Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

How do you tell when a cow is in heat spendi?

If you really spent time on a farm, this should be easy for you to answer, although somewhat embarrassing for your claim you never saw animals doing it.

How old is the earth? Does an honest reading of the opening chapters of Genesis confine creation to six days a few thousand years ago, or does it allow for an origin of much greater antiquity?
The question should be what Genesis affirms, not allows. Until the Enlightenment, the Church monolithically asserted a recent creation in six days and a global Flood (cf., Mook, Hall, and Mortenson 2008). What changed? Were there textual, hermeneutical, or theological breakthroughs? No. Rather, the Church was captivated and/or intimidated by geology, biology, and cosmology. Scientists oversold their case, philosophers supported them, and theologians largely folded.

In retrospect, that period saw the birth of a post-Christian secular worldview (Lewis 1943; Noebel 1991; Schaeffer 1982; Sire 1976; Sproul 1984; Stark 2003). Earth history was one of its facets. Miracles were called into question. Apologetics were trashed. Higher critics dismantled the Bible. “Scholars” also “scientifically” argued against the Incarnation, the virgin birth, and Christ’s Resurrection. This secularist spirit still informs Western culture. Given opposing worldviews, we should expect conflict over origins and history. Thus we need to revisit foundations. Christianity’s is the Bible and the Bible’s is Genesis. Interpreting Genesis is an exercise in grammar and hermeneutics, not geology. Human experience is applicable when the Bible is silent and logical inference is unclear, but the burden of proof for those conditions rests on the authors, and they present no convincing argument to that end.

These questions are hardly new. Scientific assertions suggesting an alternate interpretation of the length of creation began more than 200 years ago, well before the days of Charles Darwin.
Early Church Fathers and Old Testament Jews fought ancient pagan cosmologies of extended duration. Any fight over the past involves religious/philosophical conflict. As Clark noted: “History demands philosophy…. It can be ignored, but it cannot be avoided.” (1994, pp. 21–22). His wisdom is vindicated by the commitments of the founders of secular natural history. Buffon may have professed Catholicism, but his actions and publications were heretical. Hutton was an enthusiastic Deist; Lyell a Unitarian hostile to biblical history (Mortenson 2006). Geology was nurtured by a powerful secular intellectual class that included Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Voltaire, and Rousseau. Some intellectuals maintained a façade of Christianity, but as Christ taught, we judge men by their fruit. That of the Enlightenment has proven bitter for the Church.

The “alternate interpretation” was not theology, but the secular assumption of a lengthy prehuman prehistory, accepted before the discovery of what today would be accepted as valid scientific evidence, such as the geological time scale or radiometric dating.

In the opening sentence of his Alpine Travels (1779), Saussure claimed that it was universally accepted—he meant, of course, among savants and other educated readers—that the earth’s past revolutions or major changes had occupied “a long succession of ages.” Likewise, Werner commented in print—casually and just in passing—that the Geognostic pile of rock masses must have accumulated “in the immense time span . . . of our earth’s existence”; and in manuscript notes for his lectures on geognosy he estimated that the whole sequence might represent perhaps a million years. Lavoisier suggested that the “period” (in the sense of frequency) of his hypothetical oscillation of the sea level was perhaps “several hundreds of thousands of years” and since he believed there had already been several such cycles, his conception of the earth’s total timescale must certainly have run into millions. And Kant’s well-known earlier conjecture that “a series of millions of years and centuries have probably elapsed” in bringing the universe to its present state was almost a commonplace among cosmological theorists (Rudwick 2005, p. 125).

It is not surprising that resolution is elusive when the PCA has had little formal debate on the topic. The denominational seminary takes an old earth view, as does Westminster. Other schools either accept an old earth or ignore the issue. This seems unfortunately typical. Dr. Joseph Pipa (personal communication) has related the refusal of old-earth professors at Westminster Seminary in San Diego to allow young earth Christians on campus to debate during his tenure there. It took grass roots interest from Presbyteries to spur action by General Assembly. A single committee composed of inflexible members does not qualify as a thorough investigation.

Also, the CSC considered only the first two chapters of Genesis, ignoring the primary target of early secularists—the Flood. A more comprehensive evaluation might have been more helpful. For example, how many members of the CSC advocating an old earth would have been equally comfortable denying the Flood, especially in the face of its affirmation by Peter (II Peter 2:5; 3:3–7) and Christ (Matthew 24:36–38) as the exemplar of final judgment? This takes us back to authority: is it the CSC or the Bible?

As demonstrated by this document, old-earth arguments are primarily scientific. Creationists have addressed those, and also have made textual and theological arguments, building a comprehensive and compelling case for the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1–11. These are usually ignored by old-earth proponents, but when addressed, are easily refuted (e.g., Mortenson 2004b; 2009a; 2009b). I would encourage interested Christians to compare the cases presented in Coming to Grips with Genesis, (Mortenson and Ury 2008), Refuting Compromise (Sarfati 2004), and Did God Create in Six (Pipa and Hall 1999) to the works of Hugh Ross, Bruce Waltke, Meredith Kline, Mark Ross, etc. and determine for themselves which arguments align with biblical truth.

Finally, they state that the committee was to weigh Scripture by scientific evidence. Is that approach consistent with WCF I-IV?

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
The report, submitted after two years of investigation, did not recommend a definitive answer, but did at least conclude that it is possible to believe both in an ancient earth and the inerrancy of Scripture. The statement below is extracted from the concluding pages of the 2000 Report of the Creation Study Committee.
Dabney (1878) noted this tendency of those arguing an old earth to move from the “may be” to the “must be.” His insight was valuable for that is exactly what is happening here.

The two years of the CSC’s “investigation” was a period of gridlock, and the result illustrates an inability to agree, not a reasoned conclusion. And, of course, is truth determined by “study committees”? What happened to sola scriptura? WCF I-VI again seems relevant:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Since the theological doctrine of creation is involved, as well as the issue of God’s glory—what kind of world did He create?—these words seem most appropriate, showing that the issue is primarily a doctrinal one, not a scientific one.

Clearly there are committed, Reformed believers who are scientists that are on either side of the issue regarding the age of the cosmos. Just as in the days following the Reformation, when the church could not decide between the geocentric and heliocentric views of the solar system, so today there is not unanimity regarding the age question.
This attempt to frame the issue as a question of conscience, with no clear biblical teaching, is misleading. The issue is biblical truth, not human opinion. The weight of biblical evidence for a young earth and global Flood is overwhelming, and these two are mutually reinforcing because the primary support for the old-earth position is the geological time scale, which cannot be an accurate account of history if there was a global flood. Since deleting the Flood was the original goal of secular natural history (Mortenson 2006; Rudwick 2005), and was triumphantly proclaimed as such for decades by 19th and 20th century geologists, we should be suspicious of where “science” leads.

The analogy to heliocentrism is also misleading. That was a debate about timeless physical reality, amenable to scientific investigation, and lacking clear biblical teaching. The geocentric view originated with the Greeks, not the Bible—another unfortunate compromise with an alien worldview. As such, it took time for the Church to sort truth from untruth. Ironically, that path was firmly established in 1277 at the Council of Paris, when Christian scholars accepted the authority of the Bible as being superior to that of Aristotle, using the doctrine of creation (Glover 1984). The Church chose the biblical worldview over Aristotle, leading to the development of modern science. Five hundred years later, it chose the secular worldview of the Enlightenment, leading to postmodern culture.

Earth history is just that—history—and the investigation of unique, unobserved past events can never attain the certainty of observable physical reality. It is an intellectual error to accept earth history as something on par with physics or chemistry. That precedent was set by 18th century naturalists who were overly enthusiastic about the potential of science. Their positivism has fallen by the wayside in philosophical circles, but still seems strong among scientists. But God is the ultimate eyewitness (revealing His point of view in the Bible), trumping all circumstantial evidence.

Ultimately, the heliocentric view won out over the geocentric view because of a vast preponderance of facts favoring it based on increasingly sophisticated observations through ever improving telescopes used by thousands of astronomers over hundreds of years. Likewise, in the present controversy, a large number of observations over a long period of time will likely be the telling factor.
Yes. Observation was important—anyone can confirm the locations of astronomical bodies by doing so. But the acceptance of heliocentrism had more to do with the simple elegance of the system, especially after Kepler (Hooykaas 1999). That is not true of earth history. The past is not open to anyone’s observation. If nothing else, two centuries of multiple geological theories explaining the same phenomena illustrate that point.

For example, Young and Stearley (2008) noted that modern geologists tend towards neocatastrophism—a position anathema to geology as little as a few decades ago. Lyellian gradualism has been discarded. And yet, for roughly 150 years Lyell’s view was affirmed as the “fundamental principle” of geology. What are we to say to a discipline that changes its fundamental principle so readily? Gould (1984, p. 27), no friend of the Church, suggested that the retention of Lyell’s ideas for so long had nothing to do with science.

If gradualism stands up so poorly as a universal dogma when subjected to detailed examination, then why did it maintain its hegemony for so long? This question has no simple resolution, but I am certain of one thing: the popularity of gradualism did not arise from nature.

If Lyellian gradualism was influenced by non-scientific ideas, then why should we not expect the same of other assumptions relevant to geological history?

"Creationism" constitutes a valid alternative

in order to back yourself up, you use a tenet of science

Youve been attending the spendi school of scientific scholarship.

it still doesnt follow that the best critical thinker is one who knows NOTHING about a subject.

You have to look at it from CI's point of view...there is no sex in evolution. It is magic.

He didnt say that at all.

wish to divert a decent conversation to focus on your own pitiful lives and you will use whatever asshole means at your disposal to attempt to gain attention.

3We can ignore the flawed reason of those who preach anything else.

It's a bit like expressing a resolve not to visit a prostitute again

Creation Museum Creates Discomfort For Some Visitors
(By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience.com, 18 August 2010)

Kentucky's Creation Museum, a facility devoted to the belief that Earth and the universe are only 6,000 years old, is usually viewed in one of two ways: As a fun place where fundamentalist Christians can go to reaffirm their beliefs, or as the epicenter of a worldview ripe for mockery by scientists.

Now, a new analysis argues that for people already alienated by religious fundamentalism, the museum can be a painful reminder of discrimination and isolation.

The study, presented Sunday at the American Sociological Association meeting in Atlanta, took place over three in-depth visits to the museum over a year and a half. Bernadette Barton, a professor of sociology at Morehead State University in Kentucky, toured exhibits, attended museum lectures, observed museum guests and led a student field trip to the museum.

In her analysis, she argues that despite the museum's mission to reach out to believers and skeptics alike, the Creation Museum can be uncomfortable for non-fundamentalist visitors.

Young Earth Creationism is the belief that everything in the Biblical book of Genesis is literally true: God created the universe in six 24-hour days 6,000 years ago; all mankind came from Adam and Eve; and the Garden of Eden is a lost paradise where humans and dinosaurs co-existed peacefully. Young Earth Creationists reject evolution, but may embrace a sort of short-term natural selection to explain biodiversity after Noah's Flood.

The Creation Museum, opened in 2007, puts its own brand of scientific explanations of creationism alongside exhibits of Adam and Eve, dinosaurs with humans, and Noah building his Ark. One exhibit, "Graffiti Alley," purports to show what happens when mankind abandons Young Earth Creationism. These consequences include the birth control pill, abortion, divorce, murder and gay marriage.

Though debates about creationism usually revolve around education, Barton visited the museum as part of a larger project on fundamentalist culture. She's particularly interested in why homophobia persists in the Bible Belt. This area spans the southern United States and parts of the Midwest and is marked by a high proportion of evangelical Protestants. In Kentucky, where the Creation Museum is located, 62 percent of residents describe themselves as fundamentalist.

"I was seeking to understand the fundamentalist framework," Barton told LiveScience. "I went there seeking to understand how people adhere to [a] set of beliefs that can, in my opinion, have sometimes destructive consequences."

Barton combined hours of observation and analysis of museum materials into an ethnography, a detailed narrative about a place and its culture that is often used in sociology. Unlike other research methods, the ethnography does not strive for impartiality; rather, the researchers recognize and reflect on their own reactions to what they see.

