Creationists are more critical and honest

Posted by Ryft

Jul 30

My friend and very esteemed colleague Duane Proud two days ago wrote an article in which he asked evolutionists to provide examples of bad evolutionary arguments they have seen used in debates and discussions on origins. And he provided a list of twelve examples to help get the ball rolling, asking whether evolutionists would concede that any of the arguments listed are bad—and if so, which ones—or provide other examples of evolutionary arguments they have seen used which are bad. “In other words,” he said, “I’d like evolutionists to be self-critical and provide a list of arguments they would endorse as ‘arguments evolutionists should not use’.” Duane wanted to see if there were any among our evolutionist readers “who are capable of reflecting on the merits and shortcomings of an argument,” which could be demonstrated by their providing “any arguments for evolution they think are lacking and why.”

Not a single response.

Let me clarify that: not a single response that actually answered the question Duane was asking. He received several responses but they mocked Young Earth creationists, defended many of the arguments listed as actually good, provided links to web pages that explain what biological evolution is and why it is true, or they gave completely retarded examples of arguments I’m quite sure nobody ever uses—like the gems that Nocterro provided, e.g., “Evolution is true because my cup is green.” (Given that he values philosophical discipline, he should have known better; moreover, he is the one person I expected relevant and intellectually honest answers from.) But when it came to the question Duane had actually asked, there was not a single response.

So I want to demonstrate something about intellectual honesty. I want to put forward the same question but this time directed toward creationists. That is, I would like the creationists out there to be self-critical and provide examples of arguments they would concede as ‘arguments creationists should not use’. Unlike evolutionists, I know that creationists are capable of reflecting on the merits and shortcomings of an argument and can provide creationist arguments they think are lacking and why. The complete silence from evolutionists regarding Duane’s question will be deafening in comparison to the intellectual honesty and self-criticism of creationists. The contrast of responses will say something important about dogmatism.

I’ll provide the first example, frequently encountered from creationists who argue that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. It is based on James Ussher’s chronogenealogy method of calculation, and is an argument that should not be used because it relies on a broken and unreliable chain: from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity the lineage is no longer based on biblical records of ages of individuals, but rather on the duration of king’s reigns which suffers from overlaps and ambiguities; and from the fall of Babylon to the birth of Jesus there is no biblical information for calculating lineage at all. But perhaps most importantly, it is based on the presupposition that the creation account in Genesis regards the material origins of the cosmos, an anachronistic presupposition that is brought to the text rather than an exegetical conclusion derived from it. So if the Genesis creation account is actually not about the ex nihilo material origins of the cosmos in six days, but instead points to an understanding of the text consistent with an ancient Near East view of temple cosmology, for example, which apprehended the world in functional terms rather than material, then chronogenealogical calculation not only becomes irrelevant to the issue but there are no demands for a young Earth (i.e., the Bible reveals to us that the cosmos was materially created by God but it does not tell us when; John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, relates that receiving Genesis as a cosmic temple inauguration account “does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story”). When we stack these biblical contentions on top a wealth of scientific data for the age of our planet and the cosmos (even the RATE project was forced to admit that scientific evidence from radioactive decay indicates the earth is much older than a few thousand years, forcing them to propose that decay rates were accelerated during the one-year flood), we find a considerable weight of evidence for creationists to avoid arguing that the cosmos was created about 6,000 years ago. As Augustine wrote in The Literal Meaning of Genesis,

It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren, when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

So let’s demonstrate the difference between evolutionists and creationists. Not a single evolutionist had enough intellectual honesty or grasp of reality to provide an example of ‘arguments evolutionists should not use’. I know that creationists are more critical and honest, and I want creationists to prove it by providing examples of ‘arguments creationists should not use’, arguments they’ve seen used but shouldn’t be and why.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Filed under: Apologetics, Creation/Evolution

http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

The moon dust argument, the canopy theory, the paluxy tracks and the rumour that Darwin recanted on his deathbed.

Those are some of the arguments I know of that we shouldn't use against Evolutionists.
http://lowerwisdom.com JS Allen

Whoa! The very first response; which was my response, was intellectually honest — I admitted that at least 7 of the arguments listed were, indeed, bad. And I didn't even try to defend the other 4.

Comment subscription seems to be busted, which is why I didn't see any other responses. I thought it was strange that there was no response, and thought, "Maybe Duane has been shocked by my intellectual honesty and nobody wants to answer".
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ryft Ryft

Well, now that you realize that numerous comments have since been submitted, and Duane has repeated in very clear and careful terms what he's asking for, you can go redeem that thread and be the first evolutionist to answer him directly, clearly, and relevantly. He is not the only one mystified by the remarkable absence of any actual answers to his question. If you cannot think of any bad evolutionary arguments to add, then clearly indicate the ones in the list you agree are bad.
http://lowerwisdom.com JS Allen

I've definitely confirmed that your comment subscription is busted.

It was pretty obvious that I admitted at *least* 7 specific arguments of the 11 he mentioned were bad arguments, and *perhaps* the other 4. Considering that I acknowledged Duane's points in the very first comment, I don't think it's honest to claim "no intellectual integrity".

Demanding that I provide *additional* "bad arguments" for evolutionism seems to be superfluous WRT "intellectual integrity". I can easily provide other bad arguments for evolutionism, since I've seen them all, but I've already admitted to anywhere between 7 and 11 bad arguments, inclusive. Cataloging *all* of the flawed arguments for evolutionism (hint, they are infinite) gets us no closer to Duane's stated goal of "understanding what evolutionists really think", let alone to an assessment of my intellectual integrity.

Let's take a look at what Duane said:

"On the other hand, if you’d like to explain why any of the arguments above should not be on that list [you know you want to], I’m happy to receive those objections. But in the interest of give and take, I’d also appreciate it if you could provide at least one argument that you think evolutionists should not use and why"

First, let me object to his "you know you want to". I want no such thing, since I already acknowledged that 7 of the things he labeled "arguments" are stupid, and the other 4 are quite possibly stupid, too. Saying "you know you want to" is immediately falsified.

Next, Duane asks for people to provide "at least one argument evolutionists should not use, and why". But note that he does not do it in a spirit of "intellectual integrity". He asks in a spirit of "give and take". In a spirit of give and take, I offer up Dawkins' 747 gambit (which is not on Duane's list). And for a the "why", I offer up that Dawkins is a retard — or more completely, Van Inwagen's paper about "Is God an Unnecessary Hypothesis?".

So, I have fulfilled the requirement of Duane's "give and take", without even asking for the "give" of removing one of Duane's 11 points from the list. For all I know, all of Duane's 11 points should stay on the list. So, I have given you a "take" without taking your "give". But even if I hadn't given you the refutation of Dawkins' 747 gambit, you would still have no grounds to accuse me of lacking intellectual integrity, on this specific matter.
Marc

An argument I would never use: I would never advance myself as a creationist when I also hold to an old world. I can't see why it's necessary to hang one's hat on a metaphysical principle (i.e. time) when Wisdom amply demonstrated that He didn't require large amounts of time to bring about the miraculous. What purpose did God have in mind creating the earth over eons when all his other miracles were instantaneous (or close enough to that benchmark!)?
Marc

Usher was not the first to calculate the earth's age as small. In the 2nd century AD Theophilus of Antioch wrote "All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus's day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" (To Autolycus, 3:28-29).

Even if there are overlaps or whatever, it can't mean the insertion of the 10's, 100's or 1000's of thousands of extra years that old age earthists argue for.
http://urbanphilosophy.net Nocterro

I have two points to make:

1) I did in fact endorse arguments 11 and 12 as bad in the previous article.

2) I expressed the view that we should be focusing on what we think are *good* arguments. We disagree on a fundamental issue, here. Why should we be patting each other on the back and saying "look at what poor arguments my colleagues use!" ?

That being said – if any of the bloggers on this site care to post what they think are *good* arguments for creation, I will respond by critiquing them, and offering what I think are *good* arguments for evolution; and then perhaps we can actually get somewhere.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ryft Ryft

Um, this is the article for creationists to submit what they think are bad arguments creationists shouldn't use. You are responding in the wrong article, JS Allen.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ryft Ryft

Marc,

One cannot be a creationist if the cosmos is billions of years old? How does it follow that if the cosmos is billions of years old then there was no divine creation? On the face of it, to hold that "an old world" is an example of a bad argument creationists shouldn't use is built upon a very weird non-sequitur. I can conclude that a watch is not designed if I can prove that it's very, very old?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ryft Ryft

Marc,

First, I'm not sure anyone thinks Ussher was the first. Second, Old Earth creationists don't draw conclusions about the age of the earth from chronogenealogical overlaps and ambiguities in the first place (i.e., that misses the point).
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ryft Ryft

Nocterro,

First, this is the article for creationists to submit what they think are bad arguments creationists shouldn't use. The article for bad evolutionist arguments is over there, the one Duane wrote. Second, Duane already explained the point of having the ability to recognize bad arguments. Interact with his explanation over there. Third, this is not an article for good arguments that creationists should use.
http://urbanphilosophy.net Nocterro

I've noticed a rather "stand-off"ish attitude in both Duane and yourself in your responses to most of my comments. I get the feeling you're not actually interested in interacting with me. If this is the case, please say so and I'll take my leave from this site.
http://www.thinkingchristian.net thinkingchristian

The worst anti-evolution argument I ever heard from a Christian: homosexuality disproves evolution, because if evolution were true, it would have been selected out. That's wrong on so many levels I can't count them all, but I've heard it more than once.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

Creationists are demonstrably self-critical as I demonstrated in my previous article by way of a link to CMI where they publish and update a list of arguments they think creationists should not use.

I also know creationists to be typically sceptical, even when the evidence has the potential to support their position. For example, the recent claims concerning the discovery of Noah's Ark:

"It is still early days and all believers need to be careful not to jump the gun, i.e. go beyond the evidence and announce it as the Ark for sure. There will obviously be a lot more work to be done to establish whether this apparently manmade structure is indeed the remains of Noah’s Ark…"

Regarding Ussher's works [a copy of which is right here on my book shelf], I am aware of the some of the differences in the chronogenealogies developed by Christians over the centuries and thus I agree that it should not be used to take a dogmatic stand on a specific age for the creation event (e.g. October 23, 4004BC). However, there are no reasons from any biblical text to think that it is in the area of millions, and so Ussher (along with others) is held loosely as a source for demonstrating the recent antiquity of the earth. So it's only a bad argument if you intend to use it to claim a specific date.
http://intensedebate.com/people/AristoDuane Duane

Also, I'm not sure if I understood the scope of the post properly, but I assumed that you were merely wanting creationists to provide bad arguments for their view, rather than defending it against claims such as the "wealth of scientific data for the age of our planet and the cosmos"? That would be a completely separate topic altogether.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ryft Ryft

Nocterro,

Because I indicated this as the wrong article for the subject you're raising? How did that conclusion follow from what I said? I have no idea how you managed to get that feeling, but I can tell you it's quite contrary to the facts; I'm certainly interested in interacting with you, and I'm pretty sure Duane is, too. However, (a) in the right thread, (b) in the context raised by the article, and (c) without ridiculous retorts like "because my cup is green."
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ryft Ryft

Duane,

You didn't even provide an example?!

And yes, the scope is NOT about exploring bad creationist arguments or defending them against contrary claims. It is simply about creationists being self-critical and honest enough to recognize bad creationists arguments when they see them, giving examples of ones they've seen used (but shouldn't be).

Although I might have to change the title of my article, and my view of creationists. The examples are… well… not forthcoming. Maybe creationists are just as bad as evolutionists, in their inability to recognize or admit bad arguments. Where are they?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ryft Ryft

Tom,

That's a bad argument against evolution, not a bad argument for creation. The latter is what I am hoping creationists can recognize and admit.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

Sorry, I spent more time commenting on the one you already raised and pointing to the CMI list.

But I did raise one example, being the supposed discoveries for Noah's Ark [which has been allegedly "discovered" on more than one occasion]. I'll try and think of some more later. But I think CMI have already done good job of providing such a list. And if the post is to be an evaluation of creationists' honesty in being self-critical of bad arguments (and NOT an evaluation of how many Duane can come up with on his own), I think CMI's list stands as a good testimony.

:)
http://intensedebate.com/people/AristoAdam Adam

Some YEC's argue that God created "starlight in transit" in order to explain billions of light years. I think this explanation for starlight time is a bad one. CMI and AiG will refute this explanation but there may be a few still out there who may hold to this explanation.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Duane

As it happens, a couple of months ago I wrote to the editor of Creation Magazine (to which I subscribe) to highlight what I thought was a bad argument which appeared in their magazine. In fact many people write to the magazine each month out of a similar concern. Some of these concerns are published in the feedback section of each edition of the mag.

Anyway I got no reply and didn’t notice my comment in the feedback section of the subsequent issue so I’m not sure what the Creation Mag folks thought of it. But here is how it went:

A brief article appeared in the Focus section of Creation 32(2) 2010 on page 11, dealing with the claims of a recent study suggesting that animal life may have evolved in freshwater lakes instead of the sea. An excerpt from the article is as follows:

“God, the only eye-witness of Creation, tells us in Genesis 1:20 that He created the first animal life in “the waters” on day 5 of creation week, but He created the first living things as plants on the land (verse 11), on day 3 of creation week.” [emphasis in original]

My gripe with this was over the equivocation in calling plants “living” as YEC’s go to great lengths (especially in refuting what they believe are the compromising views of Hugh Ross and his ministry) to point out that plants are not alive in the biblical sense. That is, they do not possess what the bible refers to as a living spirit (נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה nephesh chayyāh).
Marc

Ryft wrote, “I’ll provide the first example, frequently encountered from creationists who argue that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. It is based on James Ussher’s chronogenealogy method of calculation”.

I took this as though you were saying that Usher was the guy who first formally laid the YE calculations out. In fact, as I alluded, there were Christians well before Usher who used the same chrono-genealogies from Genesis, Chronicles and Luke, in approximately the same manner, and arrived at roughly the same age for the earth as Usher. Without looking it up, I seem to recall Theophilus was one who wrote a considerable sized apologetic on this, in addition to the brief extract I posted.
RJH4

Ryft,

1) I know I am not commenting in the manner you want.
2) I agree with what Nocterro said about focussing on good arguments and critiques thereof.
3) In your post, you indicated that you thought a young earth position was:

"But perhaps most importantly, it is based on the presupposition that the creation account in Genesis regards the material origins of the cosmos, an anachronistic presupposition that is brought to the text rather than an exegetical conclusion derived from it."

Yet when I read Genesis 1:1 it sure sounds like it is talking about the material origins of the cosmos. Furthermore, Exodus 20:11 indicates that the heaven and earth and all that is in them was created in six days by God. Again, this sure sounds like this includes the material origins of everything in the cosmos. So on what basis do you conclude that I am reading something into the text as opposed to deriving my conclusions from the text?
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Marc,

While I don't dispute that at all, it is quite ubiquitous in the relevant literature to see Ussher referenced in such arguments. You are right that Theophilus, Clement, Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Origen, etc., wrote of a recent creation, but in the popular literature it is Ussher that is most usually referenced. At any rate, I certainly neither said nor meant that Ussher was the original author of Young Earth calculation.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

RJH4,

Perhaps you might be willing to fire off an email to me explaining what in the first chapter of Genesis informs you that it is the material origins of the cosmos being described. (My address can be found on the Contact Us page.)
RJH4

Ryft,

Let me rephrase the question to more directly get to the information I would like to get.

In your post, you indicated that you thought a young earth position was:

"But perhaps most importantly, it is based on the presupposition that the creation account in Genesis regards the material origins of the cosmos, an anachronistic presupposition that is brought to the text rather than an exegetical conclusion derived from it."

On what basis do you make such a statement? In other words, what is your reasoning behind the statement?

