We left off with my friend, Shawn, showing some resistance to my claim that there is no way a global flood ever occurred. I must admit we had a few email exchanges that I didn’t save leading up to this conversation, but those were minor points about Christianity and beliefs. This is the portion of his emails that finally dives into his stance on the flood and my stance that science proved one never happened and that Ken Ham is a moron.
SHAWN: You haven’t taken into account all the evidences and theories of a global deluge. You summarily dismiss any idea of a flood, completely ignoring research and discoveries that have come to light in the last few decades. What are some of these discoveries? Look up what Dr. Andrew Snelling, Ph. D. (geology) has to say about the flood. He makes a good argument. Are you going to stick your finger in his face and say he’s wrong? If you do, you better have a convincing counter argument.
The flood did not hdappen 5,000 years ago. I agree with you. My personal belief is around 8,000-12,000 years ago, based upon various theories. And Ken Ham is a complete idiot. He has done more harm to the biblical view than he knows. You have to realize that there are traditional Catholic beliefs and an evangelical sub-group of beliefs about the flood. I’m part of that small scientifically minded sub-group of Christians who happen to trust that science is reliable. Catholics have adhered to Bishop Usher’s chronology: the universe was created 4004 BC and then we add up the list of genealogies and presto !!!!!! Wrong. Usher was an idiot too.
As a bible-believing Christian, I see the evidence is strong for a universe that is 13.7 Billion years old. I see strong evidence for life on Earth being millions of years old. I also DO NOT believe in the 6 days of creation, tho I am a creationist. There is enough evidence to support a big bang, stellar evolution, planetary accretion, lengthy galaxy formation, etc. Please don’t lump me, or all Christians, in with the Catholic views of creation. Science and Christianity are compatible.
MY RESPONSE: If you indeed trust in science and believe the scientific method is the best way to determine how things work/are, then we have a problem with your consistency. I will get to this in a minute, but first I'd like to call attention to your comment about the universe. You say the evidence you obtained from science books led you to believe the universe had a beginning, therefore, someone caused it. This sounds a lot like a definitive statement that you warned me against making. Perhaps you should have said, “Since it had a beginning, I feel the physics law of 'cause and effect' would dictate something made this happen, and I think this something is a someone, likely my god.” Fair?
This returns us to definitions: What do you define as evidence? I see evidence as proof, either proof that something happened, how it happened and even why it happened. So what is the evidence you have that points to this “someone” creating the universe? I really want to dive into this with you because I believe we will head into philosophy and I have quite the experience in this, too. But first …
When you say you’ve trusted science to arrive at your conclusions about how old the universe is, how old the earth is, how long life forms have been around, it makes me happy. But your consistency falls apart when it comes to the flood of the bible or the universe’s origins. By the way, I’m not sure what you think Catholics think about the flood, but they have no official position on it from the RCC POV and tend to lean toward it being an allegory or a lesson. I’m not arguing against the Catholicism angle in any of these discussions, I’m arguing against the bible/religion. I’m not lumping you in with any Catholic view of creation, so you should probably stop lumping my arguments in with a POV of merely anti-Catholicism.
So, how can you trust the scientific method for all of these incredibly difficult answers but then dismiss it when it comes to the flood? You say you haven't abandoned scientific principles, yet when it comes to this you have, and I'm not trying to insult you at all, but I wish you would pause to think about what you are saying. How do you think scientists arrived at their conclusions regarding the age of the earth/universe? Someone discovered evidence of something, used the best methods available to analyze the data, presented a hypothesis to the scientific community, allowed the scientists to vet/falsify the hypothesis and test it, retest it, etc. They did this for decades (and still do it) until it was so refined by the finest objective minds on the planet until it was accepted as the best possible scientific explanation for how the universe began and when. It wasn't one scientist's opinion and work that didn't get checked and falsified. It was peer-reviewed ad nauseam using a mountain of evidence and the most advanced technology available.
I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know here. So why is it you totally abandon this critical way of thinking for the flood? Because of Dr. Andrew Snelling and the bible? Let’s investigate Dr. Snelling with a critical mind. In one breath you list this man as offering a “good argument” and in the next you call Ken Ham a “complete idiot.” Snelling is a director at the Creation Science Foundation, which is now called Answers in Genesis, which is owned by Australian Ken Ham, your complete idiot. Snelling is a regular contributor to and sometime editor of “Creation Ex Nihilo,” the quarterly magazine of Ham’s AiG.
But here is the most shocking part: They list “two” Dr. Andrew A. Snellings within the CSF. One is a creationist scientist and the other is a consulting geologist who worked on uranium mineralization and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The one you are holding as your expert in the flood story is the first one, the one whose ideas are not peer-reviewed and are systematically dismissed by every respected geologist/scientist in the world. The two Snellings couldn’t be more opposed on their views of the flood myth, and they are the SAME guy.
While I’m not taking Snelling’s credentials to task, he has legitimate credentials, I AM calling into question his objectivity and current credibility. While he has a geology background, CSF literature refers to him as a missionary and Protestant evangelist. As a CSF member, he MUST subscribe to the AiG Statement of Faith, which has serious implications for those looking to remain objective in matters of science and education. Within this Statement of Faith, under (B) BASICS, No. 5 reads as follows: The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.
Do you see the conflict here? He is forced to presuppose the flood actually happened and then tries to explain it (reverse engineering). This is a completely anti-scientific method, and his faith clouds his judgment and objectivity. There are literally dozens of these statements in the SoF that conflict with the scientific method. I could go on for pages about this version of Snelling, because people are mistaking this for his legitimate work, which has been published in numerous papers that have been peer-reviewed and vetted. It’s the main reason he was sought out by Ham and why he’s listed as a “Creationist Scientist.”
In his legitimate days, he used the standard geological column and time scale, which is accepted worldwide in the scientific community. “My” Snelling opened up his non-CSF work to scrutiny and allowed for anyone to disprove his findings using the accepted scientific method, something you rely on for the age of the earth and universe. Whereas “your” Snelling published his unproven, non-reviewed work ONLY in his own company’s quarterly magazine, ignoring hundreds of years of legitimate scientific facts and perpetuating his employer’s confirmation bias. Why doesn’t Snelling seek peer-reviewed acceptance for his work with AiG? Why did he act as a consultant for a mining company years ago and allow his findings to be published in legitimate scientific journals, only to stop doing this for AiG?
Could it be that because what he is selling can’t hold up to scrutiny? If his work regarding the great flood were to be scientifically proved to be correct/accepted, he would not only win the Nobel Prize and $1 million, but he would bring instant legitimacy to AiG and its endeavors. Yet, none of this happens. Why? This is what I mean by critical thinking.
There is, in debate circles, something called Occam’s Razor, so named after William of Ockham, a 14th century English friar and philosopher. It goes like this: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the story that has the least amount of bullshit is the one that likely is true. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Are we to believe thousands upon thousands of educated geologists (who used the same method to determine the age of the earth, which you agree with, as they did to prove there was never any global flood, which you don’t), or are we supposed to base everything we believe about this one story in Genesis on the idea of one guy, whose credentials are legitimate but whose non-reviewed work and objectivity are suspect and denounced?
The difference between science and what Snelling is offering is Snelling started with a conclusion based on his faith and worked backward trying to square his circle, whereas science, which you said you trust, does the exact opposite, as it should. So, to answer your question, yes, I would stick my finger in his face and tell him he is wrong, because in my corner I have hundreds of years of real evidence, thousands of qualified scientists and a river of ink spilled in peer-reviewed journals explaining just exactly why a global flood never happened nor could we be where we are today if it did, especially only 8K-12K years ago as you believe.
When you state there’s enough evidence to support the big bang and everything that ensued, how is it you don’t see enough evidence against a global flood? It’s certainly as transparent and readily available as the evidence you used to agree with the age of the universe. And, if you continue to believe in this unsupported flood hypothesis, then I would have to take it further and ask if you believe the rest of the story (ie the animals, etc.). Science and Christianity aren’t compatible, at all. If it makes you feel any better, most Christians and Jews view Genesis and its contents as mere poetry and don’t believe it should be viewed as literal. I have done a ton of reading and watched a ton of lectures on this very fact, from church elders of numerous Abrahamic sects and denominations.
Now, about this “someone” who must have created the universe. …
No comments:
Post a Comment