Embedded Files
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
AR 23:25 - When evolutionists attack
In this issue:
ORIGINS - Theistic evolutionist attacks young-earth creationism for Skeptical Inquirer magazine
+ SI also rips into Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross
+ Smithsonian explains "How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution"
Apologia Report 23:25 (1,391)
August 8, 2018
ORIGINS
Skeptical Inquirer has featured a running conflict on young-earth creationism that began with "Twenty-One Reasons Noah's Worldwide Flood Never Happened" by Lorence G. Collins, retired professor of geology at Cal State Northridge (Mar/Apr '18, pp50-53). His opening line: "Young-Earth creationists claim that the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon and the Mesozoic sedimentary rocks of the Grand Staircase north of the canyon, in which Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks occur, were deposited during Noah's worldwide flood about 4,500 years ago." Each of Collins' "21 reasons" are roughly ten-line paragraphs on various technical issues which are said to conflict with the young earth position.
The Jul/Aug '18 issue of SI includes a "Follow Up" by Collins (pp55-58) regarding the above item, noting that "the creationist organization Answers in Genesis produced a YouTube video <www.bit.ly/2LZrPso> in which Andrew Snelling criticized some of the reasons I presented in the article for why such a worldwide flood could not have happened. Snelling, a geologist, is director of research for Answers in Genesis. As a lead-in to this video, Ken Ham pointed out that there were many people working for Answers in Genesis with PhDs who are well trained in science and who support the interpretations presented by Snelling, and he implied that my science was not as good as theirs.
"In the course of the video, Snelling argues that I have preconceived uniformitarianism views that differ from the biblical ones that the young-Earth creationists have. However, in either case, because the creationists call themselves 'creation scientists,' our differences in opinion must be based on scientific evidence and not necessarily on our positions with respect to interpreting the Bible. ... I and most other mainline Christians who are scientists do not believe that the Bible was written to be a science textbook. ... [The Bible] does not answer the questions of when, where, and how creation was done. Science answers these questions.
"In Ken Ham's introduction and in the video, there was no attack on me for being a Christian, but he, Snelling, and others from Answers in Genesis were irked that I had published the article in Skeptical Inquirer and gave ammunition to atheists to attack the young-Earth creationists. Snelling essentially threw down the gauntlet, so to speak, and challenged me to give real scientific evidence. ... Therefore, in this follow-up response I have chosen five of the twenty-one reasons to demonstrate that Snelling has not done *his* homework. There is not enough space in this short response to give scientific justifications for all twenty-one reasons I provided. Here are the five reasons that I address." They discuss: 1) the origin of salt and gypsum deposits, 2) sand dunes with giant cross-bedding in the Mesozoic rocks of Zion National Park, 3) that raindrop prints occur in many places around the world, 4) coccoliths in the White Cliffs of Dover, and 5) an experiment done on a live olive tree by Charles Munroe III.
Collins concludes: "I agree that I look at many situations from a uniformitarianism point of view, but geologists recognize that not all processes that occur during geologic history are necessarily slow events occurring over millions of years. ... But young-Earth creationists cannot decide that uniformitarianism does not work during the Genesis week and up until Noah's flood and then decide that they will accept such processes at other times. ...
"[Snelling] chooses data that he thinks fit his model and ignores data that do not fit. Science is not done that way. As I said in my original Skeptical Inquirer article, it only takes one ugly fact to ruin a beautiful hypothesis."
Unrelated to the above, the May/Jun '18 issue of SI includes "Sorry, 'Theistic Science' Is Not Science" by retired research psychologist Brian Bolton (p50-53), which reviews Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity (2nd. ed.), by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe (RTB) <reasons.org> [1]. Bolton's approach is to "outline the major violations of scientific logic embodied in their work." This includes: 1) "the Genesis account is held to be literally true [which] contravenes the basic assumption of scientific hypothesis testing, which requires that negative evidence result in rejection of the tentative propositions that are formulated." 2) "Rana and Ross continually invoke God's motives and actions in explaining scientific research findings or dismissing evidence that contradicts their creationist claims." 3) "Rana and Ross by themselves generate all conclusions about the validity of the RTB model, even when their opinions are flatly contradicted by the scientific consensus." 4) "Rana and Ross repeatedly engage in circular reasoning in defending the RTB human origins model against unsupportive or contradictory findings." And 5) the creation/evolution "comparison is unwarranted because the former is faith-based while the latter is evidence-based."
Another telling objection is that "In what appears to be an inconsistency with their scriptural inerrancy assumption, Rana and Ross state that the RTB model represents only one of many possible biblically derived models for humanity's origins."
This is followed by "twenty arguments, interpretations, and conclusions [that] exemplify problems with [their] scientific reasoning." Bolton reduces these to objections against three types of rationale used by Rana and Ross: ad hoc theological explanations, vague criticisms, and non-specific objections.
To his laundry list of complaints Bolton goes on to add "endless excuse-making and outright denial of scientific consensus." Even so, Bolton concludes: "Finally, I want to express my admiration for the tremendous energy and commitment that Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross demonstrate for their work. ... I think their efforts are misguided, but my critical comments should not in any way be construed as questioning their integrity. From the perspective of science, they are simply wrong."
"How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution" by Rachel E. Gross -- begins: "For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian [Institution] traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins." One of them, Rick Potts (raised Protestant, but not an "atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist") believes that "human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world" and that fuels his approach. Here we discover what they learned about how NOT to talk to evangelicals about evolution.
An earlier presentation, "What Does It Mean to Be Human?," eventually helped them realize that "the only people coming to the exhibit were those who had no quarrel with the science of evolution. In order to reach the more than 100 million Americans who still question that science, [Potts] would have to take the evidence - carefully packaged - to them.
"Such was the origin of the Human Origins Traveling Exhibit, which wrapped up last year. The idea was to bring key parts of the permanent installation in the nation's capital to diverse communities, including ones that were rural, religious, remote. At least 10 of the 19 sites the Smithsonian visited were deemed 'challenging' - places where the researchers suspected that evolution might still be a contentious subject, for religious or other reasons. The exhibit <www.s.si.edu/2vHJ3QJ> would be accompanied by a team of clergy members and scientists handpicked by the Smithsonian, and they would engage the public and local clergy in conversations about this fraught topic.
"This project was funded in part by the John Templeton Foundation....
"But merely teaching evolutionary science wasn't the point. Potts was going for something more subtle: Not conversion, but conversation.
"'Our goal is to lower the temperature,' he says. ...
"In 2017, biology education researchers at Arizona State University tested whether teaching strategies could lower this sense of conflict. ... By the end of the class, the authors noted <www.bit.ly/2McWxOC> in a paper, students who perceived a conflict were reduced by half, leading them to conclude that discussing the compatibility of religion and evolution 'can have a positive impact on students that may extend beyond the classroom.'
"This work is part of a wider movement seeking to bridge the gap between evolutionary science and religion - whether real or perceived. The big players include the BioLogos Foundation <biologos.org>, an organization that stresses the compatibility of Christianity and science founded by Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion (DoSER) <aaas.org/DoSER>, a program that aims to encourage science dialogues within faith communities.
"These groups recognize that cultural barriers, not a lack of education, are what's preventing more Americans from accepting evolution. ...
"The museum's traveling evolution exhibit may be among the most ambitious efforts to bridge the science-faith divide. The idea of going from a debate to a conversation 'is a game changer, in terms of the rules of how you listen and how you talk to someone,' says Potts."
Penny Talbert, a 47-year old who was born into a Pennsylvania Dutch family and now works as a librarian and executive director of the Ephrata, PA Public Library "suggests [that] the biggest surprise was how much engagement there was around the exhibit. 'Not everyone left those conversations feeling incredibly thrilled,' Talbert says, 'but I think they all left feeling like they'd been heard.'
"And for Potts, that has always been the goal: to change the national rhetoric from a roiling debate to a simmering conversation. 'The conflict mode is something we have inherited from past generations, and it's really up to us whether we want to continue that,' he says. 'You have a choice.'" Smithsonian, Apr 4 '18, <www.bit.ly/2AH5gUP>
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1- Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity, by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (RTB Prs, 2nd ed., 2015, paperback, 469 pages) <www.amzn.to/2nd6QV2>
------
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse