It has often been asserted that scientific evidence actually disproves evolution, but it is also fairly common to hear that anything contradicting evolution is not real science. Do scientific facts line up with Evolution, or Creation?
top of page
bottom of page
I didn't say "wrong" presuppositions, I said "different" presuppositions. Although, I do still suggest that evolution theorists do use some faulty presuppositions. See my post above on presuppositions. Presuppositions are certainly not an invention of creation science. They are simply a reality.
I am also seeing the word "presupposition" rising its head once again. In the past, I have seen this word thrown around by young Earth creationists when they want to invent a reason to ignore good science. As stated before, if you are going to claim that scientists are using false presuppositions, show us what those presuppositions are and why they are wrong. As shown by previous posts on 14C dating, young Earth creationists often think scientists are using presuppositions when they aren't.
S.M.S.,
Why shouldn't bad science be denied? Young Earth Creationism is bad science, as I already showed. There is nothing in the Grand Canyon that requires a recent global flood or a young Earth, and J.E.S. has not shown that anything in the Grand Canyon requires a recent global flood or a young Earth. How can you say that J.E.S. made good points when he made none at all? Where is the science demonstrating that the Grand Canyon is young? Where are the dating methods demonstrating that it is young? Where is the science demonstrating that these deposits could not have been produced by slow deposition and uplift?
J.E.S.,
Re: Earth's Magnetic Field
The thing is, we have records of the Earth's magnetic field going back hundreds of millions of years. When lava solidifies, the crystals inside of it will align to the Earth's magnetic field, recording both its strength and direction. Those records show that the Earth's magnetic field has strengthened, then weakened, then flipped poles, then stregnthened, then weakened, then flipped poles, and so forth. This process has been repeated thousands of times. It has nothing to do with any theories.
In fact, I think I have discussed magnetic striping with you before. As the sea floor expands away from the mid-ocean rifts it produces new sea floor. When that sea floor hardens, it aligns with the Earth's magentic field. When we measure the magentic field in those rocks you get stripes running parallel to the ridges as the Earth's magnetic field strengthens, weakens, and flips.
http://www.phschool.com/itext/sci_exp/iText/products/0-13-181243-2/ch1/ch1_s4_3.html
It's ironic, but the same accusations of falsehood that are here leveled at creation scientists could more easily be applied to evolution theorists. Evolutionary philosophy asserts several falsehoods as scientific fact and makes many assertions that are simply scientifically unverifiable. In this information-saturated age of the internet you can easily find "facts" that agree with your presuppositions. J.E.S. made a point about the Grand Canyon, which I believe is an excellent example. Biblical creationists see the Grand Canyon as clear proof of a global flood. Secular evolutionists see it as an example of billions of years. We're both looking at the same data, but our differing worldviews and presuppositions have a tremendous impact on our differing conclusions. And yet, this obvious difference in worldviews (and the corollary presuppositions) is denied by some. Fascinating.
The facts just put forward on decaying magnetic fields appear to be false. It also appears that some are just stepping through well known YEC arguments based on falsehood.
https://howoldistheearth.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/yec-best-evidence-5-has-the-earths-magnetic-field-always-been-decaying/
The issue I have is not belief in YEC, but the reliance on falsehood to support it. This is not about presuppositions, but about honestly. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone here of lying. Rather, most YECs are just repeating falsehood they have heard from other. The God I know has no need for false witness.
https://howoldistheearth.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/religious-presuppositions-are-not-the-problem-with-young-earth-creationism/
Really all the arguments here run afoul of Deuteronomy 25:13-16. The author here lays out some key questions by which we can make this clear: https://howoldistheearth.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/an-examination-of-answers-in-genesiss-ten-best-evidences-for-a-young-earth/
1. Does it get its facts straight?
2. Does it actually place a specific numerical limit on the age of the earth at all?
3. Is it measuring the right things?
4. How well defined are the limits it places on the age of the earth?
5. Are its assumptions realistic?
6. How rigorously have the “rescuing devices” been falsified?
7. What are the sources of its data?
8. What is the extent of its data?
9. Have they received a level of scrutiny appropriate to their complexity?
10. How have they responded to critique?
Since measuring of the magnetic field first began in 1845, the total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying at a rate of 5% per century. Archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). Therefore, the field's energy has halved every 1,465 years or so. These are facts that are undeniable.
Scientists have proposed that the earth’s magnetic field is caused by a freely-decaying electric current in the earth’s core. The electric current naturally loses energy, or “decays,” as it flows through the metallic core. Based on what we know about the conductive properties of liquid iron, this freely decaying current would have started when the earth’s outer core was formed. However, if the core were more than 20,000 years old, then the starting energy would have made the earth too hot to be covered by water at its beginning. Thus a younger earth is supported and even plausible.
Once again, there are multiple theories regarding the earth's magnetic field. There is the "Dynamo Theory" which you have just expressed, and there is the "Rapid-Decay Theory," which is pretty self-evident in meaning. I feel the need to note that, when predicting the magnetic field levels of Mercury and Mars, the Rapid-Decay Theory was shown to be more reliable than the Dynamo theory, in that Mars (I am not an expert on the Mercury business) was predicted (by Dynamo) to have a magnetic field, yet it did not (however, evidence was found that it did have a magnetic field at one point, furthering the cause of the Rapid-Decay theory.) To be fair, there was some way that the Dynamo Theory is better than the Rapid-Decay Theory, but I cannot remember it off the top of my head...
