Peer review, smear review

Some people believe that “peer review” supposedly “does the same thing for science that the ‘inspected by #7’ sticker does for your t-shirt – provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it.” I say supposedly, because though in theory that may be true, in practice “not so much.” Or – perhaps – you still get peer-reviewed junk just like you get junk t-shirts even when they have been “inspected by #7”! Here is a fine example of that:

Academics Expose ‘Grievance Studies’ Field by Submitting Hoax Papers to Journals -- “In one particularly telling example, the academics submitted a paper to the feminist geography journal Gender, Place & Culture detailing the canine rape culture supposedly prevalent within dog parks.” 

The essay was made up out of whole cloth, and the peer-reviewed journal hastened it into print. The linked article details other such cases. Seven of twenty outlandishly outlandish articles were accepted and printed in so-called peer-reviewed journals. See also:

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals -- “A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that ‘the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts’.”

Is the Peer Review Process for Scientific Papers Broken? -- “...many of the most influential texts in the history of science were never put through the peer review process, including Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica, Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity, and James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 Nature paper on the structure of DNA.” 

In 1936, Albert Einstein—who was used to people like Planck making decisions about his papers without outside opinions—was incensed when the American journal Physical Review sent his submission to another physicist for evaluation. In a terse note to the editor, Einstein wrote:

“I see no reason to address the—in any case erroneous—comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.”

Probably most people perceive peer review as a reliable process, based on objective and unbiased facts. When peer-reviewed journals receive and print preposterous pieces (like those mentioned above), it becomes obvious that could not be further from the truth. Additionally, I think our recent journey into the Covid-19 era really highlighted the manuevering and bullying used to quell opposing opinions. Whether scientific, religious, cultural, or other peer-reviewed journals, most all have bought stock in a flawed process.

As someone has pointed out, the purveyors of a system supposedly rooted in science instead have a belief in peer review that is not scientific (i.e., not based on evidence). “How odd that science should be rooted in belief.” All is not well with the peer review process! Be aware and beware.

Scientific statements

A Duke’s Mixture (use discernment)

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” -- Richard Dawkins

“Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” -- Richard Dawkins (Dawkins believes “life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA!”)

“Science cannot tell you if it’s right or wrong for you to eat your own baby’s clone, but it can tell you that’s what you are actually doing. Then you can decide for yourself if you think it’s right or wrong.” -- Richard Dawkins

“There is a creeping danger of equating science with rationality, but what is beyond science is not necessarily irrational. Science cannot tell us for instance whether a poem or work of literature or a work of art and music is good or beautiful. Science can tell us that if you put strychnine into your grandmother’s tea it will kill her, but science cannot tell you whether it is morally right to do so.” -- John Lennox

“A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” -- C. S. Lewis

“You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn round and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.” -- Albert Einstein

“...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” -- Paul, an apostle

One day at a time

One (24 hour) day at a time: random excerpts on the early history of Genesis

Below you will find excerpts and observations on the first seven days of creation, which may pique your interest in studying the topic further.

The days of Creation: A semantic approach

“The meaning of words is important for clear communication. It is by their use and contrast that we can accurately arrive at correct biblical interpretation.”

How could Adam have named all the animals in a single day?

“Note that Scripture explicitly states that Adam named all the ‘livestock’ (Heb. behemah), the ‘birds of the air’ (Heb. oph hassamayim) and all the ‘beasts of the field’ (Heb. chayyah hassadeh). There is no indication that Adam named the fish in the sea, or any other marine organisms, nor any of the insects, beetles or arachnids.”

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

“The time when this [Genesis 1:28] took place must have been the sixth day, on which, according to Genesis 1:27, the man and woman were created: and there is no difficulty in this, since it would not have required much time to bring the animals to Adam to see what he would call them, as the animals of paradise are all we have to think of; and the deep sleep into which God caused the man to fall, till he had formed the woman from his rib, need not have continued long.”

How could so much take place on the 6th day?

There’s no reason to doubt these events could have taken place as part of a literal 24-hour day, but even if there was reason to doubt that happening the question shouldn’t be, “What do we think could or couldn’t have happened?” The question should be, “What does Scripture say happened?”

C.D. Ginsburg, cited by P. J. Wiseman, Clues To Creation In Genesis, London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1977, pp. 122-123

“The institution of the Sabbath on the seventh day, which if understood as an indefinite period would have no meaning for man, and the constant usage of this expression in Scripture to denote an ordinary day, with the few exceptions of poetical or oratorical diction, and the literal meaning which all commentators and Bible readers have assigned to it till within the last century, are additional proofs that the primitive record purports to intimate the expression ‘yom’ as a natural day.”

