Supernatural vs Theism

Mr. Oard Confuses the Supernatural with Theism

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 12, 2014

In my 1999 essay, I make the following statement about actualism, dolomite formation and the supernatural:

“Contrary to YEC [young-Earth creationist] misconceptions, actualism does not demand modern analogs for dolomite formation, only that any explanations not violate the laws of chemistry and physics by invoking the supernatural.”

In response to my statement on how actualism avoids the supernatural, Oard (2009a, p. 120) claims that actualism is a “magic wand.” In other words, according to Mr. Oard's oxymoronic thinking, actualism is an anti-magic magic wand. Oard (2009a, p. 120) goes on to completely misinterpret my statement on the incompatibility of the supernatural with the natural laws of actualism as an attack on “theism” (also see Reed and Oard 2009b, p. 260 and Reed and Oard 2009a, p. 15). That is, Oard (2009a, p. 120) accuses me of “anti-theistic prejudice.” Of course, I never said anything in my 1999 essay about “theism” violating the laws of nature. This is yet another blatant example of Oard (2009a) misrepresenting an important issue in my 1999 essay by inventing imaginary strawperson arguments.

Mr. Oard is clearly confused about the critical differences between theism and the supernatural. In misrepresenting my views, Oard (2009a, p. 120) fails to distinguish between a belief in God (theism) and a belief in the supernatural. There is a big difference. For example, deists believe in God, but not in the supernatural, at least not in historical times. There are also plenty of scientists that believe in God, but yet recognize that invoking the supernatural rather than the laws of chemistry and physics to explain their laboratory experiments or the origin of a rock is unnecessary and unverifiable. We could cite plenty of old-Earth creationists and theistic evolutionists, such as Glenn Morton, that have made important discoveries in the geologic record (including petroleum and ore discoveries) because they did not allow their personal religious, philosophical or political beliefs to interfere with their scientific research and allow dogma to dictate to them what their results should be. While I believe that YECs can be good engineers, chemists, physicists, and other scientists that deal with present phenomena (what they call "operational" science), problems arise when they try to use their Bible interpretations to dictate the age and history of the Earth. That is, YECs attempt to demean "historical" science as being inferior to "operational" science, but in reality they have shown that they are largely incapable of doing any historical science. Their misinterpretations of Genesis blind them to reality and errors abound, as demonstrated in Oard (1997) and Oard and Reed (2009) (see my other essays at this website for specific examples). At the same time, I demonstrate in “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?” that Oard (2009a), Oard (2009b) and the other authors of Oard and Reed (2009) totally shun the invoking of the supernatural to explain their Flood geology despite condemning others and me for openly shunning the supernatural to explain the geologic record. In other words, Oard (2009a, p. 113) and other YECs talk about the importance of the supernatural in their “science”, but they act like actualists when it comes to Flood geology. So, when geologists avoid invoking “theistic alternatives” (supernaturalism) to explain sedimentary rocks do they do so because they fear that their professional careers will be blocked as Reed and Oard (2009a, p. 15) claim or, like the authors of Oard and Reed (2009), are they unable to find any scientific evidence of the supernatural in these rocks? If YECs cannot produce scientific methods that can definitively distinguish any supernatural evidence in the sedimentary record from evidence of actualistic (natural) processes, how can they expect to have their unsupported speculations utilized by petroleum companies or published in authentic science journals?

References

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

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.

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.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009b. “Conclusion”, chapter 16 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. 259-261.