Blog break

I’ll soon be moving to a new state and a new job, so I won’t be doing much blogging for perhaps a month or more.

The Lord your God is in your midst,
a mighty one who will save;
he will rejoice over you with gladness;
he will quiet you by his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.
—Zephaniah 3:17 ESV

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
—2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV

Grace and Peace

Earth Observatory goodies

Here are some more great images from NASA’s Earth Observatory:

Glacial Dust off Alaska --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40973

Upsala Glacier, Argentina --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=41251

Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=41237

Athabasca Oil Sands --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40997

Mid-November Colorado Snowstorm --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=41305&src=nha (Yippee! We got about 8 inches here in Lakewood; our fourth snowfall of the season already!)

Grace and Peace

Has Science Disproved Christianity?

I highly recommend “Has Science Disproved Christianity?”, a talk given by Dr. Charles Kankelborg at the Evangelical Free Church of Bozeman, Montana earlier this month. Dr. Kankelborg is a professor of physics at Montana State University.

The audio file is available from the Bozeman Evangelical Free Church site (Scroll down to November 1, 2009)

Here are a few of my favorite slides from his PowerPoint presentation:

Grace and Peace

Book Review: Beyond Creation Science (part 2)

In part one of my book review of Beyond Creation Science by Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn, I stated that the authors succeeded admirably in one of their objectives, which was to present a Biblical case against young-Earth creationism, with its 6000-year old Earth and global flood. Their second, and perhaps primary, objective was to present a case for a position regarding eschatology (the doctrines regarding the future) known as “full preterism,” and though this was a key part of their argument against young-Earth creationism, I found their case to be far from convincing.

The basic idea of full preterism is that all of the “end times” prophecies of the Bible, including those in the Old Testament, the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25 and parallel passages in Mark and Luke), and in the book of Revelation, were fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, Jesus has already returned and the resurrection has already happened.

I had not previously read any books on full preterism, though I had been exposed to the concept in conversations with a friend. As I read through Beyond Creation Science, however, I saw a number of problems:

• The basic problem, of course, is that Jesus has not returned. Not in the way that is described in Acts 1:11, which says: “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (ESV). The apostles saw Jesus physically ascend to heaven, and we should expect his return to be in the same manner. Martin and Vaughn have a 9-page Scripture index with hundreds of references, but don’t refer to this verse.
• The full preterists describe Jesus’ second coming as a spiritual, rather than a physical, bodily return. According to full preterism, there were physical events associated with his return, but no Jesus descending bodily from heaven. This isn’t a whole lot different than the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ 1914 return of Jesus, other than the timing.
• Those who hold to the various futurist eschatologies (e.g. premillenialism or postmillenialism) acknowledge that much of what occurs in the Olivet Discourse  is at least partially fulfilled by the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, but view this event as a figure of the universal judgment to come. The full preterist position, on the other hand, seems to ignore the possibility of multiple-fulfillment of prophecy. Many Old Testament prophesies about Christ were fulfilled in multiple ways over the centuries. Often there was an immediate fulfilment, and then a complete fulfilment in Christ. Likewise, there is no reason to say that much of what is written in the Olivet Discourse had an immediate fulfilment in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem, but that there will be an ultimate fulfilment of these prophesies in the future when Christ returns.
• Most Biblical scholars place the writing of Revelation in the mid-90s, which was after the destruction of Jerusalem. This is based on the testimonies of early church fathers, not long after the apostolic age.
• Christ’s work for our salvation was complete with his death and resurrection. It did not need the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple in order to be complete.
• The early church did not teach that Christ had already returned. Full preterism is in conflict with the ancient creeds of the church, such as the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds.

Most Evangelical theologians consider full preterism to be less than orthodox. The ESV Study Bible describes preterism (including partial preterism, which is within the historic, orthodox understanding of Christ’s return) as follows:

3. Preterism (from Latin praeteritum, “the thing that is past”) thinks that the fulfillment of most of Revelation’s visions already occurred in the distant past, during the early years of the Christian church. Preterists think these events—either the destruction of Jerusalem or the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, or both—would “soon take place” only from the standpoint of John and the churches of Asia. Some preterists interpret the order of the visions as reflecting the chronological succession of the events they signify, but others recognize the presence of recapitulation (that is, that distinct, successive visions sometimes symbolize the same historical events or forces from complementary perspectives; see Structure and Outline). Full preterism—which insists that every prophecy and promise in the NT was fulfilled by a.d. 70—is not a legitimate evangelical option, for it denies Jesus’ future bodily return, denies the physical resurrection of believers at the end of history, and denies the physical renewal/re-creation of the present heavens and earth (or their replacement by a “new heaven and earth”). However, preterists who (rightly) insist that these events are still future are called “partial preterists.” (p. 2457, Introduction to Revelation, emphasis added)

The authors focus their critiques on dispenational premillenialism, which in in its popular form (Hal Lindsay, The Left Behind series) has often been guilty of wild speculation and date-setting. Perhaps full preterism is an overreaction to nonsense such as 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will be in 88.

While the book made a good case against young-Earth creationism, I was completely unconvinced by the authors’ arguments regarding eschatology. I will stick with the Nicene Creed, which is a summary of what the church has always taught regarding the return of Christ:

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

Grace and Peace

P.S. Or perhaps author Timothy Martin thinks Christ has already returned because he lives in Montana. Lucky guy.

Around the web — 11/17/09

Sarah Palin — I am a conservative and Republican, but I am no fan of Sarah Palin. I groaned when McCain selected her for his running mate, as it completely took away the “experience” argument against Obama. Rod Dreher (Crunchy Con) has a good review of Going Rogue.

Senators as cartographers — National Geographic has state maps drawn by U.S. Senators (HT: The Map Room).

Warm-blooded dinosaurs — This has been debated for thirty some years, but Earth Magazine reports on further evidence for warm-bloodedness.

More high highs than low lows — Global warming skeptics regularly report whenever there is a record low temperature somewhere. “Thirty-two below in Bismarck, North Dakota; sure seems like global warming…” The National Science Foundation reports that record highs in the U.S. in the 2000s have been twice as common as record lows (HT: Geology News)

Volcanoes galore — Many people are not aware that there is a volcano erupting somewhere all the time. The Volcanism Blog posts updates on many of these.

Grace and Peace

Around the web — 11/10/09

Muslim soldiers — Rod Dreher (Crunchy Con) has a picture that should make us think twice about lumping all Muslim US soldiers together: Nidal Hasan isn’t the only Muslim U.S. soldier

Bioblitz in Yellowstone — The San Diego Union-Tribune reports Scientists look for Yellowstone’s hidden species

“Some 125 scientists and volunteers spent 24 hours canvassing an area in northern Yellowstone during the “bioblitz” — a scientific mad dash to document as many species as possible over the course of a day.”

Lord of the Rings flow chart — Strange Maps shows Flow-Charting the Ring Trilogy, which traces the interactions between the main characters.

Trinity Western University — I’ll put in a plug for the university my oldest son is attending in Vancouver, BC. From the TWU President’s Blog:

“It was a good week last week when TWU received a long list of A+s and As in the Globe & Mail Report Card on 53 universities across Canada. TWU rejoices in being the only university in Canada to receive an A+ in overall quality of education four years in a row.”