My own comment on two verses used to “disprove” 24-hour days in Genesis 1.

“‘Yom’ is elsewhere used of long periods of time, as in Psalm 90:4, which is cited in 2 Peter 3:8.” The references to God and time in Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 refer to normal years and normal days. If not, the instruction would make no sense. Day and year in these verses mean ordinary ones, which allows them to contrast and make the point. The Bible is not saying “a 1000 years is as a long period of time and a long period of time is as a 1000 years,” but that 1000 X 360 days and 24 hours are of no real consequence to God, since he is outside of time.

The Meaning of “Day” in Genesis

“Some writers have observed the absence of the article from the mention of each of the first five days. They have concluded that Moses must have meant to convey to his readers that at least those days were long periods of time. They have noted that the normal use of the article is to make the noun definite. Gleason Archer makes the following statement: ‘In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite.’ There are many examples where the number and noun occur without the article, yet the meaning is definite. Thirteen occurrences, similar to Genesis 1, use the noun without the article but with a number (Numbers 11:19; I Samuel 1:1; 1 Chronicles 12:39; II Chronicles 20:25; Ezra 8:15, 32; Nehemiah 2:11; Daniel 1:12, 14-15; 12:12-13, and Jonah 3:4). In each of these other occurrences, the English translation uses the definite article. The absence of the article in Genesis 1 does not mean that the days are long periods of time.”

Lost the source of this comment, and cannot now find it

“The Old Testament has at least 26 times when evening and morning are used in the same verse. Each time they occur, the meaning is that of a normal day. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the point: Exodus 16:8 says, ‘And Moses said, this shall be when the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full.’ Also Exodus 18:13, ‘and the people stood by Moses from the morning until the evening.’”

Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?

“It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4.”

The Hebrew Yom: Taking One Day at a Time

“...the former position—that the days are literal 24-hour days—is the historic position that the church has adopted since New Testament times... For a detailed account of what the early church fathers believed about the literal 24-hour interpretation of the Hebrew yom, see chapter 3 of Sarfati, J. (2004), Refuting Compromise, (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), pp 107–139.”

The Moody Bible Commentary

“The argument that this naming of the animals would have taken more than a single day is not valid. The primary purpose of bringing the animals before Adam was not to give them names, but rather to highlight his need for a woman, which a relatively small number of animals would suffice to establish. Indeed the Hebrew word names (shemot) is perfectly consistent with the understanding that Adam simply gave general designations to each general category or class of animal (e.g. ‘equine,’ ‘serpentine,’ ‘canine,’ etc.) rather than precise labels such as ‘Equus ferus caballus,’ ‘Crotalus horridus,’ ‘Canis lupus familiaris,’ let alone ‘Spot’ or ‘Rex.’”

24 Hour-Days

The word “day” is used three ways in the Bible – (1) a 24 hour cycle (day & night, an entire revolution of the earth); (2) the period of time between sunrise and sunset (i.e. daylight); or (3) some unspecified period of time (i.e. figurative). This introduces the possibility that the days of creation – those seven days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis 1:1–2:3 in theory might be any one of these three.[i] Which is biblically correct?

Reasons that the first seven days are 24-hour periods

• “Day” in the Bible sometimes means indefinite, undefined, or prolonged periods (Cf. 2 Tim. 4:8). However, in all five of Moses’s books (the Pentateuch) when “day” is used with a numerical adjective,[ii] its meaning is restricted to a literal 24-hour day (Cf. Exod. 12:15; Lev. 23:5; Num. 29:17; Deut. 5:14). Genesis chapter 1-2 is no exception.
• The specific mention of evening and morning indicates that the Bible is speaking of 24-hour days. The writer’s intent is to describe these days just like any other days. Evening and morning is meaningless if referring to some unknown length of time. Bible days began at sunset rather than at midnight as our days (Cf. Gen. 1:5; Exod. 12:18; Lev. 23:32).
• If one interprets the evening as the first half of an extended period of time – say, 1000 years, for example – and the morning the second half, then an evening lasted 500 years and a morning 500 years. The evening is darkness and the day is light (Gen. 1:4-5). What happened to the plants created on the third day when the 500-year evening of the fourth day came? The same goes for the animals, and so on.
• Gen. 1:14 ties the work of the “lights in the firmament of the heaven” not only to the division of day and night, but also to dividing time into years. If normal units of time are not referenced, the text becomes obscure and abstruse.
• Adam was 930 years old when he died (Cf. Gen. 5:5). If Genesis Chapter 1 days were 1000-year periods, Adam would have been over 1000 years old on the second day of his existence and over 2000 by the time he died – since he was created on the sixth day. 930 years old becomes meaningless, whereas the writer clearly intends to convey chronological/genealogical history. The first seven days were the same kind of days Adam lived all of his life, and by which the days of his life were counted. If each day of Adam’s life were 1000 years, Adam would have been around 334,800,000 years old when he died![iii]
• Why would it take God 6000 years to create the world? God did not need 1000-year days – the theistic evolutionists need that length of time to explain their views. The Genesis account tells of a God who spoke and things came into existence. None said these days were ages before the scientists said the earth was billions of years old. The motive behind lengthening the first seven days is make the Bible conform to science – to fit the belief that the earth if billions of years old. Many scientific theories oppose God’s Word. No proven scientific fact disagrees with the Bible. Should scientists ever arrive at the truth, they will find Bible-believers are already there! 
• Man’s six work days correspond precisely to God’s six work days. Man’s day of rest corresponds to God’s day of rest. Man’s seven-day week is the same as God’s seven-day week. See Exodus 20:8-11. The first seven days are the same kind of days as our 24-hour days – the first week a week by which all weeks thereafter are patterned. The truth is plain and simple in Genesis, if we have eyes to see and are not searching for something else.
• Jesus and his disciples accepted Genesis 1 and 2 as plain, simple, straightforward history. When Jesus taught concerning marriage, he went back to “the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6). God made them male and female.” When he spoke of “that tribulation” he made comparison to real history – “the beginning of the creation which God created until now” (Mark 13:19). When Paul sought to explain the origin of sin (Rom. 5:12-14) or the fact of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:45), he rooted his argument in real biblical history. Over and over the biblical writers, in both Old and New Testaments, accepted the creation account as written, without excuse.

---

[i] This writing is a revision of 7 things about the first 7 days from February 2013.

[ii] That is, “first day” (Gen. 1:5), “second day” (Gen. 1:8), “third day” (Gen. 1:13), “fourth day” (Gen. 1:19), “fifth day” (Gen. 1:23), “sixth day” (Gen. 1:31), “seventh day” (Gen. 2:3).

[iii] 930 years X 1000 year-days X 360 days in a year equals 334,800,000 years.

When you die

I'm not advocating the "truth" of the following articles, but they make interesting reading.

What Happens After You Die? The Brain Keeps Working Long Enough for Thoughts to Form -- "The current medical definition of death is when the heart stops beating...from that point, it takes up to 20 seconds before brain waves are no longer detectable."

Are 'Flatliners' Really Conscious After Death? -- "Parnia and his colleagues are currently investigating the pervasiveness of consciousness after death."

James 2:26 "...the body without the spirit is dead..."

Science cannot tell you

"There is a creeping danger of equating science with rationality, but what is beyond science is not necessarily irrational. Science cannot tell us for instance whether a poem or work of literature or a work of art and music is good or beautiful. Science can tell us that if you put strychnine into your grandmother’s tea it will kill her, but science cannot tell you whether it is morally right to do so." -- John Lennox

Ichneumonidae

Ichneumonidae (Ichneumon Wasps) are a parasitic family of wasps that (usually) lay their eggs on or into a host body (e.g. butterfly larvae/caterpillar). The caterpillar is the food source of the ichneumonidae larva once it hatches.

Charles Darwin discussed the ichneumonidae regarding his views on God and religion. He wrote, “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.”

Darwin’s persuasion or lack thereof is simply another belief system of his own making. It has no bearing on whether there is a God, whether he is beneficent and omnipotent, or whether he created the ichneumonidae and the caterpillars upon which they live.

Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton in A short Schem of the true Religion

Opposite to the first is Atheism in profession & Idolatry in practise. Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to beleive that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.Opposite to [Godliness] is atheism in profession, and idolatry in practise. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face, and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes, and one mouth under the nose, and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the sholders and two legs on the hips, one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the lens, all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.

The Dinosaur and the Dodo Bird

Recently we made a trip to Glen Rose, Texas, including Creation Evidence Museum, Dinosaur Valley State Park and Dinosaur World. Glen Rose is probably best known for and associated with dinosaurs by outsiders. The Creation Evidence Museum story of dinosaurs promotes a biblical worldview of creation, while Dinosaur Valley State Park and Dinosaur World accept the standard evolutionary origins model.

