Creation model

[juliod]

OK, so I'm trying to get a grip on the Theory of Creation. (Not easy, even the people who claim it exists won't tell me anything about it.)

The question for this thread is how many species were there on the earth at each phase of history? The only figures I have are those of Woodmorappe (8000 species on the ark) and estimates of the number of species alive today (which I will call ">1 million").

So Bishop Ussher gives as this chronology (which isn't a theory, but is as close as I have come up with yet):

4004 BC Creation

2348 BC Flood

1491 BC Exodus

What I want to do is get some idea of the number of species at each stage:

4004 BC: ?

2348 BC and immediately after: ~8000

Present: > 1 million.

Now, it's important to note that there is no mention of massive speciation anywhere in recorded history. So I am assuming that the million+ species alive today evolved rapidly after 2348. Let's say one full millenium just as a round figure.

Also note that I am only considering the 1 million most conspicuous species. It is a real problem of determining how many there are because there are so many species of insect that we don't know about. They say there may be 30 million total species, mostly beetles.

So one question is, how many species were originally created? Just the 8000 on the ark? Or where there more? How many?

This is what I have so far:

Date Event # species
4004 Creation ?

2350 Flood ~8000

1350 hyper-evo >1 million

present >1 million

DanZ

[Jose]

rather than simply questioning the opposing view, they go for the credentials of their opponents.

This is a charge that is leveled at each side by the other side. Yet, it actually is important. Even the ID-promoted "Critical Analaysis of Evolution" lesson plan includes this:

Benchmark A Evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources.
Indicator 1 Determine the credibility of sources by considering the following:
a. The qualifications and reputation of the writer;
b. Agreement with other credible sources;
c. Recognition of stereotypes;
d. Accuracy and consistency of sources;
e. The circumstances in which the author prepared the source.

We can all agree, I think, that with so much random stuff posted on the internet, it is essential that we determine the credibility and agenda of the author of any information we read. The hard part is having our own credentials attacked by our opponents, or the credentials of those with whom we agree. Of course, to assess the validity of the attack on our credentials, we need to assess the credentials of the person doing the attacking.

In this case, the attacks are so traditional that it becomes necessary to examine first-hand accounts. If someone states that they have abandoned fundamentalism, and explains the reasons, and includes the statement that he was unable to be both a scholar and a fundamentalist, then we may have more reason to accept his view. Of course, he could still not be credible, depending on his agenda.

[Jonathan Wells comes to mind--sure, he has a PhD in biology, but because he was assigned by Rev. Moon to get one expressly to attack evolution, one has to look beyond the PhD itself and ask whether his biology scholarship was at a level equal to that of other biology PhDs. Since he never published a scientific paper (even from his thesis work), but most PhD theses result in somewhere between one and four, we have to conclude that his scholarship was pretty weak. This assessment helps us evaluate his current writing, which sounds scientific, but is wildly off the mark. As you say, however, "for those who listen to rhetoric, it works like a charm."]

He is very down on fundamentalism – particularly its ability to teach things that are not correct (with respect to geology), and go very silent when challenged on these things.

I imagine fundamentalists are silent when challenged on these things if one turns a deaf ear.

One only has to do a little reading to find responses to virtually every kind of problem, whether accepted or not. "Silent" on the issues is an evolutionist colloquialism for "doesn't say what we think is correct". There is no absence of responses.

You make a valid point. I will counter it with observations for which the data are clear. In this forum, I have set up at least two threads that provide fundamentalists the opportunity to be non-silent--the Flood as Science, and Polonium Haloes. Numerous debators have made statements about proof for the flood, or about how the polonium haloes prove the earth is young. I have repeatedly invited these debators to discuss the evidence on which they base these claims, referring them to these threads. One might call this "challenging them" about "teaching things that are not correct." These threads are surprisingly devoid of responses. Indeed, the particular member who stimulated me to create the polonium haloes thread (by teaching how it blows evolution out of the water) stopped visiting this site shortly after I set up the thread. This feels to me to similar to "going very silent" and a striking "absence of responses."

Admittedly, this is not the same as biblical scholarship. Yet, it is in the general realm of promulgating misinformation, and going silent when challenged. In defense of the silence, of course, we can say that most of us learn our misinformation from others (e.g. the various websites alluded to above, or books like Wells'), and repeat it in good faith.

I think the scholarship issue enters into it in that those who repeat the statements of others, without checking to see if the facts support those statements, have exhibited shoddy scholarship.

Having said that, I will argue that scientific scholarship must lead to the analysis of the actual data, and personal evaluation of the data. From this, it is hard to support the claims of religious fundamentalism. I will also argue that biblical scholarship must lead to the analysis of apparent contradictions and ambiguous passages, and to the analysis of the evaluations of other scholars. From this, it would seem to me to be difficult to retain an unwavering belief in just one inerrant interpretation of the text, the tenet upon which fundamentalism is based.

The reality is that if scholarship is discredited, no one will listen. One can win a debate by forfeit. Wouldn't that be nice? That IMO is a far greater goal of the critic than that one argument here or there be discredited.

It seems to me that this is one of the foremost tactics of the anti-evolutionists. By mining for quotes from scientists that, out of context, seem to argue against evolution, they undermine the credibility of the scientists. By claiming that evolution is a religion, or is based upon an unsupportable naturalism philosophy, and is therefore not science, they undermine the credibility of scientists. By promulgating erroneous and already-discredited arguments against "icons" of evolution, they undermine the credibility of scientists. As you say, this is the way to win the debate by forfeit, and they are doing so. The America public is not well-enough versed in science to be able to evaluate the claims in a scholarly way, and are swayed by the rhetoric.

[rjw]

Hello Nikolayevick,

How are you?

Not being around for a bit? There are a couple of other web sites I normally post at more frequently. That, plus a 4 week holiday in Japan may well explain my absence. This is no reflection on this particular site because it too is a well moderated and fair site. It is just that one ends up spending more time at some places than at others.

I do not think that Grabbe was attacking credentials in the manner/context you think.

Let me explain.

A suitable question, if albeit somewhat ad hominem in premise... Most who assert this do so because their "view is offended" (to use evolutionist parlance) that the Bible is not literal or accurate, and rather than simply questioning the opposing view, they go for the credentials of their opponents.

I would say that all who assert this (on either side) do so because their view “is offended”. The issue then becomes one of how well they can argue their case that they are rightly offended. One can be offended with out having any good reason for being so, other than having hurt feelings. One can also be offended because perceived nonsense has been written. It is then up to the “offendee” to make his or her case by arguing persuasively.

In the instance of hurt feelings only, it would he hard to argue a persuasive case and I suspect this is where the debate gets unreasonably dirty – as you correctly point out. However I do not necessarily agree that “most” fall into this category. I just do not know. Certainly many fall into this category.

In the second case, the attempt for persuasive argument can be made, even if not everyone agrees with it. (By “persuasive” I do not mean the type you mentioned at the close of your posting i.e. little more than empty rhetoric which is still able to “work like a charm.” Rather I meant argument made by appealing to evidence and logic.)

Thus, while I know that going for credentials is a big problem, Grabbe was not doing that, and he was very aware of the biases he brought to his debate both then and now. He notes that, despite his best efforts not to be tainted by modern scholarship, it was that scholarship which brought him to reject his fundamentalism. Oh, he believed that, as a fundamentalist, he was indeed the true scholar, but what brought him undone was his gradual awareness, that, while he could generally accommodate or reject modern scholarship quite easily, he had to do so by using methodologies and reasons that were “extremely contorted.”

He notes that scholarship rests on objectivity but that objectivity is “an impossible ideal”. He discusses how this subjectivity is mitigated by:-

1) Being open to criticism from many viewpoints,
2) being honest, (one classic example is applying the same methodology across the board and not asking for special favors for one’s faith)
3) providing references to allow others to confirm the veracity of argument
4) etc.

Grabbe notes that many fundamentalists are true scholars but that their scholarship is invariably applied in areas where “there is no confrontation between it and their view of the Bible.” However his main target is those scholars who do apparently deal with the Bible in an objective manner, but where this objectivity has only one aim – to be “a cloak for the actual hidden agenda which is to defend the biblical data.”. He accuses such scholars of dishonesty in that they “fail to be honest about their lack of objectivity but use the trappings of scholarly research as a cloak for what really is an exercise in apologetics, since their basic conclusions were predetermined before the datum was examined.”

(This is all a bit like AiG’s “statement of faith”. Scientists are wanted to do scientific research, but if any research calls into question the Bible, then the research must be at fault, not the scientist’s interpretation of the Bible.)

Grabbe then uses Daniel and the writings of some notable fundamentalist scholars to argue his case. He notes that his argument is not exhaustive, rather it is illustrative. Grabbe explains that, within fundamentalism there can be a wide range of claims. However he concentrates on some claims which appear repeatedly within fundamentalist writings – and are thus representative of fundamentalist thinking in general. He explains why he chose Daniel:-

“The problem with biblical scholarship, as with many types of scholarship in the humanities, is that the issues are frequently complex. It is therefore perfectly possible for one to raise valid objections to a consensus of scholarship such as, for example, the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch. Scholars a long way from being fundamentalist recognize that widely accepted conclusions in many areas by no means settle the question. Therefore, my purpose is to focus on one subject very close to the sensitivities of most fundamentalists, yet one in which the issues are much more clear-cut than with various literary theories: the Book of Daniel.”


Grabbe discusses the issue of “predictive prophecy”, noting that:-

“One of the charges often made by fundamentalists is that ‘critical’ scholars do not allow for genuine predictive prophecy:

[quoting R.K. Harrison in Introduction to the Old Testament Grand Rapids, 1969]

‘The German literary-critical movement seized avidly upon the supposition that the prophecy could contain no predictive element, and repudiated Jewish and Christian tradition of a sixth century B.C. date … Objections to the historicity of Daniel were copied uncritically from book to book, and by the second decade of the twentieth century no scholar of general liberal background who wished to preserve his academic reputation either dared or desired to challenge the current critical trend.’ “

Grabbe then explains why this claim by Harrison is “ a distortion on several counts.”

1) Most people (including liberal scholars) do allow for humans to make predictions about the future. However the scope for predictions is limited. And Grabbe lists several areas in the Bible where liberal scholars would concede that it is entirely possible for prophets to have been accurate in predicting the future. So Harrison’s claim for “no predictive element” is shaky at best.
2) Fundamentalists would object to the idea of “detailed accurate prediction” outside of the Bible. However to doubt that Daniel was written before the supposed predicted events is to do what all scholars do with any other text. Fundamentalists follow this rule with respect to all other texts but when the rule is applied to Daniel, the rule has to be waived. Thus, liberal scholars are being consistent. Fundamentalist scholars are inconsistent.
3) If Harrison wishes to argue that liberals copy “uncritically” – as if this is a problem peculiar to liberals - then Harrison clearly has not read much from the Fundamentalist stable. (Here Harrison is doing precisely what you worry about. Liberal scholars offend, so he goes for the man – accusing many of being uncritical. If that is a problem, then why is it not for Fundamentalists? I.e. Harrison is being disingenuous.)


And so Grabbe continues. He notes that, in the end, Fundamentalist scholarship really exists only to support a pre-ordained viewpoint. And thus, quality scholarship is used to examine other faiths while implicit (and often explicit) exemptions are made for Christianity. (Thus all virgin births are mythical – except for one – that of Jesus. Modern fundamentalists give little to the context in which the claims about Jesus were made by the early Christians.)

Such behavior is not scholarship. Rather it is a selective interpretation of the evidence, designed to support one particular faith in a sea of faiths.

Crossan, in his recent book “The Birth of Christianity” (Harper Collins Publishers, San Francisco, 1999), makes similar points with respect to scholarly treatment of the virgin birth. Fundamentalist cannot claim to be scholars and treat virgin births of other faiths dispassionately and dismiss them, but at the same time ask and expect that an exception be made for Christianity. Scholarship just does not work by asking for special dispensations for pet ideas. In his opening sections of that book, Crossan, with a number of reasons, attacks fundamentalists who attempt scholarship. One is the selective exemption given to Christianity with respect to the miraculous, prophecy etc. Another is the fundamentalist notion that it is the only “critics”, who have theories, assumptions and theologies. As Crossan notes, we all have theories, assumptions and theologies – including fundamentalists. We all have to interpret the data, including fundamentalists.

