Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament

The sound of unbridled joy seldom breaks the quiet of the British Museum’s great Arched Room, which holds its collection of 130,000 Assyrian cuneiform tablets, dating back 5,000 years.

But Michael Jursa, a visiting professor from Vienna, let out such a cry last Thursday. He had made what has been called the most important find in Biblical archaeology for 100 years, a discovery that supports the view that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact.

Searching for Babylonian financial accounts among the tablets, Prof Jursa suddenly came across a name he half remembered – Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described there in a hand 2,500 years old, as “the chief eunuch” of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.

Prof Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name – Nebo-Sarsekim.

Nebo-Sarsekim, according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar II’s “chief officer” and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the Babylonians overran the city.
…
“This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find,” Dr Finkel said yesterday. “If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power.”

It is however a bit sobering to read the passage which this artifact refers to:

Jeremiah 39, The Fall of Jerusalem

Jeremiah 39
The Fall of Jerusalem
1 This is how Jerusalem was taken: In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army and laid siege to it. 2 And on the ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah’s eleventh year, the city wall was broken through. 3 Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim [a] a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the other officials of the king of Babylon. 4 When Zedekiah king of Judah and all the soldiers saw them, they fled; they left the city at night by way of the king’s garden, through the gate between the two walls, and headed toward the Arabah. [b]
5 But the Babylonian [c] army pursued them and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho. They captured him and took him to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon at Riblah in the land of Hamath, where he pronounced sentence on him. 6 There at Riblah the king of Babylon slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes and also killed all the nobles of Judah. 7 Then he put out Zedekiah’s eyes and bound him with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon.

8 The Babylonians [d] set fire to the royal palace and the houses of the people and broke down the walls of Jerusalem. 9 Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard carried into exile to Babylon the people who remained in the city, along with those who had gone over to him, and the rest of the people. 10 But Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard left behind in the land of Judah some of the poor people, who owned nothing; and at that time he gave them vineyards and fields.

11 Now Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had given these orders about Jeremiah through Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard: 12 “Take him and look after him; don’t harm him but do for him whatever he asks.” 13 So Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard, Nebushazban a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the other officers of the king of Babylon 14 sent and had Jeremiah taken out of the courtyard of the guard. They turned him over to Gedaliah son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, to take him back to his home. So he remained among his own people.

15 While Jeremiah had been confined in the courtyard of the guard, the word of the LORD came to him: 16 “Go and tell Ebed-Melech the Cushite, ‘This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I am about to fulfill my words against this city through disaster, not prosperity. At that time they will be fulfilled before your eyes. 17 But I will rescue you on that day, declares the LORD; you will not be handed over to those you fear. 18 I will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your life, because you trust in me, declares the LORD.’ ”

1998:
$13 million market
Institute for Creation Research: 45%
Answers in Genesis: 28%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Moments: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 3%
Creation Research Society: no data
All others: less than 1% each

1999:
$13 million market
Institute for Creation Research: 41%
Answers in Genesis: 30%
Discovery Institute: 13%
Creation Evidence Museum: 7%
Creation Moments: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Research Society: 2%
All others: less than 1% each

2000:
$16 million market
Answers in Genesis: 46%
Institute for Creation Research: 34%
Discovery Institute: 10%
Creation Evidence Museum: 4%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Research Society: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2001:
$20 million market
Answers in Genesis: 46%
Institute for Creation Research: 30%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Research Society: 1%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 1%
Creation Moments: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2002:
$19 million market
Answers in Genesis: 49%
Institute for Creation Research: 31%
Discovery Institute: 12%
Creation Evidence Museum: 3%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Research Society: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2003:
$21 million market
Answers in Genesis: 52%
Institute for Creation Research: 28%
Discovery Institute: 15%
Creation Evidence Museum: 2%
Creation Illustrated Ministries: 2%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Research Society: 1%
All others: less than 1% each

2004:
$22 million market
Answers in Genesis: 59%
Institute for Creation Research: 20%
Discovery Institute: 16%
Creation Research Society: 1%
Creation Moments: 1%
Creation Evidence Museum: no data
Creation Illustrated Ministries: no data

Incidentally the IDEA Center, whcih I’m affiliated with, has a published annual budget of $7,000. None of the YEC resources we recommend are even on Lippard’s list! That’s how impoverished the best and the brightest YEC organizations are!

