"The best way to learn about history and the age of the earth is to consult the history book of the universe—the Bible. Many scientists and theologians accept a straightforward reading of Scripture and agree that the earth is about 6,000 years old. It is better to use the infallible Word of God for our scientific assumptions than to change His Word in order to compromise with "science" that is based upon man's fallible assumptions. True science will always support God's Word.

Based on the measured helium retention, a statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This age agrees with literal biblical history and is about 250,000 times shorter than the conventional age of 1.5 billion years for zircons. The conclusion is that helium diffusion data strongly supports the young-earth view of history."

This may, in fact, be true. I'll have more to say on it later. But I want to highlight something right now, so as not to distract from later discussion.

The last paragraph is a cIassic example of making the evidence fit the narrative, of begging the question. The whole point of the article seems to be to find an alternative to radiometric dating that gives acceptably "young" results, rather than actually presenting a coherent argument against the accuracy and effectiveness of radiometric dating (there is a pronounced shift in tone toward helium diffusion in the last few paragraphs of the article, almost like a punch-line to a joke).

Oh, some discussion takes place in the article which attempts to demonstrate the "inaccuracy" of radiometric dating. One example given purports to do this by demonstrating that radiometric dating methods gave an age of at least 270,0000 years (corrected from: 35,000 -- my bad for quoting from memory only) to a rock which had "formed" during a volcanic eruption within the last century.

Of course, there's a few flaws in that kind of analysis, because the volcanic rock is not, in some senses, "new" rock; it is very old rock which has been in a liquid (magma) form for some time. And even if portions of the rock were newer, it's still wholly possible that the flow of lava either contained older material within it, or else that it picked up older rock inclusions as it flowed.

Either way, the fact that "new"-looking rock shows up as being substantially older -- and then only in four (corrected from: one) rather suspect example for which references have not been fully published -- is not an automatic disproof of the utility and accuracy of radiometric dating. Especially since many dozens of examples of radiometric dating giving consistent, accurate (within acceptable error) results exist to drown this one counter-example that Young Earthers cling to.

Four aberrant results out of hundreds. Yes...clearly it's the rest of the scientific community who have it dead wrong. ;)

(Update: I see that someone else is, predictably, talking about this from the opposing view. Too bad he's posting material that's already been dismissed above.)

It may well be that the data concerning helium diffusion "supports the young-earth view," but does that mean that "the young-earth view" is correct, even in the face of other modes of analysis (such as radiometric dating) which suggest that the Earth is old? Or is this simply a case of Young Earth Creationists discarding that evidence which they cannot argue against, and putting forth only that evidence which looks like it might support their side of things?

Indeed, the same thing could be said of the article in general; based on only four potentially erroneous samples, the article ignores the hundreds of instances in which radiometric dating has given accurate results that matched predictions and were consistent with dates for geological formations gleaned from non-radiometric methods.

Parting thought: no "old-Earther" I know -- and certainly, not I, myself -- discards evidence which doesn't fit the Old Earth model out of hand. That's a Young Earth Creationist trick, and not one which honest scientists engage in. Granted, I'm an engineer, not a scientist, but mine is likewise a profession which depends on its members being honest in their work and findings, and I can respect the principles under which good science is conducted.

Evidence which suggests a young Earth is not discarded out of hand...but neither is it a "gotcha" that carries in itself more weight than all the other extant evidence which suggests an old Earth. Remember: there is a very large body of evidence which suggests that the world is old, and only a handful of localized examples which suggest that the Earth is young.

And the results of tests done on these samples are suspect; there may have been olivine inclusions in some of the samples, which fix argon at a higher concentration than the surrounding "lava rock." Or it may be that Young Earthers just don't get that some of these dating methods can't actually be used on things which are very young; one sample from Mount St. Helens was sent to a lab that openly states that it cannot date samples accurately which are younger than two million years.

It may even be that the helium levels incorporated in the aforementioned zircon were indicative of some manner of helium contamination in the rock, perhaps due to intrusion by hydrothermal veins. One other problem: if what looks like a billion years of radioactive decay happened in only a week, then surely a billion years worth of radioactive heat must have been produced. Which probably would have rendered the Earth uninhabitable.

The point is this: occasional samples which disagree with the vast majority of collected data are not reasons, in and of themselves, to go back and discard all the rest of that collected data in favour of the few odd results. First, honest scientists need to look at whether the odd results they achieved were not tainted by some manner of error. And as it turns out, where radiometric dating and helium-fixing in zircon are concerned, Young Earthers have made a staggering number of errors.

4.28 billion years old, these stones.

What was that about 6,000 years?

Update: three thoughts.

1) it's just funny that a certain other GS user just always happens to be talking about the same things I blog about, after a one or two hour delay. Do great minds really think alike, or is this something more sinister?

2) it should be noted that not all rocks are dated from fossils. There are other technologies, like...say.. radiometric dating...which come into play, as well as other methods (such as dating relative to surrounding geological layers with known ages).

3) a lot of Young Earthers seem to forget that the geological record which is still in use today (for the most part) predates, by at least a decade, Charles Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species. And nobody raised a stink about it. Now, people seem to have evolution and geology all confused and conflated, which is both highly dishonest and highly sloppy.

Inigo Montoya's phrasing just never gets old, does it? In this particular case, I'm applying it to a list of 20 "reasons" why evolution and the Bible are not compatible, published by Apologetics Press. The list seems, at first, to be quite persuasive…but as will become obvious, it should only be persuasive to those who know very little about both evolution and about the Bible.

I confess that such lists amuse me, if only because they again prove right the Augustinian teaching that "sually, even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the Sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men…. Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Most lists of this nature are comprised of entries that reduce to one (or both) of two basic fallacies: ignorance of Scripture or ignorance of science. As we move through the list, then O Reader, let's see if we can spot which error is the more prominent in each entry.



(1) The Bible teaches that matter is not eternal; rather, it was created by God(Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3). Evolution, on the other hand, asserts that matter is eternal, and that it is absurd to suggest that it was created ex nihilo (out of nothing).



This is clear scientific ignorance, and then for one simple reason: evolutionary theory does not pertain to the physics and origin of matter, and has nothing in particular to say about the nature thereof.

Modern physics still generally accepts the validity of Big Bang theory, which asserts that all extant matter came out of an initial eruptive event, when a condensed "megaparticle" exploded outward. Of course, there was probably no matter in said megaparticle — it was probably composed entirely of energy (which is dualistically related to matter according to Albert Einstein's famous formula).

Physicists and other theorists have not come to a conclusion about the origin of the megaparticle which precipiated the Big Bang, but there is easily room in the theory for ex nihilo creation, and Christians can easily believe both in that concept and in modern theories concerning the formation of the Universe.

Of course, a second question could be asked as to whether creation ex nihilo is actually an integral part of Biblical faith, but that is a subject for another blog post.



(2) The Genesis account affirms that the Earth was created on the first day of that initial week (Genesis 1:1), and that the Sun and stars were created later — on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). Evolution asserts that the Sun and stars existed billions of years before our Earth came into being.



