Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate

Re: Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate


Being that the idea of creationism isn't limited to one particular theology or sect, your wording here is a bit broad. There are many who believe in creationism and also accept the idea that the universie was created long, long ago so, for them, there is no clash here.

My uderstanding is that the "6,000 years" types are a minority in the creationist realm.

Re: Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate


I think this is probably incorrect. Almost all Creationists (Fundamental Christian Creationism) are also young earthers.

But I could be wrong.

Do we have any creationists on A2K who readily admit that the Earth is billions of years old, but also believe strongly in an Adam and Eve style biological foundation?

Here's a slice of info from Wikipedia

Re: Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate


If you look at the Wikipedia articles on Creationism you will note that they split the creationists into the "Theistic Evolutionists" (aka "evolutionary creationists" - which comprises the Deists, Roman Catholic, most contemporary Protestant Churches, 3 of the 4 major Jewish denominations and the liberal Islamic denominations) from the "Biblical Creationists" which are many of the fundementalist Islamic and Christian denominations and the Orthodox Jews.

The "geology vs. creationism" debate only exists with the Biblical creationists.

Re: Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate


So you're saying that the creation vs evolution debates are more prevalent because evolution is offensive to a broader swath of general creationists. Whereas geology only conflicts with a subset of the group. I guess this is inherently true, but then you would expect to see at least a FEW creation/geoology debates flare up, but instead we see none.

Also, since the age of the earth is fundamental to the evidence for evolution, once you accept an ancient earth, you pretty much trap yourself into a system which is riddled with evidence for biological evolution. It's almost impossible to take a stance against evolution without denying the age of the Earth. The two things are linked.

Re: Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate

I think it's because geology, unlike biology, lacks a simple, elegant theory like Darwinian evolution. Because the basic mechanism of evolution is very simple, it's easy to believe you can make profound statements about what it can do and what it can't. The geologists' theoretical toolbox, by comparison, is harder to learn, so people accept that it takes some studying before you can have a profound opinion about it.

Re: Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate


I think you don't see it as much because it doesn't cut to the root conflict and there are many fewer people that have disputes with it. I've always seen the basic disagreement as being on whether the universe was created or occured without divine intervention. The question of "If the universe was created, when did that happen?" is a secondary question.



If you mention to a Catholic that the story of Genesis doesn't fit because the earth is 6.5 biillion years old the response will almost always be "Ten million years is but a blink of God's eye..." (They won't always say 10 million but they will pass it off as time being a relative factor.).

For a Theistic Evolutionist all that matters is that a divine being set the process in motion. If beings evolved AFTER things were set in motion it doesn't matter. They don't have any conflict with that.

As an example, evolutionary theory relying on geology will take you back to the Big Bang happening some 13 billion years ago (give or take...). This is the accepted scientific theory of the beginning of the universe. A Theistic Evolutionist will just tell you the God caused the Big Bang to happen. That is their interpretation of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.". Anything that comes after the Big Bang is now an accepted part of their theology.

Day one in Genesis = The Big Bang
Day two in Genesis is spent creating places of "Good" and "Evil" and well as "Heaven" - all of which have no scientific foundation either for or against. These are more philosophical that scientific concepts.
Day three in Genesis = Billions of years later, the planets and stars begin to form.
Day four in Genesis = Additional planetary bodies form (early galaxies colliding, early stars going supernova, etc..)
Day five in Genesis = Billions of years further along life forms in the oceans and in the air.
Day six in Genesis = Further billions of years later land animals form (evolve from sea animals) and humans finally appear on the scene.

Poof! No conflict. Scientific evidence (including geology) points to things occuring in the same sequence laid out in Genesis.

It is the Biblical Creationists who take the story of Genesis as a literal truth that think of the "day" in Genesis as being a 24 hour period.

Thomas wrote-



That's a sweet way of saying that evolution theory is latched onto so that people can pose as scientists when they are not.

Scientists are born not educated. They are rare and very useful and thus have high status.

It is the cosying up to that high status and some of it rubbing off that they are after and on an easy ride because their statements do sound profound to the great unwashed.

Any one with a scientific bent would have made some response to my remarks in another place about Lyme's disease/immune systems and deer keeping. And on the Veblen quote I put up.

Creationism ros is a human thought construction of immense complexity at the core of the "becoming", of human life going irreversibly in a direction we call time. Geology, as a science rather than as a tool for prising wealth from the earth, is a study of become things and inorganic, lifeless becomings. There can be no dispute between them. It's a bit like the difference between a steel mill and a hospital or prison. One is dealing with mindlessness and the others with mind. One is determined the other we have some power over.

I throw my vote to fishin's analyses. Creationism is a broad spectrum and although "Thesistic evolution" is not considered a Creationist doctrine per se, its close enough to the "Old Earth Creationists " doctrines for me, so arguing geology with them would be sort of singing to the choir. Most Catholic Universities in the US have very good geology departments . I was sub teaching at one in Philly and they started class with a Hail Mary

Thomas, geology does TOO have a number of unifying theories and like biology these laws/theories advene to the other subdisciplines of geology. (eg in biology , evolution advenes to ecology and virology but isnt the "core of the disciplines", same thing in geo, we have lots of boring laws and theories , and I can only think of a few off the top of my heasd right now but here goes and I hope its not on the test.
EG
The LAW of Superposition--stuff on the bottom is older than stuff on top

Law of Universal Gravitation-everything sucks up to everything else in a quantifiable manner(see Newton)

The "Rock Cycle Law' Huttons "there is no beginning and no percievable end. Stuff on the planet just gets recycled in a number of fascinating ways

Uniformitarianism-stuff that happened
in the past is still happening today and theres not much new under the sun.

The LAw of Original Horizontality and the laws of hypsometry-stuff was laid down horizontal to the (Then) natural liquid leve, then it sticks up in the air with respect to a mean seallevle that varies worldwide(and must be corrected for)l

Energy Wave propogation in different media occurs differently or not at all sometimes

Isostacy- Masses of earth stuff reside at layer thicknesses in accordance with their liquid density

GEochemical speciation and radioisotope constancncy through time.

The superposition of fossil assemblages, or the laws of faunal succession

Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics-everything's movin around

Differentiation of rock melts-a function of their depth and silica/water content makes all melt rocks cool differently

The laws of Correlation or"Law of Surface Relationships"-stuff on one side of the world can be time correlated to stuff on the other so long as the above other principles arent violated.


Theres a whole bunch of other minor ones that affect everything from glacial terrane detection to how fast muddy water will settle out its particles (Wentworth principle), HAuy's Law, Beers LAw, Gilbert's LAw, Hilts Law Airy, Pratt, DEevey and Flint, Hubbert and Rubey etc etc

Geo is really a "second tier discipline" unlike Physics which is THE principal order discipline. Evolution is also a second Tier discipline that is in concert with the laws of gravitation, thermodynamics and Physical chem, it doesnt define gravitation, Thermodynamics or Physical chem.

That's the mad scientist of folklore on Freud's couch.

Hey, I'm tring to start a discussion here, would you two quit solving the problem so quickly.

Putting aside the divisions of creationism (of which some can be squeezed into reality), isn't it still a bit logically inconsistant that people should object to evolution rather than geology, or even physics. After all, the basic arguments aginst evolution are really arguments against core aspects of scientific knowledge whether it be age of rocks or probabilities of accumulated change. Evolution is too firmly rooted in physical reality to be selective about which parts of it a bible-thumper can object to.

Let's face it, evolution is as solidly known as a scientific fact as is geology, so to object to one is to object to the other at a root level.

In my opinion, the reason is because evolution basically says that God didnt create humanity. Geology would just be saying that the Bible has a bad timeline.

I still dont see why people cant reconcile both. The likelihood of evolution producing humanity is such a staggeringly small figure that it would be very easy to argue the point that SOMETHING helped move it along. Especially considering how advanced we are compared to anything else on our entire planet.