Grace and Peace

Charles Colson on creation care

“We should be contending for truth in every area of life. Not for power or because we are taken with some trendy cause, but humbly to bring glory to God. For this reason, Christians should be the most ardent ecologists. Not because we would rather save spotted owls than cut down trees whose bark provides lifesaving medicine, but because we are mandated to keep the Garden, to ensure that the beauty and grandeur God has reflected in nature is not despoiled. We should care for animals. Not because whales are our brothers, but because animals are part of God’s kingdom over which we are to exercise dominion.” — Charles Colson, The Body, p. 197

HT: Wonder of Creation

Grace and Peace

New York City — A Montana Native’s Perception

Being that the dreaded Yankees won the World Series, here is my map of New York City, as originally posted in December 2007.

A couple days ago I commented (click here) on a map of Montana printed by The New Yorker Magazine. (I got the map from Strange Maps). Those Easterners know that Montana has everything from militia groups to radical environmentalists, but they didn’t know what part of the state to put them in.

I was thinking to myself: “Hey, you worked as a cartographer for eleven years. You can certainly make just as good of a map of New York City as they made of Montana.” So, here it is:

I was at JFK airport in 1980, so it isn’t like I haven’t been there.

The ESV Study Bible on creation — Genesis 1

A few weeks ago, I looked at what the ESV Study Bible had to say about the doctrine of creation in its introduction to the book of Genesis (click here). The ESV Study Bible Introduction to Genesis gives an overview of the various interpretations (calendar-day, day-age, etc.), a discussion about the relationship between Genesis and science, a statement on the historicity of Adam and Eve, and cautionary notes about interpreting the account of Noah’s flood.

The ESV Study Bible is the product of theologically conservative Biblical scholars who are committed to the inerrancy of the Bible, but it clearly does not advocate young-Earth creationism.

Here are some highlights from the notes on Genesis 1:

1:1-11:26 Primeval History — In contrast to the patriarchal stories, however, other ancient nonbiblical stories do exist recounting stories about both creation and the flood. The existence of such stories, however, does not in any way challenge the authority or the inspiration of Genesis. In fact, the nonbiblical stories stand in sharp contrast to the biblical account, and thus help readers appreciate the unique nature and character of the biblical accounts of creation and the flood. In other ancient literary traditions, creation is a great struggle often involving conflict between the gods. [...] Reading Genesis, readers can see that it is designed to refute these delusions. There is only one God, whose word is almighty. He has only to speak and the world comes into being. The sun and moon are not gods in their own right, but are created by the one God. This God does not need feeding by man, as the Babylonians believed they did by offering sacrifices, but he supplies man with food. It is human sin, not divine annoyance, that prompts the flood. Far from Babylon’s tower (Babel) reaching heaven, it became a reminder that human pride could neither reach nor manipulate God. These principles, which emerge so clearly in Genesis 1–11, are truths that run through the rest of Scripture. The unity of God is fundamental to biblical theology, as is his almighty power, his care for mankind, and his judgment on sin. It may not always be obvious how these chapters relate to geology and archaeology, but their theological message is very clear. Read in their intended sense, they provide the fundamental presuppositions of the rest of Scripture. These chapters should act as eyeglasses, so that readers focus on the points their author is making and go on to read the rest of the Bible in light of them.

1:3-5 — By a simple reading of Genesis, these days must be described as days in the life of God, but how his days relate to human days is more difficult to determine.

1:6-8 — Water plays a crucial role in ancient Near Eastern creation literature. In Egypt, for example, the creator-god Ptah uses the preexistent waters (personified as the god Nun) to create the universe. The same is true in Mesopotamian belief: it is out of the gods of watery chaos—Apsu, Tiamat, and Mummu—that creation comes. The biblical creation account sits in stark contrast to such dark mythological polytheism. In the biblical account, water at creation is no deity; it is simply something God created, and it serves as material in the hands of the sole sovereign Creator.

Gen. 1:14–19 — This section corresponds closely with the ordering of Day and Night on the first day, involving the separation of light and darkness (vv. 3–5). Here the emphasis is on the creation of lights that will govern time, as well as providing light upon the earth (v. 15). By referring to them as the greater light and lesser light (v. 16), the text avoids using terms that were also proper names for pagan deities linked to the sun and the moon. Chapter 1 deliberately undermines pagan ideas regarding nature’s being controlled by different deities. (To the ancient pagans of the Near East, the gods were personified in various elements of nature. Thus, in Egyptian texts, the gods Ra and Thoth are personified in the sun and the moon, respectively.) The term made (Hb. ‘asah, v. 16), as the esv footnote shows, need only mean that God “fashioned” or “worked on” them; it does not of itself imply that they did not exist in any form before this. Rather, the focus here is on the way in which God has ordained the sun and moon to order and define the passing of time according to his purposes.

1:27 — There has been debate about the expression image of God. Many scholars point out the idea, commonly used in the ancient Near East, of the king who was the visible representative of the deity; thus the king ruled on behalf of the god. Since v. 26 links the image of God with the exercise of dominion over all the other creatures of the seas, heavens, and earth, one can see that humanity is endowed here with authority to rule the earth as God’s representatives or vice-regents (see note on v. 28). Other scholars, seeing the pattern of male and female, have concluded that humanity expresses God’s image in relationship, particularly in well-functioning human community, both in marriage and in wider society. Traditionally, the image has been seen as the capacities that set man apart from the other animals—ways in which humans resemble God, such as in the characteristics of reason, morality, language, a capacity for relationships governed by love and commitment, and creativity in all forms of art. All these insights can be put together by observing that the resemblances (man is like God in a series of ways) allow mankind to represent God in ruling, and to establish worthy relationships with God, with one another, and with the rest of the creation. This “image” and this dignity apply to both “male and female” human beings. (This view is unique in the context of the ancient Near East. In Mesopotamia, e.g., the gods created humans merely to carry out work for them.)

1:28 — God’s creation plan is that the whole earth should be populated by those who know him and who serve wisely as his vice-regents or representatives. subdue it and have dominion. The term “subdue” (Hb. kabash) elsewhere means to bring a people or a land into subjection so that it will yield service to the one subduing it (Num. 32:22, 29). Here the idea is that the man and woman are to make the earth’s resources beneficial for themselves, which implies that they would investigate and develop the earth’s resources to make them useful for human beings generally. This command provides a foundation for wise scientific and technological development; the evil uses to which people have put their dominion come as a result of Genesis 3. over every living thing. As God’s representatives, human beings are to rule over every living thing on the earth. These commands are not, however, a mandate to exploit the earth and its creatures to satisfy human greed, for the fact that Adam and Eve were “in the image of God” (1:27) implies God’s expectation that human beings will use the earth wisely and govern it with the same sense of responsibility and care that God has toward the whole of his creation.

My purpose here  is primarily to look at the ESV Study Bible as it relates to topics such as Earth history. It is certainly an excellent study resource, no matter where one stands on the age of the Earth issue, and will help anyone to grow in their knowledge of God and his Word.

Grace and Peace

 

The Chemistry Song

My daughter did the “burn the nut” experiment in her high school chemistry class yesterday. In this experiment, the nut is set up under a calorimeter (which could be as simple as a glass beaker with a thermometer, though other setups work better), the nut is burned, the water warms up, and the student calculates the amount of heat released in the combustion reaction.

She told me about this, and I burst into song, just like I did when I was a chemistry teacher. Here is the song:

THE CHEMISTRY SONG
(Tune:  The Christmas Song)
words by Kevin Nelstead, Bucharest Christian Academy

Chestnuts roasting with an open fire,
With a calorimeter.
Chemis-tree carols being sung by a choir,
And students dressed up with safety goggles.
Everybody knows the specific heat of H2O
Is one calorie per gram degree Celsius.
And though its been said, many times, many ways
q=mCΔT

I’ll write on the topic of Chemis-tree carols some other time.