This is also a very clear example of scientific ignorance, and then again for one simple reason: evolutionary theory pertains only to the emergence of life on Earth, and does not pertain to the formation of stellar bodies.

Aside: it is true that modern astronomy and physics assert that the formation of stars must necessarily have pre-dated the formation of planets — planet-forming matter accretion discs tend to only be able to form around objects with strong gravity, such as stars.

But we have to ask: is this really incompatible with Scripture?

At risk of sounding like a progressive creationist (which I am not, I hasten to disclaim), it should be pointed out that the first line of the Book of Genesis — which is the verse we know as Genesis 1:2[1] posits an "earth" (small 'e') already in existence, without form and void, over the waters of which the Spirit of God moves. Genesis, then, begins in media res, with the formless void of early creation already present, and God moving over it.

God creates Earth (big 'E') in verse 10, the firmament in verse 7, stars in verses 14-15, the Sun and Moon (apparently) in verses 16-17…and day and night way back in verse 5. Light itself was created in verse 4.

Now here is a question: absent the Sun and Moon, how would "day" and "night" have been delineated, especially since Genesis 1:5 makes it clear that the delineation between then specifically had to do with the light of day and the darnkess of night? And indeed, how could there have been evening and morning on each of the days of creation, without a sunset to denote the end of a day and a sunrise to denote the beginning of the next one?

Indeed, how is there light — in the visible spectrum — at all absent the presence of sources thereof?

As I see it, three explanations are possible here:

1. This account is not meant to be a literal description of historical events
2. God created the Sun and Moon back in verse 4, but did not fix their positions until verse 16
3. God Himself is the light referred to prior to the creation of the Sun and Moon

Of these three, only the first explanation makes sense in a way that affirms both Scripture and the natural evidence. The second explanation, however, does serve to demonstrate that even the Genesis account is compatible with the idea that the stars were created before the planets were. The third explanation is bollocks, however, unless we are to assume that God created Himself in Genesis 1:3, despite the fact that He was already extant in Genesis 1:2.



(3) Moses stated that the "waters" existed before any land appeared (Genesis 1:2,6,9). Evolution, however, alleges that the Earth's waters gradually seeped out of its interior to form vast oceans.



This is again clear scientific ignorance: evolutionary theory does not pertain to the geological formation of the Earth, but only to the emergence of life on the planet once it had formed.

Moreover, geological theory doesn't argue that water seeped out of the interior of the Earth. It is thought that, during the Hadean Eon — the period of time in which the Earth first formed and took its shape as a planet some 4.6 billion years ago — the oceans of the world formed by a combination of factors which principally have to do with water vapor:



A sizeable quantity of water would have been in the material which formed the Earth. Water molecules would have escaped Earth's gravity until the planet attained a radius of about 40% of its current size; after that point, water (and other volatile substances) would have been retained. Hydrogen and helium are expected to continually leak from the atmosphere, but the lack of denser noble gases in the modern atmosphere suggests that something disastrous happened to the early atmosphere.

Part of the young planet is theorized to have been disrupted by the impact which created the Moon, which should have caused melting of one or two large areas. Present composition does not match complete melting and it is hard to completely melt and mix huge rock masses. However, a fair fraction of material should have been vaporized by this impact, creating a rock vapor atmosphere around the young planet. The rock vapor would have condensed within two thousand years, leaving behind hot volatiles which probably resulted in a heavy carbon dioxide atmosphere with hydrogen and water vapor. Liquid water oceans existed despite the surface temperature of 230°C because of the atmospheric pressure of the heavy CO2 atmosphere. As cooling continued, subduction and dissolving in ocean water removed most CO2 from the atmosphere but levels oscillated wildly as new surface and mantle cycles appeared.

Study of zircons has found that liquid water must have existed as long ago as 4400 Ma, very soon after the formation of the Earth. This requires the presence of an atmosphere.

At risk of sounding like a scientific concordist, it should be pointed out that this geological theory is entirely compatible with the idea that the existence of water predated the existence of the Earth; water vapor could easily have been a major component of the accretion disc from which the Earth was formed.



(4) The Genesis narrative states that light existed before the Sun was created (Genesis 1:3,16), while evolution contends that the Sun was the Earth's first light.



This is mostly a logical failure: if not from the Sun, where the the light come from? As was previously noted, God could not be the light source referred to in Genesis, because God did not spontaneously create Himself in Genesis 1:3. The light — which, since it was able to separate morning from evening, must have been visible spectrum light — would have required some manner of point/emission source.

What was this source, if not the Sun?

Note, however, that there is also yet another misrepresentation of the science here: evolutionary therory, as was previously noted, does not pertain to stellar formation.



(5) The Bible specifically states that there were "waters above," separated by an "expanse" [ASV footnote] from the waters upon the Earth [which doubtless condensed at the time of the Flood]. Evolution claims that there was continuous atmosphere above the early Earth.



Once more, scientific ignorance rears its ugly head: as has been previously noted, evolutionary theory is not concerned with planetary formation or the geological history of the world.

But here we also see the conflict of the ancient cosmological model presented in Genesis (pictured below) with the actual arrangement of the Universe.



We know that the firmament in Scripture — the dome of the sky — is understood to be solid, like bronze (Job 37:18). We know that the stars, Moon, and Sun are embedded in it (Genesis 1:15-17). We know that it separates the waters above it from the waters below it (Genesis 1:6-7) — which, incidentally, argues also for its solidity, since an empty expanse wouldn't exactly hold back a torrent of water.

And we know that the Earth was formed in the middle of the waters under the firmament (c.f. Genesis 1:9-10), a flat Earth with a circumferential sea (c.f. Isaiah 40:22).

That's the reality of the cosmological model presented in Genesis, and it simply doesn't compare to the reality of the cosmos that modern astronomy has revealed. There is, in fact, little compatibility between the two. If one really wants to get technical, for example, there are no "waters above" — beyond the Sun, the Moon, the stars, and the sky there is only the black emptiness of space (and a few stray hydrogen ions).

But at risk of sounding, again, like a concordist, let's take a brief look at the actual theory concerning Earth's formation, and see if it is as incompatible with Scripture as is claimed. The assertion is that God formed the atmosphere after the Earth, according to the Book of Genesis, and that science asserts the presence of a continual atmosphere.

By looking again at what information exists concerning the Hadean Eon, however, we see that the assertion concerning what science says is, in fact, not true. During the early stages of its formation, the proto-planetary Earth wouldn't have had sufficient gravity or size to maintain an atmosphere. So even in the geological theories concerning Earth's formation, the atmosphere is not an ever-present aspect of the planet; it came later, once the planet had grown large enough to keep the gases and vapours trapped by gravity.



(6) The Scriptures teach that the first biological forms of life upon the Earth were the plants (Genesis 1:11), whereas the theory of evolution argues that the initial life forms were marine organisms.

(7) The Bible teaches that fruit-bearing trees existed before fish were created (Genesis 1:11,20), but evolution contends that fish evolved long before fruit-bearing trees.



These two points are, really, the same point repeated twice. Was Apologetics Press only able to think up 19 points for their presentation that they found it necessary to pad the list with such an obvious repetition?

The best thing that can be said for these points is that they at least graspa, belatedly, the purpose and extent of evolutionary theory, which is only concerned with the emergence of life into the world.

Of course, even here, the would-be apologists get it wrong: the earliest life on Earth was not, strictly speaking, marine life; a more accurate cIassfication would be "bacteria." These micro-organisms don't really fall into the category of plant or animal, to be fair.

And at risk of sounding like a concordist, it should be noted that the current proposed models of early evolution suggest that this early life acquired the ability to produce food photosynthetically long before it diversified into more complex forms of life; in one sense, at least, the ancestorship of plants predates that of animals.



(8) The Genesis record declares that birds were created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20) and that insects [creeping things] were created afterward on the sixth day (Geneses 1:24). Evolutionists contend that insects were in existence long before birds.

(10) Genesis instructs us that birds came first (Genesis 1:21), and that creeping things (which included reptiles) came later (Genesis 1:24). Evolution, of course, asserts that birds evolved from reptiles.



Finally, Apologetics Press gets one right, at least in terms of the science: insectoid life forms did, in fact, predate avian life forms. We have a goodly amount of fossil evidence in support of this conclusion (c.f. Job 12:7-9). Unfortunately, here again we see that the would-be apologists weren't able to come up with 20 actual points of discussion, and so were forced to repeat themselves.

But here we must remember something. The Spirit inspired the authors of Scripture, but that does not mean that the authors of Scripture just sat there taking dictation from the Lord when they wrote the various texts of the books of the Bible. They wrote in a very human way, with human knowledge, about human experiences…and the Spirit worked to ensure that in all their writings, a consistent, infallible and inerrant message of faith was presented.

But, as God asks of Job in the Book of Job, where were the authors of Scripture when God laid the foundation of the Earth? Did Moses witness Creation? Did Isaiah? Did Job? Did we? Of course not! And so, when the authors of Genesis set out to record the account of creation, they drew upon the cultural legends, origins mythologies, and historical beliefs of the Hebrew people as expressed through fluid oral traditions.

And the Spirit of God, accommodating to their knowledge as a parent accommodates to a child, inspired their authorship to ensure that an infallible, inerrant message of faith was imparted to humanity through the historical legends being recorded. We must remember this most important fact: the Bible is a book of faith! It is not a book of science. It is not a book of history. Yes, it contains many historical elements, and it even gets a few scientific principles correct here and there…but these are incidents within the text, and not the point of the Scriptures as a whole. Yes, Abraham was historical. Yes, David and Solomon were historical. Yes, Jesus — the Son of God — was historical, and did in fact die upon a cross, and did in fact rise again on the third day in fulfilment of the Scriptures.

But these historical realities within Scripture are not the point of Scripture, and do not mean that all of Scripture is necessarily an accurate historical account. Scripture contains poetry, it contains metaphor, it contains allegory, and it contains historical fact…and in all of these, it contains and conveys a message of faith, hope, love, and salvation. And it is the message, and not necessarily the incidental aspects of the text, that is important for us to hear and learn. Thus, it was the message, and not the presentation of a completely accurate historical account of creation, that must have been important to the Lord when He inspired the authors of Scripture.



(9) Moses wrote that plants were made before the Sun was brought into being (Genesis 1:11, 14ff.) while, as everyone knows, evolution affirms that the Sun was burning billions of years prior to the first plant.



Plants cannot live without the Sun. This isn't a chicken and egg argument; the Sun clearly had to come first, because plants require the light of the Sun for the photosynthetic processes they use to manufacture food for themselves.

And as was previously discussed, the Genesis account actually does leave ample room for the conclusion that the Sun was created prior to the Earth, and therefore plants. The existence of day and night, evening and morning, and visible light in the early verses of Genesis all suggest that this is, in fact, the case.



(11) The Mosaic narrative reveals that living creatures were created according to individual groups, and that thereafter, each reproduced after its own "kind" (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24-25). According to the evolutionary myth, all living organisms derive from a common primitive source.



There's really nothing in evolution to suggest that Genesis is wrong about the issue of reproduction: creatures of a species produce offspring of that species. Things like environmental pressures and mutations can cause phenotypical or genotypical changes in organisms over subsequent generations, and at some point (the boundary, as I understand it, is a tad nebulous) these changes bring about a variant or offshoot species…but even then, that species will reproduce after its own "kind" from generation to generation, until environmental or mutational changes cause further changes in subsequent generations.

Evolutionary theory does posit an initial common ancestor for all living things, and this is evidenced by the fact that all living things share a few base commonalities in their DNA…even plants have some genetic similarity to human beings. But then, Genesis 2 relates how God fashioned the first man and all life out of the Earth; is there really a gulf of difference here?



(12) The Bible teaches that man was fashioned from the dust of the Earth (Genesis 2:7; 3:19; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 5:1), but evolution suggests that we came out of the seas.



This is actually more deliberate mis-representation on the part of the would-be apologists. Evolutionary theory, if you actually look back to the theories pertaining to the origin of the first living organisms, posits an abiogenic emergence of life from extant minerals and proteins. Is it not possible that the Spirit, in speaking of humanity being formed abiogenically from "the dust of the Earth," left us a subtle, if poetic, hermeneutical clue in the text of Scripture?

Personally, I don't see where the conflict is here: if God made us by fashioning the first life out of proteins and minerals, and then evolving us from that basis, does that really conflict with the poetic depiction of God making man out of the Earth?



(13) The Bible teaches that Adam, the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45), came into being as a result of a miracle, hence, never was born.Evolution claims that all men have arrived as a result of the biological reproductive process.



Hey, I thought that evolution teaches that "we came out of the seas" (as per point 12)? These would-be apologists are struggling to keep their stories straight.

We need to discuss, just briefly, something called "one seed theory" here.

Ancient peoples — not just the Hebrews, mind you, good Reader — tended to understand the world through agrarian metaphor. This was certainly true of their limited understanding of human reproduction, which was thought to work in a similar way to the growing of grain. It was believed that the man "planted" the "seed" of the child in the womb of the woman, in the same way that grain was planted in the dirt of a field, and that the only function of the womb was to grow the seed into an infant. The idea that the woman would contribute "blood" (e.g. genetic information) to the infant was not in the heads of the ancients.

And we have to interpret the description of the origin of humanity in light of this. To the author of Genesis 2, there was simply no way that Adam — the first man — could have been "born," because birth required a male pregenitor to plant a seed to grown the man out of, in the same way that a stalk of wheat required a farmer to plant a seed grain at some prior point in time.

Of course, it should be noted that in Genesis 1, there is no description of the specific process of the creation of men and women; according to this creation account (which was written after the account in Genesis 2, even though it appears before it), God simply created humanity "male and female" in His image and likeness.

Which, it should be noted, is easily compatible with evolutionary theory.