Even Darwin said in The Origin of Species that one of the prime examples of evolution being tough to explain is the eye. He went into a lengthy discussion about how some kind of gel evolved into such a complex and complicated organ capable of so much. it always seemed like he was arguing partly for intelligent design.

Note: Im not arguing against Intelligent Design, Evolution, or Geological theories. Just trying to tie them together.

I'd agree with this.

I think one of the issues with evolution that the biblical creationists have is that in Genesis they are told that "God created man in his own image...". Being literalists, they object to the notion that "man" either wasn't created by God or that, at the time, God or man could have had any other possible form than what humans have right now. It wouldn't be very dignified if they found that their God was in the form of a bacteria or alge now would it???

So the evolution argument is a direct afront to the literal word of the Bible. The geology arguments tangle with things on tangents of Genesis. Geology isn't a science where you can pin down an ancient rock formation to a specific day or even a year or decade. It is a science where things are measured in thousands or millions of years. It isn't as much of a direct challenge - it is, as you said, a little slip in the timeline.

A timeline in "Deep time" requires a certain suspension of acceptance of a watch or even a calendar.Just like tree rings record the passage of time as an inscribed artifact, so does geology record time in the remains of the earlier worlds. The argument with geo as an underpinning of evolution goes way beyond mere "disagreement with minor issues" It goes to the substance of how evidence is percieved and utilized.
For example, where in the geologic record is the evidence of a Creation at all? What would constitute evidence for the order of creation/ The Biblical literalists are easily shot down in the evidence arena. They, however, dismiss the geologic evidence as violating the flow of Biblical revelation. To the Biblical (or Young Earth Creationists) evidence MUST be dismissed. All our scientific literature is bullshit to them.
The Theistic EVolutionists merely dodge the issue by accepting the evidence but dismissing an evolved human, and also dismissing the evidence that the flow of evolution can be shown to have been undirected by some Supreme Being. The fact that evdence strongly shows how evolution is consequent to gradual earth changes and cataclysms removes a God from the mix entirely because HE would be an impotent witness.



Wraith-contrary to what you said , Darwin became an "anti" Intelligent Design proponent . He arrived at that point when he finally understood the power of the evidence hed amassed while on the Beagle and from all his work on seed dispersal and pigeons and barnacles. He said that it was ridiculousthat God was continually correcting his own mistakes, removing species and creating others , when all along he could have gotten it right in the first place. Darwin said that this
"Actually paints a most unflattering picture of the very intelligence of the Intelligent Designer"

While Theistic Evolution seems a comfortable (yet simplistic) place to be to accept both evolution and God, it doesnt work that way at all. To be fully accepting of a God in the universe, one must stop trying to reconcile a belief that God had any dealings with the universe at all, for if even a small portion of his "Inferred interactions" with the goings on of the Galaxy are wrong, then seemingly it all is brought into question (at least to me it seems self revealed) Data and evidence cannot support or even acknowledge a Divine Intervenor.
But, if youre of a strong Faith, you dont have to go around barking where you think a God must manifest herself. For you, God's totally transcendnt, not a day laborer in the garden of the Universe.
Read yer St Paul. His arguments both for and against a God are still the most powerful that we have.

As far as geology goes , its only a craft. Its an interlacing of a body of facts and laws that are easily demonstrated, proved and falsifiable. To deny and dismiss them as incorrect, and then basing a new science and a worldview that dismisses the ruled of geology is kind of naive and shows the complete lack of knowledge about the subject. Geology is no more arguable than are the rules of surface chemistry reactions or Germ theory. Yet, Creationists, especially the Biblical variety, but also including the "Theistic Evolutionists " to a degree, keep arguments that go against the common sense that has made geology into the mature science that it is.
Its a tool that, in every chance that Ive had to use it in minerals exploration-It works. Thats a major departure from the "science disciplines " that accompany Biblical Creationism , Intelligent Design, and even, to a lesser degree, Theistic Evolution.