Lippard has many other posts on the activities of creationist organizations. For example Answers in Genesis hires Andrew Snelling

Snelling is one of the very few young earth creationist geologists on the planet with a Ph.D. from a mainstream academic institution (Steve Austin of the Institute for Creation Research is another). Ronald Numbers’ book, The Creationists, describes how Henry Morris of the ICR wanted to see a young creationist successfully obtain a Ph.D. in geology from a mainstream institution, only to be faced with failures by Clifford Burdick (who was kicked out of the program at the University of Arizona) and Nicolaas Rupke (who succeeded in obtaining his Ph.D., but rejected young-earth creationism as a result of what he learned in the process).

It is a bit heart breaking that there really is not a lot of money involved, considering this represents the entire USA. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction is devoted to research. AiG is mostly an evangelistic organization, not a research institution.

However, there is the bright side. 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. I find that research more trust worthy.

And I must break ranks with other creationists on their lack of clarity with the notion that the Bible is incontrovertable. It depends on what one means by incontrovertible. If one believes it to be the case because that’s the way reality really is, then one would look forward to seeing the Bible’s claims succeed when subjected to the most intense scrutiny. Incontrovertible does not mean God’s word cannot be questioned. Recall, the Berean’s were considered to have a noble spirit as they investigated the words of the Apostles. The Lord also commended one of the 7 churches of Asia minor for subjecting putting prophets to the test…..

I believe it is also wise to make a distinction of when one is running a science or marketing operation versus a church. Too many creationists organizations are run like churches. Contrast the ID organization, the Discovery Institute, that is organized on a secular basis. The Discovery Institute is a model organization which certain creation organizations would do well to emulate. Ironically, my faith has grown through involvment with a secular organization, not a religious one (namely the Discovery Institute and the IDEA Center). And incidentally, how often do I hear of Christians losing faith by going to seminary. I have found faith surprisingly flourishes in secular schools.

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 believe there is evil in the world, and that we are blind and fallible. But what is wrong with confessing that one has doubts and that one is needing healing of ones eyes? People who have sincere doubts should be welcomed and encouraged.

Be merciful to those who doubt

Jude 1:22

The modus operandi of suppressing legitimate questions actually fosters an intense distrust in the hypothesis of creation. I think the AiG museum is a bit pre-mature. It may be entertaining, but it does not help friendly skeptics like myself to be more convinced that God really made the world less than 10,000 years ago. The over marketing of an idea with pre-mature evidence does not instill trust. Faith is about trust.

In the mean time, the point of the post was to point out the financial and academic poverty of creationists. Few creationists have serious academic credentials or influence. We might say, in some sense, few creationists are “wise” as the world defines them. Few have the money and influence you would expect to achieve the grand aims of showing the world evidence of intelligent design and special creation. Perhaps that’s just the way it was meant to be:

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

1 Cor 1:26-31

PS
I’ll be away for the weekend. Apologies in advance if stuff gets caught in the spam buffer. The other admins can be called on to release comment.

Note to admins: Click “Manage” from the admin page to release comments.

Many readers may not realize, that no one has drilled down very far at all. The deepest drilling has only been about 14 miles down. From the surface to the Earth’s core is almost 4000 miles. We have barely scratched the surface, and we really don’t know what’s down there. On the picture below, the deepest we’ve drilled could hardly even be seen on the picture!