(14) The Scriptures declare that man was ordained to exercise dominion over "every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28), but evolution alleges that multiplied billions of creatures already had lived and become extinct millions of years before man set foot upon the planet, hence, before he had opportunity to have dominion over them.



This is not actually a conflict, it should be noted. Man's dominion over the Earth and all its creatures has nothing at all to do with whether or not some or many species of creature had become extinct by the time God had finished evolving humanity. Remember: God created all living things through an ordained, sustained, design-reflecting evolutionary process; is it not possible that He saw fit to end the lines of certain species to better suit the world for mankind's eventual emergence? And would that not still reflect the dominionship of man over all the Earth?



(15) The Genesis record claims that man existed upon the Earth before it had rained (Genesis 2:5), but evolution believes that rain watered our planet eons before man crawled from his slimy womb.



This is a surprising demonstration of Scriptural ignorance on the part of the would-be apologists. One notes, for example, that Genesis 2:5 tells us that "no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up — for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground." This tells us nothing about who came first, the man or the rain.

Genesis 2:6, however, gives us the answer of Scripture: "a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." The Lord forms man in verse 7. And if we look instead at the creation account in Genesis 1, the error in the above point is even more staggering: humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27, plants and vegetation (and, presumably, the rains to water them that they might grow) in verse 11. Water exists in this account from verse 2 onward.

So the would-be apologists can't even get their Scripture right, it seems.



(16) The biblical document proclaims that the Earth and all created beings were brought into existence within a span of six literal days — days of the same type as the Hebrew Sabbath (Exodus 20:11; 31:16-17). Evolution claims that the origin of the Earth and its inhabitants required some five billion years.



Now, for those who are familar with Jewish custom, the Sabbath was to be observed from sundown on what is now called Friday until the appearance of three stars in the night sky on what is now called Saturday. In other words, the Sabbath's duration is intimately linked with the setting of the Sun, with evening.

And yet, in Genesis 1, as the would-be apologists would have us believe, morning and evening were marked even in the absence of the Sun.

Something doesn't add up here, as the Sun is the integral component in tracking the timing of the Sabbath.

God instituted the Sabbath as a perpetual covenant for the people of Israel, as a way for them to outwardly show a sign of respect and devotion to Him (c.f. Exodus 20:8-11, 31:13-17). Is it not possible, then, that when the Spirit inspired the authorship of Genesis, it inspired the ancient authors to re-cast the historical beliefs of the Hebrew people about the creation of the world in the mold of the seven day ritual pattern? Could not God have inspired and ordained this early covenant and its observance by using the extant historical legends of the Hebrew people to demonstrate the unity between the covenant and the creative intent and design of their Lord?



(17) The Scriptures teach that mankind has existed "from the beginning of the creation" (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6; Romans 1:20), thus, virtually "from the foundation of the world" (Luke 11: 50-51). Evolution contends that humanity's age is but a tiny fraction of the Earth's, thus, man is a "relative newcomer" to the planet.



And again, it must be noted that the authors of Scripture did not simply sit and take dictation from God when they wrote the books of the Bible; they wrote in a very human way, drawing upon human knowledge and human experience. They did not have secret, special knowledge of all things to come; they had the knowledge of their day, and the historical beliefs of their day.

Jesus spoke to them using their beliefs as examples and vehicles for His message of salvation, just as the Spirit inspired more ancient authors to record the historical legends of the Hebrew people in order to convey a message of faith to them, and to us. So too, the authors of the Gospels drew upon the historical knowledge of their day when they constructed the imagery presented in the Gospel accounts.

Also, it should be noted: God created humanity through an ordained, sustained, design-reflecting process of evolution. As we are the only extant creatures on Earth made in the image and likeness of God, is it not possible that God ordained, sustained, and designed the world prior to humanity's emergence in such a way as to explicitly foster the emergence of man, and to present us a world uniquely suited to our needs as a species?

And if so, then does that not mean that, from the beginning of creation, the object of the Earth was mankind, even if mankind did not emerge into the world until many billions of years after it first began to form?



(18) Moses affirmed that God's work of "creation" was "finished" with the completion of the sixth day (Genesis 2:1-2). Evolution, however, requires that some sort of "creative" process has continued to hammer out new forms of living organisms across the eras of history.



Here, again, the would-be apologists demonstrate an inability to properly read Scripture, let alone interpret it. They assert that Genesis 2:1-2 means that creation is "finished" (and take this to mean that nothing new is to be created after Genesis 2:2).

Then, in Genesis 2:7, God makes Adam.

In Genesis 2:8-9, God creates plants and makes a garden in Eden.

In Genesis 2:19, God creates the animals, birds, and every other "living creature."

In Genesis 2:21-22, God creates Eve.

And in Genesis 3:17-18, God's curse upon the ground causes the creation of thorns and thistles.

Even in Scripture, then, creation is ongoing…and we see evidence of this in the natural world as well.



(19) The Bible announces that God made man in His own image (Genesis 1:26; Corinthians 11: 7). Evolution scoffs at such, and suggests that man, because of his fears of natural forces that he could not understand, created God in his own image.



This again is pure scientific ignorance: evolutionary theory has no teleological component, and puts forth no philosophical conjectures.

It is true that some people have abused evolutionary theory to propose that human evolution included the evolution of god-concepts as a form of "social glue," but other Christian apologists have noted that it may have in fact been the case that a part of humanity's being made "in the image and likeness of God" involved the evolution of the ability to perceive the supernatural.

(Note: This latter proposition would seem to offer a more sensible explanation for the reason that Religion and the quest to understand the divine has been a facet of every human civilization in history, and of why even avowedly secular people are so often taken in by the lure of the occult, the paranormal, and the mystical.)

But the fact that some people have abused evolutionary theory to make it say things that it has no ability to say does not invalidate the theory itself. Methinks the would-be apologists are confusing sin and sinner in this point.



(20) Each of the Bible spokesmen treated the Genesis record of origins as literal history — i.e., a true account of what actually happened in the beginning (cf. Matthew 19:4ff.; Romans 5:12ff.; 1 Corinthians 11:7-8; 15:45ff.; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13). Evolution laughs at the inspired documents, repudiating them as literal history.



There's a few points that can be made here, the first of which is that we need to differentiate between what people believe to be history and what is actually historical. 58% of Britons think that Sherlock Holmes was real, and 25% of Britons think that Winston Churchill was just a legend, like King Arthur. This suggests, at the very least, that what people believe to be historical is not always in alignment with what actually is historical fact, especially when the people holding those beliefs were not actually present to witness the events their beliefs pertain to (c.f. Job 38:4).

More importantly, though, evolutionary theory holds no religious opinion, nor does it posit any opinion about the sacred texts of any religion, including Christianity. To assert that it does, whether one is a religious or secular person, is to demonstrate one's utter ignorance of the theory itself, and possibly of much of science in general. It's just a scientific theory, and is concerned with very different things than is the Bible. So to attack it as being anti-religious is, frankly, dishonest…as surely as it would be dishonest to promote evolution as evidence against religion.

