Reply
Fri 14 Mar, 2003 12:29 am
I found this article in my local newspaper that illustrates the
threat to scientific inquiry. For example: "I was raised as an
evolutionist, but it wasn't fitting the Bible too well," he said.
-------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 13, 2003
Scientist Puts His Faith in Theory of Creation
By Patrick Dunn - For the Albuquerque Journal
Dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago; the big bang formed the earth; and prehistoric fossils date back to the stone age ?-or do they?
A presentation called "Evidence For a Young World" will challenge the theory of evolution Sunday at First Baptist Church of Rio Rancho. The speaker is Russell Humphreys, a Sandia National Laboratories veteran and Albuquerque resident who works full time for the Institute for Creation Research.
Humphreys says any discussion involving evolution vs. creationism must start at the age of the earth. "This is the critical issue. Most people believe science proved the world was formed billions of years ago," he said. "But the Bible states the age of the earth in terms of thousands of years. Billions of years is obviously at odds with the Scripture."
Humphrey will offer scientific evidence he believes supports the Bible's time scale while countering evidence that states the world is billions of years old. He will also answer questions from the audience.
Though the focus of the discussion will be on science, he believes implications extend to the spiritual realm.
"This settles basic questions about the reliability of scripture like, 'Is the Bible's history of events accurate?' '' he said.
Humphreys has been a creationist for more than 25 years and has worked in a number of technical areas, including nuclear physics, pulsed power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics.
He takes verses from the Bible and applies scientific methods, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity to develop scientific theory. Plus he can use data from fossil records to show support of the flood of Noah and other historical references in Scripture.
Humphreys now passes his knowledge along through his work for the Institute for Creation Research, where he conducts research, writes articles, speaks around the country and teaches over the summer at the institute's Southern California location. Humphreys began work at the institute after a career at Sandia Labs, which started in 1979.
The then-atheist started questioning his own beliefs shortly after graduate school. When he became a Christian things began to change.
"I was raised as an evolutionist, but it wasn't fitting the Bible too well," he said. After reading a book by a creationist, Humphreys said, he began questioning evolutionary principles and in his words, "began seeing more evidence for a young world."
Even so, little progress has been made in efforts to cultivate mainstream acceptance of creationism or related theories, such as intelligent design, he said.
Through grass-roots efforts such as Sunday night's presentation,
Humphreys hopes to bolster his cause and strengthen people's faith along the way.
More than anything else, this scares the heck out of evolutionists.
They are being confronted head on with the Emperor being naked, and they are either apoplectic or speechless.
The arguments presented are compelling, and the science is hard.
Great post, BBB.
I take it, you are skeptical?
Ho hum. One more lost soul trying to make square pegs fit round holes.
Can he also prove the earth is flat? Being a scientist does not give him any special powers. It also does not shield him from being infected by religious fanaticism?
maxsdadeo wrote:More than anything else, this scares the heck out of evolutionists.
COMMENT:
Well I'm not sure I qualify as a creationist -- I am as agnostic about scientific guesses as I am about theist ones.
But any creationist who gets "scared the heck out of" by this article really has to have his/her humor bones tended to.
This article is riotous. I laughed out loud.
And I think that anyone who supposes that creationists are scared of this kind of thing is doing way too much dreaming in public.
maxsdadeo wrote:The arguments presented are compelling, and the science is hard.
COMMENT:
There certainly is something "hard" around -- but it is not the science this guy is offering.
But like I said earlier -- the article gave me a great laugh this morning -- and this post of yours, Max, gave me an even greater one.
Thanks.
Question: Do you actually think it is more likely that the Earth is only 6000 years old -- rather than several billions of years old???
IMO correlating faith with science in a contradiction in terms. Science demands proof, and facts. Faith asks only for wishful thinking!
An article should be based on facts.
Max - where did you see hard science?
Thanks for asking little k!
Here, for starters:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/456.asp
In a nutshell, it is a scientific study which observed the effects of Mt. St. Helens and how the findings would tend to support a young earth theory.
Please note my careful use of the words, "tend to support" rather than prove.
And that I believe is the real point here, both creationism and evolution are theories, not scientific facts.
And yes, "evolutionists" (not "creationists", frank) are shaking in their boots in anticipation of having to share the dias with creationists.
While the lot of you may find it humorous, I tend to think that the continued blind eye turned from more and more scientific data which tends to support creationism and discount evolution is the real joke in all of this.
"Don't bother me with facts, I have my mind made up".
Such intolerance among "scientists" is really quite illuminating.
I read the information. I don't see that it overrides the general thrust of evolutionary findings, particularly with all the other evidence available from many fields of research.
BBB, why do you suppose that anyone would put more credence in millennia-old myths created by men who were ignorant of natural processes, over the 4.5 billion year age consistently determined by several different dating methods verified by centuries of peer-reviewed scientific research?
Humphreys is right on only one point: the history given in the Bible is at odds with the vast body of evidence that shows that the earth is billions of years old.
Some people reconcile this by assuming that God's "days" of creation were actually eras, and that God created species by guiding the processes of evolution.
The reason that little progress has been made in cultivating mainstream acceptance of young-earth creationism or ID is that the theories are simply wrong, and the arguments used by creationists are laughable to anyone who understands basic science.
Why do you suppose that Humphreys is more interested in bolstering his cause than promoting truth?
Quote:The reason that little progress has been made in cultivating mainstream acceptance of young-earth creationism or ID is that the theories are simply wrong, and the arguments used by creationists are laughable to anyone who understands basic science.
Thanks for proving my point, Terry.
Your dismissiveness put me in mind of this:
http://www.anncoulter.org/
Hard headed realism indeed.
Maxsdadeo, yes, you can get layering of particles in a volcanic ash fall. But what does that have so with oceanic sediment layers, magnetic striping at the mid-Atlantic ridge, the layering of ice cores in Greenland, radiometric dating of rocks, or anything else?
And what does someone's politics have to do with with the age of the earth?
That is because Max is lost, Edgar.
Max -- I don't know why you think anybody is "shaking in their boots" at this silly stuff -- but I guarantee you that most are simply laughing.
It just looks like they are shaking. That is what laughter -- if it is hearty enough -- does to you.
Thanks frank, but I am still here.
http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html
More grist for the mill, though I am sure the "true scientists" among you will be as dismissive of this science as you are of the rest.
The Coulter article, (which I believe is the source of your puzzlement, edgar, and the correlation of this to that) is indicative of a "lazy man's argument" that maintains that "studies disprove" when in fact they do not.
I see similar thought patterns here.
Understanding what makes a valid scientific theory
Credible scientific theories are based on effective adherance to the methodology of science.
Theories which do not limit themselves to this methodology are still theories, but they are not *scientific* theories. Such is the case with all creation theories, and with all the information presented so far in this thread.
Science is based in naturalism, and can not include supernatural components to any of its theories. Likewise, the methodology of science does not allow for the assumption of truth in divine texts as a basis for construction of the theory. Theories which are built in this way are not scientific theories (by definition).
But all this is just the nuts and bolts of the process. The truth is that the Universe and the Earth are orders of magnitude older than 10k years and the evidence for this is simply overwhelming. Hiding your mind from the obvious, simply to satisfy a preference for how you want the world to be is not the way of science, and is the core difference in the way creationists and scientists approach their views of the world.
There will always be people who deny that there is an Elephant standing in the living room. Some are blind, and others are crazy, but for those of us who see the Elephant and understand it, neither of these viewpoints change the fact that it is there.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace