Actualism: False Accusations

Mr. Oard's Confused and Outdated Beliefs on Actualism

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014, updated August 7, 2017

False Accusations that My Views of Actualism are Unusual, Weak and Confused

In another essay entitled “Inaccurate and Contradictory Definitions and Descriptions of Actualism and Other Terms in Oard and Reed (2009)”, I demonstrate that young-Earth creationists (YECs) Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed improperly define actualism and modern uniformitarianism, and set up fallacious strawperson arguments by claiming that modern "uniformitarianism" requires modern analogs for every process that was involved in the formation of the geologic record. In my 1999 essay, I also wrote the following reply to statements in Oard (1997, p. 55), where he mistakenly believes that modern uniformitarianism requires that features in the geologic record have analogs in modern environments:

“Another plausible explanation for the formation of boulder pavements is that glacial meltwaters or marine currents have washed away the finer material from a glacial deposit, leaving only a layer of coarse boulders. Later, other glaciers move over the boulders and striate their tops. Oard ([1997], p. 55) is skeptical of this plausible argument because he chains himself to Lyell uniformitarianism and claims that the process has never been observed in modern environments. So what!! It’s a plausible and natural explanation. It’s a more reasonable idea than “Noah’s Flood.” Actualism does NOT demand modern examples for every past natural process.”

In my 1999 essay, I describe actualism as deriving hypotheses that are natural, plausible, and not necessarily based on processes or events occurring in modern environments (modern analogs are useful, but not required). As further described in my essay “Actualism (Modern Uniformitarianism) and its Assumptions”, actualism may be simply defined with two sole assumptions involving natural laws and Occam's Razor. That is, plausible hypotheses in geology comply with Occam's Razor and not the supernatural. This description of actualism is based on conclusions from respected geology sources, such as Dott and Batten (1988), Gould (1965), Strahler (1999), and more recent references.

In response, Oard (2009a, p. 113) accuses me of having a “confused” understanding of actualism. Because my descriptions of actualism are based on conclusions from respected geology sources (Dott and Batten 1988, Gould 1965, Strahler 1999, etc. ), I would argue that my descriptions are not “unusual” as Oard (2008b, p. 6) and Oard (2009a, p. 111) state. Most of all, my respected citations demonstrate that I am certainly not “confused” about the meaning of actualism as Oard (2009a, p. 113) claims. On the other hand, it is clear that Mr. Oard, who is not a geologist, is totally confused and fails to understand the differences between modern uniformitarianism (actualism) and Lyell uniformitarianism. His discussions are so incoherent and contradictory that even he repeatedly fails in Oard (2009a, p. 111, 112, 113, 117, 119, 120, etc.) to consistently use his own inadequate definition of "uniformitarianism"! (See: Inaccurate and Contradictory Definitions and Descriptions of Actualism and Other Terms in Oard and Reed (2009).) Just as YECs sometimes try to discredit actualism by confusing it with Lyell uniformitarianism and claiming that it demands essentially constant rates (e.g., Klevberg and Bandy, 2009, p. 63, 81), Oard (2009a) and Oard (1997) are simply trying to discredit actualism (modern uniformitarianism) by weighing it down with unreasonable and strawman assumptions, such as requiring modern analogs that are exact "cookie cutter" replicas of features in the geologic record. The modern literature clearly demonstrates that Mr. Oard is simply not familiar enough with actualism and how it is used by 21st century geologists. The other authors of Oard and Reed (2009) also display a lot of misconceptions about actualism (especially, Klevberg and Bandy, 2009, p. 63, 81), and Mr. Oard and Dr. Reed, as editors, failed to recognize and correct these blatant inconsistencies among the various authors of their book (see “The Authors of Oard and Reed (2009) Still Confuse Actualism with Lyell Uniformitarianism”). Finally, probably without realizing it, Oard (2009a; 2009b) relies on the very actualism (natural processes) that he hates, and not the supernatural or the Bible, to explain the geology of his so-called Flood and non-biblical post-Flood ice age deposits (see “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”).

My description of actualism is also not "weak" as described in Oard (2008b, p. 6) and Oard (2009a, p. 111). Compared with the numerous demonstrably false and blatantly weak biblical assumptions (Price 2003, Price 2007, Dever 2005, Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, Doherty 2005, Loftus 2008, Loftus 2010) used by young-Earth creationists (YECs), the basic principles of actualism (natural laws and Occam's Razor) are very reliable. As mentioned in these essays, actualism is a very powerful and successful method that is used in everything from locating petroleum reserves to solving unwitnessed crimes to finding lost car keys (see “The Geologist's Biases are Your Biases”).

Mr. Oard's Misguided Accusations of Subjectivity in Actualism

Oard (2009a, p. 114) also mistakenly labels my statements on plausible natural explanations in the above 1999 “So what!!” quotation as “subjectivism that is decidedly contrary to science.” But, why should plausible natural explanations for a geologic feature be necessarily “subjective” as Mr. Oard in Oard (2009a, p. 114) and Oard (2009b, p. 138) believes? Certainly, investigations under actualism are deliberately broad because hypothetically there are many chemical, physical, biological, and other natural processes that could have significantly affected the formation of a rock. Therefore, under the Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses, as many actualistic hypotheses as possible should be considered when evaluating and deciphering evidence. However, broad flexibility when deriving actualistic hypotheses does not mean that the hypotheses are “subjective.” Plausible hypotheses may be numerous, but the evidence from the record and the laws of physics and chemistry are very specific and set very clear and objective guidelines and limits for any proposed scientific hypothesis. In other words, diamictites may form from glaciers, rivers, marine turbidity currents and a number of other natural causes, but we don't expect boulders to supernaturally levitate against gravity and form them. As further discussed in my essays on pre-Pleistocene glaciations, overwhelming geologic evidence demonstrates that claims for Flood “submarine landslides” in Oard (2009a, p. 114) are not any more plausible than claiming that the pre-Pleistocene diamictites were miraculously created out of nothing (ex niliho) during the literal six 24-hour days of the “Creation Week.” Without natural laws, other aspects of actualism and a demand for evidence, any nonsensical claim can be made.

Long lists of plausible explanations also do not equate to “subjectivity” in other disciplines. For example, a police detective may have a long list of 20 plausible suspects for a murder, but that does not mean that the list of names is “subjective.” Tentatively, there may be good and objective reasons for why every name is on the list and only good detective work will narrow down the list of suspects and hopefully identify the killer(s). So, it is possible to derive multiple working hypotheses under the restrictions of natural law and Occam's Razor, and each of these hypotheses could be objectively tested with laboratory, field and computer experiments. Although multiple working hypotheses may be numerous, actualism can eventually lead to a broad consensus on many issues because most hypotheses definitively fail to explain all of the evidence. For example, geologists agree that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old, which is based on consistent radiometric dates from meteorites, our knowledge of the Sun's properties, and other observations of nature.

Mr. Oard in Oard (2009a, p. 114) and Oard (2009b, p. 138) also confuses methodological materialism with philosophical materialism when he illogically equates the necessary restriction of scientific hypotheses to the natural realm with “anti-theistic bias” and “atheism” (see “Mr. Oard Confuses Methodological with Philosophical Materialism”). If actualism is abandoned and the supernatural is invoked to explain the origin of the geologic record, as Oard and Reed (2009, p. 113, etc.) desire, then chaos and subjectivity will rule and one person's groundless imaginary excuse is just as good as another because no miracle could be falsified by any amount of scientific evidence. We already see how fundamentalist Christians are good at making up groundless excuses to cover over biblical contradictions. They also tend to subjectively reject plausible interpretations of Bible verses from both their Christian and non-Christian competitors if they contradict their dogma (also see here). Within their supernatural views of the Earth’s past, levitating boulders and magically insoluble halite could not be ruled out. Graded bedding would not necessarily be due to gravity, but might just have been zapped into existence in that form by God either during the Creation Week or the Flood. How does one evaluate a supernatural “God did it!” hypothesis, since by definition God could do just about anything at any time? How would any supernatural components be tested and ruled in or out as possibilities? Invoking the supernatural is only limited by one's imagination and the Bible presents few obstacles to supernatural speculation. The YEC approach to past events is clearly subjective, chaotic, worthless, and anti-scientific.

