Creation science and real ignorance

Bill Nye might be fighting numbers like these.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bernie Goldberg said tonight that those who hold to creation science are somehow ignorant. He’s usually a better journalist than that.

What Goldberg said

Adherence to creation science or to evolution

Adherence to three creation/evolution positions over time. Source: Gallup.

Goldberg made his remarks to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly tonight (August 29) on The O’Reilly Factor.

If any candidate says, “I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so,” or that dinosaurs walked around with human beings, then…that kind of ignorance will affect something, and we ought to know about it.

Was Goldberg talking about Rick Perry? He never said.

He and O’Reilly were talking about New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s earlier crude remarks. Keller belittled the Roman Catholic doctrine of “trans-substantiation” during the Catholic communion. Goldberg said that Keller had gone to far, and would never have dared make a remark like that about Jews or especially about Muslims.

Goldberg clearly does not know that a candidate might have another reason for believing that the earth is 6,000 years old (give or take 200 years). That reason: a proper study of the raw data in astronomy or geology leads one to conclude that, and with no escape. Similarly, one might believe that dinosaurs walked this earth side-by-side with man, before and after the Flood. And for good reason: witnesses have described those creatures. Job (who described “Behemoth” and “Leviathan”) was not the only one.

The hidden gems of creation science

Bernie Goldberg has no reason to accept the atheistic, evolutionistic, uniformitarian narrative on the origins of the universe, the earth, and life. Has he not suffered enough at the hands of key leaders of the mainstream media, all of whom promulgate that narrative? Sadly, in saying that anyone who rejects that narrative is “ignorant,” Goldberg acts like a typical lazy “journalist.” He accepts the standard narrative uncritically—that is, without making his own judgment about it.

Take the age of the earth. Uniformitarian geologists (who insist that all processes operating today, operate always and at never-changing rates) say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. They typically cite the ratios of certain radioactive elements to the elements that they might have transformed into. (Before Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity, uniformitarians believe that the age of the earth was infinite.)

Creation science came about when certain men boldly questioned the accepted “wisdom” of the preceding 100 years. The first modern work in creation science was The Genesis Flood. In it, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb said that the Great Flood could have happened. Only later would another, still bolder scientist say flatly that it did happen.

Nor does creation science founder on the “rocks” of radiometric dating. Indeed the opposite is true. How, for instance, can dacite seem to have five different ages, varying from half a million to 2.8 million years—a scant ten years after it formed? How can a tree be only 37,000 years old—while the surrounding rock is millions of years old? And these are only the first two examples that prompted the Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) project. That project has shown many more discrepancies in radiometric dating.

ALL of the samples taken from volcanic eruptions of known times and dates are carefully collected and sent to the labs. Then they ALWAYS come back dated at 100,000s to millions of years old. ALWAYS. NEVER do they come back from the lab, with the note: Too young to measure. It is a definite pattern. If you know the date of the source of the rock, they say you don’t have to accept this dating technique’s numbers… but if its an unknown sample, then they say: “Oh, you can trust the lab dates!”.

Yes—right up to the time when someone gets lab dates on a known sample. Then, as they did in the Mount Saint Helens case, the enemies of creation science cry, “FOUL!”

Bernie Goldberg should look more diligently for sources in creation science than he has done. He then might find the same sources that your editor has found, in patient study dating back more than twenty years. He then might learn that creation science has far more than the Bible narrative to back it up.

A challenge to a debate

In fact, Dr. Walter T. Brown, who laid out the first unified theory of creation and the Flood, has issued a standing challenge. He wishes to debate someone on his scientific discoveries and insights, either in writing or by tele-conference.

The credibility of creation and the flood, as a scientific matter, should rise or fall based on evidence, not the religious beliefs of either side of this debate.

Why have so many people refused this offer? Goldberg should take an interest in that. Especially since the debate has certain rules. No one on either side of this debate may:

  1. Cite or refer to a religious writing,
  2. Talk about a deity or a belief as something to laugh at, or
  3. Try to use a religious writing as evidence for a scientific claim.

Obviously, Brown is confident enough in his case for a 6,000-year-old earth to challenge the best scientific minds to attack it. He also is willing to defend it in strictly scientific terms.

Who, then, is ignorant?