Most everyone seems to have heard of the dodo bird, even though it was only known to live on one island in the Indian Ocean, Mauritius and has been extinct over 300 years. The dodo has suffered the indignity of perceived stupidity and was even for a time called a "scientific fraud". I've always joked that we have pretty well survived the extinction of the dodo bird and are none the worse for it, but in a way its extinction is a sad commentary on human interaction with the rest of God's creation. In 1977 University of Wisconsin ornithologist Stanley Temple claimed that the extinction of the dodo bird was responsible for the near extinction of the tambalacoque tree in Mauritius -- theorizing that the seeds of the tambalacoque germinated only after passing through the digestive system of the dodo bird. An interesting theory, it has since been proven false, though it still finds much press as the truth.

An interesting recent development in the study of the dinosaur is the discovery of "soft tissue" (blood cells and blood vessels). Since most modern scientists reject creation and a young earth, and since the Tyrannosaurus rex fossil with the soft tissue was dated at 70 million years, and and since biochemical decay rates do not allow for findings of soft tissue this old, there was a dilemma. Mary Schweitzer, the paleontologist who made the discovery, stated: "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this." Evolutionary scientists, including Schweitzer, complain that her "research has been hijacked by 'young earth' creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years." A statement of paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr. (University of Maryland) shows how evolutionary scientists dogmatically approach the matter. He says that Schweitzer’s work is "showing us we really don’t understand decay." They are only willing to ask the decay question -- not the age of the earth question! That invokes too many problems for their well-set theories. Some people act as if scientists and paleontologists* are neutral arbiters of nature's truths, with no agendas or presuppositions. This simply isn't true. They can be driven by frame of reference, feelings, folly, fame and fortune.

Illustrative of such states of mind is the 19th century "Bone Wars" competition between paleontologists Edward Drinker Cope and Othniel C. Marsh. Among other things, the Bone Wars gave us the well-beloved Brontosaurus. It is "alive and well" today, even though it never actually existed and hasn't been recognized by paleontologists for well over 100 years!

"Nebraska Man" was not only a case of mistaken identity, but also of scientific bluster and braggadocio. In short Nebraska Man was a possible human ancestor identified on the basis of a tooth found in Nebraska in 1917. Though found by another, Henry F. Osborn made the identification, though within the decade the ID was retracted when it was discovered to be was a peccary/wild pig tooth. Osborn engaged in gleeful repartee with William Jennings Bryan and even "suggested mockingly, the animal should have been named Bryopithecus 'after the most distinguished Primate which the State of Nebraska has thus far produced'." [Bryan was from Nebraska. Osborn was engaged to testify on behalf of John Scopes and evolution at the Scopes Monkey Trial (The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes). Bryan was engaged in the prosecution. Before the trial began, Osborn went quiet about Nebraska Man and opted out of testifying.]

David R. Herhey investigated "The Widespread Misconception that the Tambalacoque or Calvaria Tree Absolutely Required the Dodo Bird for its Seeds to Germinate" and reported his findings in Plant Science Bulletin, Volume 50, Number 4, Winter 2004. His "Lessons From The Dodo-Tambalacoque Myth" provide welcome advice to our "dinosaur approach" as well.

1. Peer review in even the most prestigious journals, such as Science, sometimes fails and results in flawed articles being published. Therefore, readers should retain a healthy scientific skepticism even for published articles. Rigorously, but objectively, evaluate the experiments and arguments that the author(s) makes.
2. Once a flawed, but appealing, hypothesis is published in a prestigious scientific journal, it may have tremendous staying power even when rebutted in print.
3. Scientific articles sometimes lack the required scientific objectivity and try to provide only support for an hypothesis and ignore contrary evidence or alternative hypothesis.

I'm no scientist, but I don't have to believe something just because scientists say so. According to evolution, I should be able to eat worms and bang my head against a tree every day, and in a billion or so years my descendants could become human woodpeckers. According to common sense, I'd die of head trauma and intestinal problems and my descendants would politely pronounce my eccentricity and quietly go about their human choices.

* Scientists who study the fossil record

Evolution and Creationism

I was surprised and dismayed on Friday April 29. That day I saw Dr. Kenneth Price’s Op-Ed piece "Evolution and Creationism" in the Daily Sentinel newspaper.[1] I was surprised that there was a felt need (by either the newspaper or Dr. Price) to have a PhD rebut a letter to the editor from a layperson. I was dismayed that Dr. Price’s view is highlighted with about five times the space as Ms. Lynette Sanders’s short letter On evolution and creationism. I think the paper ought to invite some other doctor, scientist or theologian to offer an Op-Ed rebuttal to Dr. Price’s piece. Not expecting that to happen; though I am neither doctor, scientist or theologian I offer here some brief commentary on Price’s piece.