Grace and Peace

Earth First scream therapy

The following item was originally posted in September 2007. I have added it to my blog recycling program. Because I have new readers of The GeoChristian, I will occasionally go back and re-use some of my favorite blog entries.

I love trees, but…

Here is a video clip featuring Earth First! people mourning the loss of a tree:

Some questions for thought:

• What is right in the worldview of the people in this movie?
• What is wrong in the worldview of the people in this movie?
• How should we think about trees?

Grace and Peace

Book Review: Beyond Creation Science (part 1)

Two popular topics among Evangelical Christians for the past several decades have been origins—especially young-Earth creationism—and dispensational end-times eschatology (eschatology is the doctrine of the last things, including the return of Christ and the final judgment). Young-earth creationism has certainly been the prevailing dogma in Evangelical Christian education and in many churches and Christian colleges. Go to a Christian home school convention or book fair, and books presenting any kind of old-Earth perspective will be difficult or impossible to find. At the popular level, books on the end times, such as Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth and Tim Lahaye’s Left Behind series, have been mega best sellers. Many look at these two viewpoints as grounded in Scripture, and as firm evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible. Other Christians look at them as questionable, harmful, or at times downright goofy.

The premise of Beyond Creation Science (subtitle: New Covenant Creation from Genesis to Revelation) by Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn is that Evangelical Christians are wrong about both ends of the Bible. They do an excellent job of laying out a Biblical case against young-Earth creationism, with its 6000-year old Earth and global flood. People who only read materials from the young-Earth organizations, such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, are generally quite unaware that there is a vast amount of conservative, Evangelical Biblical scholarship that shows that the Bible requires neither a young-Earth nor a global flood, and Martin and Vaughn do a good job of presenting this case.

I’ll give my thoughts on Martin and Vaughn’s full preterist eschatology in part 2 of this book review.

I have many positive things to say about the authors’ Biblical analysis of young-Earth creationism. They point out that modern geology, with its view of billions of years of Earth history, was not devised as an attack on the Bible or Christianity. Few Christians voiced opposition to an ancient Earth while the concept was being developed in the 1700s and 1800s, and many of the most eminent geologists of that time were themselves Christians.

The authors of Beyond Creation Science tackle the “three pillars” of young-Earth creationism:

• A 6000-year old Earth
• A global flood
• No animal death before the fall

For the sake of brevity, I won’t look at each of these, but will focus on the strong Biblical case they make for the flood being local, rather being global.

Those who only read material from the young-Earth organizations think that a global flood is a given in Scriptures, not being aware that there are a multitude of Biblical arguments for a local flood somewhere in the area around Mesopotamia. The authors believe Noah’s flood was restricted to the descendants of Seth, rather than killing all of humanity. Not all old-Earth creationists would agree with this position; Hugh Ross for example teaches that the flood was geographically limited but humanly universal. Martin and Vaughn write:

If the subject of the account is planet Earth, then does this text [Gen 8:13-14] not teach that the oceans dried up at the end of the flood? Did the entire globe become dry? The plain statement of the text makes much more sense if it refers to a particular local place or “the land” where Noah lived.

If we use our imaginations to visualize the events of a global flood, many logical problems would come to mind. These are some of the most obvious:

1. If the Genesis flood created the geologic column and radically reshaped the topography of the earth, why do we still have the same rivers in Mesopotamia that Genesis references? The Tigris and Euphrates have been known by those names since millennia before Christ. Would not a global flood, which lays down thousands of feet of strata around the world, obliterate those rivers we see referenced earlier in Genesis?
2. Why would the ark land in the same part of the world after drifting on a worldwide ocean for many months? Noah appeared to find his world familiar after he landed. He certainly knew how to grow grapes after the flood. A local flood explains why the ark landed in the same part of the world Noah originally lived, i.e., somewhere in the Middle East.
3. How could one flood event sort out unique fossils to specific layers of strata? A worldwide flood which created the fossil record all at once would leave a chaotic mix of fossils throughout the entire geological column. Outside of a few geological “hotspots,” geologists find specific fossils in each layer of strata. Would one chaotic flood event place fossils neatly in order?
4. How could Noah fit all the species of animals from around the world into such a limited ark? Realize that he would also have to take the specific foods unique to each animal in amounts that would have to last the entire voyage. The hay required to feed one pair of elephants would have filled the entire ark. Noah would also have to take water for after the rain stopped, at least. He could not use the waters of the flood for drinking because it would be contaminated and briny. Consider what the water would be like with all of the violent churning/eroding action and death flood geologists maintain took place during the flood. [I’m not sure the authors are correct on the hay and elephants statement. And having adequate drinking water would have been a problem only after it stopped raining.]
5. If the fossil record is a result of the flood, then it means that the number of animals alive in Noah’s day were vastly more than today. Noah was commanded to take a pair of every animal on board, which means a pair of all the animals documented in the fossil record (which are now extinct) on top of all the animals we are familiar with today! They would need food water for these as well, dinosaurs and all.
6. This logically means that most of the species of animals that God originally created and Noah put on the ark went extinct after the flood. There is a tremendous amount of life documented in the fossil record which is not alive today. More than 95% of the animals that have lived on earth are now extinct. Why would God order Noah to preserve all the animals by bringing them on to the ark and then cause their extinction shortly after the flood? For example, did Noah take dinosaurs (whether eggs or mature) onto the ark only to have them all go extinct? If so, then the explicit reason given for the ark was almost a complete failure. Only a tiny percentage of the animals really survived. No wonder Noah took up drinking!

As others have done, Martin and Vaughn point out that if one translates the Hebrew word erets as “land” rather than “earth” in Genesis, the flood account takes on a completely different feel. For example, Genesis 7:17 would read

“For forty days the flood kept coming on the land, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the land. The waters rose and increased greatly on the land, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.”

This translation is every bit as legitimate as translating erets as “earth,” and presents the flood as a local, rather than global event.

The authors focus on Biblical rather than scientific arguments for an old Earth and local flood, but when they discuss geological concepts they get their facts right, something that is not done even by some other advocates of an old Earth.

I’m not as impressed by their eschatology, which I’ll take a look at in part 2.

The book’s website is: Beyond Creation Science. One of the authors graciously sent me a copy of the book for review.

Grace and Peace

P.S. Part two of my book review is a critique of the authors’ position on eschatology known as full preterism, which is a deviation from what the church has always taught regarding the return of Christ.

October poll results

Thank you to the 65 people who took my October GeoChristian poll. The question was, “Which statement most closely matches your position on creation and evolution?” Here are the responses:

• 15% — I am a Christian and a young-Earth creationist
• 23% — I am a Christian and an old-Earth creationist who rejects most of biological evolution
• 37% — I am a Christian and an old-Earth creationist who accepts natural causes for the origin of life and/or biological evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life (theistic evolution).
• 9% — I am a Christian and do not have a strong opinion about evolution or the age of the Earth
• 0% — I am not a Christian but believe there was some sort of supernatural involvement in the origin of the universe, life, or the diversity of life.
• 15% — I am not a Christian and believe that naturalistic explanations are completely adequate to explain the existence of the universe and life.

A little bit of analysis shows that:

• 85% of my readers consider themselves to be Christian. This is consistent with the September poll results, which had 86% of my readers indicating they were Christians.
• 15% of my readers are not Christians. I certainly welcome these readers, and appreciate their input into the discussions.

Grace and Peace

Last week: snow. This week: 75 F.

A week ago we had 18 inches (46 cm) of snow on the ground. Today it is 75 F (24 C), and most of the snow has melted. I love Colorado weather (which makes me homesick for Montana weather).

NASA Earth Observatory ( http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40977&src=nha )

Me cross-country skiing in the Denver suburbs

Grace and Peace

Yippee!!!!!!

Yippee! I got a good an excellent job, starting in less than three weeks. That is about all I will ever say about it here on my blog.

Thank you to all who sent notes of encouragement, contacts,  and job announcements, as well as to those of you who prayed for me over the past year since we returned from Romania.

Grace and Peace

Help for the geographically impaired

From The Onion: World Map Rearranged To Accommodate Poor Geography Skills Of Americans—Nations Ordered Alphabetically

This is really going to help me with all of those little island countries in the Caribbean and South Pacific.

HT: The Map Room

Grace and Peace

Happy mole day!

In honor of Avogadro’s number (6.02 x10²³), today is mole day. According to some who celebrate this day, celebrations can actually begin at 6:02 on 10/23.

National Mole Day Foundation

Mole Day Jokes — there are some new ones here I had not seen before.

Grace and Peace

Mars dust devil trails

Today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day: Martian Dust Devil Trails

Credit: HiRISE, MRO, LPL (U. Arizona), NASA

The APOD description for this image:

Who’s been marking up Mars? This portion of a recent high-resolution picture from the HiRISE camera on board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter shows twisting dark trails criss-crossing light colored terrain on the martian surface. Newly formed trails like these had presented researchers with a tantalizing martian mystery but are now known to be the work of miniature wind vortices known to occur on the red planet – martian dust devils. Such spinning columns of rising air heated by the warm surface are also common in dry and desert areas on planet Earth. Typically lasting only a few minutes, dust devils becoming visible as they pick up loose red-colored dust leaving the darker and heavier sand beneath intact. On Mars, dust devils can be up to 8 kilometers high. Dust devils have been credited with unexpected cleanings of mars rover solar panels.

Go to APOD for a higher resolution image. You’ll be glad you did.

Grace and Peace

Earth Observatory — recent images

Some recent images from NASA’s Earth Observatory Image of the Day:

Ash and Steam Plume, Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat --- 10/19/2009 --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40803

Marion Island, South Africa --- 10/18/2009 --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40806 --- Note the smaller cones on the flanks of this volcanic island in the Indian Ocean southeast of South Africa.

Oblique View of the Arnica Fire, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming --- 10/12/2009 --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40681

Rainfall from Typhoon Parma --- 10/10/2009 --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40687 --- The Philippines got hit three times by this one typhoon.

Glaciers Flow into a Greenland Valley --- 9/13/2009 --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40169

Black Point Lava Flow, Arizona --- 9/7/2009 --- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40076

Grace and Peace

Answers in Genesis conference — day 2

I wasn’t really happy with the first iteration of my “Answers in Genesis conference — day 2″ post” so I have rewritten it. Here it is again, hopefully somewhat improved.

On Sunday night, I attended part of day two of the Answers in Genesis “special outreach” with Dr. Terry Mortenson (PhD in the History of Geology). Here are a few thoughts:

• Mortenson stated that the geological column (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian… with associated fossils) doesn’t actually exist all together in any one location. It is true that it doesn’t exist at the Grand Canyon (where the rocks are Precambrian through Triassic, with the Silurian and Ordovician missing). There are other locations, as documented by Christian geophysicist Glenn Morton, where layers of each period of geologic history are present (see The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood; Morton was once a young-Earth creationist who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly). Morton describes a location in the Williston Basin of North Dakota that has layers from each major time unit from the Precambrian and Cambrian all the way up to the Quaternary, and lists 25 other major sedimentary basins around the world which have similar complete geologic columns. The geologic column is an observation of nature, not a construct of evolutionists.
• Mortenson used erosion in the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington as an example of what a catastrophic flood can do in a short time. These channels were formed when a glacial dam broke during the Ice Ages, releasing up to 2000 cubic kilometers of water which was impounded behind the dam, forming Lake Missoula. These flood waters spread out over the Columbia Plateau creating the Channeled Scablands. He showed a picture of the Palouse River Canyon, which is cut hundreds of feet down into the Columbia River Basalts, and stated that evolutionary geologists believe this was cut in just a couple of days during the Scabland flood. This was a misstatement of what geologists teach. There is ample evidence that there were numerous catastrophic floods that carved the Channeled Scablands, not just one. Geologists believe that the ice dam formed dozens of times, and broke dozens of times. The Palouse River Canyon may have existed in some form before flooding, with the flood waters enhancing the canyon rather than creating it from scratch.

The Palouse River Canyon below Palouse Falls, Washington. This canyon (less than ten miles from my M.S. research area) may have been enhanced by the catastrophic Scabland floods which occurred during the Ice Ages. Credit: Williamborg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palouse-Canyon-Washington-State.jpg

The Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington. The channels (grayish blue) are apparent where the flooding stripped unconsolidated loess (windblown silt) off of the Columbia Plateau. Credit: NASA/Landsat

• Mortenson, like other young-Earth creationists, posits hyper-rapid evolution after the animals left the Ark. For example, Noah did not have to take horses, donkeys, and zebras all onto the Ark; he only had to take a pair of the “horse kind.” The idea is that this pair had sufficient genetic variation in their genes to produce horses, donkeys, and zebras, and anything else that would fall into the “horse kind.” The problem is that it is not individuals that have genetic diversity. It is populations that have diversity, and the larger the population, the greater the potential for variation. If the pair on the Ark were both Clydesdales, then their offspring would be Clydesdales. If the pair were an Arabian and a Clydesdale, then there could be a greater variation in the offspring, but not zebras, donkeys, or even Shetlands apart from many generations of selective breeding.
• Much of what Mortenson said about the origin of life, the origin of information, gaps in the fossil record, and the nature of natural selection is consistent with what is being said by the progressive creationists (e.g. Hugh Ross) and the intelligent design movement. I am in general agreement with this position.
• Like in the previous night’s presentation, Mortenson presented this as a battle between two opposing world views. One is either wearing Biblical glasses or Evolutionized glasses, and this determines how one views Earth history. Again, I don’t think these are the only options. My approach—which I believe is thoroughly Biblical—is that all truth is God’s truth. If there is a conflict between what God has revealed in his Word and what we see in nature, then we either misunderstand nature, or we misunderstand Scripture (or both). In the end, when we perfectly understand both, there will be no conflict. What I believe the young-Earth creationists often do is force nature to fit their understanding of the Bible, often resulting in a distortion of what God has sovereignly allowed to happen in Earth history.
• Mortenson also stated that young-Earth creationism has been the position of the church for almost its entire history. This is true, and I place a high value on the Church fathers and church history in general. But this is a dangerous argument to use in a Baptist church. I could have used the same argument to say that believer’s baptism was virtually unheard of in the church for 3/4 of church history, and is therefore invalid. That might not have gone over too well.
• Mortenson showed a video on sedimentary layers featuring Andrew Snelling that contained many the problems that I pointed out in my Six Bad Arguments from Answers in Genesis series. This stuff doesn’t work scientifically, and should not be used as Christian apologetics.

Without a doubt, most in the audience thought that Mortenson had presented a convincing case for young-Earth creationism. Unfortunately, few in an audience like this have the geological background to critically analyze the arguments presented.

With love for the body of Christ, and for scientists who are turned away from the Gospel by bad arguments in defense of the Bible.

