5 ways to keep a Scientist out of our Church.

[olger]

[Mark Aurelius]

In my church (Eight Mile Plains in Brisbane, Australia) there are 2 PhD holders with research jobs, one of who has discussed her YEC views with me, and probably half a dozen medical doctors, afaik with similar views.

So, let me see, how could I get them to leave? Tell them you have to believe evolution to come to our church? No, they're probably wouldn't take me seriously. Darn, I'm stuck with them

[Ron Lambert]

Mark, we need more of their species, who will stand up boldly as an example to the many science professionals among us, many of them young and new, who have felt the strong pressure to conform to the mainstream majority's views.

By the way, I will go your friend one better. Not only am I a Young Earth Creationist, I am a Young Earth, Young Universe Creationist (YEYU). I believe the denomination is mistaken in giving in to evolution and gradualism on the point of the age of the universe, which is only claimed by many to be vastly old because the theory of evolution needs it to sound less incredible.

There are answers to the arguments in favor of vast age of the physical earth and universe--including the speed of light argument. While actual physical data has been found that indicates there must have been changes in the speed of light in the past, the most compelling argument is that when God creates, the first thing He says is "Let there be light." This means that God wanted a universe filled with light, so that the light from the most distant stars was already reaching earth. He did not want a universe that would remain dark for the billions of years it would take for light to reach earth from the most distant galaxies and stars, assuming the speed of light never changed. God created the universe in a mature state, just as He created the trees in the Garden of Eden with apparent age.

It has been shown in the laboratory that the rate of nuclear decay can be accelerated billions of times when matter is heated to the plasma state. Nuclear decay is governed by the relativity equation which includes the speed of light. Thus a change in the rate of nuclear decay must imply a change in the speed of light. In the first burst of light when God spoke the universe into existence, we can expect that such conditions as the plasma state of matter would prevail. Thus the physical means by which God created a mature universe are guessable.

My conclusion after viewing much evidence, including hard physical evidence (such as the continued existence of short period comets most of which should be gone after 12,000 years), is that the universe is no more than about ten to twelve thousand years old. But the most compelling reason to me is what I know of the character of the Creator. He knows the future, and knew that sin would arise and have to be met. From what the Bible reveals to me of God, and from what I know of Him personally, He is the kind of Person Who would seek to deal with the sin problem as soon as possible, not put it off for billions of years. This is why He probably created Lucifer first (hinted at by his apellation as the Morning Star). It is not reasonable to suppose that Lucifer took billions of years to come up with the idea of sin. It is much more reasonable to think that it only took a couple of thousand years at most for that to happen.

[epaminondas]

Science is wonderful but not when it excludes the possibility of God, like natural science does.

Science does not exclude the possibility of God, it says nothing about God. The Big Bang theory offers no explanation of why it happened or what was behind the Big Bang, contrary to what many of the morons in many churches say. It admits it does not know. However, it predicted cosmic background radiation and fluctuations thereof about twenty years before these were discovered. No, I don't think Satan told them.

Richard Dawkins said when asked what he would do if one day he came face to face with God that he would ask God why God went to such great pains to hide His existence. This was also George Bernard Shaw's question. Darwin apparently said he could not believe in a God who created a world in which a wasp would lay its eggs inside another animal so the wasp larvae could eat up the other animal from the inside, while still alive. These are legitimate points. Many people have these objections. We have a book, A Fortunate Live, by a man called Facey. He said after the horrors of Gallipoli he became an atheist. Why don't we address these points?

Now let's see what we get from official SDA publications. An article in the Australian Signs of the Times speculating on where science would have been had it not been for Christianity; according to this article the first hospitals were Christian hospitals. Even the minutest research would have proven this false. And it passes editorial scrutiny and gets published.

Some years ago there was an article entitled something like Saved by Grace or Amazing Grace in Perspective Digest. It was gleaned off the Internet and published as the gospel truth without any due diligence. It was so full of non sequiturs even a retarded six year old would have said "something doesn't smell right." Here in good old Aussie the truly stupid were onto it like mud on a pig. I walked out at the start of a sermon based on it. The preacher, an SDA pastor, asked me why. I told him his sermon was based on a lie. No, no, he huffed and puffed, it came from Perspective Digest. So I researched it and passed the results over to him. The editor of perspective digest admitted to me and the pastor that they had done no due diligence and, come to think about it, it was most likely not true. Through the Mennonites I traced it to its source, one Maake Masangu. The Mennonites quickly saw through his explanation and removed it from their website. Philip Yancey also used it in his book. Shame on him. All the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were on the Net. They all could have done a bit of research. The pastor involved felt like the editor of the Perspective Digest had thrown him under the bus. He issued an apology for his lie from the pulpit from which he had told his lie.

