Archive for the ‘Creationism/ID/Evolution’ Category
This year we are going to devote most of our meetings to address issues regarding Young Earth Creationism (YEC), Old Earth Creationism (OEC), the scope and validity of evolutionary theory and their relationship to Biblical inspiration. These topics are frequently raised during discussions on other topics.
Opinion is divided within our subscribers and our own committee. The views expressed by the speakers do not necessarily represent the view of Reasonable Faith Adelaide (RFA), as we currently don’t have one. It will be a miracle if we attain unity, but we hope that we at least become better informed and empathetic towards those we disagree with.
Gordon’s arguments can be classified into the following types:
Those that indicate an age longer than the maximum YEC limit,
Those that estimate the age of the earth (estimated to be 4.54 billion years), mainly based on radio-active decay estimates, and
Those that estimate the age of the universe (estimated to be 13.77 billion years).
Dr Gordon Stanger
Dr Gordon Stanger is a geologist, hydrologist, water resources specialist, and a climate-change impact analyst. He is an RFA committee member, semi-retired and is a keen advocate of ‘sensible Christianity’.
On a lighter note, I came across this a few days ago:
Amongst Christians, evolutionary theory and the age of the earth are highly divisive issues, and our subscribers and committee members also have different opinions. The differences are quite stark and at least one party must be radically wrong. We have had speakers with various views in the past. On this occasion, Dr Gordon Stanger will present his contribution.
His summary of what he will cover is as follows:
In a North American study, 67% of young people, who had been given a Christian upbringing, had abandoned their faith. The primary reason given was that “science in general, and evolution in particular, disproves the Bible”.
At least a third of global Christianity teaches that:
Evolution isn’t true,
The Bible and science are incompatible, and
One must choose between Darwin and Jesus, and between God and evolution.
This issue is as polarized as vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers; US Republicans vs Democrats, Scientists vs climate deniers; or ‘Young Earth’ vs ‘Old Earth’ Christians.
But can Earth’s amazing panoply of life be generated by the seemingly random processes of evolution, and yet simultaneously be an outcome of God’s creative volition? Creationists emphatically say NO! I emphatically say YES! …..and will explain how this can be true.
In this presentation I will argue that evolution is a reality and that the true core of this issue is more a matter of Biblical interpretation. Do we read scripture from the modern perspective of Biblical literal inerrancy, or do we read it in its original context of multi-faceted visual imagery and a rich complex of early Hebrew linguistic idioms?
Science strongly indicates that a Biblical literalistic interpretation is erroneous, whilst using the original contextual frame of reference is consistent with reality. Science and Christianity are allies, not enemies.
Dr Gordon Stanger is a geologist, hydrologist, water resources specialist, and a climate-change impact analyst. He is semi-retired and is a keen advocate of ‘sensible Christianity’.
When Paul arrived in Athens (Acts 17: 16-32), a group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him, and they gave Paul the opportunity to speak to the Athenians in the Areopagus. For the previous 450 years, Greek and Roman philosophers had been debating God(s) versus chance in creation, and this debate continued for a further 250 years after Paul’s speech.
The debate began in 400 BC, when Democritus introduced the concepts of atomic atheism, the infinite power of chance, evolution, and determinism. This triggered Socrates to argue for God’s existence based on arguments from design, the power of the mind, and a predictable cosmos. Later, Epicurus invented naturalism as the framework for understanding science. Then the Stoics became the greatest intellectual opponents of atheism for 500 years, inventing systematic arguments for creation until atheism faded from the classical world by 300 AD. Why did atheism fade out?
This 700-year debate only came to light in 2007, so it is all quite a new slant on the classical world. Leonard Long will describe this 700-year debate and its relevance to our times.
Leonard is a retired doctor and has spent much of his retirement studying the historical development of thought and ideologies in Western culture.
Your DNA is what makes You, You. Irrespective of your world view, the discovery of the inner workings & complexities of life under the microscope should leave anyone with an inquisitive mind in wonderment. Our bodies use, preserve and copy this molecular script in such a way that life and the reproduction of life is made possible.
The goal for this talk is to cover some of the key findings that science has discovered about the structure and expression of DNA, and how this all ties in to what we are. Josh also presents current theories and models that seek to explain how the complexities surrounding DNA has become a reality.
Many people conclude that there must be a designer at least to account for the complexity of living things. However, Richard Dawkins contends that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, through natural selection, can explain the rise of complexity by gradual degrees from simple beginnings. In “The Blind Watchmaker”, Richard Dawkins states:
Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. (p.14)
Dawkins goes on to claim that God is superfluous and highly improbable. Are Dawkins’ argument reasonable?
Christians have responded in quite different ways, ranging from substantial rejection of evolutionary theory, through to acceptance of some form of guided evolution. To the lay person, the divergent claims can be very confusing. So, the following questions often arise:
What can I know?
Who should I trust?
Does the world need a designer?
Kevin Rogers provides an overview and discussion of the arguments presented in “The Blind Watchmaker” and addresses the above questions, including “Does the world in which we live point to a Supernatural Designer?”
Ray addressed a Reasonable Faith Adelaide (South Australia) meeting on the 14th of June 2014 with a Young Earth Creation view of the Biblical Deluge. A “Flood Geology” video of the talk is on YouTube: The talk is 1 hour, and the group discussion is 50 minutes. Some people have posted comments on YouTube. See the video here:
Reasonable Faith Adelaide neither supports nor opposes a Young Earth Creation view, and encourages healthy and respectful argument. You can receive the RFA email by signing up on our website. (more…)
Starlight, Time and the New Physics
by John Hartnett
Christians are divided on the issue of evolution and the age of the earth. During the first half of 2014 we have had a number of meetings that cover aspects of this issue and various speakers have been given the opportunity to present their views. Reasonable Faith Adelaide does not currently endorse any particular view. However, we acknowledge that this is an enormous issue that thinking Christians should not ignore.
On the 20th of February, Dr John Hartnett presented a critique of Big Bang Cosmology. That presentation pointed out various problems with the Big Bang Theory. However, John did not provide and alternate view on that night.
On Thursday the 12th of June Dr John Hartnett spoke on “Starlight, Time and the New Physics” in which he described his cosmological model that he claims is consistent with the observed evidence and a Young Earth Creationist view. Although John is an eminent physicist, his talk is understandable by the general public. The talk was very interesting regardless of whether you agree with a Young Earth view. John is a very competent scientist and a good public speaker. There were plenty of beautiful slides of stars and galaxies. He was also very open about assumptions and limitations of his model. The You Tube recording is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW8VJOBF3o0. This is well worth watching. For reference, see Starlight, Time and the New Physics – Power Point Slides.
John Hartnett
Associate Professor John Hartnett is one of the world’s leading advocates for Young Earth Creationism in the area of physics and cosmology and also lives in little old Adelaide. John received both his B.Sc. (hons) and PhD with distinction from the School of Physics at the University of Western Australia. He is currently employed as an ARC Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) Fellow at the University of Adelaide, in the Institute of Photonics and Advanced Sensing (IPAS) and the School of Chemistry and Physics. His research interests include ultra-high stability cryogenic microwave oscillators based on pure sapphire resonators, ultra-stable cryogenic optical cavities and tests of fundamental theories of physics and their cosmological implications. He has an interest in the large scale structure of the universe that shows periodic structure1 and in alternate cosmologies that do require dark matter and dark energy.2 He holds to a biblical creationist worldview and has developed and continues to develop cosmogonies that are faithful to biblical text. He authored “Starlight, Time and the New Physics” and “Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered” (co-authored with Alex Williams). He is the 2010 recipient of the IEEE UFFC Society W.G. Cady award. He has published more than 100 papers in scientific journals and book chapters.
1J.G. Hartnett, K. Hirano, “Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys,” Astrophysics and Space Science, 318, 1 & 2, 13-24, 2008.