Grace and Peace

The ESV Study Bible on creation — Introduction and Introduction to Genesis

The ESV Study Bible (ESV is the English Standard Version translation) is a masterpiece of conservative Evangelical scholarship. The scholars who put this volume together are highly-qualified Bible experts who have a high respect for the Bible as the Word of God.

For those of you not familiar with the concept of a study Bible, this contains more than just the text of the Bible. It contains many thousands of cross-references and explanatory notes, plus drawings, maps, articles, and an extensive concordance (index). The ESV Study Bible is a massive work, with over 2,000,000 words on 2750 pages.

INTRODUCTION

The Introduction to the ESV Study Bible makes it very clear that the authors of the various articles and study notes share a commitment to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. The Introduction was written by Lane Dennis of Crossway Books and Bibles, and Wayne Grudem of Phoenix Seminary. Here are some quotes from the introduction:

The first kind [of words in the ESV Study Bible] is the actual words of the Bible, which are the very words of God to us. (p. 9)

The notes are written from the perspective of confidence in the complete truthfulness of the Bible. (pp. 10-11)

Because of this commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible, many would think that the ESV Study Bible would give a strong endorsement of the “literal” six-day interpretation of the young-Earth creationists, with a roughly 6000-year old Earth and a global flood that deposited most sedimentary rocks. The authors of the notes, however, take a cautious and broad approach to questions of the age of the Earth and the extent and work of the flood.

There are two groups of people who insist that Genesis teaches a young Earth. The first of these is the young-Earth creationists, led by organizations such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. They are convinced that the Bible requires a young Earth, and distort science to make it fit their interpretation. The other group is the atheists and skeptics. It is in their interest to say that the Bible requires a young Earth, as it makes it easier for them to not believe. For the most part, neither group is willing to consider Biblical scholarship that would upset their preconceptions.

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS — Genesis and Science — Overview of interpretations

The ESV Study Bible’s Introduction to Genesis (which is different than the Introduction I have quoted from already) was written by T. Desmond Alexander of Union Theological Seminary in Belfast. It has a section called “Genesis and Science,” which begins with an overview of the various positions that are held by theologically-conservative Biblical scholars.

The relation of Genesis to science is primarily a question of how one reads the accounts of creation and fall (chs. 1–3) and of the flood (chs. 6–9). What kind of “days” does Genesis 1 describe? How long ago is this supposed to have happened? Were all species created as they are now? Were Adam and Eve real people? Are all people descended from them? How much of the earth did Noah’s flood cover? How much impact did it have on geological formations?

Faithful interpreters have offered arguments for taking the creation week of Genesis 1 as a regular week with ordinary days (the “calendar day” reading); or as a sequence of geological ages (the “day-age” reading); or as God’s “workdays,” analogous to a human workweek (the “analogical days” view); or as a literary device to portray the creation week as if it were a workweek, but without concern for temporal sequence (the “literary framework” view). Some have suggested that Genesis 1:2, “the earth was without form and void,” describes a condition that resulted from Satan’s primeval rebellion, which preceded the creation week (the “gap theory”). There have been other readings as well, but these five are the most common.

None of these views requires denying that Genesis 1 is historical, so long as the discussion in the section on Genesis and History is kept in mind. Each of these readings can be squared with other biblical passages that reflect on creation. (pp. 43-44)

Note that only one of the five primary alternatives—the “calendar day” reading— requires a young Earth. The others each have room—or require—an Earth that is older than 6000 years. I personally make no commitment to a specific view, except to say that I rule out the calendar day interpretation based on external evidence (keeping in mind that all truth is God’s truth).

Note also that the Introduction to Genesis indicates that even Exodus 20:11 does not require a literal, seven consecutive day interpretation:

The most important of these [passages] is Exodus 20:11, “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day”: since this passage echoes Genesis 1:1–2:3, the word “day” here need mean only what it means in Genesis 1. Therefore, it does not require an ordinary-day interpretation, nor does it preclude an ordinary-day interpretation. (p. 44)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS — Genesis and Science — Is Genesis 1 a scientific account?

Genesis gives a true account of the origin of the universe, but one should be extremely cautious when attempting to correlate the words of Genesis to specific scientific concepts. Genesis 1 wasn’t written to tell us about the degree to which populations can vary (reproduction “according to their kinds” doesn’t place any kind of limit on variation), Genesis 2 wasn’t written to tell us that it never ever rained before the flood, and Genesis 3 wasn’t written to tell us how snakes lost their limbs.

Should Genesis 1 be called a “scientific account”? Again, it is crucial to have a careful definition. Does Genesis 1 record a true account of the origin of the material universe? To that question, the answer must be yes. On the other hand, does Genesis 1 provide information in a way that corresponds to the purposes of modern science? To this question the answer is no. Consider some of the challenges. For example, the term “kind” does not correspond to the notion of “species”; it simply means “category,” and could refer to a species, or a family, or an even more general taxonomic group. Indeed, the plants are put into two general categories, small seed-bearing plants and larger woody plants. The land animals are classified as domesticable stock animals (“livestock”); small things such as mice, lizards, and spiders (“creeping things”); and larger game and predatory animals (“beasts of the earth”). Indeed, no species, other than man, gets its proper Hebrew name. Not even the sun and moon get their ordinary Hebrew names (1:16). The text says nothing about the process by which “the earth brought forth vegetation” (1:12), or by which the various kinds of animals appeared—although the fact that it was in response to God’s command indicates that it was not due to any natural powers inherent in the material universe itself. (p. 44)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS — Genesis and Science — The purpose of Genesis

The primary purpose of Genesis 1 seems to be to identify God as the Creator of everything who is completely separate from the creation, and to contrast him to the gods who appear in the creation accounts of the nations the Hebrews had contact with.

This account is well cast for its main purpose, which was to enable a community of nomadic shepherds in the Sinai desert to celebrate the boundless creative goodness of the Creator; it does not say why, e.g., a spider is different from a snake, nor does it comment on what genetic relationship there might be between various creatures. At the same time, when the passage is received according to its purpose, it shapes a worldview in which science is at home (probably the only worldview that really makes science possible). This is a concept of a world that a good and wise God made, perfectly suited for humans to enjoy and to rule. The things in the world have natures that people can know, at least in part. Human senses and intelligence are the right tools for discerning and saying true things about the world. (The effects of sin, of course, can interfere with this process.) (p. 44)

The doctrine of creation is much richer than merely addressing questions of how and when God created the universe, life, and human beings.

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS — Genesis and Science — Adam and Eve

I often state my position as “I believe in a real creation of the universe by the Triune God of the Bible, in a real Adam in a real garden, committing a real sin with real consequences, and in Jesus Christ as God’s only solution to those consequences.

It is clear that Adam and Eve are presented as real people. Their role in the story, as the channel by which sin came into the world, implies that they are seen as the headwaters of the human race. The image of God distinguishes them from all the animals, and is a special bestowal of God (i.e., not a purely “natural” development). It is no wonder that all human beings share capacities for language, moral judgment, rationality, and appreciation for beauty, unlike and beyond the powers observed in the animals; any science that ignores this fact does not faithfully describe reality. The biblical worldview leads one to expect as well that all humans now share a need for God and a bent toward sin, as well as a possibility for faith in the true God. (p. 44)

Young Earthers often say that to accept an old Earth undermines the foundations of the gospel, but it is clear that one can accept an old Earth, a real Adam, a real Fall, and therefore a real need for a Savior.

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS — Genesis and Science — The flood

Young Earth creationists insist that the Bible requires a global, catastrophic flood. Many conservative scholars, including the editors and contributors to the ESV Study Bible, have looked closely at the text and determined that this is not necessary.

One must take similar care in reading the flood story. The notes will discuss the extent to which Moses intended to describe the flood’s coverage of the globe. Certainly the description of the flood implies that it was widespread and catastrophic, but there are difficulties in making confident claims that the account is geared to answering the question of just how widespread. Thus, it would be incautious to attribute to the flood all the geological formations observed today—the strata, the fossils, the deformations, and so on. Geologists agree that catastrophic events, such as volcanic eruptions and large-scale floods, have had great impact on the landscape; it is questionable, though, whether these events can in fact achieve all that might be claimed for them. Again, such matters do not come within the author’s own scope, which is to stress the interest that God has in all mankind. (p. 44)

Conclusion

Could the introductions and notes in the ESV Study Bible be wrong on these things? Yes. Could the young-Earth creationists be wrong in their interpretation of these things? Also yes. But it is clear that there are a number of conservative, Bible-believing scholars who either advocate or are willing to accept an old Earth and local flood. Based on external evidence, I choose to side with the old-Earth Biblical scholars.

Grace and Peace

Starry Night

Today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day: Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh.

Grace and Peace

Answers in Genesis conference — day 1

I went to an Answers in Genesis “special outreach” conference today. The speaker was Terry Mortenson, and the topic was “Was Darwin Right?” (though the AiG web site said the topic would be “The Age of the Earth & Why it Matters”).

Here are some things that stood out to me:

• A common young-Earth strategy is to say that there are only two options: The AiG way (God’s Word is truth) or the anti-God way (man decides truth). They leave out a third way that is completely compatible with Scriptures, which is “all truth is God’s truth.”
• I find the extreme literalism of the young-Earth creationists to be completely unimaginative (I’m not sure that is the word I want to use; I’ll try to come up with something else). Even though the Bible is full of symbolism, they leave no room for symbolism in the opening chapters of Genesis. I am not necessarily advocating an allegorical approach to the opening chapters of Genesis, but these guys leave absolutely no room for interpreting Adam being created from mud as a picture of humans being created from the same material as the rest of creation, or thorns as a picture of painful toil in the fields.
• The speaker used quotes from prominent scientists in misleading ways. For example, he used quotes from geologist Derek Ager (author of The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record and The New Catastrophism) to try to support the YEC concept of flood geology. What Ager was advocating (I’ve read the first of these books) was that Lyell’s version of uniformitarianism—sediments deposited one grain at a time for millions of years—is not consistent with Earth history. The sedimentary rock record is made up of everything from slow deposition (e.g. mud in the bottom of lakes) to catastrophic episodes, such as deposits from hurricanes, tsunamis, 500-year floods (or larger dambursts such as the Lake Missoula/Scabland floods), landslides, asteroid impacts, and volcanic eruptions. The sedimentary rock record is still understood to be the result of ongoing processes that obey physical laws; this is a far cry from the flood geology of the young-Earthers. From the presentation, the audience would think that it was a short step from Derek Ager to Henry Morris.

I could say a lot more, but I’ll hold back.

Mortenson presented “Seven C’s of the Biblical World View.” As an old-Earth creationist I would agree with most of these:

• Creation – As an old-Earth creationist I believe in a real creation from nothing by the triune God of the Bible. I don’t believe that the Bible specifies when “In the beginning” occurred.
• Corruption – I believe in a real Fall into sin. The extent of the corruption is not clearly outlined in the Bible; the YECs say that it pervaded every aspect of creation, but this is not clear from Scriptures. Certainly the “curse” of Genesis 3 affected man’s relationship with nature, but the Bible does not say to what extent.
• Catastrophe – The catastrophism of the young-Earth creationists simply does not work. The Bible does not say that Noah’s flood created the bulk of Earth’s sedimentary rocks, and doesn’t even require a global extent for this flood.
• Confusion – The YECs claim that all nations and languages originated (with subsequent further diversification) at the Tower of Babel, even though the nations listed in Genesis 10 are mostly located in the Eastern Mediterranean/Middle East. Genesis 10 tells us nothing about the origin of Eskimos or Zulus.
• Christ – I’m in complete 100% agreement. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and is God’s solution for the sin problem introduced in Genesis 3.
• Cross – Christ died as our substitute on the cross, taking the penalty for sin that we deserved.
• Consummation – Christ will come again as king and judge. The effects of Adam’s sin will be completely undone.

I asked one question in the Q&A session:

I am an old-Earth creationist who accepts the inerrancy of Scriptures. I reject young-Earth creationism because I believe it is Biblically unnecessary and scientifically unworkable. In your presentation, you had a slide that listed what you called “compromise positions” such as the progressive creation, framework, and gap interpretations. You said you rejected these because they all had one thing in common: death before the Fall. None of the passages used by young-Earth creationists to demonstrate that there was no animal death before the Fall—Genesis 3, Romans 5 and 8, and 1 Corinthians 15— actually say anything whatsoever about animals, so I don’t think you provided a firm Biblical foundation for rejecting these positions. Could you comment on this please?

Dr. Mortenson was very courteous and articulate in his response. I thought he was wrong on a number of his points, but I didn’t want to get into a debate. I asked primarily so the audience could see that perhaps there are Biblical problems with the young-Earth position. I’ve written my preliminary thoughts on death before the Fall elsewhere.

I’m planning on attending more sessions Sunday evening.

Grace and Peace

How Could God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?

The main points from How Could God Command Genocide in the Old Testament? on Justin Taylor’s blog Between Two Worlds:

1. As the maker of all things and the ruler of all people, God has absolute rights of ownership over all people and places.
2. God is not only the ultimate maker, ruler, and owner, but he is just and righteous in all that he does.
3. All of us deserve God’s justice; none of us deserve God’s mercy.
4. The Canaanites were enemies of God who deserved to be punished.
5. God’s actions were not an example of ethnic cleansing.
6. Why was it necessary to remove the Canaanites from the land?
7. The destruction of the Canaanites is a picture of the final judgment.

Taylor does an impressive job of developing each of these points. It won’t be satisfactory to everyone, but it answers many of the objections of the skeptics who try to portray the God of the Bible as an evil genocidal maniac.

Grace and Peace

HT: Cyberbrethren

Why Dan Brown left Christianity

From Parade Magazine — an interview with Dan Brown, the author of the anti-Christian The Da Vinci Code.

Q: Are you religious?
A: I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, “I don’t get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?” Unfortunately, the response I got was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question.” A light went off, and I said, “The Bible doesn’t make sense. Science makes much more sense to me.” And I just gravitated away from religion.

Q: Where are you now?
A: The irony is that I’ve really come full circle. The more science I studied, the more I saw that physics becomes metaphysics and numbers become imaginary numbers. The farther you go into science, the mushier the ground gets. You start to say, “Oh, there is an order and a spiritual aspect to science.”

It is a great  tragedy that the pastor had no answer. Here are some things the pastor could have said:

• He could have started by saying that he didn’t have all of the answers. A little humility goes a long way.
• A major point of agreement between the Bible and big-bang cosmology is that the universe had a beginning. This distinguishes Christianity from many other options, such as atheism (which finds the beginning to be a rather troubling concept) or non-theistic spiritual worldviews that posit an eternal universe.
• The universe is not eternal, nor is it self-created. The only other option is that had a beginning, which implies an ultimate cause.
• The universe is incredibly fine-tuned for the existence of life, and even intelligent life such as ourselves.
• The first cell (a “simple” bacterium) would have had to have been extremely complex to the point that naturalistic scenarios for its self-creation seem incredible.
• The pastor should have used other evidences for Christianity (historical reliability of the Scriptures, fulfilled prophecy, evidence for the resurrection) to counteract some of the doubts the young Dan Brown had.

