Response to Why YEC posting

From: Allen Roy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 08:41:40 EDT

  • Next message: Ted Davis: "Ellen White, Price, and YEC"

    I originally posted anonymously a short autobio. from Curt Sewell. There were some responses which I sent to him for him to comment on if he wished. He did so, thinking that the 5 responses were from one person (that was my fault). He also has an autobio. book out that can be found at Amazon.com: God at Ground Zero : The Manhattan Project and a Scientist's Discovery of Christ the Creator
    by Curt Sewell.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the ASAnet:
          My friend on CRSnet passed on to me an ASAnet posting which was
    critical of what I had written as a posting to CRSnet. I didn't know that he
    would pass it over to you. I'd like to respond to some of what was written
    on ASAnet by someone who is anonymous to me. I think the key problem is that
    mine was taken out of context.

          My little article was written in response to the question "Why did you
    become a YEC?" This question was asked on CRSnet, to CRSnetters, and I wrote
    with the understanding that its readers would (more or less) agree with my
    background assumptions. I made no effort to argue, or to provide evidence
    for those assumptions. I didn't intend it to be an argument for YEC, but
    more as a tidbit of an autobiographical nature.

          I'm convinced that the following 2-part truism relates to the Creation
    / Evolution controversy, and also to a lesser extent, to the YEC / OEC
    controversy:
        1) Neither creationism nor evolutionism is truly scientific, because they
    each utilize unprovable assumptions, and thus can't be proven or disproven.
        2) Both creationism and evolutionism are religious, because they each rely on
    faith in a belief-system. One of these is a theistic faith, the other is
    basically an atheistic faith in materialism and human logic.

          My ASAnet critic's complaint was written with numbered paragraphs, 1
    to 5, and I'll respond in kind.

          1. I used the phrase "believed early Genesis." Yes, I'm very aware
    that many people prefer the phrase "believed early Genesis to be an accurate
    historical narrative and scientific record." But, to me, those two phrases
    ARE synonymous, and my intended audience would understand completely. I used
    a short-cut. I believe that the entire Bible was inspired by God, and was
    intended to be read and studied as His "user's instruction manual for proper
    living." As such, I believe that He guided its composition so that sincere
    but simple-minded readers could understand it. To me, it is obvious that a
    sincere and simple-minded reader would get the impression that it was
    intended to be taken at its face value, which is a literally true document.
    (Of course, you don't have to be simple-minded to understand it. :-) You
    just have to keep your priorities straight -- put God first, and human wisdom
    second. The simple text describes six literal days (not eras), and other
    Biblical statements show that the action of His creation was within the last
    6 or 8 millennia. I don't know of a single historical writing in the Bible
    that has ever been documented as untrue, in contrast to many errors found in
    other ancient books. There have been several archaeologists who have tried
    to find such errors, and ended up as Bible believers.

          For those who question how Genesis was written, I'd suggest my article
    "The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship," which can be found at:
                   http://ldolphin.org/tablethy.html and also at:
                   http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.htm
    There is also my article on Early Biblical Chronology, which can be found at:
                   http://ldolphin.org/sewell/

          For those who objected to my anonymity, my name is Curt Sewell
    (Livermore, CA), and my email address is curtsewell@aol.com . I included
    these in my original posting. However, I don't enjoy argument and
    name-calling just for their own fun. If you write me, I may or I may not
    respond. If your email sounds earnest, I'll probably respond, but I'd prefer
    not to get into a long argument.

          2. As to Harold Hill, again I think the problem with his story is
    that it was taken out of context. I first heard the story sometime in the
    early 70's, I think, and my reaction was that "someone must be joking --
    that's not reasonable." I've heard several explanations, but the best one
    says that his memo was originally dated April 1. It was intended as an April
    Fool's Day joke, as an internal memo to others in his company.

          3. You said that my little article didn't "validate" anything, or
    didn't explain how radioactive dating isn't a scientific fact. OK, you
    recognize my article for what it was intended to be, an autobiographical
    short sketch, written mostly to those who are basically in agreement with my
    beliefs. I didn't write for the purpose of convincing those who are "on the
    other side."