Bernie Goldberg can plead simple ignorance. He has never studied creation science. If he had, he might never have made the mistake he made on Bill O’Reilly’s show.

Those who insist that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, in the face of evidence that their “clock” is wrong, have a different problem. To them, the narrative is more important than the truth. They are the ones clinging to a faith—or rather, an anti-faith.

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

15 Responses to Creation science and real ignorance

  1. Brezley says:

    Bernie will be Isaiah 66:24, so sorry and so sad to say it. For he is a jew, he should listen, but if he reads the new testament, which he probably doesn’t Mark 9:44
    Isa 66:23-24 He doesn’t believe creation, so therefore he does not believe in the truth of the bible. The Lord will not have mercy on his sole

    24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
    KJV

    Mark 9:44

    44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
    KJV

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I approved that—but don’t sell Mr. Goldberg that short yet. And I can cite better verses in the Bible for corroboration of the creation account. Jesus Christ, for Example, talked about creation and the Flood as if He were there. Which, in a sense, He was.

      The point is that a candidate could as easily say, “I believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, give or take a couple hundred, because the strength of the magnetic field, the recession of the moon from the earth, the salt in the oceans, and a host of other findings say that the earth can be no older.” Or: “I believe that the earth suffered a great flood because the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the Ring of Fire, the Grand Canyon, and a lot of other formations couldn’t have happened any other way.”

  2. Geno says:

    Terry writes:
    ” a proper study of the raw data in astronomy or geology leads one to conclude that, and with no escape.”

    Geno comments:
    Just what is a “proper study?” Is it one that follows the usual creationist pre-condition that:
    “The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

    and:
    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”
    Link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

    or:
    “these writings, (Geno notes: the Bible) as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”
    Link: http://www.icr.org/tenets/

    Isn’t it more important that a scientific study be OBJECTIVE?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      A proper study is one that does not assume the very fact that you’re trying to prove. For instance, if you assume that the initial portion of daughter nuclide in a rock sample was zero, that radioactive decay rates never change (or at the most, fluctuate a tiny amount by the seasons), and that nothing adds to or subtracts from the sample other than radioactive decay (of one type only), of course you’re going to get a great age. But then you have to explain pleiochroic halos, helium retention in zircons, excess argon in dacite, and non-correlation of and inconsistency in radiometric dates—especially at the Grand Canyon. And guys like me (and the RATE Group) won’t let you get away with throwing out results as “lab error” when they don’t fit your narrative, either. Not anymore.

      Objective? How objective is it to assume, a priori, that the earth is very old, in order that radiometric dating should make sense—and then use those same radiometric dates to “prove” that the earth is very old? That’s not objective; that’s circular reasoning.

      However—though this is a slightly different field—any objective observer must admit that the BIble has the best quality control of any work of literature known to man. It sets the standard for reliability. That makes It a good Narrative for fixing the date of the Flood—after you show from physical evidence that the Flood did occur.

      • Geno says:

        Terry writes:
        A proper study is one that does not assume the very fact that you’re trying to prove.

        Geno answers:
        EXACTLY ! ! ! ! !

        How objective is it to assume, apriori, that a literal Genesis is the only way to understand things?

        Which is precisely why creation “science” isn’t science at all. As I have documented, the creation “science” ministries have a core belief that a literal Genesis is a fact and they go so far aS to openly declare any evidence in conflict with that presupposition is invalid BY DEFINITION.

        This is not only UNscientific, it is ANTIscientific. While we all have our biases, we should at least attempt an objective approach to the evidence.

        Terry goes on a lot about radiometric dating. That’s something I’ve never brought up because my conclusion of an ancient universe isn’t based on that at all. It’s based on my ability to directly observe objects far beyond the 6000 light year horizon that we should be limited to in a 6000 year old universe. An objective evaluation of that evidence leads to the conclusion of an ancient universe.

        When evaluating various flood models, I apply my understanding of well established physics to the model to see if it passes a reality test. If it doesn’t, I reject the model… without any presupposition regarding the Bible.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Your problem is: your application is incomplete. I ask you: how objective is it to assume a priori that the universe is very, very old, use that assumption to validate certain dating techniques, and then use those very techniques to “validate” the age of the universe? It doesn’t work that way. Validation can never work in a circle.

          Now you’ve mentioned that light-time problem before. You, and lots of other people who try to apply Einsteinian relativity to the entire universe, when Einstein’s equations work mainly as a local effect. When you try to apply that along the dimension of the expansion of the universe, you’re going to have a problem.

          Moshe Carmeli first realized that as you go out along the expansion dimension, you dilate time on earth. So the earth is 6,000 years old by clocks on earth. Those are the only clocks that need matter to us. But by the clocks at the edge of the universe, that edge really is 13.7 billion years old. There’s no reason to doubt that. Of course, you’re not looking at 13.7 billion years of changes. The light now reaching us from the edge of the universe is telling the story of creation, and then the story of the Big Stretch. A Stretch, not a Bang.

          That’s all readily available. See Hartnett J, Starlight, Time and the New Physics. This new cosmological relativity validates itself in another way: it makes concepts like “dark matter” and “dark energy” completely unnecessary. It predicts the hyper-fast spin curves of galaxies and larger objects, and the apparent acceleration, rather than deceleration, of universal expansion.

          • Geno says:

            Terry claims:
            Now you’ve mentioned that light-time problem before. You, and lots of other people who try to apply Einsteinian relativity to the entire universe, when Einstein’s equations work mainly as a local effect. When you try to apply that along the dimension of the expansion of the universe, you’re going to have a problem.

            Geno answers:
            One of us has a problem but it isn’t me. First, if you are trying to dilate time on Earth, you are dealing with a “local effect.” In order to get significant time dilation the object experiencing distortiion must either be moving at near “c” velocities or near a super-massive object such as a black hole.

            Even Dr. Russell Humpheys, in an article co-authored with Dr. Larry Vardiman, has admitted:
            ” the solution did not provide enough time dilation for nearby stars and galaxies”
            Link: http://www.icr.org/article/5686/

            For example, in order to get the minimum radius event horizon for time dilation (the radius of the Earth) one would need to pack over 2000 solar masses into the radius of the Earth. If we take that horizon out to a couple hundred thousand miles… well within the orbit of the moon… you need 200,000 solar masses. There simply isn’t enough mass near enough Earth to make the model work.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            You should read the Hartnett book before you criticize it. He’s not calculating time dilation from mass, but from the stretching-out of the universe at the beginning of time.

            Humphreys knows the weakness of his own model. But the Humphreys model is not at issue here.

  3. Matt says:

    “However—though this is a slightly different field—any objective observer must admit that the BIble has the best quality control of any work of literature known to man. It sets the standard for reliability.”

    In what respect can the Bible be descibed as a literary work subjected to the highest standards of quality control known to man? And in what respect does it set the standard for reliability? As with all historical texts, inconsistently translated and edited from multiple manuscript sources over centuries of conflicting social, cultural, religious and political ideology motivating those acts of translation and edition, it is fraught with inconsistencies. It also has innate ambiguities such as any text written in dead languages are prone to.

    As a textual historian of no religious or anti-religious persuasion, I am baffled as to how you can claim that the Bible transcends other literary historical sources in its accuracy or truthfulness. You imply that journalists who attack creation science operate by an agenda and are uncritical of the dogmas that they follow (a point on which I may in fact agree with you) however you don’t seem to imagine that the authors of the various manuscripts underlying the Bible might have had agendas or followed dogmas of their time unquestioningly.

    You seem to have a sophisticated and rational grasp of the sciences, how do you manage to be so ignorant of basic points of textual analysis and criticism?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      It’s like this: the Old Testament, and to a lesser extent the New, comes down to the present day with the best fidelity of any other work of literature.

      The QC system for the Old Testament was something that even a software engineer would envy. Every line had a checksum, and every page, too. If any checksums didn’t match, the scribe would throw the whole thing out and start over.

      With the New Testament, we have several families of manuscripts, and can work out which ones have the correct lines by looking at writing style and chronology, among other things. We can use that with the Old Testament to date its books.

      We know, for example, that the Book of Daniel does not belong to the second century BC. Daniel wrote it in the sixth century BC, during his experiences in the royal court of Nebuchadnezzar II, just as he said. We know this because he wrote in a style typical of the era. If that’s a later-time forgery, it is one on a level of the man who faked the Van Meer paintings. (And with no apparent motive.) We can date Isaiah similarly to the seventh and eighth centuries BC.