This is what I was really trying to get at. The answer should have nothing to do with my point of view on anything but I do realize that the manner in which I originally worded my question opened things up for you to request more information from me.
taco

Is this akin to asking if God created the earth in orbit around another object or not?
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

On the basis of a responsible historico-grammatical exegesis of the texts. But since this is an instructive and rewarding intramural discussion among theologians and biblical scholars that has practically nothing to do with the context of this article, this is really not an appropriate place to expand on and explore this issue.

However, due to the implications of my article I'm currently engaged in an email discussion with Marc Kay (from Creation Ministries International) about these things and, with his permission already in hand, we will eventually publish the contents of that discussion at this site. Furthermore, I have already been planning on writing a series of articles exploring this view of the Genesis creation account, which is interestingly neither Young Earth nor Old Earth creationism. Perhaps this email exchange with Kay will serve as a catalyzing inspiration.
Marc

Ryft,

I am not an employee of CMI and so I can't be "from" that organisation. I occasionally contribute articles to their Journal of Creation but I do not receive any payment for this.

This needs to be publically corrected.
David J.

"Dinosaurs are an invention of Satan to delude people from believing the Bible."

This is a bad argument because 1) the fact that dinosaurs existed is perfectly consistent with the Bible, 2) it confuses the existence of dinosaurs (which is perfectly consistent with the Bible) with the claims about when dinosaurs lived (which are not consistent with the Bible), 3) dinosaurs may actually be mentioned in the Bible (behemoth), 4) there is ample physical evidence for the existence of dinosaurs, 5) given that point 4 is true, the argument gives Satan way too much credit. If dinosaurs could only be found in evolutionary textbooks, this would be a good argument, but this is not the case. There is no problem with believing that dinosaurs existed, only in certain interpretations about when dinosaurs existed.

"Fossils are just rocks that happen to look like dead organisms."

1) The existence of fossils is perfectly consistent with the Bible. 2) We should expect to find lots of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth if the Noachian Deluge really happened. 3) The idea that God would have created rocks that look like dead animals all over the earth for no apparent reason would seem to make into God a cruel prankster, which is inconsistent with the Bible. There is no problem with believing that fossils exist, only in certain interpretations about when fossils were formed.

"The geological column does not exist."

I've been to the Grand Canyon. I've walked through that part of the geological column myself. It exists, unless my senses deceive me and the senses of everyone who has ever been to the Grand Canyon deceive them. There is no problem with believing that the geological column exists, only with certain interpretations of the geological column.

"People couldn't have evolved from apes because apes are still around."

This is a bad argument because according to evolution, apes and humans have a common ancestor. That is, according to evolution, humans did not evolve from modern apes, but modern apes and humans both evolved from some ape-like creature that lived millions of years ago. Of course there are problems with evolution, but the coexistence of apes and people is not one of them.

"We can see the stars because God created the light of the stars in transit."

This would mean that the events we observe deep in space never actually occurred. Stars that we see blowing up would never have actually existed. What we see in the night sky would be beams of light that were never actually emitted from the distant cosmic objects they supposedly portray. But Genesis 1 says that God created the stars (along with the sun and the moon) to be lights and signs. It does not say that he created beams of light to be lights and signs.

"Noah's Ark has been found."

Which time that someone supposedly "found Noah's Ark" did they actually find it? Why are they unable to provide any solid evidence for their supposed findings? Why is it that even the staunchest young earth creationists (leaders of organizations such as AiG, CMI, etc.) reject these claims? Wouldn't they be the first people to embrace the findings if they were credible?

The stated purpose of this post was for creationists to show that they are intellectually honest enough to repudiate bad arguments for their own position. It was not for non young earth creationists to provide critiques of young earth creationism. But your "example" is the latter, and therefore, completely irrelevant to the stated purpose of the post.

Also, there is a world of difference between saying that "more than 500 million years worth (at today’s rates) of nuclear and radioisotope decay [has occurred]" and "admit[ting] that scientific evidence from radioactive decay indicates the earth is much older than a few thousand years." To miss this is to miss the entire point of the RATE project.