In contrast to actualism, real subjectivity is seen in Bible interpretations that are often readily remolded by changes in popular culture or from one church to another. Back in 1960, for example, fundamentalist and racist Bob Jones Sr., founder of YEC Bob Jones University, referred to the “bounds of inhabitation” in Acts 17:26 and is quoted as saying:

“If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty, because He made racial separation in order to preserve the [Jewish] race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible. God is the author of segregation! God is the author of Jewish separation and Gentile separation and Japanese separation. God made of one blood all nations, but He also drew the boundary lines between the races.”

Acts 17:26 in the King James Version reads:

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Today in the post-segregation era, YEC Ken Ham quotes the “one blood” portion of the same verse to argue against racism and segregation. (Also see here.) This is just one example of a Bible verse that is so subjective, unreliable and vague that it has been used to justify both sides of an argument!

To see further evidence of subjectivity in Bible interpretations, just ask a sincere fundamentalist Baptist and a sincere Missouri Synod Lutheran for the “objective” and “definitive” Bible verses on infant baptism. Then, witness the irreconcilable differences in the debate because of their inability to agree on what the Bible really means, even in the original Greek. YEC Morris (1972) also suggested that craters on the Moon originated from warring demons and angels. How objective is that claim? Where's the scientific evidence for that assertion? How could you ever test such a claim? Although not necessarily based on the supernatural, Mr. Oard's post-Flood ice age also shows that YECs can easily make up events that are not even mentioned in the Bible if they serve their agenda. When it comes to subjective, flawed and erroneous conclusions, YECs need to take the plank out of their own eyes before they worry about the sliver in the geologists' (Matthew 7:3-5).

As Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 17) admit, geologists arguing over different ideas within actualism are able to be professional and work together and keep their disagreements on an objective level. Although no one can be entirely objective, the Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses and the broad, but realistic, requirements of actualism allow geologists and other scientists to achieve a high degree of objectivity. We also don't excommunicate each other over doctrinal differences. We don't demand that individuals sign doctrinal oaths before they can join scientific organizations or become employed. We argue over data and, yes, science philosophy. In contrast, anyone that dares to question the validity of the Bible in YEC circles is branded a heretic and excommunicated (for a brutal example, here). In at least geology, old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists are able to do science without theologians telling them what their results should be.

References

Dott, R.H. and R. L. Batten. 1988. Evolution of the Earth, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 684pp.

Dever, W.G. 2005. Did God have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 344pp.

Doherty, E. 2005. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?, Age of Reason Publications, Ottawa, Canada, 380pp.

Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, The Free Press, New York, 385pp.

Gould, S.J. 1965. “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?”, American Journal of Science, v. 263, pp. 223-228.

Klevberg, P. and R. Bandy. 2009. “Do Soils Indicate Long Ages?”, chapter 5 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 63-92.

Loftus, J.W. 2008. Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New Jersey, USA, 428pp.

Loftus, J.W. (editor). 2010. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New Jersey, USA, 422pp.

Morris, H. 1972. The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 111pp.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2008b. “The Eocene Ice Age - Example of a Geological Challenge,” Creation Matters, v. 13, n. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 1, 6-8.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. 2009b. “Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?”, chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, 272 pp.

Price, R.M. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 389pp.

Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press, Cranford, New Jersey, USA, 279pp.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009a. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History- The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 552pp.