Ive been involved in many of these debates regarding the latest flavor of Creationism,and the word conflate arises quite often. The conflation of Biblical Creationism with some sort of logical evidence is always a given to the Creationists, and while this "evidence" is always referred to, it has never been shown, or the debators have lways tried to sidestep it and they make their entire living at trying to dismiss the geological evidence(among other sciences) that underpins evolution.
If you understand their modus, you will see that its a MUST for them to do so. They cannot have remaining any evidence that refutes their positions.
Unfortunately the debates then become mere swap sessions of "Link debates" in which science links are lobbed at the Creationists , who lob back their own links. The link wars assume that everyone reads whats in them. and then arrives at the same conclusion that is obvious to the "lobber".
The nuances of evidence in geology , as well as the fact that NO EVIDENCE exists that supports Creationism, would, in a rational world, normally be a powerful tool in the dismissal of the basis for the "scientific" arguments that are used in pushing Creationism. BUT, since Creationism isnt really bothered with the accuracy of its science, its use of science (actually abuse) is merely a dodge, a tool for spreading the All powerful word. Therefore the use of links on a board is actually (IMHO) counterproductive to these kinds of debates.
A link is non judgemental, it , by its blue line and http's is a mild suggestion that whatever is contained therein is truthful and credible. Thats just not the case, and the science is often lost in the link parade because noone takes the time to distill the information.

Your comment here misstates (or is overly broad with regard to...) the Thesitic Creationists's beliefs. A Thesitic Creationaist doesn't need to dismiss evolution and I don't beleive most of them dismiss it at all. Nor does evolution and the science behind it remove God from the picture.

A Deist would believe that God set the Big Bang in motion knowing the full future implications of his/her actions. If he'she had wanted things to turn out differently he/she would have caused the results of the Big Bang to be different. Anything that happened/happens post-Big Bang, including evolution, would have been forseen by this God and, as such, allowed to happen.

In that world view God isn't an impotent witness. He/She is the cause from which all other results flow.

fishin wrote-




But that world view is only one of a number of world views.

With all due respect I think the point is being missed.

It stems from the use of "is" rather than "might" in the last sentence.

Once there's a "might" there is the scope for the weavers of the wind telling their stories and that is a human activity interacting with the demand for a story and the use to which the story can be put in the service of social organisation or psychology and happiness.

Until the scientific community can prove an "is not" to replace the "is" or the "might" they have no answer except to out-rhetoric what have been called the snake-oil salesmen which is a word one might deploy to include anything not scientifically proven.

To do that they need to explain convincingly-

1-The first cause itself.
2-The origin of organic life from inorganic stuff.
3-The origin of self-consciousness in humans from which both religion and science have developed.
4-The origin of our unique mathematics and culture.

Leakey has this to say about "introspective consciousness", esthetics, morality, invention and the sense of wonder none of which are seen anywhere else-



It is the "desire" that the scientific community needs to address. If it is present and strong in the mass of the population in will come the weavers of the winds. If the desire didn't exist would we still be human?

These debates are not starting with the base.

Why does the scientific community think that what makes it happy will make everybody else happy. Why can't it "live and let live"?

I know from long experience that bringing science to bear in social converstations is very unpopular and frightening to almost everyone. It is too severe I'm afraid.

Re: Why not a Creationism vs Geology debate


This is a good argument, but it also entails some irony, in that geology was the first crack in the armor of Bishop Ussher's exegesis. Long before Wallace and Darwin advanced a theory of natural selection, people were aware of fossils (described by Herodatus, Aristotle and Xenophanes), and Pliny and others noted the deposition of volcanic ejecta, with the concomitant "trapping" of flora and fauna, as a result of eruptions. Eratosthenes, the Ptolemaic Greek scholar at Alexandria who made the first (and exceptionally accurate) attempt to scientifically measure the circumference of the earth (which he assumed to be a sphere) also commented both on the age of rocks, and the evidence of that age from erosion. Leonardo da Vinci recognized that fossil shells were the remains of aquatic animals, and that finding them in mountain ranges was evidence of geological uplift, and a change in the relationship of land and sea.