The demise of the mantle plume hypothesis will improve the chances of various YEC geologies, particularly Walter Brown’s hydroplate theory. If lava flow and plate techtonics can be refuted, then there is room for YEC geology to succeed. Hydroplate theory ties current volcanic activity and lava flow to the mechanisms that caused the great flood. Plate techtonics have a passing relation to mantle plume theory, and thus the demise of plumes furthers the chances of Brown’s hydroplate theory prevailing over old Earth, plate techtonics.

Scientists are unable to abandon a paradigm simply because its empiric base has crumbled. Denial …then anger ….is evident, just as in other bereavements [acceptance usually comes with the next generation, after a period of bargaining (ad hoc adjustments, rationalisations ….,changes in the protective shield of auxiliary hypotheses…

According to philosophers of science a research program is progressing if it displays the power to anticipate and accommodate additional data . Otherwise the program is called degenerating. A sign of an impending crisis in a paradigm is the number of times the words anomaly, paradox, unexpected, dilemma, counterintuitive, not understood, and problem appear in papers defending a hypothesis, or the number of rationalizations and additional assumptions made for failed predictions.

in 2002 several hundred papers about them are listed by the Science Citation Index, so the subject is paying a lot of mortgages.

Are we talking about Darwinian evolution? Well, not quite, but we are talking about bad ideas that have crept into science textbooks for the last 30 years. The issue is the origin of lava and mantle plumes.

Here is an example of a theory that should have been torpedoed on basic thermodynamic principles long ago, but was allowed to persist. The idea is that lave orginates from the Earth’s core and takes 30 million years to migrate to the surface. 30 MILLION YEARS!!!! Bury a hot or ice cold brick in the ground and tell me how long do you think it will maintain a temperature differential. Not 30 million years, not even a 1000 years, maybe not even 1 year!

Plumes or no plumes, that is the question Scientists having hot debate over how islands are formed

For more than three decades, scientists have offered a charmingly simple explanation for the Hawaiian Islands. They say the islands formed millions of years ago as the Pacific plate — a huge, slowly moving chunk of Earth’s crust, washed over by the Pacific Ocean — moved over a rising column of super-hot rock from Earth’s innards. The rising plume melted just below the plate as it passed overhead, forming a line of volcanoes that rose above the waves.

The theory is appealing partly because it’s so simple. Many high-school science students have watched their teacher simulate the formation of the Hawaiian Islands by moving a sheet of plastic, which mimics the moving Pacific plate, over the hot flame of a Bunsen burner, which mimics the plume. Result: The plastic develops a chain of blisters — which mimic the Hawaiian Islands.

Quick acceptance in 1970s

Plume theory won quick acceptance in the 1970s, when it seemed to jibe perfectly with plate tectonics theory, the then-trendiest idea in Earth science. According to that now widely accepted theory, Earth’s crust is broken into crustal plates that move about steadily, like slabs of ice in an ice floe, but very slowly, at rates of millimeters to centimeters per year.

The coolest implication of plume theory is that plumes bring us scientific treasures from the center, or near center, of the Earth. Geoscientists can’t travel to the center of the Earth a la Jules Verne to recover its contents. Rather, they rely on plumes to push those inner-Earth treasures from the edge of Earth’s core through its overlying mantle to the surface, where they gush from volcanoes.

Geoscientists also invoke plumes to explain so-called swells where Earth’s crust bulges upward, like the surface of a piping-hot souffle. Such bulges surround many volcanic regions, such as Iceland and the Hawaiian Islands.

For these and other reasons, “if there were no plumes, it would be a great disappointment,” says geoscientist Donald J. DePaolo of UC Berkeley.

And that’s the rub, for now some experts are starting to question the whole plume hypothesis. A showdown may come late next summer, when geoscientists plan to hold what they call the great plume debate at a conference in Scotland. A sort of dress rehearsal for that debate was held last month in San Francisco, at the annual gathering of the American Geophysical Union.

