On Sun, 11 Jun 1995 08:41:53 -0400 you wrote:
>I wrote:
GM>Are you sure that what the
>apologetical books tell you about the geologic column is correct? Remember,
>they tell you that the geological column does not exist anywhere on earth.
>
>Stephen Jones replied:
SJ>Actually they don't, at least not in the exact sense you mean. For
>example, Baker (a Creation-Scientist) says:
SJ>"In fact, the column presents a number of problems to those who
>wish it to support evolutionary theory. First, contrary to popular
>belief, all the levels can RARELY, if ever, be found occurring
>together" (Baker S., "Bone of Contention", 1976, Evangelical Press,
>Hertfordshire, p15. emphasis mine).
SJ>The issue seems to be one of semantics. What Creation-Science seem
>to be claiming is that the entire idealised STANDARD geological column
>model "does not exist anywhere on earth":
>
SJ>"The STANDARD geological column has always been assumed to exhibit
>the evolution of life, from simple to complex, over the geological
><ages. Creationists, on the other hand, have insisted that this
>standard column is LARGELY artificial." (Morris H.M., "Scientific
>Creationism", Second Edition 1985, Master Books, El Cajon CA, pxi.
>emphasis mine)
>
SJ>"If one wishes to check out this STANDARD column..where can he go
>to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to
>see the standard geologic column. That's in the textbook!..This
>standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles
>thick...representing the total sedimentary activity of all the
>geologic ages...The standard column has been built up by
>superposition of local columns from many different localities."
>(Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation
>Science?", 1987, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, p230,232. emphasis
>mine).
>
GM>These guys are wrong. I documented 22 basins around the world
>where the entire column exists. What S. Baker says is incompatible
>with what you are saying. She says the all the levels are "rarely,
>if ever," found occuring together. Simply not true.
Well the world is a big place and "22 basins" doesn't sound like a
lot. That sounds rare to me.
GM>The only people who believe in your STANDARD geological column are
>the guys at the Institute of Creation Research. I have never heard
>anyone in my business refer to it.
Perhaps that is because "the geological column" has become shorthand
for it?
GM>Some guy a long time ago wanted to find out what the
>maximum amount of sedimentation which had occurred throughout geologic time.
>He looked around the world and found the maximum thickness of sediment for
>each period. That maximum was around 100 miles thick. But this was NEVER
>taught as some sort of STANDARD column.
Semantics aside, I think this is interesting. You say the maximium of
each period is "100 miles thick". How thick was each layer on average
in each of the "22 basins" that you mention. The length of the bore
hole divided by 22 will do.
GM>Nobody expects that everywhere on
>earth throughout all geologic time that the sedimentation rates were the same
>and pegged out at the maximum rate. The Mississippi River deposits a whole
>lot more sediment at a much faster rate than does the puny Potamac River in
>Washington D. C. Only Morris believes that anyone in geologic science holds
>to this standard column.
I don't think "Morris" is saying that either.
GM>It is truly sad that one man can produce so many misunderstandings
>among the laity.
Actually I find Henry M. Morris' writings very useful, although I
disagree with his narrow fundamentalism.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>This is a non sequitur. The geological column and the fossil
>record are two entirely different things. One can be wrong on one
>thing and right in another. Besides there is a subtle shift in your
>argument from intellectual error ("wrong") to moral error "tell you
>the truth". Creation-Scientists may be wrong, but it does not follow
>they do not endeavour to tell the truth, at least as they see it."
>
GM>You are reading into my statement a moral content which was not
>intended.
Sorry Glenn, but there was a "moral content", even if unconscious.
Not telling the truth is morally different from being wrong. In a
court of law you can be gaoled for perjury if get caught out "not
telling the truth", but not if you are just plain wrong. Not telling
the truth implies you know the truth but don't tell it.
GM>While it is true that one may be correct on one issue and wrong on
>another, lots of errors in an area once knows well ought to make one
>be more careful about accepting information in another subject.
Agreed.
GM>Everyone makes mistakes and
>gets things wrong from time to time. But I have not found very much of what
>ICR says in any area of geology which is correct factually.
It is strange then that you, a geologist, were once a member of the
ICR and wrote 27 articles for them. If they were so wrong then "in
any area of geology" why did you believe them?
GM>Thus I am very suspicious when they say things about other areas of
>science outside my expertise.
That's fine, but suspicion should not harden into prejudice. Like
all of us, they just see it that way, according to their philosophy.
>I wrote:
>GM>These apologetical books tell me that the rocks were deposited
>very, very rapidly in a global flood. Last Friday, the geologist I
>work with loaned me a oil well core from his personal
>collection...The core came from about 7,000 feet deep in southeastern
>Colorado. It was 1.3 inches high and showed 9 layers of grass
>roots...The apologetical books won't tell you about things like this!
>
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>Well again, is this correct? I do not believe scripture requires a
>global Flood, and I think Flood Geology is wrong, but there is no
>doubt that Creation-Science attempts to grapple with the fact of
>vegetation found at different levels. For example, Whitcomb &
>Morris' "The Genesis Flood", has a section entitled "Buried Forests"
>(pp418-421). I disagree with their explanation ("later stages of the
>Deluge and perhaps post-Deluge events" p419), but that does not mean
>they do not give an explanation.>
>
>Well, O.K. I will back down my contention a notch on this one. They do
>attempt to explain fossil forests, but these are objects on the surface of
>the earth. What they don't tell you anything about is the vast amount of
>data found in oil wells from deep in the fossil record which would be in the
>middle of their flood year. How can grasses keep growing in the middle of
>their world wide deluge?
Again you say "What they don't tell you...". If they really believe
their global Flood theory, then one can understand them downplaying
evidence against it. They just do not see that evidence as being
important. It is wrong to conclude they *knowingly* misrepresent the
evidence.
I had a phone call the other day from Dr Carl Wieland, Managing
Director of the Australian Creation Science Foundation, over a letter
I wrote to him. We had a plesant chat. I told him I was a
Progressive Creationist, and did not believe in a global Flood. In a
calm, quiet, non-stresed way (ie. IMHO he was telling the truth as he
saw it), he said that he appreciated the evidence against a global
Flood, but he believed the Bible taught it, so the evidence against it
must be wrong. End of story! <g>
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>"This is patronising to us laymen. We may not be scientists, but
>we do have reasoning powers too, Glenn! <g> One could equally argue
>that scientists are all trained under a materialist-naturalist model,
>and this could predispose them to accept evolutionary arguments that
>laymen can see flaws in?>
>
GM>I have already apologized to Jim Bell whom I said it too. If you
>need an apology also, you got it. I should not have said it in the
>way I did. I am truly sorry. Please forgive me.
Of course I forgive you. 7 x 77 (remember) <g>
I would make the point here that I (and I am sure Jim) do not
challenge you on scientific matters, unless we have statements by
other scientists that counter what you say. Then it is up to you to
show where they are wrong, or where we misunderstand them.
>But the second half of your complaint raises an interesting issue. You feel
>patronized when I said what I did.
Actually, I was more speaking for Jim. But I have detected this theme
running through some of the comments that may suggest a "priesthood"
of scientists. Someone (it might even have been you?) recently
referred to us non-scientists as "the laity"! <g>
GM>How do you think the scientist feels when
>Christians continuously do charge theym as being so steeped in naturalistic
>training that they no longer have objectivity? Do you think they might feel
>the same way you did?
No, because I believe that is a very real possibility. Is it not as
fact that all scientists have been trained in a scientific methodology
based on a set of non-theistic assumptions?
GM>The plain fact is that we Christians do indeed
>constantly charge them with horrible things.These statements below act like a
>vaccine immunizing the Christian laity from having to believe anything that a
>scientist might say against the view of the apologists.
Well, in view of the terrible things that Darwin and his followers
have wrought on the Christian church, one can hardly blame Christians
for being defensive and cautious about accepting scientists views on
theological matters.
GM>After all, if
>scientists are biased, liars, conspirators or unethical, why do we have to
>believe anything they say?
Scientists may be "biased" but that does not make them "liars,
conspirators or unethical". But you yourself come close to saying the
same thing about Creation-Scientists.
GM>Where is the love our Lord said we should have for scientists?
Yes, we should love our enemies! <g> This is a ***joke*** Glenn!
Don't take it seriously.
GM>After reading these, remember, I don't see any Christians
>telling their brothers to tone down this rhetoric.
>
>***Being biased:
>
GM>"Evolutionists begin with the assumption that evolution is true,
>and from there they gather data and assemble charts to fit this
>preconception. Facts counter to the geologic column are considered
>in error, explained through geologic mechanisms like faulting or
>thrusting, whether or not there is supporting physical evidence, or
>simply shelved as quirks of nature."
>(Randy Wysong, Creation-Evolution Controversy, 1976, p. 392 cited in
>Kitchners Abusins Science 1982, p. 121)
Well, I am sorry, but there is an element of truth in what Wysong
says. Evolutionists *do* say that "evolution is a fact". And they do
use the fact of evolution as their guide in explaining so-called
anomalies in the geological column.