There we have it once again...A young earth perspective is not such an incoherent model of reality after all?
The Earth's decaying magnetic field is like the Dow Jones Indistrual Average. It goes up and down all of the time. It even reverses direction, and has done so thousands of times throughout Earth's history. NASA appears to have a webpage on the subject:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html
How about Earth's decaying magnetic field?
I would also like to note that people have spoken of evidence FOR a young Earth. For this, you need to find evidence that should only exist if the Earth is young. You should also be prepared to describe the types of evidence that would be inconsistent with a young Earth, a recent global flood, and separately created species.
We can use criminal forensic science as an example of how evidence works. Let's say a forensic scientist finds fingerprints at a crime scene. He argues that the defendant would leave fingerprints at the crime scene so the fingerprints found at the crime scene are evidence of the defendant's guilt. Is that good evidence? No. Anyone would leave fingerprints at a crime scene. What you need as evidence are fingerprints that only the defendant would leave. On top of that, the forensic scientist should be able toe explain what type of fingerprint evidence would exclude the defendant. The same would apply to a young Earth.
First, we don't assume that the laws of nature are the same through space and time. We OBSERVE that the laws of nature are the same through space and time. We observe that stars and galaxies operate under the same laws. If they didn't, then their luminosity would differ, their spectra would differ, and many other characteristics of stars would be different if the laws of nature were different through space and time. We OBSERVE that light operates in a lawful manner, we don't assume it. These aren't assumptions.
The one specific case you highlighted was 14C, so let's go through them:
1. For the decay of 14C to change you would have to change the fundamental nuclear forces found in nature. Any changes of those fundamental forces would be see in stars and in such deposits as the naturally occuring Oklo reactor. More info can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
2. 14C dating is calibrated for known and measured changes in historic levels of atmospheric 14C. No scientist assumes that the production of 14C was the same in the past. You can read more here:
http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal13.htm
3. No scientist assumes that any sample us without contamination. They often use the ratio of 13C and 12C to determine if the sample still contains organic carbon. This is due to the fact that photosynthesis fractionates carbon isotopes, favoring the lighter 12C isotope over 13C. This causes terrestrial plant material and the animals that eat plants (and the animals that eat those animals) to be rich in 12C compared to abiotic carbon. Samples that are contaminated by environmental carbon will have a ratio closer to that found in the atmosphere.
4. If you con't have a reason to doubt the measurements made by scientists, then you are only rejecting them because they lead to conclusions you don't like. That is a form of special pleading.
Presuppositions are our most basic assumptions about the world. Presuppositions are things you take for granted: like your own existence, the reliability of your memory, your continued personal identity, moral laws, laws of logic, induction, and many others. Most people assume all of these things, but they don’t stop to think about why they assume these things.
Science actually rests on a large number of critical presuppositions/axioms. For example, a person must assume that his or her senses are reliable. What good would it be to do an experiment if my eyes do not accurately relate to me the results of that experiment? And what good would it be to have accurate eyes if light traveled erratically? We presuppose that light travels in an orderly way. What good would it be to do any experiment if the universe did not behave in an organized, logical fashion? We presuppose the universe continually behaves in an orderly, logical way. These are just a few of the presuppositions that are rationally necessary for science to be possible.
Many areas of science are mathematical in nature, and thus rely on mathematical axioms. But science requires induction. Suppose I set up an experiment and get a certain result. I expect that if I set up an identical experiment under identical conditions in the future I will get an identical result. But why should that be? Most people don’t stop to think about this; they just take it for granted. Why should it be that the future reflects the past in this way? In the Christian worldview, induction makes sense. God (who is beyond time) upholds the universe in a uniform way, and has told us that we can count on certain things in the future (Genesis 8:22). So, I’d expect to get an identical result to an identical future experiment, since God upholds the future universe in the same way He upheld the past universe.
But apart from the Bible, why should we assume that the future reflects the past? Since we’re all made in God’s image, we instinctively rely on induction. But how can a non-Christian assume that the future will reflect the past in his worldview? He might say, “Well it always has,” but this doesn’t in any way mean that it likely will continue to be that way in the future unless we already knew that the future reflects the past. In other words, when a person says, “Well, in the past the future has reflected the past, so I’d expect that in the future, the future will reflect the past,” he’s using a circular argument. (Think about it.) He’s assumed induction to prove induction. This is “begging the question” and isn’t rational.
Ironically, only the Christian can provide a rational explanation for the presuppositions necessary for science. A logical, orderly universe, a rational mind, reliable senses, mathematical axioms, induction, and logical laws are just a few of the presuppositions required by science that are provided by the Christian worldview, but which have no foundation in an evolutionary worldview.
There is a lot of presupposition and interpretation that goes on in science. Biology is an example. By examining evidence, the biologist has already presupposed that, at the very least, his senses are reliable. This presupposition would be held by essentially all scientists; otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to do science. Scientists have to interpret the data. The evolutionary biologist and creation biologist have different presuppositions regarding earth’s history. Therefore, they draw different conclusions when examining the same evidence. But which is a better scientific mindset? Consider the examples of vestigial organs and junk DNA. Secularists incorrectly assume that things are left over from the past, whereas creationists work from the presupposition that everything has (or had) a purpose.
Carbon dating is another example. Carbon dating is based on all the above presuppositions (axioms) and many others. It presupposes (1) that C-14 decayed in the past as it does today; (2) that the C-14 in the atmosphere of the past was the same as today; (3) that the system is uncontaminated; (4) the laws of probability; and (5) the equivalence of C-14 atoms, as well as the more abstract presuppositions listed above—induction, reliability of the senses, and so on.
By the way, carbon dating provides powerful confirmation of the Biblical timescale. Scientists have found C-14 in coal and diamonds that are supposedly millions of years old (or over a billion years old for the diamonds) in the evolutionary view. But C-14 has a half life of around 5,700 years—it decays to the point that it can’t be detected before even one million years have passed. Do you suppose that evolutionists are convinced by such evidence that the earth really is just a few thousand years old as the Bible teaches? Or do they simply dismiss such evidence and assume that there must be some sort of contamination (despite the lack of evidence of contamination) simply because of their presupposition that the earth is billions of years old or dismiss the credibility of the scientists involved without really addressing the issue at hand?
Clearly, presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically and made our senses able to perceive the universe.
If people are going to claim that scientists are using faulty assumptions then they need to tell us what those assumptions are and why they are faulty.
The reason that young Earth creationists are not considered scientists is that they don't publish their YEC research in peer reviewed journals. Instead, they create websites where they misrepresent the science that other people do, or misuse scientific methods to trick their readers into thinking that those methods are not trustworthy. Commenters at this site seem like honest folk, and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. The problem is that you are falling for a con, one run by creationist organizations.
1. The Earth's crust isn't static. It is moving. In some areas the Earth's crust is actually moving upward, which is called tectonic uplift. This is the case for the Colorado Plateau, and it explains why marine fossils are found at such high altitudes. You don't need a global flood in order to find marine sediments at high altitudes.
2. You don't need a global flood, a recent flood, or a young Earth in order to produce fossils. Local floods over the last billions of years will do the job.
3. You don't need a global flood, a recent flood, or a young Earth in order to produce flat layers of sediment. Such layers are currently being made in lakes, seas, and oceans without any global flood occurring.
4. No layer found in the Grand Canyon spans the entire North American Continent.
Many evolutionists accuse creationists of “dismissing the findings of geologists” as if creationists are refusing to accept geological evidence. However, the fact is that the “findings” referred to are not really findings at all. Secular geologists have a tendency to ‘find’ what their presuppositions have assumed they will find. The discussion is often framed as “geologists” vs “creationists” as if scientists and geologists who hold a creationist worldview are not "real" geologists or "real" scientists. This is a false comparison and self-serving. By “geologists” and "scientists" evolutionary theorists mean those who agree with them, that is “evolutionary geologists”, who interpret the geological evidence according to a particular set of assumptions. Creationist geologists do not agree with those assumptions and interpret the evidence differently. Different worldviews evaluate the same evidence but come away with different conclusions.
One of my favorite pieces of evidence for a young earth (and the global flood) is the grand canyon, which is also a perfect example of evidence that is used by both sides of the Creation v. Evolution debate (umbrella terms). Many (probably most) young earth creationists believe in catastrophism as opposed to uniformitarianism, which means that we believe the world's geological landscape was formed quickly by natural disaster(s) as opposed to processes taking millions (if not billions) of years. Of course, our favorite example of a world-altering disaster is the global flood. Anyhow, back to the grand canyon.
We find fossils of marine organisms in some of the canyon's layers that are far above sea level. This is well explained by a global flood, as such an event would have carried these creatures inland. If I am not mistaken, such things are found in many other places in the world as well.
While on the fossils tangent, I would like to mention in passing the interesting prevalence of fossils created by floods and other aquatic events. An example of this is the dinosaur "death pose." Once again, the evidence interestingly lines up with a global flood.
Back to the geology of the grand canyon, the "great unconformity" has been explained as the marking of the beginning of the flat flood layers, as it would be the "line" created when the flood waters first advanced on the continent, depositing large amounts of sediment (and continuing to do so).
Last of all, some of the layers at the grand canyon can be traced all across the continent, and beyond, which would also fit nicely into the paradigm of a global flood.
Well, there is some geological evidence, which I hope I have managed to present in a concise (and hopefully not too unorganized) way! I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this, and hearing the problems you see with the flood paradigm!
In skimming through the comments I don't see anything that even addresses geology, much less a young Earth. Perhaps someone could present the argument in a concise manner here?
Well SMS, T_aquaticus, this would be the thread for such evidence! Perhaps we can trawl the vast mountains of YEC evidence to procure an argument for scrutiny!
Aquaticus may want to read through some of the comments that have been made on this site. There has been much compelling evidence presented that supports a young Earth.