On her third trip to the museum, Barton took her undergraduate students, who found the visit unsettling. Several in the group were former fundamentalists who had since rejected that worldview. Several others were gay. In part because of these backgrounds, Barton said, the students were on edge at the museum. Particularly nerve-wracking were signs warning that guests could be asked to leave the premises at any time. The group's reservation confirmation also noted that museum staff reserved the right to kick the group off the property if they were not honest about the "purpose of [the] visit."

Because of these messages, Barton said, the students felt they might accidentally reveal themselves as nonbelievers and be asked to leave. This pressure is a form of "compulsory Christianity" that is common in a region known for its fundamentalism, Barton said. People who don't ascribe to fundamentalism often report the need to hide their thoughts for fear of being judged or snubbed.

At one point, Barton reported in her paper, a guard with a dog circled a student pointedly twice without saying anything. When he left, a museum patron approached the student and said, "The reason he did that is because of the way you're dressed. We know you're not religious; you just don't fit in." (The student was wearing leggings and a long shirt, Barton writes.)

The pressures were particularly tough for gay members of the group, thanks to exhibits discussing the sinfulness of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. A lesbian couple became paranoid about being near or touching one another, afraid they would be "found out," Barton writes. This "self-policing" is a common occurrence in same-sex relationships in the Bible Belt, Barton said.

The museum does use guard dogs and employs strict warnings, said Jason Lisle, a speaker and astrophysics researcher at the Creation Museum. But, he said, the security is in response to death threats against museum organizers. The signs and warnings, he said, are because people will occasionally come to the museum to hand out anti-Creationist materials, disturbing other visitors.

"We know that the nature of the subject is controversial," Lisle said in a telephone interview. "It's just one of the things that we have to deal with in a fallen world."

Lisle defended the anti-gay messages in the museum as part of the museum's goal to stay true to Biblical teachings.

"I don't think we would kick them out for [holding hands in the museum]," he said. But, he added, he could understand why gay guests "might be uncomfortable."

"I would say, don't shoot the messenger," Lisle said.

Not every visitor to the museum comes away with the same feelings as Barton and her group. In 2007, University of South Dakota earth scientist Timothy Heaton visited the museum and described its portrayal of evolution as "respectful," if not accurate (though Heaton was offended by a video of angels mocking a science teacher).

Part of the reason behind the students' strong reactions may have been their close relationships with fundamentalist Christians. Seeing the museum's messages was a reminder of the disapproval the students felt from their own communities, Barton said.

"For my students that's like their moms and their dads and their aunts and their grandmothers and their neighbors and their church parishioners." she said.

Barton is combining the ethnography with interviews with gay and lesbian Bible Belt residents for a book to be published next year.

Quote:

Creation Museum Creates Discomfort For Some Visitors
(By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience.com, 18 August 2010)

Now, a new analysis argues that for people already alienated by religious fundamentalism, the museum can be a painful reminder of discrimination and isolation.

Particularly nerve-wracking were signs warning that guests could be asked to leave the premises at any time. The group's reservation confirmation also noted that museum staff reserved the right to kick the group off the property if they were not honest about the "purpose of [the] visit."

Because of these messages, Barton said, the students felt they might accidentally reveal themselves as nonbelievers and be asked to leave. This pressure is a form of "compulsory Christianity" that is common in a region known for its fundamentalism, Barton said. People who don't ascribe to fundamentalism often report the need to hide their thoughts for fear of being judged or snubbed.

At one point, Barton reported in her paper, a guard with a dog circled a student pointedly twice without saying anything. When he left, a museum patron approached the student and said, "The reason he did that is because of the way you're dressed. We know you're not religious; you just don't fit in." (The student was wearing leggings and a long shirt, Barton writes.)

The pressures were particularly tough for gay members of the group, thanks to exhibits discussing the sinfulness of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. A lesbian couple became paranoid about being near or touching one another, afraid they would be "found out," Barton writes. This "self-policing" is a common occurrence in same-sex relationships in the Bible Belt, Barton said.

Most in the animal kingdom practice homosexuality. That tells me, it's normal animal behavior.