Given my experience with YECs and fundamentalists over the past 6-7 years, including scientists at AiG (Austrialia), I can only agree with both Grabbe and Crossan.

Jose touched on this point and he is correct. I shall return to it later.

So you can agree or disagree with Grabbe. His argument is laid out, biases noted, references given etc. You can examine his claims and agree or disagree. However if a scholar accuses liberal critics of not allowing for prediction, when they do, then just what conclusion can you draw about the claim of that scholar? When a scholar uses a methodology to critique the claims for miracle made by other faiths, but completely ignores his critical methodology when it comes to his own faith, then what conclusion can you draw about that particular scholar?
And so it goes.

Like any debate, I can get snooty or you can get snooty and we can instinctively call each other “liars”. One may well win the debate because his rhetorical skills are superior. The other may well lose the debate even though he amassed the evidence and presented a consistent and logical argument.

However, which one would you call the scholar? Which one would you admire the most as a critical thinker and an honest person? I think you need to see Grabbe’s assertion in that context.

Grabbe takes three examples from Daniel to underscore and expand on the complaints mentioned above:-

a) Daniel 1:1
b) Belshazzar (Daniel 5)
c) Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.

He shows how fundamentalist scholars behave in unscholarly manners when confronted with problems revealed by modern scholarship. They do not go for the credentials as you imply Grabbe is doing, even though they too are offended.

Rather they become evasive, miss the point, are disingenuous, can be misleading etc. They make allowances for their particular interpretations of these Biblical texts which they just do not make for interpretations with respect to other sacred texts.

I can understand what Grabbe is saying. Over the last fortnight I have engaged some thirteen YECs.

Of them, perhaps 8 failed to respond. Of the remaining 5, two responded then made no more contact after a post or two. Another I egaged in dialogue - but on a topic irrelevant to his thread. Two stood their ground. However, in arguing, one at the “No Answers In Genesis” site:-

1) ignored much of what I said,
2) made claims that were frivolous, often red-herrings, disingenuous,
3) often put words into my mouth and argued from that viewpoint and then
4) would pretend that he was not interested in debate. (I was “boring”. He wanted fun.)

At this stage you can argue that I am going for the man. However, maybe my assertion is valid. If you feel that I am going for the man then you can challenge me to back up my assertions.

Thus, you feel offended at my disparaging a person you feel kinship with, so what are you going to do? Are you going to:-

a) respond in kind,
b) ignore what I have posted, or
c) challenge me to support my assertions?


If it is alleged that I am going for the man, then it is up to me, if challenged, to argue my case. I can. Occasionally I have been challenged, by YECs, about my claims. So I spend hours writing up my argument – references, quotations, etc. - based on my experiences.

The end result?

No response from my opponent.

Another typical case was on “The Theology Web”. A poster with whom I had frequently clashed, was a bit miffed when I suggested that YECs (including scientists at AiG) are just not prepared to argue their case beyond misrepresentation, goal post shifting, bluff, double standards etc. I replied that I would post my evidence on a new thread to which he and other YECs could respond. I also wagered that no YEC would respond. He doubted me. I posted. YECs did not respond. Neither did he. This happened twice.

So what exactly is one to do?

Does one allow YECs to claim the title scholar when they argue at this level?

I am not suggesting that I am a scholar by a long, long shot. However, it is my contention that YECs behave in this manner because their leaders do.

The other example who stood his ground, from the last two weeks, was at “The Theology Web”. That was in a debate on theology. However, once the debate got underway, he repeatedly informed me that he was operating on a “wisdom that was not of this world” and that I could not understand. Well some debate. After some five posts, it concluded – simply because I would never understand. (Why did he come to a debating board then, if he was going to argue with a wisdom that I could not understand?) This too is unscholarly.

Allow me to paraphrase his attitude, as far as I see it:-

“Anything you, Nicolayevick, say that I disagree with, demonstrates that you are unscholarly, simply because you lack the wisdom I have (which is not of this world), to understand that what I am saying is correct.”

No sense can be made of anything if appeals to special wisdom or requesting that allowances be made for pet theories are deemed acceptable.

Would you think my behavior “scholarly” if I offered the above argument to you?

Consider YEC on this board. Do not get me wrong, YEC the person may be thoroughly delightful. However once his religious beliefs are crossed then his behavior changes – IMHO. He is typical of those who respond for a post or two. He ignores most of what I wrote, but seemingly picks out a point which he feels he can comment on and makes an incorrect statement about it. Then when challenged on this, he makes no further response.

Again, you can query me as being unfair and going for the man. I don’t think I am. And I think I can make a coherent case to support my assertion.

In so doing, am I really going for the man? Or am I making a valid point?

So Grabbe has my sympathy – simply based on my own experience.

I often find when critics use language insinuating that those holding alternative assessments (to theirs) on a given problem are "faking" or "unworthy" of the title which they themselves hold, it is at the very least an arrogated assumption which leaves this reader questioning the motive of the critic himself.

I agree with you to some extent. However, you cannot say that this is always the case. To say that Grabbe is guilty of this, you would have to read his paper – then judge.

Grabbe was not doing exactly as you imply, that is accusing an opponent of being unscientific or unscholarly. Rather he was asking a very specific question:-

“Can a fundamentalist be a scholar?”

and he then set out to construct an argument using evidence and references which you, the doubter (say) can check.

If you still misunderstand me, then there is a big difference between the following two:-

1) “Nikolayevick, you are wrong in what you posted here because you do not know what you are talking about”
2) “Nikolayevick, you are wrong because of factors A,B and C”.

In both cases I have said that you are wrong.

In the first case, my reason for my assertion is no more than going for the man. The argument is circular. In the second case I have provided reasons to support my assertion. You can read them, consider them then agree or disagree.

Therefore we are no further than that both have motives, and that the one is accusing the other of it to the degree that his scholarship is in question.

But competency is something reasonable to call into question – providing you can make your case.

If this were not so, then even courts could not pass judgment on people for fraud, lying, incompetency etc. If the evidence is there, then an argument can be made. The accuser still may be wrong, but at least the argument is there and as Grabbe says, if the argument is made well, then others can check it for its veracity and reasonableness.

That is all Grabbe is doing here. He is making the assertion AND he is backing it up. It does not mean that he is correct. But at least he is being a scholar.

And if you wish to maintain that the fundamentalists do no differently, (i.e. Grabbe is being inconsistent) then I would contend that fundamentalists are scholars but that their scholarship is very, very sloppy. Some of the reasons for my assertion I have given above.

The problem (I do not claim the fallacy of understanding all that the critic means based only on these points you quote, but simply answer what you present of his) at the outset is that he must show with good evidence that the issues are more "clear-cut" than the fundamentalist is asserting, yet in so doing he must prove far greater concepts than his primary one. It brings on the circuitous debate of Biblical interpretation which has persisted for years.

IMO, Grabbe does show that the issues are clear cut. He uses Daniel for the reason that it is more clear cut than it is for other texts. (For example, Daniel has some historical corroboration. Interpretation of other texts often rely on linguistic analysis which can be more uncertain.)

Biblical interpretation will always be circuitous.

However, as with anything there will always be a mainstream interpretation. Given this culture’s reliance on evidence, analysis, and reason for deciding issues, it is hoped that human biases and subjectivities will be overcome to a reasonable degree – making the mainstream consensus more reliable that any argument based on appeal for special dispensation for pet hypotheses or inconsistent methodology.

Hopefully you can see that Grabbe is not necessarily stooping to some kind of name calling because he has been offended. Rather, even though he is offended, he is supporting his contention with evidence and valid argument.

I hope again my essay has not been too terse. I have met one or two really fine YECs during these arguments. However most, if one were to base character on how YECs/Fundamentalists argue, would be deemed terrible. I do not think that this is the case in reality. It is just that, when YEC religious belief is threatened, then “anything goes”. And that ain’t scholarly and it is not nice.


IM(very very) HO .

(IOW, Grabbe has my full sympathy.)




Regards, Roland

[Mattu]

Don't forget to figure in the animals that weren't on Noah's arc. What about sea life, you'd think that would still be perfectly able to live through a flood, having been you know, creatures of water. But then again it says the flood whiped out all life but noah's family and the animals on the arc. interesting point, i would have to read carefully into it to see for myself.

[nikolayevich]

We can all agree, I think, that with so much random stuff posted on the internet, it is essential that we determine the credibility and agenda of the author of any information we read.

I certainly agree, especially if one is not able to directly understand or comprehend the logic of theses, or arguments made by a writer. However, to a greater extent, what is said must be able to stand on its own, independent of the author. Credibility and agenda all have to do with authority, philosophically speaking. There is a seediness with this in my view where too much debate around scientific concepts are weighted on authority, but not recognized thus. This is something I've said before on the board. Many aspects of evolution for the individual lay with the authority of one group or another, yet few seem to realize the meaning of this. We all agree that the evidence is available to be tested, but no one actually does it. There is no one, 'round this wide world who fully comprehends more than his capacity regarding evolutionary theory. And this capacity is far more limited than we like to make known. We are trying to understand and explain something more complicated than US taxes, whose code book spans some 30,000 pages1. No one person understands it and we must rely on this authority and that, but in the case of taxes, we realize that we do so. This is a distinguishing point. Many do their own taxes, however, as one's estate or business grows, unless one is learned in tax law, we will likely hand the job over to or at least consult someone who knows more, but we will know it and acknowledge it. Why evolutionists refuse to say they have trust or "belief" confounds me for this among other reasons. I do believe though, that among their reasons are that they do not wish to be like those of faith. Any way to avoid this similarity is seized upon.

The hard part is having our own credentials attacked by our opponents, or the credentials of those with whom we agree. Of course, to assess the validity of the attack on our credentials, we need to assess the credentials of the person doing the attacking.

I'd have to disagree. Realistically, if someone has a good argument against my position their credentials are irrelevant. What they say is either true or not, and should be verifiable. If not, one could have endless acronyms beside their name without any real meaning. We should not say of our opponent, "He's not in the Old Boys club, what shall we hear of his?"

Preferably, my argument is on my opponent's points, not their person. It's a wiggly situation when we go for someone's "stature" as it were. I don't have a problem with weeding out propagandizers and outright liars. But this isn't what really is going on in most cases. Is our ego so fragile that we must oust our opponent from the table completely? I just don't buy the credentials argument. I believe we ought to debate the points. People will make their own choices based on that. What I think is unfortunate is when evolutionists feel they must make the choice for other people. If the people don't accept a theory, is not that their prerogative? One must be careful when seeking to advance evolution, not to chalk it up to something ordinary people can't understand. This becomes much more theocratic in appearance than the church at large. That said, I do see this done now and again, but it is a tacit admission that non-scientists must appeal to authority to believe what they do.

One of the things I enjoy about web forums is that nobody pays attention to credentials. You can either argue and present your points, or not. Credentials or no. It's a good leveling tool and in fact can show whether someone is thinking from their books, or their head (or of course a healthy combination of both). I quite enjoy our dialogue in part for for this (and in part for the good challenge posed me by strong minds such as yours and rjw's).

In this case, the attacks are so traditional that it becomes necessary to examine first-hand accounts. If someone states that they have abandoned fundamentalism, and explains the reasons, and includes the statement that he was unable to be both a scholar and a fundamentalist, then we may have more reason to accept his view.

We may, and It is certainly useful to have opinions of those formerly on the other side. However, it is often neither a plus nor minus. C.S. Lewis, as one of the leading writers and thinkers of his day (contrasted by Armand Nicholi of Harvard as a formidable opponent of Sigmund Freud in his seminar, "The Question of God"2), was a staunch atheist before rejecting his world view and believed in the end that it was the theist who won the argument of why we are here and how we got here. We therefore say that it is good to hear the view of the "formerly" something, who remains a scholar, but since it happens in every direction (scholars will change from one view to another on many issues) it should be balanced as such, knowing that it does not lend so much added weight.

Of course, he could still not be credible, depending on his agenda.