Evolution and Creation “faith-based”
Excusing the evolutionary world-view from the charge of being “faith-based”, Dr. Price writes, “It requires that ‘faith’ be synonymous with a belief in the things that we directly observe, a belief in the power of valid logical thinking to reach conclusions that are absolutely true within our set of assumptions, and a willingness, even a duty, to change those assumptions when the conclusions drawn from them do not conform to new observations. These are three elements necessary for the practice of science.” The problem here is that he leaves out the glue which adheres these elements together in an evolutionary world-view -- yes, faith. Faith must fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle that are not within direct observation and prop up the droops in their logical thinking. Furthermore, not faith, but doctrine often keeps the scientific community -- at least at the point of education of the masses -- continuing to put forth assumptions and conclusions that have long been discredited. Shame, shame.

Radiometric dating of the age of the earth
As to the “radiometric dating of the age of the earth,” Dr. Price stumps around the assumptions of it by giving a parable about dice and the laws of probability.[2] All that aside, while many “radiometric measurements can be verified” other radiometric measurements have been proven false. Dr. Tas Walker has pointed out the following truths: “radio-isotope dates are not a scientific fact but are interpretations driven by the [long-age] paradigm,” and “Radiometric dates are only accepted if they agree with what geologists already believe the age should be.” Very interesting! It seems that Ms. Sanders’s conclusion that radiometric dating is unreliable has a ring of truth to it after all.

Creationists believe the infallible God. Educated people believe Newton's Theory of Gravitation. [3]
In his third point, Dr. Price’s true feelings for religion versus science come through loud and clear. He writes, “In these areas humankind has created a truly universal and highly useful, though not eternally immutable, body of knowledge with none of the mayhem, violence and bloodshed that has in the past, and still does characterize, the spread of religious ideas.” Oh, that we could believe such a claim! Religious ideas cause mayhem, violence and bloodshed while science and mathematics are responsible for nothing. Price implies that if people would leave behind their religion the world would be a much more blissful non-violent place. Atheists, evolutionists and humanists very often claim that religion is the number one cause of violence and war throughout history. This claim is still being repeated, even though it has been debunked. Encyclopedia of Wars, by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, documents nearly 1800 wars. The authors categorize 123 of those wars as being religious in nature. This is slightly less than 7% of all wars chronicled by Phillips and Axelrod.[4]

[1] You must have a subscription in order to read the Op-Ed piece at the link above. According to the Sentinel, “Kenneth Price has a Ph.D. in mathematics, has done graduate study in physics and the theory of computation and has had a life-long interest in the study of religion, logic, epistemology and Constitutional issues and interpretation.” Looks like someone called out the big guns against the annoying little believers of Nacogdoches who write letters to the editor!
[2] Evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse tells us “Improbable things happen all the time, you see, and the fact that something is improbable does not mean that it cannot happen.” True; and a little faith, eh?
[3] On the other hand, Isaac Newton was educated and believed in both the Theory of Gravitation and the infallible God!
[4] The authors, both history professors, worked for 10 years compiling this encyclopedia. According to the American Library Association the 3-volume set is “very readable and apparently well-researched” and “would be an excellent purchase for high-school, college, and public libraries.”

Creation and other science links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• Biblical reasons to doubt Justin Taylor’s doubts about the creation days being 24-hour periods -- "It is interesting; but I think ultimately very weak."
• Can Faith and Science Coexist? Mathematician and Christian John Lennox Responds -- "All scientists presuppose and therefore have faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe. Einstein could not have been a scientist without this faith...The mathematical intelligibility of nature is evidence for a rational spirit behind the universe."
• Did God make Anything According to Genesis One? -- "...one scholar has emerged over the past several years with a 'revolutionary' explanation. Namely, that Genesis 1 doesn't describe God 'making' anything."
• Should We Doubt Young Earth Creationism? -- "One issue often debated by current Christians is the significance of young earth creationism (YEC)."
• 7 Unhealthiest Foods On The Planet -- "These seemingly innocent foods should be placed on your personal 'no-eat' list."

Trumpet Blasts

"The same God who by the hand of the prophet wrote on parchment, by the hand of the storm has written on the rock...Science and revelation are the bass and the soprano of the same tune." -- T. De Witt Talmage

"The great temple of nature has two orchestras--the orchestra of Revelation and the orchestra of Science. The orchestra of Revelation has its musical instruments all strung, and it is ready for a burst of eternal accord. Science is only stringing its instruments." -- T. De Witt Talmage

Radiometric dating

Dr. Brandon van der Ventel, a Nuclear Physicist from South Africa, gave the following information to Creation Magazine on the subject of Radiometric dating:

"Radiometric dating does not measure the age directly, but rather the ratio of the radioactive (unstable) parent nucleus to the stable daughter nucleus, as well as the present decay rate. However, several assumptions need to be made to proceed with the calculation:

"First, one needs to assume that there were no daughter nuclei present at the start; that is, the presence of the daughter nucleus is entirely due to the decay.

