What is to become of them?

I wrote yesterday about the rebuttals/counter-rebuttals of Nye and Ham and something Ham touched on but he wouldn't talk about further really troubled me. That something was "those Christians" who don't agree with him. He refused to discuss this issue, even when directly challenged by Bill Nye: "There are Christians that don't accept that the earth could somehow be this extraordinarily young age because of all the evidence around them. And so, what is to be come of them in your view?"

This is what Ham had said to prompt that challenge:

"They, there are a lot of Christians out there that believe in millions of years, but I'd say they have a problem. I'm not saying they're not Christians...because salvation is conditional on faith in Christ not the age of the earth, but there's an inconsistency with what the Bible teaches. If you believe in millions of years, you've got death and bloodshed, suffering and disease over millions of years leading up to man because that's what you see in the fossil record. The Bible makes if very clear; death is a result of man's sin. In fact, the first death was in the garden when God killed an animal, clothed Adam and Eve; the first blood sacrifice pointing toward what would happen through Jesus Christ; one who would die once and for all."

He went on to give examples in the fossil record of carnivores, disease, and thorns. He says that we are told in the Bible that all creatures were vegetarians until after the flood and that disease is not 'good' and thorns were a result of the fall. Since the Bible tells us these things that contradicts the millions of years theory of the age of the earth and they are incompatible.

This issue of death is a real problem that needs to be addressed, but there are problems Ham must face as well. These are problems Nye is pointing out, which Ham is skirting one by one for the most part. He's not answering the questions. It seems to me he has more problems to work through with a young earth than those who do not hold his view. Perhaps he will get into it more in the question and answer period, but I want to know what he thinks will become of those who don't agree with him. Are they refused membership in the church? Are they removed or prevented from being in leadership? Are they allowed to be pastors or professors? Are they excommunicated altogether until they fall in line with his view? What is to become of them? It's a big question and a big problem for Ham and the church of North America in general. Sadly, the story has often been a clarification of doctrinal statement, the cracking of the whip, and the dismissal of pastors and teachers. You can read about one recent example here.

Nye vs Ham - Rebuttals and Counter Rebuttals

I'm finally getting back to the Nye vs Ham debate.I've already covered preliminaries here and here as well as the opening arguments of Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Today I'm covering their five minute rebuttals and counter rebuttals. Again, you can watch the entire debate on YouTube here. As with other posts, I'll summarize the content and then make some remarks afterward.

Ken Ham

• Claims we cannot observe the age of the earth because that is historical science
• The Bible is the only source of historical science
• The age of the earth is determined by the six days of creation and adding up the genealogies
• We do observe decay, but when we use it to talk about the past that is a problem
• There are 3 assumptions with radiometric dating: That we know the starting number of parent atoms, that all daughter atoms come from parent atoms, and that the rate of decay has been constant
• Some Christians do believe in an old earth and they're still saved because that is through faith in Jesus and not in the age of the earth, but there is a problem because they are not consistent with the Bible.
• Problems: Death before the fall, carnivores before the flood, brain tumors and thorns in the fossil record before the fall would have been.
• There is one infallible dating method: the Word of God from someone who was there.

I find it strange that Ham would try to make a claim that we cannot observe the age of the earth and yet when answering the question,"Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?", he answers 'yes'. It seems like his creation model has no room for any modern science based on observation. I suppose this means he reject modern science wholesale, yet in other places he affirms science for other purposes of gaining knowledge. It is an interesting and bold move to deny that we can know the age of something based on observation. I also think he makes similar bold claims about radioactive decay. Essentially he denies constant rates of decay and must assert that God created with the appearance of age (which I think makes God deceptive).

I was glad to hear him include other Christians that don't share his view in some capacity, but am troubled by his assertion that we are not consistent with our treatment of the Bible. That is a pretty bold claim that he left untouched and is well beyond the capability and knowledge of Nye to address in this debate. He did bring up some very legitimate problems that need to be dealt with soon thereafter, such as death before the fall, carnivores, thorns, etc. I'll write a post in the future addressing the death issue in particular.
 
