend that, apart from a vested interest in protecting these things from obvious falsification, few would suggest that these records do not mean what they appear to mean. Rather, it would be readily acknowledged that, if the scientific account is correct, the biblical account is false.

It is not that the Bible must be protected from the least inaccuracy of minute detail–the gospel accounts themselves differ in certain particulars–but rather that there are certain characteristics about the creation account that make it particularly vulnerable.

I do not believe it is wise to set up creation science organizations where serious and sincere objections can be dismissed by theological fiat, or where legitimate concerns are implicated as some conspiracy with Lucifer.

I would agree–and, while I can’t speak for other creationists, I certainly don’t see those who have sincere objections or concerns as in conspiracy with Satan. (I may adamantly disagree with someone, but that’s very different from impugning motives.)

As for dismissing something by theological fiat… I guess my take is this: the Bible is a “theological” book; however, it also contains a huge amount of history. In fact, it is on the reliability of the history in the Bible that any theology is based. If, for example, the historical accounts of Jesus’s death and resurrection were shown to be incorrect, the whole Christian faith would be swept away–and this is acknowledged in the Bible itself (1 Corinthians 15). Moreover, while the death and resurrection of Jesus certainly are essential to Christian theology, these are presented as tangible, historical facts, not some sort of allegory or idealized vision intended to illustrate some abstract, whispy, theological “truth.”

We generally accept historical accounts when they appear in a secular source–and a reliable historical account would surely be accepted over any but the most certain attempt by science to extrapolate what happened in the past. Why not accept as valid historical evidence records that appear in the Bible? Does the fact that they are recorded in the Bible mean that we must look upon them with suspicion of having the taint of theological influence? If so, why? If not, why not give the biblical history at least the same respect as one would give history recorded in any other source?

Anyway, it appears to me that my comments digress rather far from the subject of the comparative poverty of creationists.

–Rick

But I suppose it would also make it difficult to do original research (and thus become open to the charge of just being arm-chair nay-sayers).