> and
>
GM>"Making evolution one of the 'Big Ideas' of science could only be
>proposed by philosophically biased scientists who have decided they
>want their viewpoint to dominate, not because it has any value in
>science education or proof in empirical science."~Richard B. Bliss
"Science Education - Its Methods and Purpose," Impact, April, 1989, p.
>iii.
Again, I see an element of truth in this.
>and
>
GM>"The fossils provide much more discouragement than
>support for Darwinism when they are examined objectively, but
>objective examination has rarely been the object of Darwinist
>paleontology." ~Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, (Downer's Grove:
>Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 86.
And this.
>
>*** conspirators:
>
GM>"Why are scientists so outraged because
>some people take an anti-evolutionary stand? Why do they not just ignore
>those who differ from their mechanistic views? But it is not so. To them
>catastrophism and teleology are fighting words. This attidude is unscientific
>and it seems to be part of a larger conspiracy aimed at the denial of a
>personal God, and particularly at discounting the atonement of Christ."
>Bolton Davidheiser, _Evolution and the Christian Faith_ (Grand Rapids: Baker
>Book House, 1969), p. 288
I've got Davidheiser in front of me. Read the whole page. He is
referring to a Newsweek article where The American Geological Society
were trying to rehabilitate catastrophism in such a way that they
could avoid giving any support to creationism. While I don't like to
use the word "conspiracy", I do agree with Davidheiser that fallen
unregenerate man (which includes non-Christian scientists) are at war
with God:
Rom 5:10 "For if, when we were God's enemies, we were
reconciled to him through the death of his Son..."; 1Cor 15:25 "For
he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet"; Col
1:21 "Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your
minds...";
Scripture does depict this as a "conspiracy": Ps 2:1-2 "Why do the
nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth
take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and
against his Anointed One. "Let us break their chains," they say, "and
throw off their fetters."
Lest you take this as just Old Testament poetic stuff, the early
church saw Psalm 2 "conspiracy theory" as explaining their situation:
Acts 4:25-27 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your
servant, our father David: "'Why do the nations rage and the peoples
plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers
gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One. Indeed
Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people
of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus,
whom you anointed." See also Ps 2:9 = Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15.
>**** liars:
>
GM>"To claim that Miller has provided the first step for spontaneous
>biogenesis involves a willful misleading of the uninformed general
>public in the interests of biased materialistic philosophy. The
>facts are purposely concealed in order to render plausible a
>materialistic philosophy of life. Thus science is manipulated in the
>interests of popular materialistic philosophies."~A. E. Wilder-Smith,
>The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, (San Diego:
>Master Books, 1981), p. 22-23
Sorry again Glenn, but I have to agree with Wilder-Smith. Darwinists
did use the Miller-Urey experiment to "to render plausible a
materialistic philosophy of life."
But I do not agree that there has been "a willful misleading" or that
"the facts are purposely concealed". IMHO it's just how Darwinists
(and Creation-Scientists) see it.
>****willing to compromise personal and professional integrity:
>
GM>"The entire scientific community has accepted the great age of the
>universe; indeed, it has built all its science upon that supposition.
>They will not give it up without a fight. In fact, they will never
>give it up, even if it means compromising their reason or even their
>professional integrity, for to admit creation is to admit the
>existence of the God of the Bible." Paul M. Steidl, _The Earth, The
Stars, and The Bible_ (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
>Reformed , 1979) p. 94.
Again, Steidl apparently honestly believes that "creation" = young
earth. His conclusions follow from that perceived axiom.
GM>While I should not have said what I said it is indeed ironic that
>we Christians get our hackles up for a patronizing statement!
I didn't get my "hackles" up, honest! <g>
But don't you see that Creation-Scientists have been radicalised by
the treatment they have received? What about the Scopes Trial fiasco?
Do you really maintain that Darwinism has not been the aggressor? I
have got a book here called "Telling Lies for God" by Prof. Ian
Plimer, an Australian Darwinist geologist. It leaves for dead anything
that I have ever seen Creation-Scientists say about Darwinists.
While I am not a Creation-Scientist, I sympathise with them greatly
and regard them as my brothers in Christ. I actually believe we are in
a spiritual war (Rev 12) and Satan is doing his best to start a civil
war among ourselves. Perhaps I can be more detached because I am not
in the thick of it like you are?
But I would emphasise that I don't see this in a naive "devils in red
horns hiding behind every scientist" way. Scripture depicts Satan as
very "crafty" (Gn 3:1) and that he "leads the whole world astray" (Rev
12:9). The question you might ask yourself is, what part has Darwinism
played in this process?
God bless.
Stephen