Bill Nye

• He asks: Are fish sinners? Why do they die?
• He wonders why Ham keeps asserting that we cannot observe the past. That is all that happens in astronomy and we actually do this all of the time. The speed of light and sound requires that we see and observe things in every day life that have already happened in the past.
• You cannot separate the natural laws of the present from the past. How are they different?
• Gives a telephone analogy about the Bible being an unreliable record
• If we accept the American English bible as interpreted by Ham as more respected than what can be observed in your backyard, that is very troubling.

I found some of Nye's comments naive and condescending such as asking if fish were sinners.The telephone analogy about the transmission and reliability of the Bible is ignorant to that field of study. We have incredibly accurate copies of original documents and the discovery of additional manuscripts in the past century as well as historical background information means that our access to an accurate translation in our own language hasn't been this good since the earlier centuries of the church (in my opinion).

As for his assertions about being able to observe the age of the earth and the past, he makes good points. This distinction of historical science is unique to Ham and claiming that it simply has to be that way is not a scientific claim, it is a faith claim that denies consistency with reality. The separation of the past and present natural law is a huge problem. Not all YEC people do this, but Ham, apparently, does.

Ken Ham

• We do have constant natural laws and they only fit in a worldview with a Law Giver
• There are other Phd's in Ham's camp, it's not just Ham
• God created 'kinds' not species so there were only 1,000 kinds on the ark
• We didn't see tree layers forming or ice layers forming so we can't use those
• Starlight gives problems for everyone which is why they have inflation theories, etc.

Most of this section seemed to me as though Ham was simply being evasive. He seems to contract himself from early in affirming that there are natural laws that have been constant. He tags on that natural law is only possible in a worldview where there is a Law Giver, ie: God. I think it would be more accurate to say that this worldview is compatible with consistent natural laws and provides explanatory force philosophically. Saying it is the only worldview where natural law is possible seems a bit off to me.

Saying that there were 1,000 'kinds' on the ark isn't much of a solution to Nye's challenge. Saying we didn't see the tree layers or ice layers forming and so they can't be used is bizarre. Saying that starlight gives problems for everyone is also evasive.

Bill Nye

• "Thank you Mr. Ham, but I am completely unsatisfied."
• If there were only 1,000 'kinds' on the ark, there would have to have been 40 new species created every single day since the flood in order for there to be the number of species we now have.
• The fundamental disagreement is about what you can actually prove.
• Have all relationships between animals changed only after the flood?
• What becomes of other religious people who don't accept your view?
• Ham claims to be a scientist, not a theologian? Nye asks for origins according to science and Ham gives be bible verses. His scientific theory of origins is based on the Old Testament.
• When scientists find that a model doesn't hold water they throw it away. Provide an explanation that changes the model or theory about the age of the earth, evolution, etc. and you will be applauded and praised for it by scientists.

 It was a spectacularly appropriate opening line, which is why I was sure to quote it accurately. The math about getting to the appropriate number of species from the ark until today is a staggering challenge to the question of the flood, which I'm not dealing with in this series. For now I'll say that there are many Christians who believe in a local flood instead of a global one. I've been agnostic on this issue for awhile and haven't studied it enough to have a firm opinion. The use of the term 'world' and 'earth' is much looser than it sounds to our modern English ears. When we consider that the Hebrew writers had no concept of a 'globe' at all (they thought the world was flat) it becomes easier to conceive of the story as a local flood in their known 'world' or 'earth' (I'm not even sure which Hebrew word it is...I told you I haven't studied enough to have a firm opinion.).

The fundamental disagreement is definitely about what is even possible to be proven scientifically. I do hold to the Bible as the primary authority, but we have to read it on its own terms and not ones we impose upon it. We also have to explain how it is consistent with reality, which YEC peeps need to do better than Ham's evasiveness in this rebuttal period of the debate. I don't think the Bible asserts an age of the earth either young or old. I don't think that is what Genesis is about and Ham's interpretation of these texts are not an adequate engagement to the question of their debate at all. Nye is right to point out what Ham is doing. Ham is doing theology, not science.

Why I'm blogging about the views of Creation.

I've had a few people challenge me on my blogging of late (as well as lot's of encouragement). I very much welcome this and appreciate it. If nothing else, it keeps me questioning my purpose for writing and lets me know someone is reading. After a recent post one reader seemed to get the impression that I was aghast that anyone would hold to a Young Earth Creationist position and implied/concluded that I basically haven't gotten my fingers dirty and tired to understand that viewpoint. I don't think this was a fair read of the post I had written since it was stating that I don't think Genesis 1 requires that we must hold to a literal six 24hr day young earth creationism. Not only that, but I have come away from that viewpoint after holding it as long as I can remember and it took me a long time to do so after a lot of studying (and after spending a lot on books!). Even after I changed my mind on the matter I was still very cautious about who I would would speak to about it. And why was I cautious? What was the reason for not wanting to reveal that I thought the earth was old? Fear. And I'm not alone. Tomorrow's post will address this major problem in the North American church in more depth. For now I'd like to leave you with a summary of why I'm blogging about this subject.

In short, what I am attempting to do is demonstrate the diversity of other Christian perspectives on the issue demonstrating that they are reasonable and take the bible just as seriously as young earth creationists. I want to share some thoughts on the subject and point people to other posts and resources aside from myself. The whole series of posts on an old earth is in response to the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham and the media attention it garnered. I am tired of some Creationists like Ham who give the impression that their view is the Christian view and I'm tired of the media perpetuating it. I decided after the debate and it's aftermath to be very public about my view of an old earth so that other Christians who also hold such a view would not feel ostracized, shamed, leave the church, live in fear, etc. I want to help equip others to understand one another and be able to articulate their beliefs well and remain part of the church. I'm looking to make peace and create space for diversity of opinion including those such as Ken Ham.

Early church views on Creation in Genesis

I've said several times this week that there are many interpretations Genesis 1 so this post will direct you to quotes of theologians through the last 2,000 years. I also claimed that Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis think they are the only legitimate interpretation and are the ones aligned with historic Christianity. Here is the heading from their article titled, "Other 'Interpretations' of Genesis"

The purpose of this section is to define some of the interpretive schemes that have arisen since the idea of vast ages became popular in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Please bear in mind that old-earth theologies were essentially non-existent prior to 1800. This fact alone provides strong evidence that these views are not derived from the Bible. Instead, they are an attempt to accommodate the long ages promoted by uniformitarian science. 

 From the outset, the title questions other approaches as actual interpretations. Then it describes them as 'schemes', claims they arose in the 18th and 19th centuries yet were only 'virtually' non-existent before 1800. Is that a fact? Are these views derived from the Bible? Or are they, as AIG claims, an attempt to accommodate modern science?

No. From the early church fathers onward, there has been a diversity of interpretations. In fact, the doctrine of Creation was not a priority for the early Christians. They were a little busy being slaughtered, fed to lions, and used as nightlights for the emperor. When they had time to talk there were more important issues such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Jesus.

The key, once again, is that the views were diverse as pointed out with multiple quotes by this blogger. While it is true that many early Christians did think the earth was young, most of those held that the earth was 6,000 years old then. That would make the earth at least 8,000 years old today. Modern Young Earth Creationists base their belief of a 6,000 year old earth on the chronology of James Ussher and Dr. John Lightfoot.who wrote in the 17th century, not the early church as often asserted.

For another perspective on the early church's views, here is a 5 part blog post from 'Reasons to Believe'. They use what they call a 'Creation Model' approach to integrating science and the Christian faith.

Bill Nye's opening argument

After Ken Ham delivered his non-evidence based 30 minutes that he somehow thinks justifies his claim that " "Creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era," (which then puts the burden of proof on himself which is a horrible debate move) Bill Nye stepped up. This is a summary of Nye's points

• Back to the question at hand, does Ham's model actually hold up?
• Sea shell fossils created the rocks that the very building is built on. Millions of years of layers of ancient life.
• There is snow ice with 680,000 layers of annual cycles.
• A tree in sweden is over 9,000 years old. Even in California some are over 6,000 years old. Trees cannot survive under water.
• You never find a 'lower' water animal mixed with a 'higher' water animal in the fossil record.
• Points to the multiple types of skulls globally
• How did all of the animals from Australia come from the ark in the Middle East with no evidence of them anywhere except Australia?
• The math for Ham's model is preposterous based on a modest assessment of 16 million species today.

• Several examples of why the ark is problematic: not enough space for 14,008 creatures, wood twisting in water would cause massive leaking, healthy living conditions unattainable, not enough  food, etc.
• The Amphibious lung fish was predicted to be found in a particular place and it was: Tiktaalik
• The Ken Ham cannot make predictions and get results.
• Sexual reproduction in minnow fish combats infection and bacteria better than a-sexual reproduction
• Prediction of the Big bang 'ecco'. Built a cosmic observatory to hear it and found it as predicted.
• Elements of rubidium and strontium. Occurs in lava freezing allowing for the dating of fossils.
• Billions of stars further than 6,000 light years away.

Instead of reaching for red herrings like differing opinions on dog species, bacteria on ecoli, or points not held by the opposition, Nye goes straight for the evidence. He not only gives clearly laid out reasons why he rejects a young earth and support for an old earth, he also goes out of his way to give reasons why there could not have been a global flood. This was not even necessary and yet because he knows it is actually held by Ham he went for it. Ham would have been wise to use this tactic and directed his attention to any evidence he thinks actually supports his view or can hold a candle to Nye's view.

There were a few points that I am well acquainted with which were brought up by Nye such as the distance of the stars, the age of rocks by various dating methods, fossil layers, snow ice layers, tree rings, and the layering of species. For other parts he expanded my per-existing knowledge. I knew most of the arguments against the ark and a global flood, but had not heard about how problematic a wooden ship that large would be for leaking. I knew there were problems with species going global post flood,  but hadn't thought through that there ought to be evidence of their travel not to mention the exponential species growth in such a short amount of time. There were also a lot more types of skulls on his diagram than I recall seeing gathered on a page.

What was most devastating to Ham, however, was the way Nye was able to point out Young Earth Creationism's lack of predictive power. Nye could point to the prediction of the Big Bang echo and that amazing amphibious lung fish fossil swamp in Canada. Perhaps Ham will have some sort of retort that could save some face in the later portion of this debate, but his position of a young earth is currently crushed. However, does Nye think he has done more than he actually has? He ended the debate saying, "Is Ken Ham's creation model viable? I say no! Absolutely not!" Then he pleaded for the listener not to raise scientifically illiterate children who don't understand their place int he cosmos, who don't understand natural law.

My question is whether Bill Nye thinks this is the normative Creation model for Christians or if he is narrowing the debate question as simply Creation according to Ham/AnswersInGenesis. It appears as though it is the latter. Let's hope so. It is clear that Ken Ham is deluded enough to equate his position as the foundation of all Christian faith and seems to think Nye is part of an evil empire of Naturalists. Perhaps Bill Nye will turn out to display more patience and grace out of the two because there was a mere hint of Naturalism in his entire presentation. From what I saw it was all science and no naturalistic attack against faith. In fact, I don't recall him ever denying the possibility that God created through evolution. There was no mention of God, Jesus, etc. There was no need to because Ham took the burden of proof. All Nye had to do was show that the earth was old and that Ham's claim was untenable.

Ken Ham's Opening Argument

Before I even listened/watched this debate, I knew a few things about it based on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. I am also familiar with some of the Ken Ham and 'Answers in Genesis' material from their website. What bothered me the most was that Ken Ham appeared to have made the entire debate about the foundation of the Christian faith. He seems to think his position of Young Earth Creationism is the doctrine of Creation; the only one that truly holds to the inerrancy of Scripture, the authority of the Bible, etc. Actually witnessing his opening argument confirmed that he is operating under several assumptions and implicitly, if not explicitly,  misrepresenting his view as the Christian view to a watching world.

Here is a summary of what he said:

• "Creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era"
• We need to define the terms 'science' 'creationism' and 'evolution'
• "Biblical Creationism" = Young Earth Creationism. The earth is 6,000 years old
• Creationists and Naturalists have the same observational data: geology, radioactive decay, etc. The battle is over the interpretation of data due to differing worldviews or starting points.
• Kids aren't being taught to think critically
• The Bible's account gives predictions that can be tested: Intelligent life, each kind producing after its own kind, one human race, global flood, tower of babel, young universe.
• cites a recent University of California research claim that rejects a theory about simultaneous evolution of dogs from wolves.
• "Evolution" has been 'highjacked' to mean molecules to man instead of simply change over time. Ham affirms the later, but not the former.
• Molecules to man is in textbooks as evolution, but it is not observable science
• Naturalism is being taught in textbooks to children as a worldview, not simply evolution
• He cites a recent claim of some sort that bacteria growing on ecoli proving evolution, but the actual report discussed that the information was already there and simply switches on and off.
• He pulls out the fact that early evolutionary textbooks promoted Caucasians as the superior evolutionary race, but the genome project proved there is only one race, the human race.
• Claims we can't observe the age of the earth, its origins, or historical science
• Creation = 'literal' accounts of the Bible (which is how Jesus read it) including: No death before the fall (corruption), a catastrophic global flood, Confusion at the tower of babel, Christ redeemed us, and there will be a future consummation of a new heavens and new earth.
• Genesis is the foundation for a Christian's entire worldview.
• He claims that Genesis is the basis for positions on issues such as homosexuality, euthanasia, and abortion.

Ham's opening has staggering assertions, points I would agree with, and questions I simply don't have the scientific knowledge to address either way. First off, his overall claim that "Creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era" did not have sufficient support or examples. If he wants to claim it as the 'only' viable model and that it is 'confirmed' by observational science, he can't cite a few errors by an alternate view, make broad claims about his own, then assume the job is done. Aside from whether the Bible actually claims a global flood or a young universe in the first place, it is far from confirmed by observational science. By far most scientists whether Christian or not view the earth and stars and being billions of years old. Opinions on when humanity came into existence are certainly more diverse, but rocks and stars? Not so much. He claims we can't know the age of the earth from observational science. Really? I wanted to ask him whether or not we can know the age of Ken Ham based on observational science.

Ham runs into further mistakes in the way he uses the errors of some evolutionists. Just because a university rejects a certain view about the uprising of dog species does not disprove the overall construct of a common ancestor. His claim regarding one writer mistakenly claiming that 'bacteria starting to grow on ecoli is another thorn in the side of creationists' is simply proof that you don't need to be a Young Earth Creationist to glaze over the nuances of a text to make a rhetorical point. The most staggering part of his opening was when he brought out the racism found in early textbooks teaching evolution. While this is historically true, it is not held by evolutionists today and is far more likely to be a product of cultural assumption than scientific data in the first place. Furthermore, the citing of the human genome project disproving 'racism' scientifically is a huge mistake because the project itself has been the largest source of proof for humans having a common ancestor with other mammals since the data has been compiled (Did you know we have DNA for producing egg yolk? How does that contribute to us producing after our own kind?).

As I said before, the main thing that bothers me is not that Ham makes claims on behalf of himself, Answers in Genesis, or Young Earth Creationists at large. My problem is that he portrays himself as normative of Christians and the only legitimate interpreter of not only scientific data, but the Bible and Christian doctrine. I think he is wrong to make the exclusivity claims he does about science based on limited knowledge. I know he is wrong about his exclusivity claims about the Bible and doctrine based on being part of his faith community, training in biblical studies, and much research into this particular subject due to personal interest. The fact is that his particular position did not exist for much of Christian history and that there have been multiple interpretations of Genesis since well before Jesus even came on the scene. To that point, his claim that Genesis is the foundation of the Christian faith is problematic not only because he basically means 'his interpretation of Genesis', but also because the foundation of Christian faith is the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. That is a whole other issue, but clearly he is overstating his case.

Where I do find agreement with Ham is the issue of conflating Naturalism with Evolution. I did not go to public school or study in the sciences, but based on literature, interviews, and discussions with those in the field it does seem as though science class oversteps its bounds and, at times, starts teaching philosophy. Teaching and using methodological naturalism should be normative, but modern science is supposed to be answering What, Where, When, and How. When it attempts to make claims on Who or Why, it goes beyond its own scope. I have also found that scientists are painfully unaware of their own philosophical assumptions. A friend studying Bio-chem did not even have a class on philosophy of science until the masters level. This is troubling and frustrating and Ken Ham knows about it. But he does not talk about it in this way. He simply states that there are different worldviews that interfere with the interpretation of data. He makes a a big deal about the difference between historical and observational science, yet I wonder if he really means that Historical science = Origins. In my opinion, modern science cannot answer the question of origins whether you are a Naturalist or Creationist, which is why the debate question is problematic to begin with. We'll see where the debate goes from here.

Any thoughts?
What has your experience been in science class?

Opening statements of Nye vs Ham

In my opinion this debate stalled before it even began. 

I've been trying to figure out what the question the debate was addressing is actually getting at: 

"Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

I was wondering if it was trying to address the question of "why" or the question of "how". A friend of mine says it is asking "if". The confusion of this vague phrasing probably won't even get addressed well based on the opening statements of the two men.

Ham started by quoting the many scientists who protested the very occasion if this debate. (I don't recall him explaining that it was because it gives the appearance of validating Ham and the museum). Be then gives examples if creationists who are scientists. And says that it is important to define the terms "creation" "evolution" and "science". He brushed past the creation and evolution terms as basically meaning "God's special creation" and "existence due to naturalistic causes". Nye never disputed these in his opening statement. Ham then defines science broadly and attempts to separate "observational science"(what is repeatable" from "historical science" (events that happened in the past). Finally he pushes his view that this debate is really about 2 philosophical worldviews; 2 accounts of origins; 2 beliefs. He asserts that creationism is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. 

Nye opened by saying what we have are 2 stories to which we must ask: "is it viable?" "Does it hold up?" He sees no distinction between observational science and historical science claiming that this distinction is unique to Ham and others in North America. He points to the multitude of religious communities worldwide (which includes Christians) who do not embrace a young earth view of origins. His concern is that creationism stunts America's scientific innovation, discovery, and progress. 

I had commented previously on an aquaintence's Facebook post that if we say the debate was about anything other than the answer to the debate question then we are missing the point of the debate. I stand corrected in a sense because so far neither seem to be focused on addressing the question. Nye seems to at least be closer than Ham because he is asking modern scientific questions, but seems to be ignorant of what faith communities are and what they actually believe about evolution, which is different than both Ham and himself. We'll see how the debate progresses from here, but to me this debate is a sham. It is not specific enough in its question or definitions from the outset which could have brought clarity and direction to the interactions rather than quibbling over basic terms of the question. In fact, there should have been a statement for one or the other to defend.  I suppose this was set up I become a spectacle from teh beginning. Publicity and some level of credibility for Ham and answers in genesis and a chance for Nye to make them look silly to everyone else. Based on the aftermath both were accomplished. 

Nye vs Ham

Last night there was a debate that has sparked far more media attention than I thought it would. This is not a joke. Bill Nye (the science guy) debated Ken Ham (of 'Answers in Genesis') on the following question:

"Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

Based on what I have read or seen of their previous work I don't hold to either of their positions and will likely find points of agreement on both sides. I read a few blogs of varying perspectives and opinions about the debate leading up to it, but have not yet watched it. I plan to do so over the next few days and write my thoughts. I will probably do this over several posts as I am aware there are many subjects and issues to address and I will likely have to watch the debate in sections due to its length. Here it is in full: