Usually, whenever I do a "When Skeptics Respond" article the one I am doing it about had responded to me. However unusual, I am doing a post & reply to an article I had read on Cross Examined. This organization is very pro old-earth creationism, so it is very much against young-earth perspectives. I came across this article in a Tweet I had read from Frank Turek, who is the main spokesperson for Cross Examined. Becoming interested I decided to read the article. The person who wrote the article was Luke Nix, and the article can be found here. The debate was between Ken Ham and Jeff Zweerink of the organization, Reasons to Believe, headed by Hugh Ross. Ken Ham is the CEO & the founder of Answers in Genesis organization. I had read far more on Ken Ham's arguments than I have on Jeff Zweerink. I had, previously, watched this debate on Unbelievable once, so decided to watch it again to fresh my memory upon reading this article. Nix had claimed in this article that Ken Ham had straw-manned Zweerink many times, so he had put together this long list of 20 alleged strawman fallacies that he thought Ken Ham had committed during this debate. To watch the full debate, click here.
When I read the article of alleged "myths" I became quickly appalled at what Nix had written. In spite several different occasions of claiming that Zweerink had been the victim of a strawman fallacy on multiple occasions, he never once demonstrated this. In fact, most of Nix's article of alleged "myth" played out to be more like objections that Nix had with YECs (young-earth creationists/young-earth creationism). Furthermore, instead of demonstrating any strawman fallacies on the part of Ken Ham, Nix made numerous strawman fallacies himself against both Ken Ham's position & the position of YECs in general! He, also, elephant hurtle these objections at us. One of the tell-tell signs of elephant hurtling is whenever someone takes the same objection & split it up into multiple objections, but reword the objection to make it look like it was different points when it was, actually, the same objection! You can elephant hurtle without doing this, but if it is done, then that is usually a tell-tell sign that person is trying to have more objections to elephant hurtle them at you. He did this throughout the course of his article!
What follows is the result of my review on this article led me to writing this series of responses. I will not be citing nor dealing with every word that he said, but I do want to get at his arguments, counterarguments, & responses. The full article can be found here: 20 Myths About Old Earth Creationism. I will be doing four parts to this article, which will contain 5 alleged "myths" in each part. The first post will also include the introduction to his article, while post 4 will also contain my response to his conclusion & my conclusion to reading Nix's article on Cross Examined. As always I will put my responses in blue, and Nix's comments in red. The "myth" number objection of Nix's will be left in black & placed in all caps to indicate each objection, as well as distinguish them from the rest of my post here.
INTRODUCTION
Nix: Throughout the discussion, Ken Ham presented many strawmen and misrepresentations of Zweerink’s old-earth creationist view in order to argue against the view. I recognized many of these myths as ones I’ve heard over the years that remain popular today despite their falsehood and countless attempts at correction.
In today’s post, I have compiled twenty of the myths that Ken Ham presented in the “Unbelievable” discussion, and I have provided a short, one-to-three paragraph explanation of how they are false and what the correctly understood old-earth creationist (OEC) position is. Since I have written on many of these topics in the past, I have included links to previous posts where they can offer a more detailed response. My intention for this post is three-fold for both believer and unbeliever.
Brian: He starts off his discussion by stating the thesis to his article, in which there is nothing wrong with that, but then makes us believe that each point which he calls "myths" is a separate strawman that Ken Ham & other YECs had made. However, this is misleading sense much of his points reads more like objections that he has with YEC positions than strawman fallacies that Ken Ham had allegedly made. Some of them were even repeated objections throughout his post. We will soon see that this to be true as we moved forward. In his second paragraph he simply states what he believes will be his conclusion, but this conclusion has yet to be demonstrated.
Nix: First, for the unbeliever, I want them to understand that the young-earth view is not the only view held by Christians. They do not have to affirm young-earth creationism (YEC) in order to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and remain logically consistent.
Second, for the believer, I want them to understand that claiming that a logically consistent Christian must hold to the YEC view is simultaneously a detriment to our evangelism and to worshiping the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23).
Finally, for those who are honestly investigating the biblical, philosophical, and natural data to resolve this issue (both believer and unbeliever), I pray that this post also serves as a quick stop for addressing many of the myths, strawmen, and other mischaracterizations of the OEC view in a single location.
Brian: In Nix's first paragraph this is a statement we both agree on. However, in his next paragraph he will suggest otherwise. His second paragraph is most troubling. We don't claim that to be "a logically consistent Christian" you must "hold to the YEC view." We do claim to be internally consistent as a Christian one must take the YEC position sense the young-earth position is in accordance to the straightforward reading of the text & it doesn't import claims & theological views foreign to the Scriptures. We, also, may claim that OECs make a lot of logically fallacious arguments, but we don't claim that taking of the YEC position must be the case to remain logically consistent. He's already straw-manning us and we haven't left the Introduction yet!
His second paragraph had also seemed to suggest to point out such inconsistencies, logical or otherwise, is "a detriment to our evangelism" which is not true. But what really got me was his next statement in the second clause of his sentence, namely, that such accusations is contrary to the "worshiping the Father in spirit and in truth" which is not the correct interpretation of that verse. Is he suggesting that I can't accuse someone of having logical problems in their argument if they are a Christian? Or even, to do that would be to not worship God "in spirit and in truth?" No, no, no, no! In fact, it is the other way around! In order to be consistent with myself I can't point out inconsistencies & logical fallacies in the arguments of skeptics, but let Christians get away with it! That's insane!
As for his final paragraph in his Introduction, I have read through his entire post, & his post would cause an even greater confusion unless someone responds to it. I am that someone...
MYTH #1: THE DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE UNIVERSE IS YOUNG OR OLD, IT IS ABOUT WHETHER YOU BELIEVE GOD'S WORD OR NOT.
Nix: Ken Ham began with this myth. It implies that anyone who disagrees with him on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 does not believe God’s Word. This could not be further from the truth. It is the very belief that God’s Word is true and authoritative in the Christian’s life that Christians try to understand what it means. In order for a proposition (or collection of propositions, such as the Bible) to be believed and applied to our lives, we need to correctly understand the meaning of the proposition(s). If we did not believe that the collection of propositions that constitute God’s Word is true and authoritative over our lives, then we wouldn’t bother with trying to understand what the author (and Author) meant to communicate in it. Saying that a Christian, who interprets differently, does not believe God’s Word is simply false. The debate is not about belief but rather about correct meaning.
Brian: Nix starts off with the first thing that Ken Ham had said in his opening speech, short of his introductions. However, not only was Ken Ham not straw-manning Zweerink, but Nix had straw-manned him! If Nix had truly listened to the entire debate correctly he would've caught what Ken Ham was talking about. This is especially alarming granting his last statement about understanding "correct meaning." Ken Ham wasn't talking about what Zweerink believed. Ham openly admitted that he professed verbally that Zweerink believed in the Bible & professed Biblical authority. However, the problem was that an OEC does not prioritize that in either his or her thinking, in their interpretations, nor in their arguments. This came out during the debate because Zweerink kept claiming he believed in listening to what others had said about the Bible, & believed if there were disputes over interpretations, no matter how plain a reading was, then the Bible must leave such views "open" for interpretation. Ken Ham's position was (as is mine), if the Scripture says "X" explicitly, then it must mean "X" not "Y!"
It is also false with what Nix said about the Bible is what motivates them. Maybe to some extent, but their true motivation with the issue is the Big Bang Theory. Notice the implication behind Nix's statement, "if we did not believe that the collection of propositions that constitute God’s Word is true and authoritative over our lives, then we wouldn’t bother with trying to understand what the author (and Author) meant to communicate in it." The hidden assumption is that the Bible is some kind of code that needs to be puzzled over. So, if the Bible says that Jesus ministry started in Galilee, it really means that it started somewhere else like Nazareth. Of course, not old-earther would ever take such a standard elsewhere, & throughout Scripture. It is because they have double standards with Genesis 1-11 than they have on the rest of Scripture, as Ken Ham had noted in that debate. Also, Nix seems to act like the normal rules of interpretation, such as looking at context, relevant Scriptural passages (interpret Scripture with Scripture), etc., fly straight out the window, at least in regards to Gen. 1-11.
Nix, furthermore, had said, "Saying that a Christian, who interprets differently, does not believe God’s Word is simply false." This was the strawman I had previously mentioned. Ken was not claiming that Zweerink did not believe God's Word, but that he took positions that were contrary to the plain statements of the Word of God. What if I had a theory that Jesus ministry really started in Jerusalem, not the city of Galilee, which was where he lived. Suppose you point out clear references that indicate otherwise, but no matter how straightforward the passages or how straightforward the context, I maintained, "Yes, it says that, but it really means his ministry first started in Jerusalem!" You may argue that I had a false interpretation, but you would also argue that such interpretations were false because the Bible is very clear about where Jesus started his ministry. This is simply what Ken Ham is trying to say, along with the fact that it does come down to biblical authority, but not because an OEC might not believe in such authority, but because he believes that man's views of nature & the past are either on par with Scripture, or must superweed it, and therefore, eisegetically, interpret the Bible accordingly. Btw, if the Bible is straightforward, with all of the context indicating its correct meaning, but you are interpreting Scripture according to secular ideas about the past, then yes, the Bible is about the authority of the Word. Even at the beginning of Ham and Zweerink's debate, Zweerink admitted he was a YEC originally because of the straightforward understanding of Genesis 1, but it was secular views about its "correct meaning" & secular "science" that led him to abandon such interpretations, regardless how plain the reading appeared. I am not so sure how much Nix actually paid attention with what his guy in the debate was saying & arguing.
MYTH #2: BIG BANG IS BASED ON NATURALISM.
Nix: Naturalism holds that there is nothing that exists outside this physical universe. Big bang cosmology has two requirements that necessarily exist outside this physical universe. Firstly, because big bang cosmology posits an absolute beginning to the universe and nothing that begins to exist can cause its own beginning to exist, the big bang necessarily requires a cause that is outside itself (this physical universe). Secondly, because of the fact that the universe’s physical laws are finely-tuned to support advanced life, the cause of the universe not only has to be super-natural, but it also has to be intelligent and purpose-driving in His creative act. These are attributes of a purposeful agent, not just another mechanism (naturalism), or deism (we’ve now left naturalism behind), or even basic theism. These attributes of the Cause mirror those of the Christian God. Not only is it false that big bang cosmology is based on naturalism big bang cosmology necessarily implies that the Christian God exists by the attributes of the Cause required to produce what is observed in the universe.
Brian: He starts off with a false definition of naturalism. No one defines naturalism this way, even other naturalists. It seems to me that he is only defining naturalism like this in order to pave the way for his next two points (which will be discussed below). Naturalism is the belief, or belief system, that nature is all there is, and that nothing exist beyond it. Thus, a naturalists would deny the supernatural, & believe that all things can be naturalistically explained. Keep that in mind for later in my response. No one defines it as "beyond the universe." What he is describing is a branch of philosophy which is called metaphysics.
Secondly, YECs don't claim that OECs are naturalists if they believe in the Big Bang model. We recognize that OECs are not naturalists, at least when it comes to everything apart from the "Big Bang." What we actually claim is that OECs take up naturalistic assumptions with the Big Bang model which naturalistically explains the history of the universe using naturalistic assumptions about the past, as well as the naturalistic formation of stars, planets, galaxies, our solar system, our planet, and the entire universe. Instead of believing that God supernaturally spoke the world & universe into existence, this model claims that the universe formed naturally over a period of billions of years.
Btw, I don't think Nix understands what a strawman fallacy actually is. A strawman fallacy is a logical fallacy whereby one attacks a position someone doesn't hold or an argument that one isn't making. As they say, it is easier to attack a strawman of your own making than it is to attack the real deal. However, Ken Ham wasn't accusing Zweerink of being a naturalist, only taking naturalistic assumptions regarding the Big Bang model.
Nix raises two points, which is why I think he gave a false definition of naturalism. In his first point he said, "Firstly, because big bang cosmology posits an absolute beginning to the universe and nothing that begins to exist can cause its own beginning to exist, the big bang necessarily requires a cause that is outside itself (this physical universe)." Just for clarification purposes, I do agree that the universe had a beginning. His statement, however, has at least three issues in it. 1) His first point seems to conflate the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, and the Big Bang model. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a specific argument for the existence of God used by a lot of Christians, especially apologists & classical apologists. I have, personally, used the argument myself a few times, but I now prefer the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (or TAG). The first premise of this argument is that, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" in which I do agree with, but this is not the Big Bang model. The later is a specific model concerning the alleged "history" of our universe, & its evolution over time, which brings me to my second issue with his first point here.
2) The Big Bang model says nothing about the beginning of the universe. In fact, it says nothing about the origin of the universe at all. This is in spite the fact that OECs have been claiming this for a long time. Alex Williams and John Hartnett, both astrophysicists, have said, regarding the early stage of the "big-bang expansion" in accordance with the model that the, "big-bang universe begins in a singularity (all matter, energy, space, and time crushed into a point of infinite density) and there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of the singularity--the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun...All descriptions of the big bang begin after allegedly happened" (Williams & Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, pp. 13 & 117). However, even if the big bang had posit a beginning for the universe, it is not the only one. That were others that did the same, & this brings me to my third objection to his point.
3) The third issue is that he is conflating the universe cannot bring itself into being (which I agree with) with the Big Bang model. I think he might be assuming the definition used by many classical apologist for the Big Bang model, the "origin of space, time, & matter", but this is the oversimplification fallacy. Either way, the big bang model is far more than what this oversimplified definition would grant us. Both YECs & OECs would claim that a non-existent universe cannot bring itself into being, but the issue with the "big bang" which OECs avoid is the way it describes the universe's "evolution" over time. This is what is contrary to Scripture, not the fact that the universe had a beginning.
Continuing his points, Nix said, "Secondly, because of the fact that the universe’s physical laws are finely-tuned to support advanced life, the cause of the universe not only has to be super-natural, but it also has to be intelligent and purpose-driving in His creative act." In his second point he has now confused the anthropic principle with the big bang model as well. The anthropic principle (which I also accept) is the "principle" that there exist in the universe certain constants that seems finely tuned for life in this universe. These constants have only a very narrow range of possibilities by which to fall on. Some have suggested fine-tuning in reference to the Big Bang model. Since the Big Bang is a random expansion of gas, it would require an amazing amount of precision to make that possible. However, this would not be the same as the Big Bang happening nor would it be the same as the Big Bang model calling for such precision. At any given case, the cause of the universe would be, necessarily, metaphysical, which is far as I can tell, no one denies. The model, itself, does not lead to the conclusion that the cause must be supernatural.
He, also, argues that such a causation has "left naturalism behind" but, once again, he is confusing a supernatural explanation with metaphysics. What YECs are actually claiming, though, are different from his response. We are not claiming that the Big Bang model's cause is "natural", we know what OECs claim on this, but we're claiming that assumptions that permeate the theory are naturalistic, & contrary to Scripture.
His last statement there was, "Not only is it false that big bang cosmology is based on naturalism big bang cosmology necessarily implies that the Christian God exists by the attributes of the Cause required to produce what is observed in the universe." This is false, and now Nix has officially overstated his case. Even classical apologist such as William Lane Craig & Braxton Hunter admit that the best the Kalam can get you do (which you remember he was confusing the Big Bang model for) is to prove that the universe was created. The most the Big Bang model can do is suggest the possibility that such a cause exist. For example, you cannot get the Triune nature of God out of this model. Why does he think that he can get all of the characteristics that make such a Creator one and the same with the Christian God. You could just as easily get "Allah" from Islam out of such conclusions. The only way to do this is by adding other arguments to the Kalam, but nothing in the Big Bang model would demand it must be the Christian God that created the universe. To argue that is to truly overstate his case, & the full weight of the burden of proof now falls on Nix's shoulders to justify such a leap. It is even much further than most astrophysics and Christian apologists who accepts the theory would even claim.
MYTH #3: YOU CANNOT SEE "AGE" IN NATURE.
Nix: One of the foundational beliefs of science (that allow it to discover events of even the recent past) is constant laws of physics. For the Christian, this foundational belief for science is even affirmed in Jeremiah 33:26. What is very nice about constant laws of physics is that if we have a correct understanding of processes from one moment to the next, we can work backward in time (via deductive reasoning) to come to sound (necessarily true) conclusions about the past, including the age of things. This is done for trees and corals using the number of rings and layers, respectively, and the well-understood rate of the formation of those layers. The idea that age cannot be determined by observing nature alone is correct, but when combined with the constant laws of physics and deductive reasoning, the ability to accurately determine age by observing God’s creation cannot be escaped by the Bible-believing Christian.
Brian: Age is not a concept of science. He seems, down into his response, to agree with this in part, at least as far as it being directly detectible in nature. However, this is not a failure with the Scientific Method, but it is a limitation on it. The object of it is because the past is not directly observable, repeatable, and can be experimented on (all elements of the Scientific Method & empirical science), it is impossible to verify a historical event using the tools of empirical science. You can use such tools by which to guess or speculate about a past event, but you cannot empirically verify it. "Age" is not a concept of science, but of history. When you ask temporal questions such as how long something has been around, or when the universe came into being, these are within the prevue of history, not empirical science. This does not mean we can't get at the past, it just mean we must use different methods by which to assess a past event, in other words we must use historical methods by which to make historical conclusions regarding past event.
He starts his response to Ken Ham's argument on this by discussing the unchanging laws of physics, & then cites Jer. 33:26. However, Nix's reply has a common strawman fallacy implied in his statement, as well as a common misunderstanding of where the issues actually lay. The strawman fallacy that Nix is making is that YECs believe that the laws of physics had changed in the past to the present, but this is false. We actually acknowledged that the laws of physics had not change, nor does any YEC claim that they have! Sometimes to get around this strawman, the OEC will try to claim that, even though we might believe that the laws of physics had not change, our arguments & position must require this to be the case that the Earth is young, but this, too, is false, and equally a strawman. None of our arguments, models, nor positions claim nor imply the changing of the laws of physics. Rather, instead, this is a fundament misunderstanding of both the YEC position, and Uniformitarianism, which is the position that all evolutionists and OECs take in regarding past events. I will explain this in more details below.
There is no law in physics call the Law of Uniformitarianism! Uniformitarianism is a philosophical principle that uniformitarians go by to determine the dating of objects, people, animals, & even certain events. This is an arbitrary assumption about the past & the data that is not based upon any known scientific law nor any scientific evidence. People who take this assumption will often dismiss the global Flood, a straightforward reading of Genesis 1-11, or reject it entirely. Most of them will usually adopt evolutionary assumptions about the past, and most OECs adopt a big-bang assumption about the history of the universe. Uniformitarianism claims "the key to the past is in the present." If this is the case, then why do OECs believe that the laws of physics confirm this? Because it is a way to force their presuppositions onto us, a kind of scare tactic.
What YECs are actually against is the notion of arbitrarily assuming that the rate in which we can measure things in the present means that it was always at this particular rate of change, or the conditions that might be contributing to that rate of change had not change. This does not require the changing of the laws of physics! If they say that it does, then my question is, what law of physics is it violating? Name the law! Again, there is no such thing as the law of uniformitarianism. It is a philosophical principle. Those who hold to it even call it a principle. It is the principle that guides their thinking in regards to past events and dating as we will soon see. Even though the laws of physics don't change, rates and conditions can change over time.
Before we continue my response here, I do want to deal with the idea of being able to determine a "recent event" as he claimed. Granted evolutionary & big-bang claims are not "recent" by any stretch of the imagination, but one may wonder if the Scientific Method & empirical science, & its tools, can be used on a more recent event? We typically call this type of "science" origins science. Some call it, also, forensic science, but I try to avoid this since the later term applies to the type of science used by law enforcement agency and the legal system in general. In case where crimes are within our lifetimes, or closer to it, it is easier to use the tools of empirical science. However, one must be forewarned, even then the forensic scientists is forced to apply an interpretation, and assumption, to some of the data. For example, if muddy footprints are found the forensic team may assume the prints are recent from a recent storm, but this could be misleading if the person's sprinkler system had kicked on allowing the ground to be wet enough to create a solid footprint. However, in spite this, the closer you can get something to the present the more accurate these tools of science can be. Just look at how cold case detectives must solve crimes. If they waited too long after there is now no more fingerprints, footprints, traces of DNA, or witnesses left alive, the cold case detective must rely on other methods to solving the case, & forensics are of little to no use to him.
Continuing my response to Nix, he stated, "What is very nice about constant laws of physics is that if we have a correct understanding of processes from one moment to the next, we can work backward in time (via deductive reasoning) to come to sound (necessarily true) conclusions about the past, including the age of things." This is false. First of all, the laws of physics regulate how things are in our universe, but they do not have anything to do with rates and conditions as we should see when I deal with his examples. Rates and conditions can change, while the laws of physics stay the same. The fact that laws of physics stay the same does not mean you can calculate the rates and conditions of things in the present & extrapolate back into the past. If conditions change then so can rates. There is no law of physics that force rates and conditions to being the same today! Secondly, the best way we can determine the laws of physics today and extrapolate back into the past is by assuming the laws of physics was always in place. I have no problem in thinking that if Gravity works this way today, then this is the way it always worked, but what does that have to do with rates and conditions always being the same? Laws of physics don't regulate rates and conditions. They regulate how the world and universe is, but not the rate in which radiometric decay breaks down or how many tree rings a tree produced (see below).
Thirdly, we cannot use deductive reasoning on the past, or any past event, or at least in a strictly empiricistic sense! Deductive reasoning is when you apply premises in your argument in such a way, that the conclusion must be true if the argument is valid. However, historians use probability to assess past events, and therefore there is no definality in any of their historical conclusions. You can use inductive logic on a past event which argues for the probability, or likelihood, of the conclusion. You can even use abductive reasoning on a past event to come up with the best possible explanation of what occur. Although empirical science uses deductive reasoning, you cannot use deductive reasoning on any event in the past, especially to determine the age of something, unless you are arguing from a general conclusion (a hypothesis) to a particular fact or evidence (such as making a general hypothesis and seeing if the historical data supports it), which is what I have been trying to get across. Finally, to reiterate the point on this, you can't use empirical science to determine the age of something, at least in any accurate measure. You must always apply your interpretation to the finding, as well as your assumptions about the data.
He decides to try and flesh out his point by claiming two examples, tree ring dating and the use of corals. He says, even, that, "...and the well-understood rate of the formation of those layers." This serves my point more than it does his. There is no physical law that determines the rate in which trees manifest tree rings. A tree will produce more of these rings depending on how much rains in a year. In a tropical rainforest it rains a lot & for longer periods of time. The OEC, Nix, & even evolutionists, are assuming that the tree produces a ring per year, but this is inaccurate. How many rings they produce can depend upon anything from the conditions they are exposed to in their lifetime (raining a lot, how good the dirt is it is situated on, etc.) to the kind of tree it is (fern, oak, etc.). Nix, and others like him, are forced to apply assumptions to the data. However, tree ring dating doesn't save the OEC nor the evolutionists, for the oldest tree alive is less than six thousand years old! Coral reefs and ice core layers all apply to this. They assume the amount of layers that develop today is the way it's always been. In case of the ice core it would depend on the amount of snow and ice cumulation which can vary year after year, plus once get passed a certain point, the ice become so compacted that each individual layer becomes near impossible to see, & the evolutionists and OEC, must make guesses in the dark at this point.
No YEC needs to escape anything since what we see in the world and the universe helps confirm what we know from the Bible. It is the OECs & evolutionists who must create hypotheticals/ad hoc explanations such as the Ort Cloud, the Inflation Theory, and even Density Wave Theory to escape the implication of this evidence. I'm not going to bring this up every time, but, again, how is this a strawman that Ken Ham is doing? This is an independent objection that Nix has with YEC positions, not a "strawman" that Ken Ham is making which is what he led us to believe he is arguing against.
MYTH #4: THE SAME PEOPLE WHO PROMOTE BIG BANG COSMOLOGY DENY THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS.
Nix: This is quite a sweeping statement. In this myth, Ken Ham places all who affirm big bang cosmology into the same naturalistic category of those who deny miracles and God’s interaction with creation (including the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity and the Resurrection of Jesus). It is obvious, though, that Christians do not belong in the same category as naturalists when it comes to miracles. Some YECs who insist on this categorization, though, insist that Christians can believe both but only inconsistently.
The problem here is that affirmation of big bang cosmology in no way implies that supernatural miracles are not possible. In fact, as shown above, in Myth #2, the big bang assumes a supernatural miracle for the universe’s existence! If anyone is being inconsistent in their beliefs regarding the big bang and miracles, it is the naturalist who affirms the big bang yet denies supernatural miracles are possible. So, Christians who affirm big bang cosmology do not deny supernatural miracles such as the virgin birth of Jesus and are under no compulsion by logic to even entertain such a ridiculous claim. We do not deny the virgin birth of Jesus, and our view does not imply even the possibility of such a denial. While naturalists do deny the virgin birth of Jesus, inconsistently, the Christian affirms it consistently.
Brian: This is, by far, one of the most deceptive comments that we have come to thus far that Nix has made. This is also the claim that led me to refresh my memory of the debate by watching it a second time. Ken Ham did not claim that all those who believed in big-bang cosmology also deny the Virgin Birth. His reference to the Virgin Birth was argued that if one's hermeneutics was to interpret Scripture on the basis of what secular "science" claims, then, secular "science" also reject miracle claims such as the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, and we'd never reject or interpret those events in light of what secular scientists were claiming. Once again, Nix has strawman Ken Ham's position.
Then Nix had said, "Some YECs who insist on this categorization, though, insist that Christians can believe both but only inconsistently." This statement is true, but for a different reason than Nix thinks. It isn't just the beliefs in these two categories of ideas that make this inconsistent, but it is the hermeneutical standards by which they would approach both subjects. It is like, almost, that whenever it comes down to the Big Bang Theory, suddenly they become naturalists and only think the development of the universe must have happened naturally, but when they start talking about the Resurrection they become believers that God can act supernaturally if he wanted to. Of course, Nix would reject this, of course, because he thinks that the Big Bang model would lead to a supernatural causation, and he even, in this "myth" he wrote, continues to propagate that. But as I have demonstrated the Big Bang Theory does not lead one to a supernatural causation. This is why most atheists don't have a problem in the first place with accepting the "big bang" belief. At best, it would lead to a metaphysical cause, but not a supernatural one. It is only by intentionally altering the definition of naturalism does Nix tries to make his point (see my response above).
Nix continues, and said that, "The problem here is that affirmation of big bang cosmology in no way implies that supernatural miracles are not possible." This is another strawman, relating to the previous one. We don't claim that the Big Bang Theory, or the acceptance of it, implies that miracles are not possible. Once again, Nix is missing the point.
If you watched the debate (this is why I included the link to the full debate in my Introduction above), Ken Ham continues to make a powerful point: ultimately, Zweerink was importing secular ideas about the past & using them to interpret Genesis 1. Very early on in the debate (in Zweerink's opening case) he admitted he was originally a young-earth creationists, and that he was brought to this conclusion through what was for him the plain reading of the text. It was only after hearing various disputes about it that he concluded that interpreting Genesis 1 must not be that simple. Throughout the course of the debate he kept coming back to secular ideas & opinions, and believing that these opinions must be used to approach Genesis 1. Ken Ham's point, which I believe was the most powerful point Ken Ham had made in that debate, is that Zweerink had a different hermeneutical standard, which was inconsistent to how he interpreted the rest of the Bible. This was all he was saying, not rather or not Zweerink believed in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the Incarnation. Given Zweerink's, what I believed to be, honest responses, I think Ken Ham made his point beautifully.
MYTH #5: PEOPLE ONLY DEBATE THE MEANING OF THE WORD "YOM" IN GENESIS 1 BECAUSE THEY WANT TO FIT MILLIONS OF YEARS INTO THE BIBLE.
Nix: Implied in this myth is the idea that “yom” was never debated until it was discovered that the universe was billions of years old and/or when Darwin came along and proposed evolution, which presumably would require billions of years of slow changes over time. However, this is demonstrably false. The meaning of “yom” has been debated for centuries before scientists posited billions of years for the age of the universe. St. Augustine, for instance, defended the contention that “yom” was different from a 24-hour day. Numerous other Church Fathers also debated “yom”‘s [sic] meaning. Since it was debated before scientists posited billions of years for the age of the universe and earth, such a discovery cannot serve as the motivation for the debate continuing to this day.
Brian: This is true, they do want to fit millions and billions of years in the Bible. However, Ken Ham was referring to the current situation involving both evolutionists as well as OECs, not past debates over Genesis 1 (which I am fixing to get into below). Before I get into the church fathers, no one "discovered" the universe being billions of years old. It was arbitrarily assumed because of the Big Bang Theory and evolutionary ideas about the past. When Charles Lyle presented his Geological Column idea, radiometric dating hadn't even been invented yet, although uniformitarianism had been invented by then. James Hutton, the founder of uniformitarianism, just arbitrarily rejected a global Flood, which was the lens that everyone was interpreting the data of Earth's geological history at the time, and claimed that it was better explained using slow gradual processes. The idea of millions and billions of years was invented, not discovered. By saying "discovered", Nix seems to be assuming that deep-time, and deep-time views and interpretations, is a "fact" rather than a belief.
