Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
One of the reasons I cannot take creationism seriously is on philosophical grounds. It's not just that I find the scientific evidence for evolution, an old earth, and no global flood convincing but, also, for a good philosophical reason. The reason is simple: creationists are still researching problems with reconciling the Bible with science and still coming up with new solutions for old problems. I want to give a few examples of this:
1.) The Starlight Problem. I consider the starlight problem to be fatal for young-earth creationism. I am aware of several "solutions" to the problem with the two most popular and somewhat recent "solutions" being the "light-speed decay" hypothesis of Barry Setterfield and the "relativistic" solution of D. Russell Humphreys. IIRC, Setterfield proposed his hypothesis in the 1980s. IIRC, Humphreys proposed his own hypothesis after he was dissatisfied with Setterfield's hypothesis and others. To this day, creationists are far from unified on how to resolve the starlight problem.
But the starlight problem has existed for many, many years. It existed for many years before either Setterfield or Humphreys proposed their "solutions". But if any of these solutions is the right one, why did it take so long for Yahweh to reveal enough data for someone like Setterfield or Humphreys to realize a credible solution existed? From what I have read, the starlight problem was noticed as early as the late 19th century. If Setterfield's "light-speed decay" hypothesis is the right hypothesis, why didn't Yahweh have someone reveal it in the 19th century, as immediately as the problem was firt noticed?
Ditto with Humphreys' "relativistic" cosmology. His cosmology crucially depends on Einstein's theories of relativity. Yet the starlight problem was noticed before Einstein wrote any papers on relativity. Einstein's theories of relativity are necessary requisites for this cosmology of Humphreys to work. In fact, we can ask why a creationist didn't propose the theories of relativity (both special and general) before Einstein? We can ask why didn't Yahweh have a young-earth creationist not only propose the theories of relativity, as soon as the starlight problem was first noticed and made public, but, have that very same creatonist physicist also propose the "relativistic solution" to the starlight problem? Where was the 19th century version of Humphreys when the starlight problem was first noticed?
What this means is that if, say, Setterfield's hypothesis is the right one, then no one had any justification for believing that the Bible, teaching a young earth, was reconcilable with distant starlight. There was never any reason for believing any harmony existed between the Bible and science on the issue of distant starlight. If creationists respond that this is nonsense, that there were many excellent reasons for believing that the Bible was always the inerrant, inspired, and infallible word of Yahweh and that Christ rose from the dead, and, therefore, Christianity is true, then why would any creationists even bother with the starlight problem? If arguments for Christianity are that cogent, that persuasive, then there is no real need to try to reconcile distant starlight with the Bible.
Obviously, creationists are bothered by this. I see the attempts at devising "solutions" like Humphreys and Setterfield to be damage control. Creationists like these have been on the losing end and they know it. Their attempts are laughible and I personally cannot take them seriously.
2.) Irreducible Complexity This has become a favorite argument among Evangelical Christians since Michael Behe published his book Darwin's Black Box. At last, a reputable biochemist, with neither a procreationist or antievolutionary axe to grind, has come out with a book proving what creationists have long hoped for: a book showing the molecular complexity of life must have been designed. IIRC, Ann Coulter went so far, in her book Godless, to say that Behe refuted evolution. But a moment's thought reveals something seriously wrong with this argument, though. There is a serious philosophical flaw in this argument.
If the molecular complexity of life is irreducibly complex, as Behe maintains, and if this is the best and most devastating argument against Darwinian evolution possible, why did Yahweh wait all these years before finally unveiling it? Why wasn't DNA and the molecular chemistry of life known in Darwin's time? Why weren't the irreducibly complex systems of living organsims known before and by the time Darwin published his Origin of Species? Even creationists have to admit, Darwin might have had serious second thoughts about publishing the Origin had he known about the incredible and irreducible complexity of life's biochemistry. Wouldn't it be a treat to see Darwin fumble over himself, in the pages of the Origin, trying desperately and miserably to explain the unexplainable? Why not? Why did Yahweh wait so long to unsheathe such a devastating weapon?
The fact of the matter is that this argument is nothing new. IIRC, this argument was proposed, not by William Paley, but by St. George Mivart. All Behe's argument has done is add some shiny new luster to this old argument by applying it to the biochemical level. IIRC, biologists since Darwin's time have pointed out what is wrong with Mivart's argument and, so, it's not surprising that many biologists probably consider Behe's arguments to be crank science. But even if Behe's argument is perfectly cogent, I have a hard time believing the Designer to be Yahweh for the same reason I have a hard time taking the cosmologies of Humphreys and Setterfield seriously.
3.) Radiohalos This was an argument proposed by Robert V Gentry in his book Creation's Tiny Mystery. He proposes that polonium radiohalos prove a young earth and a global flood. Yet if this was such powerful evidence for a young earth, why weren't radiohalos known and understood in the 19th century when many geologists began to accept that the Earth was quite old? Imagine Charles Lyell going through such great pains to explain it away. Where was the 19th century version of Gentry back then to show the world that the earth is very young with his polonium radiohalos? This is besides any of the scientific flaws in the argument from radiohalos.
If this is such powerful evidence for a young earth and a global flood, why didn't Yahweh reveal this earlier? Why didn't Yahweh unsheathe this mighty weapon in the 19th century for all the world to see? We should see not only this but a comprehensive creationist theory on how to explain distant starlight that even makes predictions like radioactive decay and relativity. Yet nothing of the sort was ever proposed. Why not? Why not have this, but also a hypothesis like Setterfield's to explain distant starlight and radioactivity, and also Behe's argument to refute evolution. Why aren't the majority of today's scientists young-earth creationists?
1.) The Starlight Problem. I consider the starlight problem to be fatal for young-earth creationism. I am aware of several "solutions" to the problem with the two most popular and somewhat recent "solutions" being the "light-speed decay" hypothesis of Barry Setterfield and the "relativistic" solution of D. Russell Humphreys. IIRC, Setterfield proposed his hypothesis in the 1980s. IIRC, Humphreys proposed his own hypothesis after he was dissatisfied with Setterfield's hypothesis and others. To this day, creationists are far from unified on how to resolve the starlight problem.
But the starlight problem has existed for many, many years. It existed for many years before either Setterfield or Humphreys proposed their "solutions". But if any of these solutions is the right one, why did it take so long for Yahweh to reveal enough data for someone like Setterfield or Humphreys to realize a credible solution existed? From what I have read, the starlight problem was noticed as early as the late 19th century. If Setterfield's "light-speed decay" hypothesis is the right hypothesis, why didn't Yahweh have someone reveal it in the 19th century, as immediately as the problem was firt noticed?
Ditto with Humphreys' "relativistic" cosmology. His cosmology crucially depends on Einstein's theories of relativity. Yet the starlight problem was noticed before Einstein wrote any papers on relativity. Einstein's theories of relativity are necessary requisites for this cosmology of Humphreys to work. In fact, we can ask why a creationist didn't propose the theories of relativity (both special and general) before Einstein? We can ask why didn't Yahweh have a young-earth creationist not only propose the theories of relativity, as soon as the starlight problem was first noticed and made public, but, have that very same creatonist physicist also propose the "relativistic solution" to the starlight problem? Where was the 19th century version of Humphreys when the starlight problem was first noticed?
What this means is that if, say, Setterfield's hypothesis is the right one, then no one had any justification for believing that the Bible, teaching a young earth, was reconcilable with distant starlight. There was never any reason for believing any harmony existed between the Bible and science on the issue of distant starlight. If creationists respond that this is nonsense, that there were many excellent reasons for believing that the Bible was always the inerrant, inspired, and infallible word of Yahweh and that Christ rose from the dead, and, therefore, Christianity is true, then why would any creationists even bother with the starlight problem? If arguments for Christianity are that cogent, that persuasive, then there is no real need to try to reconcile distant starlight with the Bible.
Obviously, creationists are bothered by this. I see the attempts at devising "solutions" like Humphreys and Setterfield to be damage control. Creationists like these have been on the losing end and they know it. Their attempts are laughible and I personally cannot take them seriously.
2.) Irreducible Complexity This has become a favorite argument among Evangelical Christians since Michael Behe published his book Darwin's Black Box. At last, a reputable biochemist, with neither a procreationist or antievolutionary axe to grind, has come out with a book proving what creationists have long hoped for: a book showing the molecular complexity of life must have been designed. IIRC, Ann Coulter went so far, in her book Godless, to say that Behe refuted evolution. But a moment's thought reveals something seriously wrong with this argument, though. There is a serious philosophical flaw in this argument.
If the molecular complexity of life is irreducibly complex, as Behe maintains, and if this is the best and most devastating argument against Darwinian evolution possible, why did Yahweh wait all these years before finally unveiling it? Why wasn't DNA and the molecular chemistry of life known in Darwin's time? Why weren't the irreducibly complex systems of living organsims known before and by the time Darwin published his Origin of Species? Even creationists have to admit, Darwin might have had serious second thoughts about publishing the Origin had he known about the incredible and irreducible complexity of life's biochemistry. Wouldn't it be a treat to see Darwin fumble over himself, in the pages of the Origin, trying desperately and miserably to explain the unexplainable? Why not? Why did Yahweh wait so long to unsheathe such a devastating weapon?
The fact of the matter is that this argument is nothing new. IIRC, this argument was proposed, not by William Paley, but by St. George Mivart. All Behe's argument has done is add some shiny new luster to this old argument by applying it to the biochemical level. IIRC, biologists since Darwin's time have pointed out what is wrong with Mivart's argument and, so, it's not surprising that many biologists probably consider Behe's arguments to be crank science. But even if Behe's argument is perfectly cogent, I have a hard time believing the Designer to be Yahweh for the same reason I have a hard time taking the cosmologies of Humphreys and Setterfield seriously.
3.) Radiohalos This was an argument proposed by Robert V Gentry in his book Creation's Tiny Mystery. He proposes that polonium radiohalos prove a young earth and a global flood. Yet if this was such powerful evidence for a young earth, why weren't radiohalos known and understood in the 19th century when many geologists began to accept that the Earth was quite old? Imagine Charles Lyell going through such great pains to explain it away. Where was the 19th century version of Gentry back then to show the world that the earth is very young with his polonium radiohalos? This is besides any of the scientific flaws in the argument from radiohalos.
If this is such powerful evidence for a young earth and a global flood, why didn't Yahweh reveal this earlier? Why didn't Yahweh unsheathe this mighty weapon in the 19th century for all the world to see? We should see not only this but a comprehensive creationist theory on how to explain distant starlight that even makes predictions like radioactive decay and relativity. Yet nothing of the sort was ever proposed. Why not? Why not have this, but also a hypothesis like Setterfield's to explain distant starlight and radioactivity, and also Behe's argument to refute evolution. Why aren't the majority of today's scientists young-earth creationists?