The Smoking Gun September 16, 2003

The Great Plumes Debate

Notes:

1. This is something I was perparing to post at Uncommon Descent some months back, but decided would have been too provacative since it argues for special creation. Bill Dembski, Denyse O’Leary, DaveScot, Patrick, and about half of the UD authors and admins accept Old Earth. Out of respect for them, I post this essay here. DaveScot was focused on issues related to exterior Global Warming, I’m focused on interior Global Warming (or cooling depending on how one looks at the issue).

Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.” . . .

(HT Bill Dembski)

Although I think YEC theory has a ways to go, there are various anomalies reported from secular quarters that continue to give hope to YEC proponents. One paper cited is a 1991 peer-reviewed paper by Tifft: Properties of the Redshift III: Temporal Variation. In this paper, Tifft argues that changes in redshifts from the same have object have been detected by historical measurements. It is like looking at an object and seeing its color change before your very eyes. This would throw some doubt on the standard interpreations of the Big Bang.

Comparisons between new 21 cm redshifts and older data, especially older 300 foot telescope data, are used to demonstrate the presence of systematic deviations, toward higher redshifts, in all the older data.

To the Stars.

PS
Setterfield references the work of one of the scientists, Hal Putoff, at www.Setterfield.org

In fact, the BSG’s activities have reached the very halls of the Unted States Congress and the Office of Special Council in the Richard Sternberg affair. See: www.rsternberg.net

Here are my reflections of Thursday, June 14, 2007:

In attendance were 65 people including

Kurt Wise
Paul Nelson
Marcus Ross
Todd Wood
Gordon Wilson
Tim Brophy
Georgia Purdom
David Cavanaugh
Steve Gollmer

There were several others, some of whom I perhaps should not mention since they’re somewhat in Guillermo Gonzalez’s shoes right now if you know what I mean.

[Ironically, I did not have the privilege of meeting Jean Lightner who gives her alternate report here.]

I was only there on Thrusday Evening, June 14, 2007 for the business meeting (election of officers) and the poster session so I will focus on that.

When I walked in to DeMoss hall I saw a very attractive and charming woman talking on her cell phone. It was none other the molecular biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom. Purdom had made some very negative comments about ID at the 2005 YEC mega-conference. Conversely, I had also made some very negative remarks publicly about what she had to say about ID. She recognized me too. OOPS! She was very kind to show me around, and I’ve decide from this day forward, to be much nicer when I crticize Dr. Purdom publicly.

Most creationist ideas that one reads in the literature is geared toward demolishing naturalistic evolution. BSG is for the most part is not focusing on that. In a manner of speaking, Darwinism is about as relevant to their science as phlogiston is to chemsitry….

Their investigation is not focused on disproving Darwinism (like most everyone else). The question they focus on are:

1. what were the created kinds and how did they evolve into the creatures we see to day. For example, many Baraminologists think Wolves, Jackals, Dogs, and Foxes proceeded from a common ancestor. If this sort of front-loaded evolution existed, then that would solve a lot of problems with all the creatures in Noah’s ark. One can somewhat commically argue, YECs are hyper-evolutionists. [See this great YEC article: Evolution: God's Greatest Creation.]

2. what sort of things were front-loaded into the organisms. Gordon Wilson and others argue death, disease, thorns, thistles, and all sorts of other miseries were pre-programmed into life. They discuss empirically detecting evidence to support this hypothesis. Plagues, like those today, and those which God used against Pharoah, are the work of Intelligent Design….

3. Systems Biology and Medical Research from a creationist theory. I have pointed out many times at Uncommon Descent, how the Darwinian paradigm continues to incorrectly characterize biology as it operates today (much less as to how it operated in the past). If Darwinists like Ken Miller can so casually dismiss DNA as junk, when in fact it has medical significance, how much better will a creationist biology help advance medical science.

I was impressed that active interest in pusuing medical and industrial science is becoming a major focus versus purely activities of “evanglizing and making war on evil world views”. As creation theory helps advance science, it will help further its acceptance. In the words of the Apostle Peter, there are times hearts are won over without saying a thing…..

I talked to Marcus Ross, and he agreed that 20 years ago, creationist ideas were in horrible shape. The classic example is canopy theory by Henry Morris which dominated (dare I say impeded) creationist theory for 30 years…..

With that thought, I mentioned that creationists would do well to start a journal where fierce criticisms of their theory would be admitted and not censored. I said it would attract readership because it allowed controversy rather than supress it. He thought it was a good idea. [Any one willing to help in this enterprise. hint hint.]

One of the best creationist journals has only 10 submissions, and is available for free online. It is the BSG’s occasional papers. I would be delighted to see one like that, but one that reflects some of the values of the YoungCosmos website, where contrary opinions are welcomed and even sought after.

Most creationists journal will not pass something written favorable to Old Earth or Darwinists. But this scientific research is not about evangelizing or persuading, it is about dealing with tough questions and finding answers. YEC theory will advance by allowing criticism, it will be hindered to the extent it evades and supresses it. YECs will not solve problems with YEC theory unless they are willing to first acknowledge these problems exist.

If God is for the YECs, the theory will prevail in the end, despite human efforts to disprove it. I am officially sympathetic to the theory, but I think as a scientific hypothesis (versus a theological one), it has a long, long way to go.

Finally, I must mention Kurt Wise whom I met for the very first time. Oh my goodness. He had studied under the best paleotologists in the world at University of Chicago (under David Raup) and then got his PhD at Harvard under the tutelage and association of the most famous Darwinsits:

Stephen Gould
Richard Lewontin
Ernst Mayr
E.O. Wilson

Oh, my goodness. Could a creationist have a richer background than that? Wise helped teach some of Lewontin’s classes in statistical biology. He also studied fractals under Mandelbrot. Good gravy, the guy is a scholar. He spoke so glowingly of his mentors like Gould, Lewontin, and Mayr.

If one wonders whether miracles can happen, one only need look at Kurt Wise, the YEC who was awarded a PhD by Stephen Gould and the Darwinists at Harvard.

There is now apparently a holy war, dare I say, “holier than thou” war betwen two Young Earth Creationists organizations, AiG and CMI. I have no intentions of taking sides in the AiG-CMI holy wars, except I point out, it’s ulikely both sides can be completely right in this dispute. Each side claims to have conducted itself “biblically”. [See: Biblical battle of creation groups.]

God bless many of the supporters of AiG and CMI, but I will point out, the smaller and, imho, more scientifically capable creationists and pro-ID organizations, have been (on occasion) given brusk treatment at the hands of AiG/CMI.

The creationist and pro-ID groups I have respect for are the ones who’ve shown their ability scientifically. Perhaps, not surprisingly, these are the poorest in terms of money. It echoes the word the Lord said, “I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! ” (Rev 2:9).

What pro-ID and pro-Creation organizations do I recommend:

YEC:
www.grisda.org
www.creationscience.com
www.bryancore.org/bsg/index.html
www.creationresearch.org/index.html
www.trueorigin.org
www.rae.org
www.CreationSafaris.com
www.setterfield.org
www.wildersmith.org/

ID and OEC:
www.origins.org
www.origins.org/mc/menus/index.html
www.idthink.net
saintpaulscience.com/index.html
www.discovery.org/csc
www.ideacenter.org
www.truthinscience.org.uk/
www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Though AiG and ICR have many venerable brothers in Christ, and I think highly of Henry Morris and Duane Gish, I must express my reluctance in endorsing all of their literature. Though I think their literature is correct in many respects, in the matter of theory and empirical science, I think there is better material out there, even by those who may not consider themselves Evangelical Christians.

And as far as this website goes, I do not claim that I or anyone else (save God) has an infallible grasp of truth, scientific or otherwise. I believe God is infallible, and we humans are not, but we try our best to discern what is true and good. This website is offered in acknowledgement of human fallibility and our dependence on God to guide us and teach us. I hope we all can assist and pray for each other here in the search for truth….

(HT: PZ Myers at Pharyngula)

(HT: Crevo at Baraminology weblog)