Again, he can have an explicit agenda, but in the end could still be right (or not). The evidence should still be determined apart from his agenda. I have a personal agenda, to learn from those I meet, and to share my joys and faith with others, but still one must look at my reasons for my argument, not my reasons for wanting my argument to be so. Motive (comes in all shapes and forms) can cause any scientist to err, but we don't care why he errs if he does. And we don't say, well, his equation is balanced because he stays true to evolutionary thought. We really don't care why it works. It does or does not.

Jonathan Wells comes to mind--sure, he has a PhD in biology, but because he was assigned by Rev. Moon to get one expressly to attack evolution, one has to look beyond the PhD itself and ask whether his biology scholarship was at a level equal to that of other biology PhDs. Since he never published a scientific paper (even from his thesis work), but most PhD theses result in somewhere between one and four, we have to conclude that his scholarship was pretty weak. This assessment helps us evaluate his current writing, which sounds scientific, but is wildly off the mark. As you say, however, "for those who listen to rhetoric, it works like a charm."

What I said was that for those who prefer to attack credentials, that rhetoric works like a charm. You have illustrated the very thing I am speaking on, and appropriated what I said as a part of an attempt to discredit someone's credentials. Granted, there is humor in it, and I appreciate what you mean but it's somewhat recursive.

As for Jonathan Wells being a scholar or not, it is difficult to know where to begin with this one. Wells has Ph.D.s from both UCBerkeley in molecular and cell biology, and one from Yale in religious studies3. Both are I think reputable enough as to have equal standards for students, meaning, he had to go through the same studies and examinations. If Berkeley awarded Wells his Ph.D in biology, do we not acknowledge it because we disagree with his views, or think his motives suspect? There are many of us who think these influential scientists on either side of the evolutionary or biblical question should not be given the respect, however, it really is too muddy to get involved in. Let us stick to the facts.

He is very down on fundamentalism – particularly its ability to teach things that are not correct (with respect to geology), and go very silent when challenged on these things.

I imagine fundamentalists are silent when challenged on these things if one turns a deaf ear.

One only has to do a little reading to find responses to virtually every kind of problem, whether accepted or not. "Silent" on the issues is an evolutionist colloquialism for "doesn't say what we think is correct". There is no absence of responses.

You make a valid point. I will counter it with observations for which the data are clear. In this forum, I have set up at least two threads that provide fundamentalists the opportunity to be non-silent--the Flood as Science, and Polonium Haloes. Numerous debators have made statements about proof for the flood, or about how the polonium haloes prove the earth is young. I have repeatedly invited these debators to discuss the evidence on which they base these claims, referring them to these threads. One might call this "challenging them" about "teaching things that are not correct." These threads are surprisingly devoid of responses. Indeed, the particular member who stimulated me to create the polonium haloes thread (by teaching how it blows evolution out of the water) stopped visiting this site shortly after I set up the thread. This feels to me to similar to "going very silent" and a striking "absence of responses."

I would hardly say that is evidence of creationists or ID proponents at large being silent (in the sense of not knowing or not having answers) on the issues. As for myself, I try not to debate in areas which I have not at least looked into, or do not on the surface understand. The flood is one that I am fascinated with but have not had the time to truly go through the model as presented in detail. Polonium holes and other such arguments against ToE are not accepted by every creationist, including myself. To clarify, I am not saying the possibility of truth is not there. I am saying that, I have not yet been convinced that the argument is solid. Therefore, I wait until I can investigate before proceeding on a thread like that if I will at all. Furthermore, there are far more people trained in evolution than design, since all theists and agnostics alike are trained in ToE, and nowadays from grade school onward. Those who have accepted design have had less publicly funded instruction on the matter and therefore, there are less people equipped to answer evolutionist arguments. But let us not make the mistake that numbers say anything about truth.

I think the scholarship issue enters into it in that those who repeat the statements of others, without checking to see if the facts support those statements, have exhibited shoddy scholarship.

I certainly agree. And I do so for creationism or any field of study and investigation. Those who do not check their facts give a bad name to good scientists.

Having said that, I will argue that scientific scholarship must lead to the analysis of the actual data, and personal evaluation of the data. From this, it is hard to support the claims of religious fundamentalism.

From your study of it perhaps, but since religious fundamentalism is broad enough to include all religions, each of which have their own ideas about the universe, such as that the earth rests on the backs of a great turtle4 (while Job wrote that "He hangs the earth on nothing"5) or other ideas, one could agree or disagree depending.

I will also argue that biblical scholarship must lead to the analysis of apparent contradictions and ambiguous passages, and to the analysis of the evaluations of other scholars. From this, it would seem to me to be difficult to retain an unwavering belief in just one inerrant interpretation of the text, the tenet upon which fundamentalism is based.

I think there is a prevalent misunderstanding out there that there is such a thing as one inerrant interpretation of the text. By scriptural design people are called to not simply listen to what others say about the text, but to see whether those things are so6. In other words, interpretation is the responsibility of the individual, not the institution.

The reality is that if scholarship is discredited, no one will listen. One can win a debate by forfeit. Wouldn't that be nice? That IMO is a far greater goal of the critic than that one argument here or there be discredited.

It seems to me that this is one of the foremost tactics of the anti-evolutionists.

Here again, what I have said (and meant) is that discrediting scholarship, the common practice of many an evolutionist, leads to a defaulted debate in the minds of observers, not an actual one on the facts alone. You say it is one of the "foremost tactics of the anti-evolutionists" but you are doing this in your own post, and have justified it as such. What is the point then in turning my argument around?

By mining for quotes from scientists that, out of context, seem to argue against evolution, they undermine the credibility of the scientists. By claiming that evolution is a religion, or is based upon an unsupportable naturalism philosophy, and is therefore not science, they undermine the credibility of scientists.

Perhaps indirectly, though I can't see how one can accept criticism on one hand, as all scientists should, and yet claim that criticism of ToE is actually criticism on the scholarship of evolutionists? Besides which, quote mining is not peculiar to anti-evolutionists. It is common among any writer who wishes to push a point using appeal to emotion.

By promulgating erroneous and already-discredited arguments against "icons" of evolution, they undermine the credibility of scientists.

So again, arguments against evolution is not permitted, lest evolutionists be discredited? And yet you support the discrediting of anti-evolutionists. How does one square this?

As you say, this is the way to win the debate by forfeit, and they are doing so. The America public is not well-enough versed in science to be able to evaluate the claims in a scholarly way, and are swayed by the rhetoric.

This is another argument for authority. The public are not capable of defending evolution against the arguments proffered by creationists. It is not an argument for evolution, but against independent thought and investigation. It is an argument which says, "trust us", the real scientists. ToE is reliable.

There is a reason that evolutionists do not want any kind of critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts in the schools. Many of even the most critically minded students would be "fooled" by the anti-evolution propaganda.



References:
1. TaxNet
2. Ken Gewertz, Harvard University Press
3. Discovery Institute
4. Riddles in Hinduism, Part I, BuddhistInformation.com
5. Job 26:7
6. Acts 17:11

[micatala]

Good points by both Jose and Nikolayevich.

I would agree with N that credibility should not be the basis of the argument. The argument should, in principle, stand on its own merits.

The problem I see is that, as you say, who of us is expert enough to be able to thoroughly and accurately critique all the arguments. Yes, some issues surrounding the creationism evolution controversy are 'accessible' enought that most anyone can evaluate the issues, evidence, and assumptions that are part of the argument. However, some issues are not so easy (polonium haloes, for instance, might be one of these). Thus, we must necessarily depend to some extent on the credibility of those who are more expert than 'we layman,' or do a lot of our own legwork and 'self-eduction.' Now, I'm not saying we should not do this, but as a practical matter, it takes a lot of time.

Also, there are a number of aspects to the credibility of a person. Jonathan Wells has been mentioned.

Jose wrote:
Jonathan Wells comes to mind--sure, he has a PhD in biology, but because he was assigned by Rev. Moon to get one expressly to attack evolution, one has to look beyond the PhD itself and ask whether his biology scholarship was at a level equal to that of other biology PhDs. Since he never published a scientific paper (even from his thesis work), but most PhD theses result in somewhere between one and four, we have to conclude that his scholarship was pretty weak. This assessment helps us evaluate his current writing, which sounds scientific, but is wildly off the mark. As you say, however, "for those who listen to rhetoric, it works like a charm."

What I said was that for those who prefer to attack credentials, that rhetoric works like a charm. You have illustrated the very thing I am speaking on, and appropriated what I said as a part of an attempt to discredit someone's credentials.

One could argue that his credentials should be taken at face value, and proceed to evaluate the particulars of his arguments. However, the other aspect to credibility is honesty. The fact that Wells pursued his Ph.D. at the behest of Reverend Moon is perhaps irrelevant, but what is relevant, I think, is that he has been quoted as saying he came to his creationist views during his graduate studies (see "Creationism's Trojan Horse" for documentation). THis is disingenuous and dishonest. Wells is playing on the credibility of his credentials by denying his pre-existing position on the issue. Wells is certainly not the only creationist who seems to have no problem in making untrue statements to further the cause (Duane Gish comes to mind).

Jose wrote:
By promulgating erroneous and already-discredited arguments against "icons" of evolution, they undermine the credibility of scientists.

So again, arguments against evolution is not permitted, lest evolutionists be discredited? And yet you support the discrediting of anti-evolutionists. How does one square this?

It is not that arguments against evolution should be dismissed a priori. The problem is that some creationists continue to make claims that have been shown to be untrue or at least so lacking in evidence as to be ridiculous, and to do so over and over and over. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they know what they are saying is not true, but say it anyway because they do not really care about promoting truth, but only about persuading a sufficient number of people to their point of view, or failing that, to persuade a sufficient number of people that their opponents should be doubted. It is more like a political campaign, where the PR folks attempt to discredit the opponent by whatever means necessary in order to get enough mud to stick to the opponent so their candidate will get elected.

I'm not saying that 'evolutionists' never stoop to such tactics, and I certainly can't 'quantify' which side is more guilty of this. All I can say is that I have read a fair amount of literature on both sides, and found the creationists to be much, much more guilty of these tactics then the evolutionists.

This is another argument for authority. The public are not capable of defending evolution against the arguments proffered by creationists. It is not an argument for evolution, but against independent thought and investigation. It is an argument which says, "trust us", the real scientists. ToE is reliable.

There is a reason that evolutionists do not want any kind of critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts in the schools. Many of even the most critically minded students would be "fooled" by the anti-evolution propaganda.

I think this is a good point. So then, what is the solution? Is there really a good reason not to trust the authority of scientific community on ToE? Why we would we distrust the scientific community on this issue, and not on other areas of science?

[Jose]

Yes, some issues surrounding the creationism evolution controversy are 'accessible' enought that most anyone can evaluate the issues, evidence, and assumptions that are part of the argument. However, some issues are not so easy (polonium haloes, for instance, might be one of these). Thus, we must necessarily depend to some extent on the credibility of those who are more expert than 'we layman,' or do a lot of our own legwork and 'self-eduction.' Now, I'm not saying we should not do this, but as a practical matter, it takes a lot of time.

There are, indeed, many aspects of the data that are accessible to everyone. Polonium haloes are more obscure--partly because they are presented as science, using big words and obscure topics. However, even there a little thought is sufficient. Polonium and its breakdown products are extremely short-lived. A single atom trapped in rock will, within a few seconds, decompose. As it does, it gives off one "track" from the radioactive particle. As the daughter element decomposes, it will give off another "track." Gentry's claim is that since the lifetimes of these elements are so short, the polonium had to be trapped in the rock when it formed.

Two problems: one trapped atom will produce only three or four tracks, in different directions, for each decomposition of parent, daughter, and daughter-of-daughter. This is not a halo. To get a halo, we need zillions of decompositions of zillions of atoms, each sending tracks out in random directions. The total of the zillions of tracks produces a halo.

Secondly, the haloes show up only along cracks in rocks that are near uranium. Uranium produces radon when it decays. Radon seeps through the cracks, and accumulates where there are microscopic pockets, where it can decay and produce haloes. Since radon is one of the polonium daughters, and since the decays produced by radon render the tracks of polonium itself invisible (by covering them up), there is no reason to conclude that these are polonium haloes, and not radon haloes. Since they occur only where uranium is found, and not in identical rocks far from uranium, there is a good reason to conclude that they are produced by uranium breakdown. Gentry doesn't mention any of this. There is a plausible alternative explanation to his model, and his model doesn't produce haloes anyway, unless God put globs of polonium into the rocks, and not randomly-dispersed polonium atoms--for which we have no explanation as to motive.

Here, I'd say: we have a scientific claim. Let's read what its author says. In essence, it's "polonium haloes exist, so the earth must have formed in an instant, so geology is wrong." We know geologists don't think they are wrong, and there's a lot of them. Maybe we can find something in a quick Google search that might give us some clues about how to think about it. Then we can evaluate both sides of the argument.

note: originally, I'd written "argon" here instead of "radon" (dumb of me, since argon is stable). Thanks to John S, I've corrected the error.

It is not that arguments against evolution should be dismissed a priori. The problem is that some creationists continue to make claims that have been shown to be untrue or at least so lacking in evidence as to be ridiculous, and to do so over and over and over.

Herein lies the problem. All of the arguments against evolution have been discredited. In science, when someone's argument has been discredited, it is henceforth ignored--except, perhaps, as an historical account of how science proceeds. Old hypotheses may be thrown out as new ones are developed. It is expected that scientists know that these old arguments have been thrown out, and therefore don't waste time on throwing them out again.

Yet, the creation/moonie/hindu/scientology anti-evolution arguments that we constantly hear don't enjoy this same fate. There seem to be Wellses and Gishes and Hovinds who are very, very happy to recycle them to new audiences who don't have the scientific background to know that the argument was debunked decades ago (or in some cases over a century ago). In some cases, the anti-evolutionist has even been recorded agreeing that a particular argument is not valid, and then uses the same argument before a new audience who did not hear his confession.

I have no problem with people honestly asking "what about this..." when they are confused about evolution. Certainly, there is plenty that confuses, and plenty that contradicts the religious teaching of some denominations. These questions should be asked, and they should be answered. They should be answered with data and logic, not with "because the experts say so."

But, if we devote our biology classes to re-debunking the anti-evolution claims, we will produce the sad result of illustrating how empty the anti-evolution claims are, and ultimately undermining religion. This is not the route to follow. We should separate science from religion, with the recognition that science addresses knowledge that can be directly inferred from hard data, while religion addresses ultimate causes, spirituality, and some morality that science cannot measure.

[nikolayevich]

Hello Nikolayevick,

How are you?

Very well, thank you!

Not being around for a bit? There are a couple of other web sites I normally post at more frequently. That, plus a 4 week holiday in Japan may well explain my absence.

Certainly an acceptable reason for absence

In the instance of hurt feelings only, it would he hard to argue a persuasive case and I suspect this is where the debate gets unreasonably dirty – as you correctly point out. However I do not necessarily agree that “most” fall into this category. I just do not know. Certainly many fall into this category.

In the second case, the attempt for persuasive argument can be made, even if not everyone agrees with it. (By “persuasive” I do not mean the type you mentioned at the close of your posting i.e. little more than empty rhetoric which is still able to “work like a charm.” Rather I meant argument made by appealing to evidence and logic.)

Thus, while I know that going for credentials is a big problem, Grabbe was not doing that, and he was very aware of the biases he brought to his debate both then and now. He notes that, despite his best efforts not to be tainted by modern scholarship, it was that scholarship which brought him to reject his fundamentalism.

His fundamentalism is key of course. To say that one's adherence to "modern scholarship" is the reason that one rejected fundamentalism, and that therefore no one can be a scholar and a fundamentalist, is an interesting form of a logical fallacy.

"Modern scholarship caused me to reject fundamentalism;"
"Therefore scholarship rejects fundamentalism"

Now, my speaking to this doesn't make the sentiment false (although I think it is). It simply shows weakness in his argument. It would be fine for him to say say, (A) Modern scholarship influenced me to (B) reject fundamentalism, therefore A caused B, simply because it is possible for one to know why they have believed something. However, he has not localized the argument to himself but rather generalized it to include all scholars and all fundamentalists. Therefore, one must approach it with the realization that it is sufficiently difficult to show in this manner and with any force a case which all scholars could accept, unless one determined that the objecting scholars weren't scholars. At which point we are back at square one.

As mentioned in my previous post, there are examples of camp-switching going both ways which makes the above event less impressive. It is completely subjective and so far as can be told by the Grabbe references used in this thread, his maneuvering between the man and the group suggest that he at least on some occasions uses generalizations which don't serve his thesis well. Especially since as you point out he takes issue with generalizations. Missing this point, it is not implausible for him to have responded to generalizations by critical "scholars" and thus weaker reasons may have persuaded him to fold his fundamentalist fort. I can't assume too strongly, but it is an alternative to the idea that modern scholarship shows fundamentalism false. Certainly it's less herculean in scope than what he is attempting on the other end.

What he seems to have tried is more a way of defining fundamentalism out of scholarship, not disproving fundamentalism with it. It is a similar thing that many--not all--evolutionists do when speaking of the miraculous, going beyond the reasonable "one must not appeal to the miraculous just because one does not have a natural explanation" to "...therefore, there is no miraculous." Modern scholarship does not disprove fundamentalism, if by fundamentalism we mean Biblical literalism. Many scholars are fundamentalists, which is only untrue if we say that a difference of opinion warrants this type of excommunication. It is defining one's argument to predestine the outcome.

He notes that scholarship rests on objectivity but that objectivity is “an impossible ideal”. He discusses how this subjectivity is mitigated by:-

1) Being open to criticism from many viewpoints,
2) being honest, (one classic example is applying the same methodology across the board and not asking for special favors for one’s faith)
3) providing references to allow others to confirm the veracity of argument
4) etc.

I would agree with him that these are all important in dampening bias, and that total objectivity is impossible for everyone claiming the distinction of human.

Grabbe notes that many fundamentalists are true scholars but that their scholarship is invariably applied in areas where “there is no confrontation between it and their view of the Bible.” However his main target is those scholars who do apparently deal with the Bible in an objective manner, but where this objectivity has only one aim – to be “a cloak for the actual hidden agenda which is to defend the biblical data.”

While his prose waxes almost poetically, we are again speaking of our opponent's agenda/motive over his points. I don't see how this is helpful. Appeals to motive actually betray motive more than they lend credence to an argument. But again, I would say that they are effective in persuading those who are not critically-minded. Besides which, I don't believe most Biblical scholars to have hidden agendas. They generally are willing to admit their biases, since Christians historically have confessed their faith to the community.

He accuses such scholars of dishonesty in that they “fail to be honest about their lack of objectivity but use the trappings of scholarly research as a cloak for what really is an exercise in apologetics, since their basic conclusions were predetermined before the datum was examined.”

Failing to "be honest about their lack of objectivity"... How can one be honest about the thing they require to determine their guilt? The indictment against which is generally not possible. People who lose objectivity most often do not know it. I remember hearing one creationist saying, "Would you [speaking to the audience] like to hear my unbiased opinion [on this evolutionist material]?" He was serious. I just about fell over with his unawareness of his lack of objectivity. And I'm a creationist! So certainly, I agree with you that a lack of objectivity on these issues is a problem, on both sides. We should not hesitate to cite problems among individuals even with our own general point of view where we see flaws in logic. I think evos and creos alike need to do this. Other favorites of mine include a BBC forum where three prominent UK evolutionists took turns mockingly saying things such as, "Evolution is just so obviously true!" without putting forward any evidence of any thing. They may at other times partake in scholarship but they evidenced none during the event.

(This is all a bit like AiG’s “statement of faith”. Scientists are wanted to do scientific research, but if any research calls into question the Bible, then the research must be at fault, not the scientist’s interpretation of the Bible.)

This is simply a case of preferring one Authority over another, and admitting this. Scientists all appeal to authority. Many simply do not admit to it. Certainly, the idea is that, if facts contradict what we believe about the Bible, then our understanding of the Bible may be flawed. Copernicus tried to show that the belief that the sun went 'round the earth, was false. It did not disprove the Bible (the geocentric system was Ptolemaic-Aristotelian, not Biblical1) but disproved false views of the world. I often hear evolutionists speak of how flaws with the theories does not disprove the Theory2. They are correct in principle, however, most evolutionists I speak with fundamentally believe that weaknesses with the theories can say nothing of the Theory as fact. That is, they believe the authority of the evolutionist community that there is no research which can disprove the fact of evolution, though certainly in keeping with scientific "objectivity", the theories around it can be flawed. It is right that evolution is both "fact" and theory and in this way... it is fact in that it was at some undetermined point proven beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore we no longer raise the first question. We have moved from the query, "How did we get here?" to "How did we get here with evolution?"

“The problem with biblical scholarship, as with many types of scholarship in the humanities, is that the issues are frequently complex. It is therefore perfectly possible for one to raise valid objections to a consensus of scholarship such as, for example, the documentary hypothesis for the Pentateuch.

And valid objections abound for ol' DH3, 4. It is one of the most selective and circular theories around. The map of J, E, D and P in pointing to verses written by each mysterious author is overlapping and inconsistent. There are so many exceptions to each rule in this Graf-Wellhausen Theory, one wonders how even the first to accept this authorship, assumed its veracity.

‘The German literary-critical movement seized avidly upon the supposition that the prophecy could contain no predictive element, and repudiated Jewish and Christian tradition of a sixth century B.C. date … Objections to the historicity of Daniel were copied uncritically from book to book, and by the second decade of the twentieth century no scholar of general liberal background who wished to preserve his academic reputation either dared or desired to challenge the current critical trend.’ “

Grabbe then explains why this claim by Harrison is “ a distortion on several counts.”

1) Most people (including liberal scholars) do allow for humans to make predictions about the future. However the scope for predictions is limited. And Grabbe lists several areas in the Bible where liberal scholars would concede that it is entirely possible for prophets to have been accurate in predicting the future. So Harrison’s claim for “no predictive element” is shaky at best.

This in fact raises yet another weakness in the credentials maneuver. Grabbe is moving between arguments against fundamentalists at large (scholarship and fundamentalism are not compatible) and arguments against a particular member or group of members of fundamentalists to disprove the greater proposition. The logic requires leaps. It goes to show how muddy the waters of "ad hominemism" really are.

2) Fundamentalists would object to the idea of “detailed accurate prediction” outside of the Bible. However to doubt that Daniel was written before the supposed predicted events is to do what all scholars do with any other text. Fundamentalists follow this rule with respect to all other texts but when the rule is applied to Daniel, the rule has to be waived. Thus, liberal scholars are being consistent. Fundamentalist scholars are inconsistent.

In this case there is a definition of a brand of fundamentalism which not all subscribe to. Grabbe then appears even to define a particular form of the fundamentalist position for the purpose of defeating it. Need I say what that is called?

3) If Harrison wishes to argue that liberals copy “uncritically” – as if this is a problem peculiar to liberals - then Harrison clearly has not read much from the Fundamentalist stable. (Here Harrison is doing precisely what you worry about.

And I would be happy to call him on it. It is something I am concerned with, and I worry about it on either side. This is a legitimate attack on Harrison's proposition- it shows a lack of prudence.

Liberal scholars offend, so he goes for the man – accusing many of being uncritical. If that is a problem, then why is it not for Fundamentalists? I.e. Harrison is being disingenuous.)

I am only saying that it is a problem, and for all. I do not argue as do some, that it is only a problem for "the other side". For instance, I respect your attention to detail and to the problems you appeal to in my argument, rather than my person. You keep me to task as it were, and I'm sure will continue to (unless you decide to find me boring as I'm sure is possible- I often ramble on to state my case).

And so Grabbe continues. He notes that, in the end, Fundamentalist scholarship really exists only to support a pre-ordained viewpoint.

Let's be careful not to substitute "pre-ordained" for "desired" viewpoint or outcome, though I know you choose your words carefully. It really doesn't matter what their hopes are, as far as the argument is concerned. The mandate of a branch of scholarship could be to search for intelligence elsewhere in the universe. Consider SETI. Whatever one's opinion on the question of ET, the fact remains that the group only exists to confirm the viewpoint that aliens exist, something which so far has been an elusive truth among scientists at large. They are called, after all, the Search For, not the Search Whether. They may be right or wrong, I don't have much to say on it. But having a desire to prove something already believed does not mean they can't be scientists or scholars.

Crossan, in his recent book “The Birth of Christianity” (Harper Collins Publishers, San Francisco, 1999), makes similar points with respect to scholarly treatment of the virgin birth. Fundamentalist cannot claim to be scholars and treat virgin births of other faiths dispassionately and dismiss them, but at the same time ask and expect that an exception be made for Christianity.

I think this is as blanket a statement as the one Grabbe attempts to refute in saying that some "liberal scholars would concede that it is entirely possible for prophets to have been accurate in predicting the future." Likewise I would say that there are fundamentalist scholars who would accept the possibility of other virgin births in theory (skeptically, sure). One only has to mention that the Bible does not say that there is only one virgin birth. It may be more believable than other virgin births, even being corroborated by Muslim scriptures5 whose antithetical position on infidels--Christians & Jews in particular--is not served well by the confirmation (Muhammad does not even have such a grand entry, though he is their most revered prophet), but Biblical scholars should not be as concerned with disproving other such incidents. Fundamentalists may evaluate other virgin births with suspicion but skepticism is not anti-scholarship.

Scholarship just does not work by asking for special dispensations for pet ideas. In his opening sections of that book, Crossan, with a number of reasons, attacks fundamentalists who attempt scholarship. One is the selective exemption given to Christianity with respect to the miraculous, prophecy etc. Another is the fundamentalist notion that it is the only “critics”, who have theories, assumptions and theologies.

What fundamentalist does not admit his own appeal to authority? I wouldn't say there are none, but it certainly sounds far from reasonable to suggest that they as a group only see theories, assumptions, etc. as being in the domain of critics. Perhaps I have not read enough of the fundamentalist papers to see this fact. Fundamentalism itself does not exclude theories or assumptions.

As Crossan notes, we all have theories, assumptions and theologies – including fundamentalists. We all have to interpret the data, including fundamentalists.

This is very true.

Given my experience with YECs and fundamentalists over the past 6-7 years, including scientists at AiG (Austrialia), I can only agree with both Grabbe and Crossan.

I don't question your experience, but since I can only rely on the reasons above which you refer to, I do question whether much of your experience has to do with the individual and not the meat of the matter. I've only really dialogued with evolutionists for about 5 years myself, but would have to say that my experience seems to have been similar to yours on the flip side, in that the personality and argumentation I have received or observed (save for a few of my evolutionist friends who I simply enjoy discussing anything scientific or philosophical with) has often been uncritical, or emotional, appealing to authority or credentials.

That it may not be seen in the other direction doesn't make a viewpoint unscholarly. I think of the Truman Show when I think of viewpoints that are just not seen to be incorrect. One day someone notices more and more that the small inconsistencies or glitches (even the overly-consistent) leads someone to a conclusion other than the one the "world" has fed him. Again, this could be turned around for any argument legitimately, but the point is real. It is a reason why people often switch teams in the evolutionary debate. It is good to test one's camp.

So you can agree or disagree with Grabbe. His argument is laid out, biases noted, references given etc. You can examine his claims and agree or disagree. However if a scholar accuses liberal critics of not allowing for prediction, when they do, then just what conclusion can you draw about the claim of that scholar?

The conclusion I would come to, in a hope to maintain rationality is that that particular view of his is false, or at the least overly general. This is a good example of an overstatement, not an unforgivable sin. We always say it's better to understate your case, and some do not do this. Humans are passionate creatures so it happens. But I certainly wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. I will read an evolutionist anti-creationist paper with warts of ad hominems if present, so I can see the arguments on the items, not the people. In the end, I might acknowledge that there is a level of disingenuousness, but it wouldn't be my reason for disagreement. It may simply highlight an emotional point for interest.

When a scholar uses a methodology to critique the claims for miracle made by other faiths, but completely ignores his critical methodology when it comes to his own faith, then what conclusion can you draw about that particular scholar?

I would highlight the inconsistencies in his argument. I still would hesitate to defrock him, much less an entire group of scholars.

Like any debate, I can get snooty or you can get snooty and we can instinctively call each other “liars”. One may well win the debate because his rhetorical skills are superior. The other may well lose the debate even though he amassed the evidence and presented a consistent and logical argument.

Unfortunately you are correct, although I don't think we will do this here.

However, which one would you call the scholar? Which one would you admire the most as a critical thinker and an honest person?

The one who amassed the evidence along with the more plausible explanation. I think we would both agree. It is the cutting down of an opponent that always tends to look the worst to the critically-minded.

I think you need to see Grabbe’s assertion in that context.

Grabbe takes three examples from Daniel to underscore and expand on the complaints mentioned above:-

a) Daniel 1:1
b) Belshazzar (Daniel 5)
c) Nebuchadnezzar’s Madness.

He shows how fundamentalist scholars behave in unscholarly manners when confronted with problems revealed by modern scholarship. They do not go for the credentials as you imply Grabbe is doing, even though they too are offended.

Rather they become evasive, miss the point, are disingenuous, can be misleading etc. They make allowances for their particular interpretations of these Biblical texts which they just do not make for interpretations with respect to other sacred texts.

I guess I just see the "they" as too vague and all-inclusive of a group which is fairly diverse in argument and approach.

I can understand what Grabbe is saying. Over the last fortnight I have engaged some thirteen YECs.

Of them, perhaps 8 failed to respond. Of the remaining 5, two responded then made no more contact after a post or two. Another I egaged in dialogue - but on a topic irrelevant to his thread. Two stood their ground. However, in arguing, one at the “No Answers In Genesis” site:-

1) ignored much of what I said,
2) made claims that were frivolous, often red-herrings, disingenuous,
3) often put words into my mouth and argued from that viewpoint and then
4) would pretend that he was not interested in debate. (I was “boring”. He wanted fun.)

You are very good at responding in depth to your opponents, something which I'd like to say is difficult for me because of my work hours alone, but is additionally hampered by the length of time I personally require to do the same. (I'm a wee bit slow and rip apart what I write repeatedly in the process).

At this stage you can argue that I am going for the man. However, maybe my assertion is valid. If you feel that I am going for the man then you can challenge me to back up my assertions.

One thing I never do is challenge someone to prove man's marginality

I am with you on the problem of scholarship, in that, it is often abused or not present. However, the fact is generally shown by appeal to the facts of debate and personal considerations only lower us to "he said, she said".

Thus, you feel offended at my disparaging a person you feel kinship with, so what are you going to do? Are you going to:-

a) respond in kind,
b) ignore what I have posted, or
c) challenge me to support my assertions?

A) Hopefully I have only responded to your arguments about Grabbe et al, and have not disparaged you in the process. (I don't actually think you disparaged either myself or one I feel kinship with)
B) I haven't ignored what you've posted, though it may have seemed like it for a time for reasons noted above.
C) Only in relation to A.

Occasionally I have been challenged, by YECs, about my claims. So I spend hours writing up my argument – references, quotations, etc. - based on my experiences.

The end result?

No response from my opponent.

Absence of response is not an erred response, but I do understand what you are seeking, if I am correct- good responses to your claims, rather than fake or disingenuous responses or persons.

Another typical case was on “The Theology Web”. A poster with whom I had frequently clashed, was a bit miffed when I suggested that YECs (including scientists at AiG) are just not prepared to argue their case beyond misrepresentation, goal post shifting, bluff, double standards etc. I replied that I would post my evidence on a new thread to which he and other YECs could respond. I also wagered that no YEC would respond. He doubted me. I posted. YECs did not respond. Neither did he. This happened twice.

So what exactly is one to do?

Does one allow YECs to claim the title scholar when they argue at this level?

Unfortunately while forums are good leveling tools when arguments are proffered, they shouldn't be used as indicative of the level of scholarship of entire people groups, just those individuals.

I am not suggesting that I am a scholar by a long, long shot.

You present your case, and are thorough in analyzing your opponent's case. This is what is important in the argument, not credentials. Besides which you put this true layman to shame in the scope of your posts.

However, it is my contention that YECs behave in this manner because their leaders do.

By leaders are we speaking of those who are the most vocal, or those most heterodox in the community?

The other example who stood his ground, from the last two weeks, was at “The Theology Web”. That was in a debate on theology. However, once the debate got underway, he repeatedly informed me that he was operating on a “wisdom that was not of this world” and that I could not understand.

Having faith certainly doesn't mean that our argument should not be also logical. I would quote him 1Peter 3:15: "...always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;"
That last part, "meekness and fear" suggests that telling people they "could not understand" is not in keeping with the giving of a logical defense in humility. This doesn't have to offend "revelation" by God either, meaning that while Christians believe that God reveals truth, it doesn't mean that we should give up presenting our case. At the least, we should defer to someone else capable of answering questions we cannot. It is a bit like saying, "Bahhhh.. forget it!"

Well some debate. After some five posts, it concluded – simply because I would never understand. (Why did he come to a debating board then, if he was going to argue with a wisdom that I could not understand?) This too is unscholarly.

I understand what you say of this.

Allow me to paraphrase his attitude, as far as I see it:-

“Anything you, Nicolayevick, say that I disagree with, demonstrates that you are unscholarly, simply because you lack the wisdom I have (which is not of this world), to understand that what I am saying is correct.”

I think you and I may see closer on this issue than at first I thought.

Again, you can query me as being unfair and going for the man. I don’t think I am. And I think I can make a coherent case to support my assertion.

In so doing, am I really going for the man? Or am I making a valid point?

So Grabbe has my sympathy – simply based on my own experience.

I think your reasons for supporting certain of his assertions, based on your experiences are valid. I simply do not see the argument to go for scholarship in the grander case of all YECs or all fundamentalists, et al.

I often find when critics use language insinuating that those holding alternative assessments (to theirs) on a given problem are "faking" or "unworthy" of the title which they themselves hold, it is at the very least an arrogated assumption which leaves this reader questioning the motive of the critic himself.

I agree with you to some extent. However, you cannot say that this is always the case. To say that Grabbe is guilty of this, you would have to read his paper – then judge.

While I think you have presented enough of Grabbe for me to find fault with some things, I do think you are right in recommending that I read his paper in full. I would not say too much further about him without doing so. Is there a place I can get it?

Therefore we are no further than that both have motives, and that the one is accusing the other of it to the degree that his scholarship is in question.

But competency is something reasonable to call into question – providing you can make your case.

In certain instances it is reasonable. In most cases I have seen, it is unnecessary, and most commonly used to try and win the argument in spirit without winning the argument itself.

If this were not so, then even courts could not pass judgment on people for fraud, lying, incompetency etc. If the evidence is there, then an argument can be made.

This is where I think "Judge not lest you be judged"6 has to be understood for the caveat it is. In too many cases we are guilty of what we judge others of, and this is no less true in academic circles. Fraud and lying, yes, we should avoid those we know to be doing so. However, the evolutionist camp will have a hard time ignoring failures within its circles to keep the theories free from this type of activity. And of course, oftentimes "fraud" and "lies" are things that both camps fling on each other simply because of a sentiment that they must know they are not telling the truth. It is so obvious to me what the truth is.

I hope again my essay has not been too terse. I have met one or two really fine YECs during these arguments. However most, if one were to base character on how YECs/Fundamentalists argue, would be deemed terrible. I do not think that this is the case in reality. It is just that, when YEC religious belief is threatened, then “anything goes”. And that ain’t scholarly and it is not nice.

Again, it goes every way. Per capita I'm sure there are just as many illogical or foul evolutionists. After all, evolutionists are human. Aren't they?

Most YEC's I know do not all of a sudden become hysterical at a challenge to their beliefs. Many of them came to the views they did because of the defensibility of the faith, including answers to origins.



References:

1. Dolling, Lisa M., Gianelli, Arthur F., Statile, Glenn N., Introduction to The Tests of Time: Readings in the Development of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press
2. Meritt, Jim, The General Anti-Creationism FAQ
3. Miller, G.M., A brief note about the Documentary Hypothesis
4. Robinson, A.C., Three Peculiarities of the Pentateuch...Incompatible with the Graf-Wellhausen Theories..., Baker Books
5. Sura 19:16-30
6. Matthew 7:1

[micatala]

Jose said:

But, if we devote our biology classes to re-debunking the anti-evolution claims, we will produce the sad result of illustrating how empty the anti-evolution claims are, and ultimately undermining religion. This is not the route to follow. We should separate science from religion, with the recognition that science addresses knowledge that can be directly inferred from hard data, while religion addresses ultimate causes, spirituality, and some morality that science cannot measure.

I would agree that, in the biology classroom, we should separate science from religion, but I'm not sure this means we should not debunk anti-evolution claims. Though the claims may be a result of religious belief, many of the claims can be evaluated without reference to the belief structure, and I think it might be educational for students to do this or to have the teacher address some of the claims. Whether there is evidence for a world wide flood, the reliability of dating methods, the reasons for the rarity of fossils, etc. are all, it seems to me, perfectly legitimate issues that students could learn something from by considering.

One would certainly have to be sensitive, I think, in addressing the issues, but I don't think we should necessarily shy away from them.

I don't know that I would say we are "undermining religion" by showing the "emptiness" of the anti-evoluionist claims. We might be undermining particular doctrines and particular interpretations of the Bible, and yes this can (and has) led to some people questioning or rejecting their faith. Obviously this can be an uncomfortable, unpleasant, or worse experience for those particular individuals undergoing it, and that is why I think we do need to be sensitive to the problem. However, I would ask if we are really doing people any favors by not bringing these issues up?

Religious belief systems have adapted to new knowledge in the past, and survived just fine in many cases, and certainly could do so in the particular situation. I would argue that if those branches of Christianity that hold anti-evolutionary views were able to 'get past' these views, they would in the long run be better for it. It would allow Christians and CHristianity to concentrate on issues that are really more central to the message of the religion.

rjw wrote:
(This is all a bit like AiG’s “statement of faith”. Scientists are wanted to do scientific research, but if any research calls into question the Bible, then the research must be at fault, not the scientist’s interpretation of the Bible.)

Nikolayevich wrote:
This is simply a case of preferring one Authority over another, and admitting this. Scientists all appeal to authority. Many simply do not admit to it. Certainly, the idea is that, if facts contradict what we believe about the Bible, then our understanding of the Bible may be flawed. Copernicus tried to show that the belief that the sun went 'round the earth, was false. It did not disprove the Bible (the geocentric system was Ptolemaic-Aristotelian, not Biblical1) but disproved false views of the world.

I would agree that many scientists (and lay people) appeal to authority without explicitly acknolwedging it. However, the nature of the two authorities is different, and usually so is the attitude towards the authority. When I rely on a scientific authority, I understand what the authority is based on, and that the authority may be wrong. I believe in the authority partly because he or she is part of a larger scientific enterprise that has, in general, a very good track record. In most cases, the scientific authority (or at least science as a whole) is willing to change its view based on new evidence or new discussions among the 'other authorities.' As a non-authority, I am also willing to do this. Oftentimes, this is not the case with those who hold the Bible as the authority.

With regards to Copernicus, I would agree Copernicus' system does not conflict with the Bible, but that is because of my particular interpretation of the Bible. It certainly did go against the interpretations of most of the Protestant and eventually Catholic church leaders of the time. The fact that the development of the Ptolemaic system was linked with Aristotle and not the Bible seems to me somewhat irrelevant. The church(es) had bought into Ptolemy, and felt it was consistent with the Bible and their religious belief system. One might make the case, after the fact, that the Ptolemaic system's historical development puts into question its validity as part of a 'Christian worldview' but this seems to me a revisionist attack on its credibility.

I have read curriculum put out by conservative Christian organizations which presents the Copernican system as the 'true Christian' system, and Ptolemy as the 'pagan system,' completely ignoring the fact that Copernicus' system was attacked (or at least frowned upon) by the majority of Christians for nearly 100 years or more. I find this a disingenuous and somewhat humorous attempt to play on the authority of science in trying to bolster the authority of the Bible, while sweeping the actual historical facts conveniently under the rug.

I must confess, I am not nearly as conscientious in my 'scholarship' as either N or rjw with respect to references, but there is a good discussion of some of these issues in Kuhn's book, "THe Copernican Revolution." The curriculums I have seen include ABEKA and Bob Jones University's curriculum.

[rjw]

Gidday Nikolayevick,


Thank you for your polite and friendly response to my barbs against YEC/fundamentalism.

At one level I thoroughly agree with most of your sentiment. At another level I disagree. I shall touch on the agreement then expand on my disagreement.

Before I start, here is the reference to Grabbe:-

Grabbe, Lester L. “Fundamentalism and Scholarship: The Case of Daniel” in Scripture: Meaning and Method, Barry P Thompson (ed.), Hull University Press 1987. (Chapter 9 is the relevant one.)

I photocopied the relevant chapter from a book I borrowed from a local university library. I do not know how hard it would be to find a copy of the book where you are. Being something of a scholarly book, I doubt if it would have been on the best seller list. It was published close to 20 years ago too.

Crossan makes similar points in the opening chapters of his book:-

Crossan, John Dominic, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering what happened in the years immediately after the execution of Jesus, HarperCollins, New York, 1999. (Chapter 2 is the relevant one).


Subjectivity

Certainly Grabbe’s argument is largely subjective in that he writes from his own experience, rather than from, say, data derived from a door-knock questionnaire of both fundamentalists and non fundamentalists. And it is the same with me. My argument is based on my own experience in:-

a) debating/arguing with several YEC scientists (Sarfati, Walker and Lamb. Lamb was the publicity officer for AiG Australia but he held a BSc),
b) debating/arguing with numerous YECs over the past 8 years,
c) researching a lot of YEC technical literature written by high profile YECs and creationists (Johnson, Sarfati, Ham, Humphreys, Austin, Oard, Walker …)

Again, however, my comments are, as you imply, of a subjective nature and certainly need to be seen in that light.

My complaint is not so much with the numerous YECs which you argue came to their faith because of its defensibility. Most YECs, like most evolutionists reach their conclusions and never bother to defend their views, for a variety of reasons, one of which is that they care not to, having many other things to do in life. For such people the issue of scholarship cannot arise – simply because these people never attempt to practice it. They are not concerned with it.

Nor is it really about the dishonesty in both the evolutionist camp and creationist camps, or a comparison to see who is the worst. While scholars may tell lies and engage in uncivilized personal attacks, the essence of scholarship has nothing to do with this.

What I am concerned about and what Grabbe argues about is the very nature of the scholarship itself, when it is supposedly being practiced.


My apologies

Where I have perhaps erred, is in not paying enough attention to the fact that there are some YEC scholars who do engage the mainstream in reasonable terms that are not contradictory, do not involve special pleading etc.

Other YECs who make no pretence at being scholars, I cannot really fault, simply because of their up-front honesty. I may disagree with their conclusions but because of their honesty, I can accept what they say. However, by and large my problem about scholarship does not incorporate this handful of people, simply because a part of their honesty is to acknowledge scholarship and then disown it on the grounds that it will harm their faith. Thus scholarship is not an issue because it is rejected outright.
I cannot even argue that you are guilty of the “sins” I have discussed and for all I know are happy that theories dealing with macro evolution, the origin of the earth and life etc. are all scientific. You may also be happy with mainstream thinking on the nature of science and apply it consistently in your discussions with your opponents. I see no reason to believe otherwise. IOW you fit the description given in the first paragraph of this section. However between us, the issue of scholarship has not come up since we have not discussed the nature of science and the status of theories with in it.

And for many YECs, like many evolutionists, the issue of scholarship may not arise simply because, for one reason or another, the existence of view points counter to their world views do not really arise. They have other things to contemplate and do in life.

Thus, I sympathize with your quip:-

“I guess I just see the "they" as too vague and all-inclusive of a group which is fairly diverse in argument and approach.”
Despite this, in my experience these scholars and laymen such as yourself are rare – save for those multitudes on both sides who care little for debate.

Given these caveats, my complaint arises with most YECs I have encountered when the nature of science and the status of some theories are discussed.

For now, forget those groups I have discussed in this section. Scholarship is not an issue for one reason of another.

My issue is with those who actually challenge the mainstream head on and in the process wish to imply that their arguments are scholastic and worthy of serious consideration.


Selectivity

It is possible that you are entirely correct and my problem is that by engaging AiG several years ago and haunting these bulletin boards, I just happen to bump into the wrong kind of YEC/fundamentalists. Thus, while most YECs, more or less accept mainstream science for what it is (naturalistic descriptions of nature) even if they do not necessarily like many of its conclusions – by my choice of activity, I bump into those aggressive types who behave so, simply because the think there is something reasonable to their particular arguments.

You Nikolayevick are one of the very few YECs I have met on these boards who has posted a coherent, logical and therefore reasonable reply to my own arguments.

That my posts may appear scholarly is merely a function of the amount of time I devote to them. I don’t have a huge knowledge base and am often humbled at the breadth of knowledge and the ability to communicate, of the many real scholars I have met. (Mind you even then, some are still very good at going down into more grubby levels.)

Clarification re Grabbe

Unfortunately, and you do understand this, you have to see Grabbe through my own writing.

You wrote:- His fundamentalism is key of course. To say that one's adherence to "modern scholarship" is the reason that one rejected fundamentalism, and that therefore no one can be a scholar and a fundamentalist, is an interesting form of a logical fallacy.

"Modern scholarship caused me to reject fundamentalism;"
"Therefore scholarship rejects fundamentalism"

(snip)

However, he has not localized the argument to himself but rather generalized it to include all scholars and all fundamentalists. Therefore, one must approach it with the realization that it is sufficiently difficult to show in this manner and with any force a case which all scholars could accept, unless one determined that the objecting scholars weren't scholars. At which point we are back at square one.

I don’t think this is exactly what Grabbe was arguing. After all I did say that Grabbe “…notes that many fundamentalists are true scholars but that their scholarship is invariably applied in areas where “there is no confrontation between it and their view of the Bible.” Nor is it what I am arguing and hopefully the distinction will become apparent later.

This context is important – and I think it is different to the context in which you reply to me. (Perhaps I am not really addressing the initial points you were making.)


Unscholarly behavior, propaganda, insult and other things.

Imagine that flat earthers were, with some success, getting their theories (flat earth and geocentricism) into our school curricula! (After all, as they would argue, true science is not being taught to our children with respect to these issues.)

I suspect that, somewhat like this current debate, an awful lot of emotion would enter and most YECs would find themselves siding with the mainstream. In this hypothetical debate, much invective, mud-slinging, and shady business would eventuate – along side reasoned argument.

Besides the current creation/evolution debate there are other similar real time examples. Consider “Cold Fusion”. That idea generated a lot of mud slinging between supporters and detractors, as well as genuine scientific debate. Immanuel Velikosky’s “Worlds In Collision” caused an awful kerfuffle between supporters (some of whom were bona fide scientists) and the mainstream. Ditto for Eric Von Daniken’s “Chariots of the Gods”.

These ideas brought on much bad behavior as well as impassioned scientific debate.

Aside from all that mud slinging though, certain issues remained as to what constituted valid science and what was good science. During these debates, while I saw questions being raised along these lines, both sides nevertheless held to consistent definitions of what constituted science. Both sides attempted to address each other’s questions directly, even though little may have been achieved in convincing those engaged in the arguments – one way or the other.

With respect to the creation/evolution debate, this matter of consistent definition and addressing arguments just does not happen (or rarely happens) at the supposed level of scholarly debate. And given that it is the YECs who bring to the table inconsistent definitions and a methodology which suggests that, when all else fails, ignore the opponent, then it is YECs to which the question is aimed - can they be serious scholars?

This question is aimed at the top – at those who implicitly claim to be the scientists and philosophers (i.e. scholars) behind the movement (Sarfati, Walker, Oard, Johnson, Ham …). Those laymen who argue in the same manner can at least be excused to some extent. Like the rest of us, we gain our ideas largely from those we perceive to be authorities and experts.


What is at stake. The two levels

At one level the debate rages and it can be reasonable and scholarly – as we both agree. As you correctly point out, it can be unreasonable, and nasty with much of the activity centered more on developing “good” propaganda to win the day rather than developing sound argument and appealing to rational minds. We both agree – each side can be as bad as the other.

However there is another level at which this debate operates. Here the issues are:-

1) the nature of science,
2) the status of some theories – particularly in biology, cosmology and geology,
3) the methodologies used to facilitate debate or discussion.

It is at this level that the unscholarly behavior of “scholarly” fundamentalism operates. What I think Grabbe is arguing is that at this level there is a systematic problem in fundamentalist reasoning and methodology which precludes serious (scholarly) debate.

