Questions for Young Earth Creationists:

[historic salve]

The majority scientific position will always be the majority scientific position

Then why was evolution either a minority or non-existent position until about 150 years ago?

and will always exclude the supernatural. Zugzwang every time, the question is moot.

Science never excludes the supernatural.

[Calminian]

All right. I just have a few questions:

Does the theory of gravity contradict anything in the Bible?

If no, then does the theory of General Relativity contradict the Bible?

If no, then does the round-earth theory contradict the Bible?

no.

If no, then does the Big Bang theory contradict the Bible?

yes.

If your answer to most/all of these questions was no, then a few more questions:

Does science contradict the Bible?

Miracles are by definition violations of scientific understandings of processes. So the Resurrection and all other biblical miracles are at odds with scientific understandings.

If yes, then how many scientific theories can you name that contradict scripture?

Any theory that runs into a biblical miracle or supernatural act of God is going to have problems. Science can't verify nor falsify miracles. Science must assume, a prior, that repeating predictable processes are, have and will remain constant in the specific area of investigation. Miracles, by definition, are exceptions to this presupposition.

If no, then why go against evolution?

Evolution is a natural explanation for the existence of the various kinds of animals. If the Bible is correct that these did not come about naturally, science has a problem.

If no, then on what grounds do you dismiss evolution?

On philosophical grounds. Science must presuppose certain philosophical beliefs before investigation even begins.

[cbacavis]

Does the theory of gravity contradict anything in the Bible?

I think it contradicts the Ascension of Jesus. And then Elijah going up somewhere in a chariot. But, maybe these instances used the same lift that makes an airplane fly.

If no, then does the theory of General Relativity contradict the Bible?

No.

If no, then does the round-earth theory contradict the Bible?

Round-earth theory? Okay, theory is pretty high on the scientific hierarchy, but this is weird terminology sometimes.

If no, then does the Big Bang theory contradict the Bible?

No it doesn't. It all plays into the idea that the universe has been expanding, for quite a while, from a single point in time.

Does science contradict the Bible?

Certainly, much of it does.

If yes, then how many scientific theories can you name that contradict scripture?

The theories that natural chance processes were/are the cause for the existence of all things, that the world evolved over billions of years before any life even emerged, that creative processes are still continuing and haven't been completed, that land came before oceans, that life began in the oceans, that water organisms evolved first, that the Sun and stars formed before earth, that fish came before fruit trees, that stars evolved at various times, that fish evolved hundreds of millions of years before birds, that insects formed before birds, that reptiles came before whales and reptiles before birds, that there was a Sun before any light, that there was the Sun before any plants, that marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic soup, that man and monkey have a common animal ancestor, that many organisms were made extinct before man started to evolve, that man was originally a meat-eater, that all life is in a continual state of change, and that death existed long before even the emergence of man. There's an excellent and concise list courtesy of Dr. Jobe Martin.

Oh, and the Bible calls the bat a bird! The Bible also says that insects have four legs, and mentions Jacob going against Mendel's fruit fly research.

Does the scientific theory of evolution mention the Bible? Or God? Does the theory of gravity do this?

It's easy to maintain that gravitational principles could have been established by God. It is incredibly difficult to imagine a mess like Macroevolution being established by God.

[Calminian]

No it doesn't. It all plays into the idea that the universe has been expanding, for quite a while, from a single point in time.

Maybe you can elaborate on this a little? I think I get ya, but not sure.

[rogue06]

All right. I just have a few questions:

Does the theory of gravity contradict anything in the Bible?

Well there are some out on the fringe who hold that Newton’s theories on gravity are “evil” because it took from God that direct action on His works so constantly ascribed to Him in the Scriptures – like “hanging” the earth and “guiding” the sun, moon and stars – and exchanged the truth of God’s direct action on His works for the “lie” of mere material mechanism. They accuse Newton of substituting Gravity for God. But as I said; they are a tiny minority.

[rogue06]

<SNIP>

Evolution is a natural explanation for the existence of the various kinds of animals. If the Bible is correct that these did not come about naturally, science has a problem.

</SNIP>

Evolution describes what happens to life that already exists, not how life comes to exist. It works the same if it originates from divine intrevention or some chemical reaction.