          4. Radioactive dating is based on the assumption of Uniformitarianism
    -- the idea that the present is essentially the product of the past, and that
    no massive supernatural event has taken place, that could not be detected and
    measured by present-day science. In other words, there is the basic belief
    that our world has come into being by some sort of slow materialistic process
    of cosmic evolution. In still other words, the Pb-206 that we find around us
    got there only by the decay of U-238. (There are other decay chains that
    I'll ignore for now.) One of the key calibrations for U-Pb dating came from
    measurement of various lead isotopes in iron meteorites. As Henry Faul says,
    "If one assumes that the solar system condensed from a primordial cloud, it
    follows that the materials of planets, asteroids, and meteorites have a
    common origin. ..." [Faul, "Ages of Rocks, Planets, and Stars,"
    McGraw-Hill, 1966]

          Using this key UNPROVABLE assumption, one can prove that the earth is
    ancient. BUT THAT IS CIRCULAR LOGIC, based on the initial assumption of a
    slow materialistic origin.

          On the other hand, if the earth and its universe were originally
    created in the way described in early Genesis (another unprovable
    assumption), then obviously the Creator could have made rocks in some sort of
    "mature state," whatever He desired. We have no way of knowing, other than
    the very simple framework that He gave us in Genesis.

          OK, neither framework is solidly PROVABLE -- but what about errors?
    When I was in school, I was taught that Piltdown Man was the missing link
    that proved human evolution. A decade earlier, it was Nebraska Man. A
    couple of decades later, both were considered wrong and valueless. When I
    was in school, I was taught the steady-state theory of cosmology (that the
    universe had existed in approximately its present form forever). Then in the
    mid-50's I heard George Gamov explain the new idea that the universe had
    originated as a tiny mass, which "sorta'" exploded (later that became known
    as the "Big Bang"). Today, a number of astronomers say that the present idea
    of the Big Bang has errors. A couple of decades ago, radioactive dating was
    thought to be an absolute measure of the age of a rock. But I have several
    hundred documented examples (from technical journals) of errors in such
    dating (some minor, some gross). The theory sounds great, but it often fails
    to work right.

          While I was vacillating between these two basic points of view, I
    read a lot of books and articles, looking for some sort of REAL PROOF, one
    way or another. I didn't find any. Given that choice, I decided that I'd
    rather base my beliefs on God and His Bible, rather than on human logic.
    That was more than 30 years ago (I don't remember the exact date), and my
    conviction has grown with time.

          5. You say that I'm a "vicious scientist hater," and a little later
    you said I was "a snake." I don't think so - - - . I worked as an
    Electronics Design Engineer from about 1944 until I retired in 1988, and all
    of this was in nuclear labs. I'm still fascinated by real science. I don't
    hate anyone.

          But there's a big difference between science and technology.
    Technological science has accomplished many great things, often benefiting
    humankind (and sometimes not "benefiting"). I consider myself to be (or to
    have been) mostly a technologist, operating (formerly) in a scientific
    domain, most often designing instrumentation to measure or control physics
    experiments.

          But I do get quite annoyed at the way many scientists operate,
    especially in the so-called "historical sciences" (macro-evolution etc.).
    They can't use the scientific method, because they can't get God or His
    methods into a test-tube. Since they can't experiment (prove or disprove)
    they make up fairy tales, or hypothetical accounts, which in time become
    background for other hypothetical accounts about the next fossil. In my
    opinion, people who operate like that are not scientists -- they're
    story-tellers. I don't hate them; rather, I pity them. But I deplore that
    their methods and their propaganda have led many people astray. There's a
    judgment day coming.

          Thank you for allowing me to respond to what I consider to have been
    an unbalanced criticism.

    Curt Sewell
    curtsewell@aol.com
    Livermore, CA, USA


    tiki.gif

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 08:43:19 EDT