2J.G. Hartnett, A valid finite bounded expanding Carmelian universe without dark matter, Int. J. Theoretical Physics, 52 (12): 4360-4366,2013.
Geochronology
Radioactive Dating Methods
Introduction
This is a brief summary of the presentation given to Reasonable Faith Adelaide on Thursday 15th of May by Dr Justin Payne. See our You Tube recording for the complete talk and discussion. See also his Geochronology Power Point Slides.
Justin was a lecturer and researcher within the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, but is now working for the University of South Australia. His presentation was part of our series on Old earth versus Young Earth Creationism (YEC). Justin presented the conventional scientific view on dating methods, which supports an old earth.
Geochronology is the science of determining the age of rocks, fossils, and sediments, within a degree of uncertainty inherent to the method used. Geochronology is a generic term for dating methods. However, in practice it is closely associated with radioactive dating methods. Justin’s talk concentrated specifically on Uranium/Lead dating using Zircon crystals.
Basics of Radioactive Decay
The nucleus of each atom contains protons and neutrons. Both protons and neutrons are called hadrons. Protons are positively charged and neutrons do not have any charge. An atom contains an outer shell of electrons. If an atom is neutrally charged then the number of electrons equals the number of protons. It is the number of electrons that determines the chemical behaviour of each element. An image of a Helium atom is shown below.
The nucleus of a Helium atom contains 2 protons (red) and 2 neutrons (blue). The nucleus is surrounded by 2 electrons. The atomic number of an element is the number of protons in the nucleus and the atomic weight is the number of hadrons (protons plus neutrons). Thus for a Helium atom the atomic number is 2 and the atomic weight is 4.
Each Uranium atom has 92 protons and so its atomic number is 92. Uranium has several isotopes. The common isotopes are 235U and 238U, where U is the symbol for Uranium and the superscripts indicate the number of hadrons (atomic weight). Uranium isotopes are unstable and undergo radioactive decay. When the elements decay they emit particles or rays and form different elements. When a nucleus decays it emits an:
An Alpha particle,
Beta particle, and/or
Gamma ray.
An alpha particle is a Helium nucleus. Thus when a nucleus emits an alpha particle the nucleus loses 2 protons and 2 neutrons. This means that the atomic number is reduced by 2 and the atomic weight is reduced by 4. A Beta particle is simply a negatively charged electron. When a nucleus emits a beta particle, this means that a neutron is changed into a proton. So the atomic number is increased by 1 and the atomic weight remains the same. A gamma ray is a high energy electromagnetic wave (photon) and does not change the atomic weight or atomic number.
Uranium/Lead decay
Justin focussed on Uranium/Lead decay within Zircon crystals.
Zircon crystals are small crystals that form within rocks, such as granite. In its molten state, Zircon rejects lead. Thus, when Zircon crystals are formed, they will not contain any lead. Thus the age of a Zircon crystal can be dated from the Uranium/Lead ratio.
Uranium exists in 2 isotopes and these have different half lives. 238U decays into 206Pb with a half life of 4.47 billion years and 235U decays into 207Pb with a half life of 0.704 billion years. The age of a Zircon crystal can be calculated from the Lead/Uranium ratio for both isotopes. Both of these calculations are independent and should yield the same answer. This is expressed by the Concordia diagram as shown below.
If all is well then the Lead/Uranium ratios should match each other on the red line. If they do not, then an “event” has occurred in the past, such as loss or gain of either Lead or Uranium. Methods exist for determining how long ago this event occurred.
The age of the crystal can also be estimated from the ratio of the Lead isotopes. If there is a Lead loss then this will apply equally to both Lead isotopes. Thus age estimates from the Lead isotope ratios are unaffected by Lead loss.
Some Zircon crystals have defects that yield false results. However, these defects are detectable and so scientists have a reasonable idea for knowing when to reject test samples.
Justin has been dating Zircon crystals for a considerable time in diverse areas in Western Australia and South Australia. He also does the analysis of the zircon samples in laboratory facilities at the University of Adelaide. Over time the results yielded are generally consistent and affirm confidence in the technique. The claimed accuracy of the technique is better than 1%.
Young Earth Creationists claim that radioactive dating makes the following assumptions:
The decay rate has been constant throughout time.
The isotope abundances in the specimen have not been altered during its history by the addition or removal of either parent or daughter elements.
When the rock was formed it contained a known amount of the daughter material.
The first item is indeed an assumption. However, there is no evidence to the contrary and the decay rates conform with atomic theory.
The second item is not an assumption. Methods do exist for detecting loss or removal of the parent or daughter elements and also for estimating when these events occurred.
The third item is also not an assumption. For Uranium/lead dating, molten Zircon rejects Lead. This can be tested in the laboratory in the here and now. Hence, the initial composition of the Zircon crystal is known.
Justin claims that Young Earth Creationists (YECs) highlight the minor instance where dating methods do not work and do not properly acknowledge the majority of cases where they do. Geochronologists are aware of the assumptions in the method and of possible causes of erroneous readings.
This is a very simplified summary of Justin’s presentation. I suggest that you watch the You Tube recording of his presentation and the subsequent discussion.
Kevin Rogers
Cosmic Mythology
Exposing the Big Bang as Philosophy not Science
1 Big Bang Mythology?
Christians are divided on the issue of evolution and the age of the earth. During the first half of 2014 there will be a number of meetings that will cover aspects of this issue and various speakers will be given the opportunity to present their views. Reasonable Faith Adelaide does not currently endorse any particular view. We are a house divided and are a work in progress. However, we acknowledge that this is an enormous issue that thinking Christians should not ignore. It is also up to you to question, challenge and form your own opinions.
On Thursday, the 20th of February, Dr John Hartnett presented a critique of Big Bang Cosmology. John is an advocate of the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position and is a frequent contributor to Creation Ministries International (CMI) publications, e.g., the Creation Magazine. He is also an associate professor of Physics at Adelaide University. He is the author of “Starlight, Time and the New Physics” and “Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered”, and has also published numerous papers on physics secular peer reviewed journals.
2 Synopsis
John has provided the following synopsis:
The history of the development of the standard big bang cosmology is described and understood in terms of its philosophical underpinnings. The Cosmological Principle is explained as the major and essential assumption upon which it all depends. Due to this it has been required to invent unknown stuff, such as the expansion of space, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, CMB radiation as afterglow of Big Bang, and Inflation. None of these are experimentally observed in the lab. Yet all of these are needed, else the standard LCDM model utterly fails. Though we hear for the first time those speaking of discarding the standard model, they have built themselves a modern-day tower of Babel, an edifice of a structure that must be supported at all costs, especially since in 2011 the Nobel Prize was awarded for the accelerating universe driven by the unknown stuff of science fiction—Dark Energy. Think about it, all of the evidence for cosmological expansion comes from the cosmos itself. There is no independent method to determine if space is expanding. It cannot be experimentally verified in the local lab. So the evidence must be accepted on faith to some extent, which makes the argument much weaker. Cosmology then is not a science subject to the same experimental rigor that we expect of the repeatable science done in a laboratory today. Look how ludicrous the so-called ‘science’ has become with the invention of ‘unknowns’ to explain the unknowns. Therefore the philosophical nature of the cosmology leads to it being correctly described as, not science at all, but an atheistic belief system.
See John’s Power Point slides on Cosmic Mythology. A video record of his talk and subsequent discussion is provided on You Tube.
3 Biosketch
John Hartnett
Associate Professor John Hartnett received both his B.Sc. (hons) and PhD with distinction from the School of Physics at the University of Western Australia. He is currently employed as an ARC Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) Fellow at the University of Adelaide, in the Institute of Photonics and Advanced Sensing (IPAS) and the School of Chemistry and Physics. His research interests include ultra-high stability cryogenic microwave oscillators based on pure sapphire resonators, ultra-stable cryogenic optical cavities and tests of fundamental theories of physics and their cosmological implications. He has an interest in the large scale structure of the universe that shows periodic structure1 and in alternate cosmologies that do not require dark matter and dark energy.2 He holds to a biblical creationist worldview and has developed and continues to develop cosmogonies that are faithful to biblical text. He authored “Starlight, Time and the New Physics” and “Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered” (co-authored with Alex Williams). He is the 2010 recipient of the IEEE UFFC Society W.G. Cady award. He has published more than 100 papers in scientific journals and book chapters.
1J.G. Hartnett, K. Hirano, “Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys,” Astrophysics and Space Science, 318, 1 & 2, 13-24, 2008.
2J.G. Hartnett, A valid finite bounded expanding Carmelian universe without dark matter, Int. J. Theoretical Physics, 52 (12): 4360-4366,2013.
Why I Am Not a Creationist
OnThursday the 7th of November Dr Ian Saunders, a CSIRO scientist, spoke on “Why I am not a Creationist”.
Christians are divided on the issue of evolution and the age of the earth. Many of our own members are supporters of Creation Ministries International (CMI), which promotes Young Earth Creationism (YEC). On the other hand, many of our members are not YECs. Ian is one of those.
Ian has been a Christian and a professional scientist for about 40 years. He recently retired from a position as Senior Principal Research Scientist at CSIRO. The publication of his first scientific paper coincided with his conversion to Christianity and he has endeavoured since to keep the two sides of his life thoroughly entwined, each being a part of the search for truth. His talk is summarised briefly as follows:
******
In his talk he spoke about the development of the scientific method as a response to dissatisfaction with a wholly philosophical view that sought to deduce everything from first principles. As an example of the method, he described the rise and fall of the phlogiston theory of combustion, which initially seemed to explain the facts, but became less and less tenable as more experiments were done until after 70 years it was abandoned. The scientific method seeks to avoid reliance on authority and to take an impartial approach to evaluating theories against observations: “Love your colleagues’ results as your own”.
The danger with accepting prior authority is that it encourages looking for evidence to support a position rather than to discover the truth. So Ian is neither an evolutionist or a creationist in the sense that he squeezes his data to match his preconceptions. He illustrated the way in which modern biological research papers promote an evolutionist position even when there is no need to go beyond the observed phenomena.
However, he does not accept Genesis 1-11 as accurate history. He gave some examples from geology and astronomy that cast severe doubt on a literal interpretation. Instead he sees them as parables teaching spiritual truth about the relationships of God to the Universe and to Mankind and about the existence of evil. He spoke also about evolution, acknowledging that he sees it at the most likely explanation of a range of phenomena, though without direct evidence one way or the other at this point.
He quoted with approval St Augustine “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture” [De Genesi ad Litteram, I, xviii, 37]
Ian’s view is that the Bible contains unique knowledge about God and his purposes, while science can tell us about what is (or was) but not about meaning or purpose. The fine details of creation are not key to our relationship with God and it is possible to combine a strong faith in Jesus with an acceptance of scientific research. We should avoid placing stumbling blocks in the path to Jesus by insisting on matters of secondary importance. Ultimately, Jesus is the Truth and one day we will see Him face to face.
******
Ian’s talk may be accessed from the following links:
Did we resolve the issue once and for all to everyone’s satisfaction? Absolutely not! However, (for the most part) we were able to discuss the issues in an open, friendly and respectful manner.
Reasonable Faith Adelaide currently does not officially endorse any particular view, but encourages discussion on the relevant issues so that that people are better informed to develop their own opinion. So, I encourage you to come and hear Ian and participate in the discussion.
During the course of discussion we decided to cover a couple of additional topics in future meetings:
Radioactive Dating Methods – What are they, how do they work, how accurate are they, and are they reliable?
On the 20th of February 2014, John Hartnett (Associate Professor of physics at Adelaide University) will speak on “Cosmic Mythology: Exposing the Big Bang as Philosophy, not Science“