That would be good for starters, and I would expect any pastor/evangelist/apologist to be able to elaborate on any one of these.

It is also inconsistent that Brown left Christianity because he thought it wasn’t scientific, only to replace it with fuzzy and subjective gnosticism and paganism.

Grace and Peace

HT: Wintery Knight

Competition for jobs

Yahoo News: Job competition toughest since recession began

The number of job seekers competing for each opening has reached the highest point since the recession began, according to government data released Friday.

The employment crisis is expected to worsen as companies stay reluctant to hire. Many economists expect a jobless recovery, putting pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to stimulate job creation.

There are about 6.3 unemployed workers competing, on average, for each job opening, a Labor Department report shows. That’s the most since the department began tracking job openings nine years ago, and up from only 1.7 workers when the recession began in December 2007.

A few comments:

• I’ve been told that there are 50-100 applicants for some geospatial/GIS positions I have applied for. I’ve been a finalist (top 8?) for a number of these.
• I don’t place high confidence in the government’s ability to create jobs in a way that is good for the economy in the long run. The only result of previous government job stimuli that I have seen so far has been an increase in the number of temporary positions, which I have been applying for. But what I really need is long-term employment.
• There are millions of people like me who for one reason or another are not even counted in the government’s unemployment figures.

Grace and Peace

Rattlesnake

I went for a hike in Deer Creek Canyon, southwest of Denver, this afternoon. I almost stepped on this young rattlesnake; I looked down and my shoe was about six inches from its head. Fortunately, it was stretched out full-length and unable to strike.

The pattern doesn’t seem quite right for a western diamondback, but perhaps this is because it is a juvenile.

Grace and Peace

Six bad arguments from Answers in Genesis (Part 6)

This is part six of a six-part series examining supposed evidences for a global flood that have recently appeared on the Answers in Genesis web site.

The people at AiG are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I share their love for the Lord Jesus Christ, their respect for the Bible as the Word of God, and their desire to see people come to faith in Christ. However, I view their arguments for a young Earth and geological catastrophism as unnecessary Biblically, as poor apologetics, and as a serious obstacle to the evangelism of scientists.

Unfortunately, few people in our churches or Christian education system have the geological background to critically analyze these arguments. The result is that people read articles like these from AiG, find them to be rather impressive, and believe that these present sound arguments in defense of the Bible. The opposite, however, is true. A vast majority of Christian geologists find the arguments for a young Earth and the geologic work of the Flood to be untenable. It is my strong opinion that the young-Earth arguments of young-Earth creationist organizations like AiG have no place in our churches and Christian education system.

Part one examined the young-Earth creationist (YEC) argument that fossils at high elevations are proof of a global flood.

Part two examined the YEC argument that sedimentary rocks that contain dense accumulations of fossils can best be described by the action of Noah’s Flood.

Part three examined the YEC perception that transcontinental rock layers, such as the sandstone layer that is found at the base of the Paleozoic sediments throughout much of North America, can best be explained by Noah’s flood.

Part four looked at the YEC claim that long-distance transport of sand grains can only be explained by Noah’s flood.

Part five looked at unconformities and the boundaries between geological formations. The young-Earth crowd claims that there is no evidence for weathering and erosion between layers, which is simply not true.

“Flood evidence number six” from Answers in Genesis is called “Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured.”

This final article in Andrew Snelling’s six-part series on geology and the flood begins with another incredible mis-statement:

“How could a series of sedimentary layers fold without fracturing? The only way is for all the sedimentary layers to be laid down in rapid succession and then be folded while still soft and pliable.”

Fig. 1 -- Basic diagram showing folded sedimentary rocks draped over a basement fault. The sediments were deposited as horizontal layers, and then folded as faulting occurred in the underlying crystalline rocks.

Snelling, who has a PhD in geology and is the director of the research department at Answers in Genesis, seeks to demonstrate that the entire sedimentary rock record in the Grand Canyon was unlithified (i.e. soft) when later folding and faulting occurred. If so, according to Snelling, these rocks could not have been deposited over a period of hundreds of millions of years, and must have been deposited during Noah’s flood.

Snelling describes folding of rocks associated with the East Kaibab monocline, a structure in the Grand Canyon (Fig. 1). The Tapeats Sandstone, for example, has locally experienced intense folding where it has been deformed by faulting in the underlying Precambrian basement rocks. The Tapeats Sandstone is at the base of the Paleozoic rocks of the Grand Canyon; the overlying rocks have been deformed as well.

Snelling simplifies the situation by saying that there are only two options (a common young-Earth creationist tactic):

1. If the rocks were solidified, then they would deform in a brittle fashion, characterized by faulting or shattering (Fig. 2).
2. If the rocks were soft, then they would deform in a ductile (or plastic) fashion, characterized by folding.

Fig. 2 -- Snelling has a similar diagram in his article with the caption, "When solid, hard rock is bent (or folded) it invariably fractures and breaks because it is brittle. Rock will bend only if it is still soft and pliable, like modeling clay. If clay is allowed to dry out, it is no longer pliable but hard and brittle, so any attempt to bend it will cause it to break and shatter."

Both of these statements are overgeneralizations to the point of being deceptive when used to make the young-Earth case.

The entire column of Paleozoic rocks at the locations described by Snelling is deformed by folding, so he concludes that the entire sequence of rocks must have been soft when deformed.

ANALYSIS

Snelling’s argument fails for several reasons.

1. First, Snelling has oversimplified the processes of rock deformation by stating that it is either ductile deformation of soft rocks, or plastic deformation of soft rocks. It is one thing to simplify a scientific concept for the sake of writing for a general audience, but Snelling has completely mislead his readers on this one.

Snelling states that only soft sediments are capable of ductile deformation; that soft sediments will deform like clay, while solid rocks are brittle and only capable of fracture. In reality, most solid rocks are capable of either brittle or ductile deformation, depending on the conditions. Factors that determine which will happen include the type of rock, the amount and type of stress applied to the rock; lithostatic pressure (due to the weight of overlying rocks), temperature, strain rate (fast or slow deformation), type of cement holding the grains together, and fluid pressure.

At low temperatures and pressures, such as those encountered at Earth’s surface, almost all rocks deform in a brittle manner. If one applies sufficient stress to these rocks, they will break. As one goes deeper in the Earth’s crust, temperature and pressure increases, and rocks are more likely to behave in ductile rather than a brittle fashion.  Some rock types can deform by folding at depths of less than one kilometer if stress is applied slowly. With increasing depth and temperature, more rock types can deform by folding rather than faulting.

The Tapeats Sandstone is presently buried beneath up to two kilometers of sediment, and was likely buried more deeply than this at the time of deformation.

2. A second problem for Snelling’s argument is that there are a variety of mechanisms by which a solid rock can bend rather than break. Think of a layer of sandstone, such as the Tapeats Sandstone at the base of the Grand Canyon Paleozoic sedimentary pile. A layer such as this can be folded without significant fracturing by several means:

1. Intergranular movement — individual sand grains slide past each other
2. Intragranular deformation — internal distortions within individual grains, often at the atomic level
3. Recrystallization — atoms are rearranged at the atomic level, often in the presence of fluids.

Snelling completely ignores these, even though any of them could have been in operation at the time of deformation.