So, we come to the end, and should briefly review. We looked at twenty (well…18, with two repeats) points presented that purported to demonstrate that evolution and Scripture were incompatible. We have discovered that precisely none of these points actually served to demonstrate what it set out to do — often because of a mixture of ignorance and dishonesty on the part of the authors. In the process of this analysis, we have seen examples of how Scripture and evolutionary theory are actually compatible, and explored reasoning concerning this.

In the end, it's up to the Reader to decide which side is the more correct: Evolutionary Creationism, or Apologetics Press. Remember that the would-be apologists cited above can't even get their Scriptural interpretations correct, and are obviously uncertain about the concents of some passages of Scripture. Conversely, evolutionary creationism fully accepts that Scripture is inerrant, infallible, and sufficient…and also accepts natural revelation (c.f. Job 12:8) and the findings of research as alternative, or additional, means of revelation of the glory of God.

* * *

1) if one knows even a little bit about ancient Hebrew literature, one knows that the first line of a particular manuscript serves as the title for it. What we know as the Book of Genesis was not always called that: its title in Hebrew, translated into English, would basically be the phrase we recognize as Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Andrew Lamb writes in with a response to this article.

Hi (Kenneth ?)

In your posting on the biblical Flood you briefly mentioned geological evidence.

The sedimentary strata of the world have features that are highly consistent with rapid deposition by a global Flood, but hard to reconcile with slow-and-gradual scenarios.

These features include deep cross-bedding, uneroded interfaces between strata, the regional and even continental extent of some strata, the presence of fossils (without deep rapid burial dead organsims are scavenged and decay), the roughness of the constituent grains in many sandstones, etc.

One especially telling feature is the tightly bent yet still parallel strata in many mountain ranges. This indicate that the thick layers of sediment were wet and soft at the time they were deformed.

Other geological evidences for a global Flood include the ubiquitous phenomena of 'water gaps' and 'underfit rivers'.

For details on these are other geological evidences of the global Flood, see the articles listed under the topic "Geology" in the Frequently Asked Questions index on the Creation Ministries International website, at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21.

Andrew Lamb

With apologies to both Andrew and Inigo Montoya, let me begin by saying: this evidence does not mean what you think it means. The plain fact is, while Andrew has furnished us with a wealth of evidence, he has ultimately furnished us with evidence that supports the conclusion that the Earth is old; it is only by twisting, misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the evidence presented that we can arrive at the conclusion that the Earth is young.

Let's look at the different pieces of evidence provided, and see if they actually demonstrate what Andrew asserts that they do.

Extent of Strata

I'm not sure how the fact that some geological strata are very expansive is supposed to help the Young Earth position — if there were only one such layer, then that might be an argument for a flood deposition layer depending on the composition of it. Or, it might be an argument for, say, a fallout layer from a meteor impact long ago, again depending on the composition of it.

That more than one layer exists, however, and that these layers are often separated by other, more localized layers, actually argues against a global flood theory.

Fossils

The presence of fossils certainly doesn't prove that the Earth is young. While it is more or less true that fossils can only form when creatures are rapidly and deeply buried, this hardly implies that a global flood is the cause of all or most fossils. Local mudslides would have a similar effect, as would other catastrophes in which large amounts of earth were suddenly shifted about. Many environmental catastrophes can set up the necessary conditions for fossilization.

What is more, other Young Earth arguments are imperiled by the argument Andrew makes above. If, for instance, the many dinosaur fossils we have discovered are the result of rapid sediment deposition during a global flood, then why do we not find human fossils in the same geological layers, apart from a handful of intances where a burial ceremony has resulted in a body being embedded, much later, in an ancient geological layer?

The fossil evidence argues — strongly — against the Young Earth position, and Young Earth fossil theories are often mutually contradictory.

Water Gaps

Water gaps are narrow openings or notches in mountain ranges through which a river once flowed.

A water gap is usually an indication of a river that is older than the current topography. The river likely established its course when the landform was at a low elevation, with a very low stream gradient and a thick layer of unconsolidated sediment. The river therefore established its channel without regard for the deeper layers of rock.

A renewed period of uplift caused increased erosion, removal of the overlying sediments and exposure of the underlying rock layers. Rejuvenated drainage caused streams to follow weaker layers of rock, but larger watercourses, as long as the uplift did not exceed the rate of erosion, were able to cut through the harder rocks which generally became ridges. Water gaps are common in the Ridge-and-valley Appalachians of eastern North America.

Alternatively, a water gap can be formed through headward erosion of two streams on opposite sides of a ridge, ultimately resulting in the capture of one stream by the other.

This is a process that would play out over a long period of time. As I previously noted: the evidence of water gaps does not mean what Andrew thinks it means. The presence of these gaps — the products of millions of years of erosion — is actually an argument for a very old Earth. A quickly-receding global flood could not have carved these gaps; there is simply no means by which water could displace that much rock and sand in such a short amount of time, unless we are to assume that the entirety of the world's surface was essentially loose soil and sand a few thousand years ago.

Plastic Deformation

Consider the issue of "plastic deformation," the "bent yet still parallel strata" to which Andrew refers. The argument goes that had these rock layers been subjected to the pressures necessary to fold them when they were solid and "dry," they would surely have fractured (and show signs thereof). The absence of any evidence of fracturing in the strata, then, is taken to be a sign that the rock layers must have been folded while still wet and soft, during the rapid deposition of sediments following a global flood.

It sounds like a reasonable conjecture, but there's one key flaw to it: solid, "dry" rock can actually bend — without breaking — even into sharply folded arrangements.

Okay, so what is plastic deformation? In a nutshell, it is the capacity for a rock layer to bend without breaking. The above graphic illustrates the principle.

As the Reader can hopefully see, a rock layer can bend or distort with different levels of severity. The "overturned fold" pictured on the right end of the diagram is the most severe sort of bend possible, in which a rock layer actually folds back on itself. It is this phenomenon to which Andrew is referring.

To better understand what's going on here, we need to ask what the actual process of rock deformation entails. As it happens, rock deformation is, in essence, a three-stage process. In the first stage — the elastic stage — the rock layer experiences stress from some factor (e.g. heat, pressure) and, like any material which is subjected to stress, deforms in response. Even a solid block of steel will deform when a sufficient stress is applied to it, and although those deformations may be small, they are detectable if one has the proper instruments. Keep in mind, also, that the rock layer is cushioned by the surrounding geological layers, a fact which serves to distribute and arrange forces on the layer in such a way that it can, in fact, deform without breaking.

With elastic deformation, the rock layer will return to its original shape once the stress is removed from it, in the same way that springs and elastics will tend to return to their normal shapes when released. Strain and stress are proportional, as per Hooke's Law. Unless, that is, they have been over-stretched.

And so we come to the second stage. Every material — be it the rubber in an elastic or a granite slab — has what is called an elastic limit; if the material is stressed past this point, it cannot regain its former shape…at least, not entirely. This is what we call plastic deformation. If the stress on the material continues to increase, the third stage — rupture — will eventually be reached, and the material will break.

Obviously, depending on the material under consideration, where the plastic and rupture points exist will vary. An elastic band has very different deformation properties than does a granite slab. But where Young Earth Creationists tend to go wrong is that they either misrepresent, or misunderstand, the fact that even solid, possibly brittle substances (such as rock) can undergo quite a lot of plastic deformation before they will rupture (that is: break).

Grey Neyman, in an article at Answers in Creation, gets into detail about just how this can be.

Most rocks at room temperatures and pressures fail by rupture before attaining a state of plastic deformation. However, at high temperatures and confining pressures, rocks deform plastically. This can happen in a laboratory setting even under short time durations. Given the longer times in the real world, and you can see the possibilities of deforming/folding rock layers without breaking. To understand this more fully, let's consider what features of a rock allow it to deform plastically.

How can solid rocks change their shape without fracturing? There are three processes at work; intergranular movements, intragranular movements, and recrystallization.

Intergranular movement is the displacement between individual grains. If rocks are subjected to stress, the individual crystals and grains can move independently of one another. A greater range of movement can occur in sedimentary rocks, as igneous rocks tend to have grains that are interlocking, thus limiting their movements. Where the rocks fold, and the distance between the grains increases, the rock thins, automatically adjusting for the space in between the grains.

Intragranular movements, for which much experimental work has been done, occurs within the individual crystals by gliding and dislocations. Some minerals have no glide planes, some have a single glide plane, while others have multiple glide planes. The atomic structure controls the position and number of glide planes present within a mineral. Gliding consists of two types, translation-gliding and twin-gliding.

In transitional gliding, deformation occurs along horizontal glide planes… In twin-gliding, the layers slide relative to adjacent layers…[t]his provides a symmetrically altered shape with respect to the lower, undisplaced part.

Several factors contribute to the deformation we see in folded strata. These factors are confining pressure, temperature, time, and solutions. Pressure and temperature are simple and need no explanation. Laboratory experiments of different rock samples under pressure show that you can bend limestone up to 15 percent, and sandstones and shales, up to 25 percent, before they fracture…

Obviously, rocks are folded much more than 25 percent in the real world. That is where time, temperature, and solution come into play. In the laboratory experiments, only pressure was measured, and that was done over a brief period of time. In the field, obviously we have millions of years to work with, not just hours. With the burial of rock layers within the earth, the temperature is also higher, a result of the layer receiving heat from the earth, which insulates it, and heat built up due to the increased pressure. The slow, continuous deformation with the passage of time is known as creep. Creep can be measured on a creep curve…

You can see that the more time increases, the greater the folding of the rock without rupturing. In addition to time, solution can also play a part in aiding deformation. Rocks by their very nature are porous. There may be chemicals present in the pore spaces that are capable of reacting with the minerals in the rock. This is especially true of metamorphic rocks. Creep experiments have been conducted on rocks to demonstrate the effectiveness of a solution in deforming the rocks.

This goes back to what I said before, then: the evidence of folded rock layers does not mean what Andrew thinks it means. The presence of "tightly bent yet still parallel strata in many mountain ranges" is actually an argument for a very old Earth, in which some rock layers have been shaped by high temperatures and pressures over millions of years into the folded, twisted arrangements that one can see in many places.

What is cross-bedding? A basic geology course might explain cross-bedding in this way:

The second feature of sedimentary rocks is called cross-bedding. As clastic sediments are transported by water or wind, they form sand waves. The image [above] shows this process for wind-blown sand. In figure 1, the sand wave can be observed. As the wind blows, it picks up sand particles from the rear of the wave, and deposits them over the leading edge of the wave. This process can be repeated, making a wave on top of a wave, as in figure 4. These waves can range in size from small ripples only a centimeter high, to giant sand dunes hundreds of meters high.

The structure of the bedding tells us the direction of the wind that deposited the sand. Figure 7 in the above diagram shows the wind direction for each cross-bedded sand wave. By the size of the cross bedding and the angle of the bedding, you can also tell if it was a beach deposit or a wind deposit in a desert environment.

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it?

One typical example of cross-bedding that Young Earth Creationists point to is the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon. The argument, as I understand it, is that the angle of the cross-bedding is a bit lower than one might expect were it the result of wind deposition — the Coconino cross beds are inclined at about 25 degrees, while most wind-deposited cross beds are at 30 to 34 degrees.

Of course, what isn't mentioned on, say, the Answers in Genesis explanation, Young Earth explanation the cross-bedding is that water-deposited cross beds rarely exceed an angle of 10 degrees. And upon closer examination of the specific sand which forms the Coconino cross beds, one observes that the authors of the Answers in Genesis article ommitted more information than just this

[Steven A. Austin] argues that the angle of the slope of the cross beds indicates an origin other than eolian [wind-based processes -- Ken]. He claims the average angle for Coconino cross beds is about 25°, which is less than the average angle of slope observed in sand dunes today. He states that sand dunes today exhibit angles as much as 30°, and even up to 34° (notice he doesn't actually give the average angle observed today). By contrast, oceanic sand waves are less. However, as one of my readers has noticed (thanks David), a casual reading of geologic literature shows records of wind-deposited cross beds which are as low as 10°. They have been found to range from 10° to 34°, but typically, they average between 25° and 28°.

Austin fails to tell the reader all the information (a typical young-earth tactic). By contrast, water deposited sand is rarely steeper than 10°. When he claims that water-deposited cross beds are less, he fails to tell the reader by how much. Since the Coconino's cross-bedding is 25°, they are obviously wind-deposited. They fall within the average for eolian cross beds (25°-28°), but are far from the angle expected for water-deposited cross beds (less than 10°). Had Austin included the actual cross-bed angles for water-deposition, it would have ruined his argument. Thus, we see the trickery that he has to resort to in order to deceive his readers.

Indeed, to believe Austin's Young Earth model of sand deposition at Coconino, one would have to believe that "a 30 foot tall sand wave can be moved over 400 miles in less than a week, with a current of only 5.5 feet per second." This is more or less impossible, even if one only pays lip service to the laws of physics in one's calculations.

And that doesn't even begin to get into the discussion of how water, moving at about the same speed that human beings can walk at (if the water's speed was faster than about 5.5 feet per second, cross beds would not be formed), could have eroded the 11,931 cubic miles of sand from other places and deposited it in the Coconino beds in the short amount of time that it took for the flood waters to recede, per the Book of Genesis. By that kind of logic, Hurricane Katrina should have re-located New Orleans to Arkansas.

So let's go back, again, to what I said before: deep cross-bedding (Coconino is a large geological formation) does not mean what Andrew thinks it means. The presence of deep cross beds is actually an argument for a very old Earth, in which wind deposition of sand has shaped, over millions of years, some truly impressive geological formations.

Now, I haven't addressed all of Andrew's points, but I have covered the substantive ones. I'm sure that were I to dig into what claims I have left unanswered, I would find still more examples of this pattern…but I think this post is getting long enough as it is. Be that as it may; within the scope of what I have covered, we can see a consistent pattern emerging: each argument which Andrew asserts is demonstrative of a young Earth is, in fact, demonstrative instead of a very old Earth, and then one in which a global flood did not occur.

