November 20th, 2013
Several years ago I was taking a [required] course that teaches creationism. I have a few comments about the course I’ll keep to myself [as in it shouldn't be in the university] but I think most readers know where I stand on university and academia issues and standards. I was asked the question, “Is it surprising that scientific evidence supports a young earth perspective?”
My response is simply that this is a loaded question. I don’t think I can say there’s no evidence for a young earth; however, I find the record of nature to support the proposition that the universe is old (billions of years) by overwhelming evidence. There is hardly any evidence for a young earth, if indeed there is any at all.
read more »
February 1st, 2012
To answer the question, “Is it surprising that scientific evidence supports a young earth perspective?” I would respond saying that I would almost consider this a loaded question. I don’t think I can find no evidence for a young earth; however, I find the record of nature to support the proposition that the universe is old (billions of years) by overwhelming evidence. There is hardly any evidence for a young earth, if indeed there is any at all.
Before getting to the geologic record of nature one needs to address the cosmological record of nature (the earth cannot be older than the universe). I initially gained my interest in cosmology (and I must say I really enjoy discussing cosmology) was the Kalam cosmological argument, which is an apologetic argument for a beginning of the universe. I’ll put aside the mathematical and philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe for that would be off topic and I’ll stick with the scientific evidence. If one were to analyze an extrapolation of space and time then that initial singularity for the universe would take us back 13.73 GYA (giga, billion years ago). There are many models of the universe such as the steady state, oscillating, quantum fluctuation, and other string theory models that coincide with former. The most prominent model with the most philosophical, mathematical, and scientific evidence is the standard model (due to cosmic inflation, the big bang). Prominent cosmologist Paul Davies comments,
read more »
January 31st, 2012
The following is an excerpt of a conversation I had with a young earth creationist from about two years ago. This was soon after being falsely accused of positions I hold to and being called a heretic and non-Christian. In this conversation I’m actually called a poor witness to Christ because of my views. I’ve changed the name of the other student for confidentiality. I know it may be difficult to have the full context but you should be able to pick up the jist of it as you read along. Enjoy!
Jack, I appreciate that you feel I am a learned individual, but do you understand how seriously offensive your unsubstantiated accusations are? (My name is not Maxwell).
“First is an apology, I misinterpreted and claimed you believed in evolution (which is in fact heresy saying God is not the creator of the universe) when there is no evidence you actually. No you’re right, I with this new evidence it is not a dividing line between believer and non believer.”
I’m not an evolutionist, but theistic evolution does not deny God as creator of the universe. You claim that there is no evidence for evolution. I believe there is evidence for evolution and to totally dismiss it would be unwarranted. You may not like their evidence, or believe the evidence is wrong, but you cannot simply dismiss it as “no evidence.”
read more »
November 21st, 2011
Last week Mike Licona presented his paper, “When The Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27.52-52): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Inerrancy,” to fellow scholars of the Evangelical Theological Society, which included William Lane Craig, Craig Blomberg, Paul Copan, Dan Wallace, and Darrell Bock in the audience.
You may view the paper at Licona’s website.
You may listen to the presentation MP3 at Licona’s website.
I appreciate Licona responding to Geisler in the academic arena. I hope many scholars take this issue and carry the research to verify or falsify this interpretation of Matthew’s raised saints to the best historiography can offer. (Also, you’ll note that Licona takes the modest position of agnosticism at the moment.) I certainly hope that Matthew 27 doesn’t become the litmus test for society membership or that it sneaks its way into some statement of faith (anymore than it already is).
My only hope is that Geisler either responds in the academic arena haven been given the chance to read Licona’s footnotes or that he drop this whole sideshow and move on.
November 8th, 2011
I know this issue is a very large issue for some Christians. I understand that many people disagree with me pertaining to the issue, but I do not believe the Bible advocates a young earth, nor do I believe science supports young earth creationism. I am a progressive creationist (old earth). Young earth cosmology just doesn’t cut it. The scientific account is simply horrible. I’m a proponent of the level two multiverse. (See “Living in the Multiverse–Is it Science?” and “The Theological Attraction of the Multiverse” and “Divine Simplicity and the Multiverse–Thomas Aquinas Approved”).
read more »
February 17th, 2011
I always enjoy dialogues on origins. Big bang standard model or oscillating? Multiverse or just one? Six thousand years or 13.7 billion years ago? Darwinism or design? One thing I’ve noticed with young earth creationism is that they seem to insert, or interpolate, their own presuppositions into the record of nature. They’re performing their own eisogesis into science. I know that one can never free anything from presuppositions, like the reliability of my senses or that other minds exist other than my own, but I wonder if a creationist could look at the data concerning the record of nature, without using the Bible, and come to the same conclusions. If they do then why are so many cosmologists and biochemists in disagreement with them, is it a conspiracy (not using this as an argument)? Why are the only people who believe the universe was created six thousand years ago are those who have a specific interpretation of the Bible? If they come to a conclusion that the universe is nearly 13.7 billion years old then how does that not falsify their biblical interpretation? On what grounds is one warranted falsification? If the former of the two main questions is true, then what is wrong with academia and scientists, why only the select few? If the latter of the two main questions is true, then it seems like young earth creationism is unfalsifiable. Just some thoughts from this morning.