3. A third—and very serious—problem for Snelling’s argument is the nature of soft-sediment deformation. He tries to show that intense folding in the Tapeats Sandstone is the result of soft-sediment deformation. But if the Tapeats and overlying formations had been soft at the time of deformation, soft-sediment deformation and slumping would have occurred on a much larger scale than what is seen at this location in the Grand Canyon.

When layers of solid rock deform, they maintain their integrity as distinct layers. For example, whether folded or faulted, the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon retains its identity as a distinct layer, without mixing with other rock units. Soft sediments, on the other hand, can respond to stress in a number of ways. In addition to folding, a results of deformation of soft sediments includes different types of soft sediment deformation and differential loading structures, such as intense localized folding, diapirs, sand pillows, and clastic dikes (Fig. 3). These structures are formed because of the inherent instability of a stack of unconsolidated sediments of varying densities and water contents.

A

B

C

Fig. 3A — Clastic dike — the layer going from upper left down to lower right has been intruded along a fracture, cross-cutting the original bedding. This happened while the sediments were still soft. Fig. 3B –Soft sediment deformation — the upper and lower sediments are undeformed, while the middle layers are intensely folded. These are glacial lake sediments (varves), and the deformation may have been caused by the movement of glacial ice above the sediments. Fig. 3C — Load casts — sediment with greater density sags down into soft sediments below Credit: Dr. Steven Dutch, used by permission

Soft sediment deformation structures are common within individual layers of the geologic column, having been formed when these layers were unlithified. For the young-Earth creationists to make their case, however, they need to be able to demonstrate that soft sediment deformation is present in the geologic record on a massive, inter-formational scale. It would not be enough to point out isolated instances of soft-sediment deformation within layers.

Fig. 4 -- Folding of soft sediments would cause considerable slumping.

4. Related to the problem of soft-sediment deformation is the problem with slumping. If this stack of sediments—a few thousand meters thick—were faulted as in Figure 1, one would expect the upper layers to slide downhill under the influence of gravity (Figure 4). As a rule, this sort of thing is not observed in the geological record, and where it is (e.g. Heart Mountain, Wyoming) it clearly occurred in the solid state.

CONCLUSION

It is common for young-Earth creationists to state that the geological record can be easily explained by Noah’s flood. They say that most sedimentary rocks are best explained by global, catastrophic processes, and that the fossils these rocks contain represent the organisms that died in the year-long deluge. The geological field evidence, on the other hand, really does not fit the flood catastrophism model.

It must be emphasized that the Bible does not say that the sedimentary rock record was formed by Noah’s flood. Unlike Snelling, most Christian geologists (along with their non-Christian colleagues) look at the rock record and agree that it was formed by slower processes operating over a long period of time. This is not something that geologists read into the rock record, but something they read from the rock record.

The young-Earth creationist approach is to try to make the Earth fit a very rigid understanding of Genesis. The result is often like trying to force a square peg into a round hole; it can only be done by distorting either the peg or the hole (or both). The end result is that neither young-Earth science nor young-Earth Bible interpretation is believable. A better approach is the “all truth is God’s truth” approach. I start with the assumption that both the Bible and what God tells us through science is true. It is not wise to make one fit the other in an unnatural way. Does this lead to tension? A little, but not as much as either the young-Earth creationists or the atheists/skeptics would have you believe. We do not fully understand either science or the opening chapters of Genesis. When we do (not in this life, I suspect) then the tension will be gone.

With love for the body of Christ, and for those who are hindered from seeing the glory of Christ by bad apologetics.

==============================================

P.S. I felt I worded this much more succinctly as a comment on another blog:

————————————–

I’ve read the AiG article, and it just doesn’t work.

The question is whether folds were formed when the rocks were solid or unconsolidated. Other Christian geologists I know have pointed out that Snelling uses selective evidence in his study, as other parts of the same layers show very clear signs of solid-state deformation.

The way to see how solid rocks can bend is to take rocks and put them in a press in an engineering laboratory and see how they behave under stress. That has been done many times, and indeed you can do all sorts of things to rocks by putting pressure on them. In Earth’s crust, this results in the folds and faults that make up much of the world’s major mountain belts. These rocks show many signs of solid-state deformation.

If one applies the same sorts of pressure to layers of unconsolidated sediments (sand, silt, clay, etc.) the results are very different. Instead of getting folded layers of rocks, one gets chaos, with blobs of material distorting and either sinking or rising, depending on density. This is called soft-sediment deformation, and is readily distinguishable in the field from solid-rock deformation.

What is observed on a massive scale in the Earth’s crust (with some exceptions) is deformation of solid rocks, not soft-sediment deformation. If the bulk of the sedimentary rocks were laid down by Noah’s flood (and the Bible does not say that they were) then soft-sediment deformation on a massive scale should be a dominant feature of the sedimentary rocks, and it isn’t.

The “all sediments must have been laid down rapidly and while being soft” argument is not consistent with laboratory and field studies, and should not be used as Christian apologetics.

With respect,
Kevin N (Christian geologist)

iMonk: Why I’m Not a Young Earth Creationist

The Internet Monk hit another home run today: iMonk 101: To Be or Not To Be or Why I’m Not A Young Earth Creationist. This is written by a Bible teacher who has no science training that I know of (but who gets his science right when he brings it in). His reasons for rejecting young-Earth creationism are a result of his Bible study, not because of his science.

My views on the relationship of scripture and science were more affected by my college Bible classes than my science classes. I learned that scripture must be rightly interpreted. It must be understood within its world, and interpreted rightly in mine. If I came away with any suspicions that the young earth creationists might be wrong, it came from my developing an appreciation for Biblical interpretation, not from the Biology lab. Secular science didn’t turn my head. I learned that the people waving the Bible around weren’t necessarily treating it with the respect it deserved.

Grace and Peace

Science without experiments?

From Times Online: School lab health and safety rules ‘could stop future scientists’:

It is a scientific fact, tested and proven by generations of pupils, that experiments in school laboratories win young people to the cause of science. White coats, goggles and the chance to set fire to things foster a passion for chemistry that even years of examinations do not extinguish.

But government advisers and eminent scientists are warning of a disturbing development that could endanger generations of future scientists: pupils are no longer allowed to experiment.

Health and safety concerns are preventing students — including those taking A levels — from performing vital and exciting investigations into what happens when one sets fire to magnesium ribbon, or drops a small glob of sodium into a dish of water.

——————————–

The comments follow an Ofsted report warning that the national curriculum and testing regime led to boring science lessons. Schools spent too much time drilling students for tests, it said.

Jane Lees, head of Hindley High School in Wigan, and a former head of science, agreed that health and safety had put an end to a number of “whiz-bang” experiments. “But we’re moving on to different ways of teaching science — with videos, and on the web with virtual learning environments which are quite as interesting. It’s a different way of learning but it should still be able to turn them on. What you need is inspirational teachers.”

———————————

Experiments at risk

Ammonium dichromate volcano Make a pile of ammonium dichromate and set the tip alight using a magnesium fuse. The result is a tiny volcano, complete with ash, steam and nitrogen gas

The thermite reaction Mix metal powder with metal-oxide to create thermite and set it alight. The mix will burn at an exceptionally high temperature

Potassium in water The classic school experiment. Drop potassium into water and it reacts violently, making hydrogen, which then ignites in a small fireball

Safety is very important, but these demonstrations can be done safely with the proper training and setup.

I still remember demonstrations from middle school physical science and high school chemistry (a long long time ago), such as sodium in water, and (gasp) actually handling mercury (do students today ever even see mercury?).

Grace and Peace