This does not, however, undermine the validity of the Bible or the message of faith which is imparted to humanity through the flood accounts.

"To conclude, Scripture and science do not support the historicity of [the flood] as described in Gen 6-9. Of course, every Biblical author believed that [Noah] existed and survived a world-destroying flood on an ark. But this was the history-of-the-day for the Jews and early Christians. At best, Noah points back to an obscure individual/s who lived through a local deluge/s, most likely in the Mesopotamian flood plain. But more importantly, the iblical flood is an incidental vessel that reveals the inspired message that God judges sin and saves righteous individuals from His wrath." (taken from: Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation, pp. 280-281)

The exact historical details aren't the important aspects of the flood accounts in Genesis. Yes, the authors of the text of Genesis believed that these were real events which had transpired, but the authors themselves weren't present for the flood even if it did happen, so how could they be sure? Moses, traditionally held to be the author/redactor of Genesis, was not present for the flood even if it did happen, so how could he be sure? He would have had to rely on the oral traditions of the Hebrew people, oral traditions which were informed by ancient, experientially-derived primitive science, which could not perceive even that the Earth was in orbit around the Sun, let alone the subtle clues as to the Earth's actual age.

And here's another consideration: from what we know from Scripture, even if Noah did exist and did survive a catastrophic flood of global proportions, he didn't seem to bother taking any extant historical records with him into the ark; to assume otherwise is eisegetical. So if the Young Earth Creationists are correct, and if the flood that Noah weathered actually did happen, the assumption that the earlier chapters of Genesis give an accurate historical picture must be discarded, since no records from before the flood could have survived. Only oral tradition and word-of-mouth would have existed to pass along the pre-flood history to later generations.

I trust that the good Reader has played the telephone game before.

For the Spirit, who inspired the authors of Scripture, though, the fact that the authors were retelling an ancient historical legend rather than the actual history of the world wasn't the important part. The Spirit, accommodating to human ignorance, worked through those historical legends to impart to humanity a message of faith.

Minor Update: for those who might be interested, Mount St. Helens is also not actually evidence of a young Earth.

Show me one example of an unbiblical or non-biblically defensible doctrine of the Catholic Church. For those who are unclear, there are only two documents which explicitly articulate Catholic doctrine: the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law. In your answer, please include the relevant paragraph number from the Catechism, or canon number from the Code.

(Quotes from Catholic scholars, quotes from papal encyclicals, and dubiously attributed papal soundbites are not of a doctrinal nature, and so are not applicable here.)

The challenge has been added to the blog header, and will be active until 5:44 PM Mountain Standard Time, on September 30th, 2008. Answers can be given by private message, or in the comments form of any subsequent blog post.

I mean, okay, let's be realistic: Young Earth creationism and ID — at least of the Michael Behe sort — are patent falsehoods, so it makes sense that the Vatican wants nothing to do with them at the congress on the evolution "debate" that it is sponsoring. At the end of the day, the Church must strive to seek after the truth, and the discussion would become cluttered by the presence of those false viewpoints.

The Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame in Indiana are organizing an international conference in Rome March 3-7 as one of a series of events marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational Philosophy and Theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of [Young Earth] creationism and intelligent design.

…

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the other extreme of the evolution debate — proponents of an overly scientific conception of evolution and natural selection — also were not invited.

So atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins, are also not invited. Which is consistent, to be sure.

Note: I'm not entirely sure I agree with the decision…I'm usually of the opinion that we shouldn't block any particular viewpoint from being expressed. Having said that, I can understand the desire not to have a shouting match erupt, and I can understand the desire not to clutter discussions with useless and false viewpoints. Because ultimately, that's what the ID movement and Young Earth creationism reduce to: falsehood. Oh, I can't deny that the proponents of these viewpoints are people of good faith, whose first desire is to serve the Lord as they understand Him and His Word. But that's just the problem: they don't understand the Word of God as well as they should. And as a result, it might not be constructive, nor conducive to forward progress in terms of promulgating a cohesive theology which contradicts neither the Bible nor science, to invite the other groups.

Because, as Archbishop Ravasi notes later in the article, the theory of evolution "is not incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the Bible's message."

Truth cannot contradict truth. Evolution, despite the controversy it has been associated with, is strongly supported by good evidence; it is, for all intents and purposes, true, in that it is a reasonably accurate description of the physical processes by which human life, and all other forms of life, emerged on Earth. At the same time, Scripture is true when it teaches us that God is creator of all things. We need to look past the ancient "history of the day" accounts as presented in Genesis, and not get caught up on the precise details of events related therein. What we need to take away from Genesis is not a message of history, but a message of faith: God is the creator of the Universe, the world, and all that live upon it. All of creation is "very good." God made humanity in His own image. Humanity rebelled and, in sin, fell away from God.

Truth cannot contradict truth. These two truths — evolution of creatures and the creatorship of God — can be reconciled. They must be reconciled. And that, I think, is the main goal of this congress. At least, it can be so hoped.

User Genetic_Code brought some issues to my attention which I think may be worth remarking upon here. I regard it as being a rather unfortunate thing that I may well have lost a Reader because of a squabble I became embroiled in, and while I don't pretend that even a public apology will make sufficient amends, I would like to say a few words in humble and contrite confession.

You know, I'd very much like to just be able to address GS users by name, but I can't seem to rely on that method, because some users will be quick to report for moderation each post that mentions them in a context of disagreement. For whatever reason, it seems to be important that at least a layer of deniability be maintained...and while that drives me crazy, it's the reality that has to be dealt with. This bit about names -- someone calling me "the esoteric" and me using the term "HTML-sapience" -- is unfortunate, but also unfortunately necessary if in fact any kind of back-and-forth is going to happen.

But that's the point, isn't it? Yes, I mark myself as being in opposition to the CWU, not because I disagree with the professed Christian faith of its members, but because I disagree with its mode of witness and its anti-Incarnational Young Earth standpoint.

But it has gotten to be a bit much, hasn't it?

Now let's be clear: this isn't an issue of me wanting my opinions to be "accepted" by anyone, because in the end I am not answerable to anyone but Christ for the beliefs that I hold. If others share those beliefs, and if those beliefs are correct, then that is a good thing. But as good a thing as that would be, well...that isn't the point.

The point, good Reader, is witness.

If I'm not being as good a witness as is possible, then there's a real problem, no? Certainly, even a cursory reading of Matthew 18 suggests that this is, in fact, the case. And the fact is that, in the last few days, I haven't been a good witness.

If I have one weakness, it's that I'm a wee bit too ready to get into a scrap about these topics. I confess that I take a dim view of Protestantism, for the most part, and see the fact that there are some 30,000 extant Christian denominations as a wicked and terrible sin against the Lord. It is not fitting that the body of the bride of the Lord should be so marred and torn asunder.