[cbacavis]

Maybe you can elaborate on this a little? I think I get ya, but not sure.

There are a few things - Hubble's Law and the presence of background radiation in space - that have been touted for years as evidence of an expanding universe. The consensus view is certainly still expansion among scientists, but they seem to be re-evaluating what the "Big Bang" really meant. Or they're holding to the Steady-State theory or whatever else has been thought up. But the universe used to be hot/dense, I think that's agreed upon, and since then it's been spread out and cooled over time. So there was some point where it must have been closer together.

No one even has a concrete grasp on it yet anyway, but it's an incredibly surreal picture of just how infinite God's power is.

[historic salve]

The consensus view is certainly still expansion among scientists, but they seem to be re-evaluating what the "Big Bang" really meant. Or they're holding to the Steady-State theory or whatever else has been thought up.

Um, can you name a modern physicist who holds to a steady state universe?

[cbacavis]

Um, can you name a modern physicist who holds to a steady state universe?

Yeah, not one! Take that!

Actually, I was thinking back to Physics class and mixed it up with the inflationary model. It's just a variation of the Big Bang anyway, so it's not that important.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Calminian]

There are a few things - Hubble's Law and the presence of background radiation in space - that have been touted for years as evidence of an expanding universe. The consensus view is certainly still expansion among scientists, but they seem to be re-evaluating what the "Big Bang" really meant. Or they're holding to the Steady-State theory or whatever else has been thought up. But the universe used to be hot/dense, I think that's agreed upon, and since then it's been spread out and cooled over time. So there was some point where it must have been closer together.

No one even has a concrete grasp on it yet anyway, but it's an incredibly surreal picture of just how infinite God's power is.

So the Big Bang you affirm is simply an expansion much like is described on day 2 in Genesis. As far as the 13 billion years part, I take you're not sold.

[Calminian]

Evolution describes what happens to life that already exists, not how life comes to exist. It works the same if it originates from divine intrevention or some chemical reaction.

It is a theory about what happens in the present but also a theory about how it progressed in the past. Now I realize that most creationists don't believe it happens today in the macro or adding-new-information sense, but even if I grant this, it still doesn't disprove the supernatural creation of animal kinds a short time ago. The uniformity of processes in the past is a basic unproven presupposition of science which precludes any kind of miracle. It could be that God created various kinds of animals with the ability to evolve in the future, even in the macro sense. This would say nothing of them evolving in the past. Just some philosophical nuggets to chew on.

[cbacavis]

So the Big Bang you affirm is simply an expansion much like is described on day 2 in Genesis. As far as the 13 billion years part, I take you're not sold.

Exactly right, and I am YEC. But I'm not dogmatic about it. Truth is, the billions-of-years hypothesis keep growing and growing in billions of years. And it all just keeps becoming more and more arbitrary.

[rogue06]

It is a theory about what happens in the present but also a theory about how it progressed in the past. Now I realize that most creationists don't believe it happens today in the macro or adding-new-information sense, but even if I grant this, it still doesn't disprove the supernatural creation of animal kinds a short time ago. The uniformity of processes in the past is a basic unproven presupposition of science which precludes any kind of miracle. It could be that God created various kinds of animals with the ability to evolve in the future, even in the macro sense. This would say nothing of them evolving in the past. Just some philosophical nuggets to chew on.

What disproves a "supernatural creation of animal kinds a short time ago" is the obvious and overwhelming evidence for an old Earth and the fossilized remains of life in some of the ancient layers.

[Calminian]

What disproves a "supernatural creation of animal kinds a short time ago" is the obvious and overwhelming evidence for an old Earth and the fossilized remains of life in some of the ancient layers.

Okay, but the idea that these layers are ancient is the result of the same methodology that assumes uniformity in the past in the evolution processes. This idea of uniformity is a tricky one and seems to be the stumbling block for those who trust solely in science.

[rogue06]

Okay, but the idea that these layers are ancient is the result of the same methodology that assumes uniformity in the past in the evolution processes. This idea of uniformity is a tricky one and seems to be the stumbling block for those who trust solely in science.

It isn’t always so much that we always know that something formed over a slow uniform process, but that we recognize that many things couldn’t have formed as rapidly as the time constraints for a young earth require.