Nicolas Steno began the scientific study of sedimentary stratigraphy in the 17th century, and used the rock formations of Tuscany as evidence. (And this was about the time that Bishop Ussher published his 6000 year exegesis.) Others (don't recall the names) noted that coal beds were often "tilted" in comparison to overlying "horizontal" strata beneath which the coal were found and mined. Charles Lyell produced his monumental Principles of Geology a full generation before Darwin and Wallace proposed the theory of natural selection--Darwin was on his voyage with Fitz Roy in HMS Beagle when Lyell was preparing his work for publication. The second voyage of Beagle, the voyage in which Darwin participated, began at the end of 1831, and Lyell's book was published three years before Fitz Roy returned to England.

I agree with Ros that it is interesting that there is no such outcry against geology as there is against evolution. Even those who don't subscribe to Bishop Ussher's 6000+ year exegesis still often cling to the notion that the earth is thousands of years old rather than billions. The member "real life" has stated more than once that although he does not subscribe to the 6000 year exegesis, he still believes that the earth is a matter of thousands of years old. I only mention his name because i don't think he would object to me stating what he has openly stated to me and others on more than one occasion.

To Thomas' comments on the relative simplicity of a theory of evolution in comparison to the difficulty of teaching geological principles, i would add that schools, especially secondary schools, are likely to concentrate a good deal of effort and attention on "life sciences," and far less on geology.

This seems a rather naive remark for you to make, Ros. It is part and parcel of the theological game for the "amateur" (never mind "professional" theologians arguing about minute angelic dance floors) to very selectively read scripture in order to support an exegesis to which they are already devoted. Why would they not apply the same method to "scientific reality?"

In the discussions we've had on the alleged Noahic flood, i've consistently advanced a package of objections to the story. The objections are based on the apparent and the actual contradictions in the relevant chapters of Genesis (seven through nine), the implausibility of assembling the necessary materials and constructing the vessel in the time frame allowed, the preposterous nature of the vessel itself, the lack of a sufficient crew, the lack of any description of a means of propulsion (whether sails or sweeps--i.e., oars) which would also require a huge crew, the putative age of Noah and his wife and sons, and the violent nature of the hydrodynamic properties of a global ocean which overtops all the mountains. I've discussed these matters in detail, with copious references to scripture and to descriptions of the principles of naval engineering in the age of wooden ships--and laughed to scorn the silly contention that Noah were 600 years of age (one of the contradictions in the text is that he is also described as being in his six hundredth year, which would mean he was 599 and not 600).

The response of those who continue to attempt to suggest that that fairy tale is plausible has always been to respond to each objection separately. I have more than once laid out the entire body of objections--scriptural contradictions, naval engineering, inadequate construction and sailing crew, the preposterous nature of the alleged age of the crew, and the unlikelihood of them managing such a vessel, the inadequate capacity of the vessel as described, despite it being described as being larger than the largest wooden vessel ever known in historical times, and unsuitable proportions of the vessel for its own survival, and the treacherous nature of a planet-wide ocean--all in a singe post.

The responses are always to address a single issue, and to speculate that perhaps the old boy knew something we didn't, and still don't. It is part and parcel of the rhetorical style of those who argue about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin that they will always selectively choose what they are willing to argue, and what they intend to ignore.

I wasn't saying he became a proponent for Intelligent Design. I was just saying that, based on his work in the Origin of Species, even he himself makes statements about the liklihood of certain things happening. I just used the eye as an example. Im just saying that, to me anyway, it seemed like he thought some things evolving the way they did was pretty unlikely, which seems a little like an argument for intelligent design. That quote doesnt exactly discount the notion of intelligent design either.

Setanta wrote-



Which implies that all the rest has been recalled from memory and thus is worthy of the highest admiration not to say awe.