      To give you an idea of how important that is: Isaiah made hundreds of definite predictions about Jesus Christ. Some of them had to do with where He was born. The odds against His vindicating fifty of them by chance alone are ten thousand quinquagintillion to one. That’s a one followed by 157 zeroes. That’s more by far than the total number of elementary particles of all kinds in the universe.

      That means that the Reality of Jesus Christ is a virtual certainty.

      If the Bible is right about that, then It is right about everything else it says. Including Creation and the Flood.

  4. Geno says:

    With regard to Dr. Brown’s offer of a written debate, be advised there are a number of conditions attached. First, there is a requirement that at least one person opposing Brown have a PhD. One must be willing to debate Brown’s entire work, not just one aspect of it. There is also a requirement that a publisher be involved. It’s clear, Brown is much more interested in publication than he is in defending his work.

    His verbal offer also has some strings attached. The opponent can be “disqualifed” if, in the moderator’s opinion, the challenger hasn’t done his “homework.” In my case, Brown wanted the right to expand the discussion to other “related” issues…. but he never disclosed what those issues were. (Note: Terry falsely reported, in another forum, that I had not informed Brown of my objection. Terry was provided with documentation by both Brown and I that my initial contact with Brown stated my issue with the Hydroplate Model several times. To date, Terry has not corrected this faleshood.)

    It is still my position that if Brown’s model sterilizes the planet, the model is fatally (pun intended) flawed. It doesn’t matter how the meteors/asteroids formed; it doesn’t matter how Earth’s radioactive isotopes formed; it doesn’t matter how the Grand Canyon or Mid-Atlantic ridge formed; it doesn’t matter how the Ring of Fire formed; it doesn’t matter how mammoths were quick frozen; it doesn’t matter how limestone formed. The reason it doesn’t matter is that we wouldn’t be here to talk about it if the Hydroplate model destroys all life on the planet.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Brown sets that condition for a perfectly logical reason: one cannot consider any one part of his work apart from the rest. We deal here with a unified theory of the Flood. You may think you have raised a fundamental objection. But you haven’t. Your objection is almost on the order of a conventional aerodynamicist insisting that bees can’t fly.

      • Geno says:

        It is worth note, Terry didn’t address my issue about the usefulness of a model that cooks the planet. He continues to hold the Brown line that because this is a “unified model,” the issue of survivability can’t be discussed seperately. The obvious fact that Brown and Terry are trying to deny is that if the Hydroplate model sterilizes the planet, it fails. Period. Nothing else about it matters.

        Terry continues to argue in rhetoric and generalities. He claims my “objection is almost on the order of a conventional aerodynamicist insisting that bees can’t fly.”

        No, Terry. It’s more like Brown arguing an elephant can fly because it has big ears. My objection is based on well understood properties of water that were used to power the Industrial Revolution.

        Terry says he has an engineering degree. Yet he is not willing to do what engineers do…. calculations.

        He seems to think because the water is “supercritical” when it’s underground, it’s going to behave differently when it reaches the surface. I shouldn’t need to point this out, but when the pressure falls below 218 atm (3200 psi), it’s no longer supercritical. At that point, it’s just water… and at over 700F, it’s going to make a LOT of steam.

        Terry has pointed out my lack of understanding of “basic refrigeration.” Well, I know this… 700F steam isn’t going to do a lot of cooling. Not only that, but when it reaches the dew point and condenses back to a liquid, it will release a LOT of energy. (My calculations indicate the condensation of enough water vapor to cover the planet to a depth of one meter releases enough energy to heat the atmosphere of the planet by some 240C (over 400F). Brown is talking about a LOT more water than that.)

        Come on, Terry… you have an engineering degree. Brown declines. Let’s deal with specifics…. engineer to engineer.

  5. Damon says:

    My sister is a nuclear scientist and is NOT a Christian and she says radiation artificially ages EVERYTHING. This is one reason people who stay our in the Sun look much older than people who do not (ie wrinkles, etc). Very interesting indeed….

  6. […] Creation science and real ignorance […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.