What precludes fundamentalists from scholarship? How is it abandoned?

Scholarship relies on good definition, research, and logical and consistent argument. It also relies on a willingness to discuss all possibilities. Nothing precludes the fundamentalist from forming good definitions, undertaking research and engaging in active argument. However, with respect to 1) and 2), above fundamentalist argument fails in aspects of coherence and consistency. And with respect to 3), fundamentalists engage tactics which preclude open discussion.

Let me illustrate with respect to science.

Providing theory and hypothesis deals with the “ordinary” then YECs hold conventional views as to what constitutes science, how science operates and how one should engage in debate. Mainstream definitions regarding the nature of science and how it operates are not questioned. Tacitly at least, they are accepted.

When geological, astronomical or biological theories come under the microscope however, this all changes.

An illustration of this is as follows. It is considered by most YECs to be either fact or sound scientific theory that the sun shines because of nuclear fusion reactions occurring at its core. This is despite the fact that no one can see the center of the sun and it is unlikely that any one will ever be able to get into the center to see what is really going on.

Yet, when someone from the mainstream calls macro evolution a scientific theory, the YEC points out that this cannot be so because no one has ever observed a macro evolutionary event occurring.

Hence, with respect to evolution, a process has to be observed before the associated theory can be called scientific. With respect to astrophysics, the process cannot be observed, yet the associated theory can still be considered scientific.

Should a discussion occur in a YEC book as to what science is, then it is written that science deals only with that which can be observed. Macro evolution cannot be observed, therefore it is not science. (See Ham, The Lie: Evolution. One could argue that Ham is singularly misguided. However I have seen other YECs recommend Ham’s book as a good introduction to the nature of the debate. No warning is given to ignore his lessons on science.)

This argument is offered no matter whether the YEC is a scientist such as Sarfati or Walker of AiG Australia or a layman such as Ham.

The problem is that this new definition (that to be scientific, a process must be observed), precludes pretty well all other science from being science.

When the inconsistency of definition and the duplicitous of application is pointed out, the issue is:-

a) ignored, that is further discussion is abandoned or
b) a new constraint is added to the definition (say, the process has to be observed in infinite detail)

When the new constraint is shown to be problematical, in that it precludes all science from being such then a) or b) are repeated. Generally a) is the adopted course. If b) is chosen then within a few more steps, a) is adopted.

Now a definition of science is fundamental to science. If a definition is chosen that continually has to be tinkered with to the point that discussion about the definition ends up being abandoned, then good science/scholarship is not being done. Discussion cannot proceed without satisfactory definition. Good definition does not result by abandoning discussion of such.

For example, if stellar fusion theory is scientific even though we can never observe the centre of the sun, then it is no good arguing that macro is not scientific because we can never observe what has happened in the past. Observation of a process is observation of a process. And if the non observation of one process still allows associated theories to be deemed science, then another theory cannot be deemed to be non science on the grounds of non-observation.

That is plain illogic and the illogic of the situation is not repaired by avoiding discussion.

On top of all this, both sides may well be disparaging each other and threatening law suits. But that is at one level. At the other level, which is fundamental to science, an illogical argument is being used which is defended first by continually shifting ground and then ultimately by ignoring further discussion.

This example, which deals with the nature of science, and the practice of redefinition to suit, is the methodology of creationists ranging from Sarfati and Walker (high profile YEC scientists), through to Ham (high profile YEC layman) through to the average YEC layman. Currently I am engaging two YECs on other boards who argue that macro cannot be seen therefore it is not science. Pointing out the consequences of such an argument quickly brings the discussion to a halt. There is a possibility that one may reply but I am not holding my breath. The other has definitely gone away to argue with others, after having told me that he will get serious.

If YEC scholars are not propagating these ideas and methodologies, then where do the YEC laypeople get them from? And if these ideas are so indefensible such that counter arguments continually have to be ignored, then why do the YEC scholars continually present them?

This is not scholarship at the outset and any hope of sensible debate evaporates immediately. One cannot engage a person who ignores arguments which touch on the very nature of the topic at hand. It is impossible to discuss/argue in an environment in which:-

a) definitions are used which allow a choice of attributes, depending on whether a theory is liked or not. Either non observation of a process is allowable or it is not. With respect to macro, if it is allowable then macro can be called science. If it is not allowed, then most of science is not such either.
b) Arguments which point this are ignored or the definitions are readjusted. Certainly, changing definitions is sensible providing all parties agree that change is needed and that the proposed change is acceptable. But changing definition merely to suit ones biases or to counter an unforeseen problem is dishonest.

This is what I mean about that other level. Certainly there is a lot of insult and invective. Schemes are plotted which amount to little more than propaganda – designed to convince those on one side or the other. But insults and propaganda are not what is being argued about. These are often more the undesirable side effects of a deeper underlying debate. Nor is it what Grabbe is getting at.

Among several of his complaints, Grabbe notes that techniques have been developed which allow assessments about the nature of certain texts. He argues that fundamentalist scholars (in his experience) use these tools to deny claims made by people of other faiths (or other interpretations within Christianity). When these same tools are turned onto the fundamentalist claims which are subsequently found to be wanting – the fundamentalist attacks the tools, as if those tools suddenly cease to have any validity. It is a case of “wanting your cake and eating it too”.

Now at the other level, there could well be a lot of name-calling and knavery occurring between Grabbe and his opponents. At this level though, the problem is one of consistency and fairness. If you believe it to be scholarly to use tools to bravely criticize others then you must bravely allow those same tools to be applied to yourself.

Crossan in his book “The Birth of Christianity” makes the same point. He devotes some pages to discussing why it is necessary to try and discover the historical Jesus. One of his points concerns ethics. He writes thus:-

“This, then is my problem, and I repeat that it is an ethical one. Anti-Christian or direct rationalism says that certain things cannot (or, more wisely, do not) happen. They are so far beyond the publicly verifiable or objectively provable consistencies of our world that, whatever their value as myth or parable, fable or story, they are not to be taken as fact, event, or history. It is easy, of course, to mock that attack, but we all live by it every day, especially where others are involved. (Where are you on aliens or Elvis?) Pro-Christian or indirect rationalism admits that those same types of events usually do not occur but insists that in one absolutely unique instance they did. A divine conception or a bodily resurrection, for example, has happened only once in the whole history of the world. To Jesus. When Christians as historians bracket from discussion or quarantine from debate those specific events but not all other such claims, past and present, they do something I consider unethical. But that raises the second aspect of my ethical problem.” (The italics are Crossan’s.)

Crossan saw the problem with fundamentalist scholarship as follows. Fundamentalists make historical claims. Some of these fundamentalists claim to be historians, that is, scholars. But these historical claims (virgin births and bodily resurrections) are also made by fundamentalists of other religions. What is more, virgin births and bodily resurrections were a part of normal discourse and world view some 2000 years ago. It is not scholarly to argue that only one of these could be true and all others false – unless you have very good reasons for doing so. It is a case of one in all in. And unless you can amass good evidence for accepting one and rejecting all others, then as a historian (scholar), you have no reason to engage in special pleading for your favorite, while ignoring that same pleading for the favorites of other faiths.

This leads me to a second problem which mirrors this complaint of Crossan.


Avoiding discussion

If certain scientific theories are to be examined critically then those doing the examining should be prepared to open themselves up if asked. I find that this does not happen. The following actions are taken when a request to do so comes from me:-

1) just to ignore the request (mostly done – even by scientists at AiG),
2) to argue that to do so would be to bring God into disrepute (sometimes done),
3) define the theory out of contention for examination by arguing that it is a framework and since we all operate by frameworks then this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (often done by YEC leaders – Sarfati, Walker, Ham)
4) to argue that this is beyond the scope of human enquiry, (rarely done)
5) to argue that both sides of the debate are dealing with religious matters and hence neither is open to scientific enquiry (sometimes done – Ken Ham)

With the first point the fundamentalist is being unscholarly, simply refusing debate by ignoring a potential problem brought to his/her attention. In the second instance the fundamentalist is refusing to allow scholarship to be brought to bear at any cost. Even if done for the noblest of reasons, it still precludes an idea from examination – and so is unscholarly.

Point 4) may be made honestly, however it also precludes the fundamentalist from scholarly debate. Effectively it avoids debate by arguing that debate just cannot occur – period. The fundamentalist can hardly blame the naturalist for attempting to answer the question, when the naturalist is allowed to answer so many other questions – God or no God.

On the face of it the third option seems sound enough – simply because everything we do or think is in the context of a framework. But the point is not sound – for like the first two it effectively removes the notion of YEC theory from discussion. Certainly we all operate from frameworks. Frameworks are important for science. Macro evolution can be used as a framework from within which other research is done. However, macro evolution per se. is also a topic of research from within the general naturalistic framework. Thus it is open up to investigation – just as is the weather, the nature of matter, ecological systems etc.

Thus, if marbles are going to be compared with marbles and issues such as “how does macro evolution work” are open for research, then questions such as “how did the creation work” are also open for examination. If it cannot be opened up for discussion for the reason given, then a comparison of likes cannot be made and scholarly discussion cannot occur.

Point 5) is belied by two facts. The first is that those who generally make the claim spend an awful lot of time making arguments as to why macro evolution is not science. They imply that their arguments are logical, rational and evidence based – the very hallmarks of scientific discussion. That is their arguments can be tested. Furthermore, scientists spend their time developing hypotheses and theories about macro evolution and they collect data to test these ideas. Hence, coherent discussion and the testing of ideas can be done with respect to macro evolution. Therefore labeling the idea as religion is merely a refusal to acknowledge this fact. (Ham, in his book The Lie: Evolution makes just this kind of declaration. However, seemingly faced with the obvious, that macro evolution really does look like a science, he then declares the debate to be “the science of one religion, versus the science of another religion”. What is the difference between “science” and “science of a religion”? Ham does not say.)

If options 1), 2), 3), 4) or 5) above are going to be used to avoid discussion then:-

1) naturalists can hardly be blamed for sticking to naturalism to answer questions they believe are important and
2) the fundamentalist can realistically be accused of being unscholarly again – simply because, by fair means or foul, debate is being refused.

There is another way in which scholarly debate is avoided and it involves the issue of observation again. This time, how the notion of observation is used is demonstrated – and it touches on ethics again.


I do not have to observe but you do.

Observation of a process (which has to do with evolution, long periods of time, or of times long ago) is demanded of the mainstream before that process is deemed to have any basis in reality. If that process has nothing to do with evolution, long periods of time, or of times long ago – or if that process is not associated with any offence to religious belief – then the specific demand for observation is ignored.

However when that same demand is made of fundamentalists with respect to creation or the Flood then the following is offered as why it does not have to be done by any human:-

“God was there to observe and he wrote it down for us in the Bible.”

Discussion as to who observed God writing it down, how accurately he or his scribes wrote it and how accurately humans translate or interpret it are always:-

a) ignored (most often),
b) deemed to be irrelevant in some way (quite often), say:-
a. by declaring the notions to be a framework,
b. or by declaring that only the initiated can understand.

The effect of b) is essentially the same as that of a). Both a) and b) ignore discussion about that very issue (human observation) which is demanded by creationists of the mainstream.


Speculation and confusion - actually opening up and discussing fundamentalist theories

On those occasions when a YEC does discuss his/her theories, then another unscholarly problem results – that of confusing speculation and assumption with tested theory.

I have yet to read a piece of YEC technical literature which discusses YEC theories (creation, flood etc) directly which is not speculative in the extreme. Certainly speculation is a part of scholarly intercourse. However it must be distinguished from fact, theory, and hypothesis. Without laboring the point by listing example after example I shall discuss all this in very general terms.

If you look at a piece of writing where, say, the mechanics of the creation or the Flood are discussed, then you will see statements like “God would have …”, “God could have …” etc.

God’s state of mind is critical to this kind of argument.

But “could have” and “would have” are not good enough in science.

In science when an evolutionist speculates about some scenario regarding the origin of life or some macro evolutionary event, “test tubes” are brought out in each case to test that idea. The “test tube” may either be a test tube in the lab or it can be some field trip designed to look in specific locations for some identifiable and predicted evidence. This activity is no different to that which the scientist would practice in any other scientific field.

With the idea that “God could have” – a claim is being made which requires some test to determine God’s past or present mind. This is a claim which no creationist, as far as I know, is prepared to test.

We have then two contrasting methodologies. The mainstream speculates and tests the core issues of that idea. The YEC speculates but the core issues of the idea are not tested. They are not even testable. Yet the YEC argues that the two ideas should be placed on an equal footing in any discussion concerning those ideas! In this context the YEC cannot have anything to discuss – beyond speculation and the demand that such be given equal footing with tested ideas is unscholarly.

YEC technical literature explicitly or implicitly makes this demand on the mainstream.


Speculation but not opening up for discussion

Often I have read the following statement from numerous YECs particularly Sarfati, Walker and Ham - “It can all be explained by the Fall”. Yet the exact mechanics of how the Fall can cause something is never (extraordinarily rarely) discussed. (On that one occasion where I had seen it discussed, by a layman, then consistency became and issue.) If the degradation of the universe is easily explained by the Fall, then the onus is on the claimant to explain how the sin of two humans can cause stars to suddenly increase the entropy of the universe, whereas they did not before hand, even though they were, presumably shining. The onus is on the claimant to offer some way of explaining how the sin of two humans can cause a bacterium 2000 km away to begin dying etc. By “explain” I mean “explain in a non speculative manner”.

These and associated issues appear to be out of bounds for examination. They are ignored for discussion, other than the occasional and at the most, speculative story. They appear to be a part of a “framework” which is not open for testing, unlike those other naturalistic frameworks of macro evolution, ancient earth, BB cosmology etc.

The one exception argued that God kept stars shining by his direct action before the Fall. He based his claim on God’s supposed omnipresence and omnipotency. How can that can that idea be tested? Consistent argument and methodology became an issue when the person ignored repeated requests for associated evidence and to explain why he abandoned this explanation for extant stars, in favor of modern astrophysical theory.

None of this is acceptable scholarship. Not only was the argument speculative but it violated every principle that person claimed an idea had to have in order to be scientific.

If the Fall is an explanatory mechanism, then should be open for examination and discussion. Treating it as “framework” and therefore beyond examination or at most offering associated speculative stories, is not scholarship.


Illustration from your posting

You wrote:- Let's be careful not to substitute "pre-ordained" for "desired" viewpoint or outcome, though I know you choose your words carefully. It really doesn't matter what their hopes are, as far as the argument is concerned. The mandate of a branch of scholarship could be to search for intelligence elsewhere in the universe. Consider SETI. Whatever one's opinion on the question of ET, the fact remains that the group only exists to confirm the viewpoint that aliens exist, something which so far has been an elusive truth among scientists at large. They are called, after all, the Search For, not the Search Whether. They may be right or wrong, I don't have much to say on it. But having a desire to prove something already believed does not mean they can't be scientists or scholars.
I agree wholeheartedly with what you argue here. But it is not exactly what I am arguing.

It is not a matter of “… what their hopes are as far as the argument is concerned”. It is a matter of the coherence and logic of the argument and the methodology of its application.

Thus it is reasonable for a creationist to argue for the veracity of the Flood or the actuality of the Fall and engage the mainstream over these issues, providing an equal application of ideas and methodologies is going to be applied. By “equal” I am referring to those aspects I mentioned above.

Therefore the SETI researcher is fully entitled to continue to search for aliens, ad infinitum if he or she wishes, providing the resources are forthcoming. If no aliens are found in 100 years time, probably all scientists bar that researcher may well abandon the experiment, considering it not to be worthwhile. Nevertheless that researcher could well be conducting scientific experiments and making scholarly statements – notwithstanding the apparent futility of the subject.

It is the mandate of all scientists to attempt to confirm ideas which they believe make sense. And ditto for fundamentalists – if they wish to step beyond the bounds of faith and be bound by the limits of scholarly research.

It is a little hard for me to put the SETI scientist into the shoes of the fundamentalist I complain about. Let me put my fundamentalist hat on for now and show you how I can behave as the unscholarly YEC I am talking about.

I could argue that SETI experiments cannot be scientific because they are looking for something that has not been observed. IOW, I make the condition to SETI that, for its activity to be scientific, it has to first have observed aliens.

Quite correctly the SETI person would question this definition on the grounds that the meson was searched for a dozen years before its existence was finally confirmed. Therefore, were all those experiments involved in that search – non scientific?

At the outset I have established a definition of science that just cannot work. It is not that I have made a minor blunder in my definition. Rather, for me, the supposed scientist and a scholar – it is just plain dumb to use that definition in the first place. For a layman it is forgivable. A layman is not necessarily expected to know such things. For a “scholar” it is, if you like, unforgivable. If it can be labeled scholarly then it is nevertheless, very, very, very poor scholarly practice.

If my next response to the SETI’s retort is to argue that SETI is not science because SETI uses computers, then another disingenuous argument has been presented. Either all sciences are allowed to use these machines or none are. That sciences which do not upset me can get away with computers but SETI cannot is adopting a double standard – unless a clear reason can be supplied which explains this peculiar distinction. What is also noticeable is that the initial claim (observation), has been quietly ignored. No acknowledgment has been made as to the soundness of the response to that claim.

If my next response is just to ignore the points my opponent makes by either abandoning the discussion or going on to some other topic without any acknowledgement of the counter arguments, then serious questions can be asked about my professionalism and my scholarly behavior.

If my opponent then questions the veracity of my belief in Atlantis and asks me to justify it on the same grounds that I expect SETI to justify itself, and I argue that:-

1) Atlantis is a framework and so I use it as a device to explain observations, or
2) I know that Atlantis is real (and so do not have to observe it) because I have the word of the one who was there – Plato,

then SETI would be entitled to question my fairness (my ethics as Crossan would have it).

With respect to 1) – if I can use Atlantis as a framework then so can SETI people use SETI. However, the distinguishing feature of SETI is that it is actually attempting to get evidence for its claims per se.. That is SETI is attempting to observe – something which the appeal to “framework” is attempting to avoid.

With respect to 2) – this is the ultimate appeal to authority and it is based on me actually claiming to know, with 100% certainty, that authority. If I can do it, then SETI is entitled to do the same with respect to its authorities. Aliens exist because Von Daniken told SETI so. Science just does not progress by such appeals to authority.

Adherence to authority is one thing, but refusing to check authority is another thing altogether. Science advances simply because, sooner or later, it cannot trust even its own authorities.

This is a huge gulf between mainstream scholarly research and YEC scholarly research.

IOW, from the illustration above, my definitions are duplicitous and inconsistent, and my methodology is essentially one of avoidance. It is also duplicitous. I allow for myself that which I do not allow for SETI.

Now I agree with your assertion that my argument is subjective. I also accept that in my activities, I am seeking out those fundamentalists who really do not behave like scholars and, as a result am tarring all YECs and fundamentalists with the same brush.

Nevertheless, in this creation/evolution debate, when the very nature of science and the status of mainstream scientific theories is discussed, these are the kinds of definitions and methodologies I come across. And they come from those within AiG (Sarfati, Walker, Ham …) who really should know better. I do not come across other arguments and methodologies from YECs.

They are not peripheral ideas, which if wrong, can safely be ignored. They are pivotal to scholarly discourse – whether insult and invective are also involved or not.

Certainly I come across various other discussions. They are not my concern. Therefore a YEC who argues that macro is not science but admits that he is not going to argue about it because he does not really know enough – is at least being honest and the issue of scholarly ability cannot arise. That YEC has precluded himself/herself from scholarly discussion at the outset.

You wrote:- One only has to do a little reading to find responses to virtually every kind of problem, whether accepted or not. "Silent" on the issues is an evolutionist colloquialism for "doesn't say what we think is correct". There is no absence of responses.

I understand what you are saying and agree that “silent” can mean “does not agree with us”. However, I really do mean silent – that is not to respond or to ignore the salient point of the argument and address some peripheral issue instead.


Perhaps another point

If the fundamentalist world view is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that the particular fundamentalist interpretation is the only correct one – anything else potentially leads to eternal separation from God (eternal damnation), then it can be that the fundamentalist may engage in scholarship with respect to ideas that are not directly related to the above mentioned belief. However, given what is at stake, it is hard to see how the fundamentalists can engage is serious debate and examination with respect to ideas associated with the above mentioned world view.

If a conclusion could be reached which potentially contradicts the interpretation made by faith, then exactly what will give – the potential conclusion or the interpretation made by faith? AiG’s statement of faith illustrates this point.

To an extent we all listen to one authority over and against another. However, in principle the scientific authority can expect to change. AiG’s statement of faith says that, in principle, the authority can never change. I say “in principle” because, even for a scientist, changing a cherished point of view can be hard. Nevertheless it has happened and it does happen. And overall in the history of naturalistic science, it continually happens. And if the individual is not too proud then change may not be too traumatic.

However, with the fundamentalist framework as described above, no matter how humble the individual, no matter how easily conceptual change may come to that person, it is hard to see how any change could occur with respect to those particular issues associated with the person’s faith. And it is the YEC claim that in the history of his/her science, change with respect to these associated ideas have never happened and cannot happen. These ideas are writ rock solid in holy scripture.

AiG’s statement of faith fits precisely in that mould of an unchangeable and unchallengeable authority. It is a very different authority to that of the scholar.

An equivalent statement would be to argue that Darwin had the first and last word on evolution, and that his word was inerrant. That could be argued and any discussion with respect to Darwin be viewed merely as us correcting our own misinterpretations.

Well on the latter point, Darwin certainly was not inerrant and while most accept his overall idea today, there are plenty who work within the mainstream who accept evolution but are not Darwinists. And of those who are Darwinists, they accept where the old man was shown to be wrong and incorporate the new ideas into the theory and move on.

Thus, evolutionary theory moves on many fronts:-

1) Did Darwin get it right – what tests can be done to confirm this.
2) Did Darwin get it wrong – what tests can be done to confirm this.
3) If Darwin got it wrong – then what is the correct idea?

I doubt if any fundamentalist would allow creation science to advance on a front where it is questioned at to whether the Bible “got it right or wrong”.


Summary

It is not being denied that fundamentalists can be scholars. I am arguing that, when fundamentalist religious belief is offended, then a fundamentalist generally cannot be a scholar within that field with in which offence has been taken. And the issue is simply this, the YEC generally precludes debate by setting up constraints, definitions and behaviors which are inconsistent, illogical and which ensure that only the opponent has to answer, but not the YEC. When on occasion the YEC does answer, then scholarly conduct is still avoided because the YEC requires that his/her speculation be given equal footing to testable ideas. In essence, the fundamentalist has a framework which precludes challenge and change because the consequence of such would be too great.

This has nothing to do with the streams of insult and invective which accompany the debate. It has nothing to do with propaganda and attempting to influence the masses. It has everything to do with the nature of argument, its logic and coherence.

I have really only met a handful of YECs who are consistent and who preclude scholarship from the outset – simply by being honest. Methodology, which is so important to scholarship is not an issue because the YEC has precluded the need for scholarship. Such people have agreed that they do not wish to debate since their faith is more important to them than evidence for ideas which contradict that faith. Very recently one fellow even argued that all science is the devil’s game. (While I think that such a notion is nonsense, I cannot fault him for his honesty and consistency and hence his choice not to argue.)

There is one other YEC, a scientists and a high profile creationist whom I must pay tribute to as well – damn problem is that I cannot remember his name. If I understand him correctly he agrees that macro, BB, ancient earth are all bona-fide sciences and that YEC has a lot of work to do in order to approach anything like the explanatory powers of the theories associated with these ideas. He stands out from the other high profile YECs whose names I have already mentioned. He appears to be an exception.

I agree that my argument is subjective and note that you may well be correct. Many YECs out there may well have a more benign attitude to modern science – and it is just that those who do not have such an attitude are likely to be belligerent and thereby enter into debate. And it is those YECs whom I meet thereby distorting my statistics.

Again though I make the point concerning those many YECs you argue for, the notion of “scholarship” does not apply simply because those YECs, like most evolutionists, just do not care for “scholarship”. They see other things in life as more important, more interesting, whatever.


Anyway Nikoleyavik, I have rambled on for a long time now.

Thank you for your polite and reasoned response and for tolerating my barbs.


Regards, Roland