This is, actually, demonstrably true, in spite what he said to the contrary. The belief that yom should be interpreted as long ages do not come around until the late 1700s to the 1900s when these views were becoming popular among secular scientists. This is when we start seeing views like the day-age theory, progressive creationism, theistic evolution, the gap theory, the framework hypothesis, etc. Before this time no one thought that humanity, the Earth, or the universe was millions or billions of years old, and that's a historical fact! However, this is not why I think OEC deep-time views are wrong, this would be the genetic fallacy if I made that argument or implied it, but rather I think deep-time assumptions are wrong because the evidence of the Bible (such as the context of Genesis 1, other relevant Scriptural passages such as Ex. 20:11, & even references from the NT, all make OEC positions on this incorrect). However, I do think it is important to know, historically, where such views originated. Thus, when an OEC like Nix claims the idea that the church fathers and others had taken the position that Gen. 1 should be interpreted as millions or billions of years, I just want you to know that this false, historically.
However, there were some who debated the interpretation of Genesis 1, but none of them thought it was billions of years. A particular school of thought was created in Alexandria, Egypt called the School of Alexandria. It was founded by Clement of Alexandria in the late second century & was heavily influenced by the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, who, in turn, was heavily influenced by Greek philosophers & philosophies such as Stoicism & Platonism. Origen of Alexandria was a famous member of this school of thought & had allegorized everything in Scripture. This often caused Origen to unorthodox positions, but even he believed the world was less than ten thousand years old.
What about Augustine that Nix had mentioned in the above citation? Augustine believed that Genesis 1 "day" was figurative for God creating instantaneously, not billions of years. However, like most church fathers, Augustine was unfamiliar with the backgrounds of both the Old & New Testament, as well as the original language. He didn't realized that Hebrew has a word that meant "instant" or "in the moment." The Hebrew word is rega which is Hebrew for "moment" or "instant." If Moses had meant that God created instantaneously, then he would have written that word instead of yom. Btw, Augustine's interpretation of Gen. 1 is the exact opposite of old-earth positions. In addition to this, in spite what Nix tried to imply, Augustine was a young-earth creationist. Check out the citation from Augustine below:
"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings [the Bible], we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed" (Augustine, The City of God, 12(10), as cited from "Refuting Compromise", by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, 2014, p. 116).
Notice the next thing Nix had said: "Numerous other Church Fathers also debated “yom”‘s meaning." The implication is that a plethora of church fathers challenged or questioned its natural meaning, but this is inaccurate. The vast majority of the church fathers that commented on Gen. 1 took it as 24-hour periods of time, even Irenaeus. Only a few of them such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine ever took a non-literal meaning, but each of them had that God instantaneously, not over millions and billions of years. This is why whenever OECs are asked to give examples of church fathers that took such a position, only a few are named. However, it would be deceptive for someone to claim that any of these ever took deep-time interpretations, or even imply such an interpretation as that.
Furthermore, look at how Nix ends this particular response: "Since it was debated before scientists posited billions of years for the age of the universe and earth, such a discovery cannot serve as the motivation for the debate continuing to this day." Notice the implication. He was implying that a billions-of-years interpretation was believed before the coming of such secular ideas, but this is not true, & highly deceptive. Augustine was a young-earth creationist who thought that God had instantaneously created the world in Gen. 1. Therefore, such secular ideas are a motivation for the current debate since such ideas were not around beforehand!
So, far, we've seen no strawman on the part of Ken Ham in his debate with Jeff Zweerink. Luke Nix, which has responded to the debate with accusations of strawman, appeared to be, so far in our evaluation of his arguments, unfounded. However, we have seen Nix on numerous occasions strawman both Ken Ham & other YECs, myself included. So far, I am convinced that Nix has little understanding of the arguments put forth by Ken Ham in his debate with Zweerink or little understanding of what YECs actually argue. In addition to that, his understanding of the big-bang model, which he accepts, seems a bit warped. He thinks that the model, itself, suggest a supernatural cause, but he has conflated causes, namely, a supernatural cause for a metaphysical one. Nix has overstated his case with the model, not to mention the fact that in one response he conflated two different arguments for the existence of God & the big-bang model itself!
I will be continuing this in Part Two of my response to Luke Nix on Cross Examined. There, we'll be exploring his "myths" 6 through 10, so stay tuned!
コメント