| |
Original article by David Roach: "New SBJT examines creation and origins" Be very careful as you read the Towers article, because it consistently relies on equivocation when it comes to the word "creation." In the article, and in the way of thinking presented, the "doctrine of creation" no longer means believing that God has created. The word "creation" here means something much more specific: young-earth creationism. Even more specifically, creationism that boldly adheres to the dogma that the universe is less than ~6,000 years old. So when Roach writes... "The doctrine of creation is the foundation for biblical Christianity."
...remember that he doesn't mean that believing God created is the foundation of Christianity. He means believing in young-earth-creationism (YEC) is the foundation. This theme runs the length of the article and is almost certainly familiar to most Towers readers, let alone people who are well-read in terms of modern creationist literature. However, the theme is incredibly short-sighted. Why? First, beware when somebody tells you that YEC is the only option, because if you check their claim, you'll find that mainstream Christianity, including the majority of evangelical conservatives, do not dogmatically hold to strict YEC. Kurt Wise says so himself, as I quoted him in the last article that he appeared in on this blog. Proponents of YEC would do well to familiarize themselves with TCLP, and this list at NCSE. Second, beware when somebody tries to convince you that their brand of Christianity is "the only biblical kind" while at the same time making the foundation of it something other than Christ. This should alarm you at the outset. Furthermore, the more exclusivist the language of a certain strain of theological belief becomes, the faster it shrinks down the number of "biblical Christians" or "true Christians" in the world. While Phelps and Jehovah's Witnesses and a complete embrace of hyper-Calvinism (dystheism, here we come) might be comfortable or even happy with a very small church universal, most modern Christians are not. Third, beware when somebody makes an unnecessary either-or proclamation. When it is declared (simply by fiat) that legitimate Christianity must include creationism, the person who espouses such a position has backed himself into a corner. When all of the evidence is fairly investigated and all of the scientific findings are evaluated, and creationism is found to be completely bankrupt, what happens to our previously over-confident creationist? He must put his money where his mouth is and renounce his Christianity, or somehow back-peddle, admit his error and change his stance, joining the many Christians who accept evolution and an ancient cosmos. Roach wrote: "Wise, professor of theology and science at Southern and a Harvard-trained paleontologist, argues that the methods of modern science are inadequate to determine the origin or age of the earth."
This would tend to make a curious reader want to know what methods Wise would suggest science should use to determine the age of the earth. It might also make you curious as to what research Wise has done into such questions and what methods he himself chooses to make use of (if any). A really clever reader might even wonder if the methods of modern science have been found or shown to be inadequate, or if certain people simply declare them to be inadequate because they don't lead to answers that work nicely with certain dogmatic predetermined conclusions. Roach quoted Wise: "“As a scientist I am convinced that the Bible—and not science—is the correct place to begin to determine the age of things,” he writes. “I also believe that the Bible is very clear about the creation being only about 6000 years old.”"
The sentiments expressed here are absurd to the point of insanity. The first sentence is incoherent—one cannot as a scientist declare science the wrong place to begin when trying to answer a scientific question. Deciding you know the answer before doing the research is completely unscientific, and is a sentiment Wise expresses as an apologist (for ignorance), not as a scientist. Imagine with me, for a moment, a similar statement of spectacular incompetence. "As a dentist I am convinced that the Tooth Fairy—and not good dentistry—is the correct place to begin to determine proper oral hygiene." Could we rightly agree to call a person who expressed such foolishness a dentist? Or perhaps you think that too ridiculous an analogy? Then try this one. "As a plumber I am convinced that a jumpy mustached italian—not the trade of plumbing—is the correct place to begin to determine how to fix that broken water main." If somebody uttered that sentence, would they be saying it as a plumber, or as an idiot?
While it may be clear to some that the Biblical age of the earth is a mere ~6,000 years, what is clear about the age of the earth when we turn our attention to the evidence? Surely, the desire that our beliefs be reflective of reality is a reasonable one.
Startling to some will be the fact that ancient proto-Iranians and Mesopotamians, the Chinese, Neolithic Georgians, and possibly the Egyptians were all producing beverage alcohol (both wine and, to my amusement, beer) from between 6,000 and 9,000 years ago. Agriculture itself has been around for at least 6,000 years, and depending on the region 10,000 years or more.
The history of ancient Egypt (and the evidence regarding the Predynastic period) provides us with a stark contradiction of the YEC timeline. Also, people have been living at Byblos since 7,000 years ago. Furthermore, the Americas have been populated for at least the last 12,500 years. Currently, many dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) sequences go back between 8,000 and 10,000 years, with the oldest unbroken record going back more than 11,000 years. Eclipsing the impressive age of such dead trees is the living creosote bush. One in Johnson Valley, California, is 9,400 years old. Even older is the one in the Mojave Desert, called "King Clone," measured at around 12,000 years old. Alternatively, you could learn about Y-chromosomal Adam, our most recent common male ancestor from 60,000 years ago. Even better, Mitochondrial Eve was walking around about 140,000 years ago.
Not old enough for you? Consider varve formations. Many varve deposits show a continuous record of sedimentation going back around 40,000 years, and some record more than 225,000 years of sedimentation! Or, consider the Green River Formation, which, no matter the many failed attempts to "disprove" the clear indications, has more than ten million individual layers. This means that the laminae and varves in the Formation conservatively record around 4 million years of time (see here, or here, or here).
Ice-core dating goes back quite far, as well. Cores from Greenland have consistently yielded data going back over 100,000 years. Cores from Vostok, Russia show a record going back over 400,000 years. Cores from Antarctica (the Dome F and EPICA cores) reach back 720,000 and 740,000 years, respectively. The evidence goes on and on. Be it anthropological, historical, literary, archaeological, genetic, chemical, atomic, et cetera, virtually every place we can focus our investigative gaze reveals facts that clearly show the earth to be much, much older than ~6,000 years.
That the SBJT could devote an issue to YEC dogma despite the vast preponderance of evidence is remarkable. That a "professor of science," and indeed the head of the department, and a Harvard graduate, can so lucidly express such delusion is embarrassing. That Wise sometimes postures as if the scientific data supports YEC (when it doesn't), and other times says that evidence isn't worth a pile of beans, only makes the situation that much more damning.
|
lol