At the same time, I also have little to no ability to tolerate open ignorance. I've tried in the past, but my passionate opposition to deliberate and misleading error is something I have gained by escaping from just such a manner of conducting myself in the past. I look at some of the people -- most of them probably just kids -- that I debate with here, and I see variants of myself. And I see the six years it took to claw myself out of that hole, and the damage it did to me and to others to be in that hole, and I feel compelled -- and impelled -- to speak out against it.

The thing with the "HTML-sapience" references was intended as satire, but perhaps I've carried it too far. Indeed, it would seem that my opposite number has opted to disengage, and that is good; I had been thinking of doing much the same, because to carry on otherwise would be too much of a distraction from the main topics I want to cover in the blog here.

And so, to user Genetic_Code specifically, and to other users in general, I apologize for the following things: profanity, polemicism (my use of the term "False Witness Union"), and my obsession with posting in opposition to certain members of the CWU.

I am, and have for some time been, something of a bulldog where evolutionary creationism is, and would like to continue posting blog entries on that topic. I'm under no illusions that others will adopt the viewpoint; having once been trapped in my own narrow, incorrect views, I know first-hand just what sort of intransigence will prevent the message I am attempting to bring from being heard.

But that's not the point: we aren't supposed to refrain from speaking just because we know that some people will be deaf to our message. We are supposed to speak, and let those hear who will. Because it is the profession of truth which is important, not the composition of the audience.

One final note. One thing I do not apologize for is for estabishing an informal comments policy on the blog here. Personally, I find ranking/voting features on blogs to be...well...stupid. I can't stand the feature personally. Now, in a sense, I haven't got a problem with the idea that someone might down-vote a comment they disagree with...except for the fact that past a certain threshold, Gamespot makes the comment invisible to only its moderators and the blog owner.

To me, then, the act of down-voting a comment on Gamespot smacks of censorship, of passive-aggressively attempting to silence and remove from view those opinions which one finds distasteful. That is why I have articulated an informal blog policy of "no downvoting." Up-voting is fine. Not voting at all is preferable. It's a stupid feature...why not leave it be and just drop a line instead?

"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." — St. Augustine of Hippo

There's an interesting study one can do in the Book of Genesis, if one has a few minutes to spare and the inclination to copy, paste, and then read a few passages of text.

First, open a text editor window (Notepad on Windows, Text Edit on Mac OS X, whatever…). Now, find your preferred online version of Genesis, and copy the following verses into the text editor window:

Genesis 6:5-8, 7:1-5, 7:7-8, 7:10, 7:12,7:16b-17, 7:22-23, 8:2b-3a, 8:6, 8:8-12, 8:13b, and 8:20-22

Once that's done, open a new text editor window (keep the first one open too), and copy the following verses into the second window:

Genesis 6:9-22, 7:6, 7:9, 7:11, 7:13-16a, 7:18-21, 7:24-8:2a, 8:3b-5, 8:7, 8:13a, 8:14-19, 9:1-19

Once that's done, read the contents of the first text editor window through in their entirety. Then read the contents of the second window through, also from start to finish.

Now…what do you see?

Well, if you followed the instructions properly, you'll see that the first window contains something like this:

Genesis 6

[5] The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

[6] And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
[7] So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
[8] But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

Genesis 7

[1] Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.

[2] Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate;
[3] and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth.
[4] For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."
[5] And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him.

[7] And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark, to escape the waters of the flood.
[8] Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,

[10] And after seven days the waters of the flood came upon the earth.

[12] And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

[16b] and the LORD shut him in.
[17] The flood continued forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.

[22] everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.
[23] He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.

Genesis 8

[2b] the rain from the heavens was restrained,
[3] and the waters receded from the Earth continually.

[6] At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made,

[8] Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground;
[9] but the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.
[10] He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
[11] and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
[12] Then he waited another seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she did not return to him any more.

[13b] and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry.

[20] Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

[21] And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
[22] While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

This is a complete flood account, one of two that are actually present in the Book of Genesis. Note that it is a complete account, giving an essentially unbroken narrative of the events of the flood, from the first moment the Lord noticed the sinfulness of humanity and elected to blot it out, to the final blessing and promise, to Noah and his family, from the Lord.

Note, also, the prominent use of only one name by which God is referred to: the LORD. This is an important stylistic device to consider, and we'll look at why that is shortly. First, though, let's look at a few other stylistic devices in the text. We note that the Lord expresses regret for having made humanity (6:6), and that His heart aches (6:6 as well) at their wickedness. We note, also, that he smells an offering (8:21) and that within His heart, He speaks (8:21 as well). These are very anthropomorphic statements, and present the Lord as a very personal, present God intimately involved and interested in the life and doings of His creations.

Note also that there are distinctions made between clean and unclean animals (7:2,8), and that there is a significant, repeated ordering of the animals in this account — from man, to animal, to crawling things, to birds (6:7, 7:23).

Finally, note that the numbers 7 and 40 percolate through the text (7:2,3,4,10,12,17; 8:6,10,12).

Biblical scholarship attributes this flood account, which presents a personal and present image of Go, to an author that is called the Jahvist (Yahwist). Principally, the author is called by this term because he only ever refers to God by means of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, which is translated into English as "the LORD" in these passages. However, it should also be noted that this author focuses on the ritual significance of animals in the order of creation, so much so that he even distinguishes between clean and unclean animals (although it should be noted that until the time of Moses, who came well after Noah, it had not been strictly defined which animals were considered unclean).

So that's one account. In contrast, here is what the Reader should have ended up with in the second text window:

Genesis 6

[9] These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

[10] And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence.

[12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
[13] And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
[14] Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.
[15] This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
[16] Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.
[17] For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.
[18] But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
[19] And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
[20] Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive.
[21] Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them."
[22] Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.

Genesis 7

[6] Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth.

[9] two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah.

[11] In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

[13] On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark,
[14] they and every beast according to its kind, and all the cattle according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth according to its kind, and every bird according to its kind, every bird of every sort.
[15] They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
[16] And they that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him;

[18] The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
[19] And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;
[20] the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
[21] And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man;

[24] And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8

[1] But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided;

[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed,

[3b] At the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters had abated;
[4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ar'arat.
[5] And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

[7] and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.

[13] In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth;

[14] In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.
[15] Then God said to Noah,
[16] "Go forth from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you.
[17] Bring forth with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh — birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth — that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth."
[18] So Noah went forth, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him.
[19] And every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves upon the earth, went forth by families out of the ark.

Genesis 9:

[1] And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

[2] The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.
[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
[4] Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
[5] For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require the life of man.
[6] Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.
[7] And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it."
[8] Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him,

[9] "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you,
[10] and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark.
[11] I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
[12] And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations:
[13] I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.
[14] When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds,
[15] I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
[16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."
[17] God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."
[18] The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan.

[19] These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled.

This is a second complete flood account, the second of two that are actually present in the Book of Genesis. Note that it is a complete account, giving an essentially unbroken narrative of the events of the flood, from the first moment the Lord noticed the sinfulness of humanity and elected to blot it out, to the final blessing and promise, to Noah and his family, from the Lord.