"Second, there had to be no leakage of either parent or daughter nuclei into or out of the sample. But how can we be sure of any of these assumptions if no-one was present when the rocks were formed or if the change in the elements were not monitored over the entire geological history?

"Third, the equation is valid only if the decay rate (λ) is a constant, and there is much evidence against this."

Science and Faith, Science or Faith?

A friend asked if I might comment on Peter Enns’ blog post concerning Episcopalians on Science and Faith. In it Enns highly recommends the Episcopalian view – as supported in a resolution of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church “Affirming the Compatibility of Science and the Christian Faith” – and suggests that evangelicals might be able to learn something from them. No doubt evangelicals, as all of us, need to learn something, but we might first wonder just who they are. The Episcopalians we know, but who are the evangelicals?

Michael Luo tells us that even Evangelicals Debate the Meaning of 'Evangelical'. According to the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals,* “The term 'Evangelicalism' is a wide-reaching definitional 'canopy' that covers a diverse number of Protestant traditions, denominations, organizations, and churches.” They apply it to “the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” Merriam-Webster gives one meaning of evangelical as "Protestant" while another is "of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism." Now that is a wide enough range to have little clarity! Considering the context of Enns' piece, I have to think that what he refers to as evangelical leans toward fundamentalism, at least holding the classic fundamentals of the faith and certainly inerrancy of the Bible. Wikipedia claims, “Evangelicalism may sometimes be perceived as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.”

Peter Enns is a religious instructor on the liberal end of the theological spectrum. He is an Affiliate Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University in St. Davids, PA.** Enns is author of The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, a book that "offers a way forward by explaining how this tension is caused not by the discoveries of science but by false expectations about the biblical texts" and "helps readers reconcile the teachings of the Bible with the widely held evolutionary view of beginnings..." A focus of Enns is "re-educating" people on the Bible so they can reconcile it with "scientific truth."

Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and biblicists might not strongly object to the many of the things said in this Episcopalian resolution, but would strenuously object to its intent. For example, the archives research report found this resolution was "directly related" to a 2006 resolution which stated: “That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith...”

First, a few statements from Enns' piece, whether his or from the Episcopal catechism, with some brief comments

This Catechism is a breath of fresh air compared to the handwringing and fear that dominates the evangelical discussion.
I am not sure what "handwringing and fear...dominates the evangelical discussion." No doubt Enns has something in mind, but he does not explain. There may be some who are wringing their hands in fear of the discoveries of science, but the rest of us do not fear that God-given revelation will be overturned by man-driven specialization. Skeptics will come and skeptics will go. Heaven and earth -- the very textbook of the scientists -- shall pass away, but God's Word shall stand. It is forever settled in heaven.

The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God’s universe in nature not Scripture.
All but the most rigid fundamentalists would agree with both of these statements. But this is the wrong question. It is not, "Did God give us a science textbook," rather "Did God get some of His information wrong in His revelation to man?" Science as we understand it in this discussion is in its very essence a study of nature and not Scripture. The real dividing line is between those who believe that the Bible is the accurate revelation of God through inspiration to men of God to write the Scriptures, or a hodge-podge of information from various ancient sources which are variably reliable and unreliable. What can we believe?

The Bible’s theological declarations about God and creation remain true because they are not dependent upon the ancient world-picture in which they appear.
It seems useful to many to separate the "theological declarations" of the Bible from the extraneous historical and scientific material within which they appear. But this is pipe dream. Why should anyone believe that the theological declarations are any more valid than the “ancient world-view” within which they appear?  Why believe what the Bible says about God if we can't even believe it about the subjects we can "test"? Whom will we trust to divide the true from the false? If the Bible is not an inspired book, why should we expect it to have true theological declarations about God and creation? Why not the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita or the Zend Avesta? Might they not serve just as well?

Until evangelicals find a way to get to these points–quickly–there will be no true conversation on science and faith.
Maybe a simpler (and more honest) statement would be for Enns to write that if evangelicals don’t give up what they believe and acquiesce to the view held forth by scientists, then we have nothing to contribute to the conversation. Sounds like the “true conversation” mainly agrees with him!

Three observations about Peter Enns’ post and the religion vs. science debate

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church prefer science above religion. No, they would not say it that way. That might say that they are compatible, each valid in its own sphere. But the preference is seen in that religion – particularly the statements of the Bible – are a priori excluded from informing us on nature, creation and evolution. They are not valid because they do not complement, and sometimes contradict, what they think they observe in nature. And, of course, we could not be wrong about what we observe in nature. Obviously, “we understand the physical world more accurately than ancient people.”

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church exude arrogance toward those with whom they disagree (not that there is no arrogance among evangelicals). Obviously, “we understand the physical world more accurately than ancient people.” Truthfully, we understand some things about the physical world more accurately than ancient people, we think we understand all things about the physical world more accurately than ancient people, and in some cases we do not understand the physical world as accurately as ancient people. Before you write that statement off as an exercise in ignorance, search out some scientific or academic research that tells about not understanding how something was accomplished by some ancient civilization – or how the same thing could be accomplished by modern civilization. In what we know, we stand on the shoulders of the people who went before us. We have also lost some of the knowledge of those who went before us. And maybe, just maybe, Moses, Paul, and the 21st century believers who accept them at face value aren’t quite the Neanderthals you perceive us to be. But if we are, hey, we’re just too stupid to know it.

Peter Enns and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church are not the final authority. Well, Enns probably is the final authority in his classroom when he’s grading papers. And the General Convention of the Episcopal Church does exercise a degree of authority over the church in the United States. But if I were to search for a final authority above all authorities, I would settle my search for that authority in Jesus Christ. If He is who He says He is, we know He understands the physical world more accurately than all ancient people and all modern people combined. He understands it absolutely accurately. Speaking to the Pharisees concerning marriage, Jesus said “...from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6).” Jesus credits the creation of man to God, Who made them from the beginning and not through billions of years of evolution. He also places their son Abel as an historical person in the beginning of time (Luke 11:50-51).*** Could Jesus be a credible Saviour and Son of God and not know these things more accurately than any people?

Conclusion

I find myself on opposite sides of the river from Peter Enns on the subject of the compatibility of science and religion. I don’t identify myself as an evangelical, though the world may thus label me. I don’t refer to myself as an evangelical, but I probably fit Enns’ description of those who need to learn something. But I resolutely refuse to learn his “something” represented in “Episcopalians on Science and Faith: gettin’ it done.” I freely own that Enns is more intelligent than I. I don’t doubt he is sincere. But on the subject of creation and evolution, faith and science, I self-consciously submit to the wisdom of Jesus Christ, who knows all things, both in the physical world and the spiritual world, more accurately than Peter Enns or I, more accurately than the General Convention of the Episcopal Church or the National Association of Evangelicals, more accurately that all the scientists and all the theologians. 

Is our Saviour credible? Can we believe what He said about creation? Or look we for another?

* The Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals is a research center and a program of Wheaton College.
** Eastern is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA. One might expect the university's Doctrinal Statement to be understood as "evangelical" and that the statement "We believe that God created human beings, male and female" should be taken in its simplest meaning to the exclusion of evolution. It apparently is not necessary, though, since every teacher is to subscribe to the Doctrinal Statement or "withdraw from all connections with the University" if they are not in accord with it.
*** Jesus matter-of-factly spoke of the events recorded in Genesis (and elsewhere in the Old Testament) as historical facts and did not allegorize them. He described them in the manner they were recorded. For examples: Adam and Eve as the first marriage, Abel their son as the first person murdered, that God made the Sabbath, Noah and the Flood, Moses and the serpent in the wilderness, the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites, Lot and his wife, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

A Theist commends An Atheist Defends Religion

An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion than without It, Bruce Sheiman. New York: Alpha/Penguin Group, 2009, 239 pages. ISBN 9781592578542, $14.95.

This book is a welcome relief from anti-religious diatribes such as The God Delusion by atheist Richard Dawkins. Unlike those books, An Atheist Defends Religion is written by an atheist who sees religion as a valuable asset to society even though he does not embrace it. Unlike those atheists who want, when they have reached the top of the hill, to push the prophet and the priest down to their demise, Sheiman believes the world is a better place because of religion (pp. ix-x).

The back cover describes the author as "an atheist who wants to believe in God." After reading the book, I would describe Bruce Sheiman as "an atheist who does not want to believe in a random chaotic world without purpose."

The book is designed to reach "the 'moderate majority' of religious America: people who are not militant atheists or literalist believers; people who accept that science and religion are essential for a fulfilling life (p. vi)."

Sheiman is a committed atheist who accepts the prevailing theories of science, big bang evolution, and so forth. He does not defend any particular religion, though it is clear that he believes the enlightenment of the present world arrives mostly through the progress of Christianity.

There are a few defects in the book, but they do not greatly obstruct its usefulness. An Atheist Defends Religion has neither index nor footnotes/endnotes. Both would be helpful. After defining fundamentalism as a form of extremism (chapter 6), I was disappointed that Sheiman throws all theists who believe in a literal creation into the "fundamentalist theism" pot (pp. 145, 148) -- a pot of crackpots, radicals and extremists -- even though there is great diversity of belief and action within this group.

The end of the book reveals a slightly different view and conclusion than one might expect from the title. This work is not only a defense of religion, but an attempt to move the fringes toward a compromised middle where science and religion co-exist -- "a Third Way, a compromise path between two polar opposites (p. 219)." In Sheiman's Third Way equation, there is no room for militant atheists like Richard Dawkins or fundamentalist Bible believers who will not believe the evolutionary origins of science. It may forecast a milquetoast world toward which we move -- one in which freedom of speech is jettisoned for the tolerance of toleration and the fringes are repudiated as hate-speakers and incarcerated as evil-doers. This is not the author's intent, but could be an adverse side effect of such as vision.

I cannot accept his proposal, though I enjoyed the book and consider it worth reading. It will make you think. It is also a conversation the brightest conservative Christian thinkers need to engage.

Nye, Ham, Science, Creation, Philosophy

I recently posted on Bill Nye, the Science Guy. Thought this might be an interesting follow-up:
Bill Nye the Humanist Guy vs. Ken Ham the Creationist Man

You might also find this interesting:
Philosophy v science: which can answer the big questions of life?

Or perhaps:
Creationism Is Evolving

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth

From a review by Paul R. Bruggink: "Since Young Earth Creationists believe that God's Word trumps God's works every time, the only approach that would have a chance of succeeding in getting YECs to consider the possibility of Old Earth Creationism would be to demonstrate that the Bible can be interpreted to support (or at least not preclude) OEC."

I recently ran across the book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, by David Snoke on the internet/Amazon. I thought this sounded interesting. It purports to contain "a biblical case". And as the above reviewer notes, the only approach that would succeed in getting biblicists to consider "Old Earth Creationism would be to demonstrate that the Bible can be interpreted to support" it. But as I considered to read about it, it sounds suspect whether the book really makes "a biblical case". In her Review, Lita Cosner calls it "a pathetic case" rather than a biblical case. It sounds like Snoke's views may be driven as much or more by science than by the Bible. A very different Review by Martin LaBar.

I had originally thought this might be an interesting read, but now I don't think I'll bother. Has anybody out there read it?

DNA, math and evolution

In a recent Time magazine article I saw, the question was asked, "What Makes us Different?" Answer: "Not very much, when you look at our DNA." According to the author, "When it comes to DNA, a human is closer to a chimp than a mouse is to a rat." What does this prove? That "a human is closer to a chimp than a mouse is to a rat"; that, ultimately, chimps ain't human. It doesn't prove that a human evolved from a chimp, a rat from a mouse or that any of them have common ancestors.

Wikipedia states "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions for the biological development of a cellular form of life or a virus....DNA consists of a pair of molecules, organized as strands running start-to-end and joined by hydrogen bonds along their lengths." Whatever all that means!

To me it seems that the Time writer as well as others hope to direct us toward the conclusion that DNA supports the theory of evolution. What seems more likely is that the complexity of DNA challenges the theory of evolution. Leaving DNA and taking a simple example, what is the mathematical likelihood of the evolution of just one form of life? If that life is continued by sexual reproduction, what is the likelihood of both male and female evolving, and beyond that, evolving at the same time so as to be able to reproduce? Now that is just one. But what about thousands of animate life forms as well as inimate things evolving all at the right time in and for such a cycle of life so as to support the continuation of life? And on and on. The mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution seems mind-boggling to me.

Animation of a section of DNA rotating illustrates a great deal of complexity.

Earth warmest in 12,000 years

An article in our newspaper today discussed a study conducted by scientists. The study claims that the earth has reached its warmest point in the last 12,000 years. The study "also found that the planet has warmed to within one degree Celsius of the hottest temperature of the last million years."

Since this study is scientific rather than political, one would assume that it is not agenda driven. But I must say that I wonder about it. I'd like to see discussion of who recorded the earth's temperatures 12,000 years ago. And if they didn't have access to records of 12,000 year old scientists/meteorologists, then explain how they know the temperature of the earth 12,000 years ago.

Anyone know from whence this claim?