The SDA church needs clear thinkers. These are not to be found among those trained in the arts, humanities, philosophy or theology. The purest logic is to be found in mathematics. Sure, Amos was a sheepherder. But he had direct revelations from God. I haven't heard an SDA pastor claim that yet. We are intellectually, unfortunately, a church of the blind leading the blind.

[epaminondas]

There are answers to the arguments in favor of vast age of the physical earth and universe--including the speed of light argument.

The creation account in Genesis is not a finely detailed history of creation. It is a high level overview - like the way you would see a forest or town flying 10,000M (about a 747's cruising altitude) over it. What you see, is true, like the days of creation. However, you don't see individual trees or houses. Trying to get individual details from it is impossible - creation is not still happening, you can't use binoculars to see more.

Read the first two verses again. It is totally reasonable to see verse one as an introduction or an overview with the curtain lifting on the scene in verse two.

The first creation act was the creation of light. (

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.)

The next was the creation of an atmosphere:

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.

The Earth must have had a dense atmosphere, like Venus, but with water vapour as a significant constituent.

You can go through the whole creation account, nowhere, except in verse one, is there any indication when matter was made, or time, or the laws of physics.

Come to think about it, this account is for us, the inhabitants of Earth. Won't it make sense to focus on Earth? How long did the Earth exist in its empty and void form? Who knows? Who cares? If it was important for us to know, God would have told us.

[Bravus]

Quote:

It has been shown in the laboratory that the rate of nuclear decay can be accelerated billions of times when matter is heated to the plasma state.

Cite please.

[Gregory Matthews]

Epaminondas said:

Quote:

Science does not exclude the possibility of God, it says nothing about God. The Big Bang theory offers no explanation of why it happened or what was behind the Big Bang, contrary to what many of the morons in many churches say. It admits it does not know.

Let us look at what Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University has said:

Quote:

. . . science must make clear to the general public that the first cause of life on this planet is neither factually established, nor is it wedded to the process of biological evolution in any way.

A similar statement could be made about the origin of the universe. Our understanding of astrophysics is too primitive to permit us to put a meaningful answer to the question of why there is a universe to begin with. . . .

What we know about the origin of life and the origin of the universe, therefore, is certainly consistent with the existence of a creator. We would be very foolish to maintain that our advancing understanding of the cosmos and the biological word in any way argues against the existence of God. . . .

We owe it to ourselves and to the public who trust us to . . . make clear that the question of God is a nonscientific one and therefore is entirely beyond our reach as scientists. . . .

If 30 more years of scientific work show that chemical evolution from nonliving matter is in fact possible, must we not conclude that God does not exist? I think not. . . .

The scientific nature of evolution, like all scientific theories, does not exclude a creator. . .

We developed from a grand and magnificent process known as evolution. . .

Montagu, Ashley. SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM, Miller, Kenneth R. "Scientific Creationism verses Evolution: The Mislabeled Debate," Oxford University Press, pages 58 - 61.

There are scientists, as I acknowledge, that believe that evolution precludes a God, or even a God who created. Brown, is one scientist who believes that evolution does not rule out God. To be clear, he is a scientist who accepts evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. There are others who believe the same.

[Dr. Shane]

NATURALISM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SCIENCE AND CRITICAL INQUIRY

Quote:

Naturalism is, ironically, a controversial philosophy. Our modern civilization depends totally for its existence and future survival on the methods and fruits of science, naturalism is the philosophy that science created and that science now follows with such success, yet the great majority of humans (at least 90% of the U.S. population) believe in the antithesis of naturalism--supernaturalism. Our culture persistently indulges and celebrates supernaturalism, and most people, including many scientists, refuse to systematically understand naturalism and its consequences. This paper proposes to show that naturalism is essential to the success of scientific understanding, and it examines and criticizes the claims of pseudoscientists and theistic philosophers that science should employ supernatural explanations as part of its normal practice.

[Ron Lambert]

epaminondas, building an argument based on attacking a few individuals who were manifestly guilt of sloppy thinking, is propaganda only, not valid debate. Implying that they are representative is unwarranted and unfair.

The questions you raise about nature, why--in the words of Tennyson--God would create "nature red in tooth and claw," are good questions. I presented a sermon on this subject at my church on September 5, 2009: "Why Red in Tooth and Claw?" The sermon was recorded, and you can listen to it at: http://www.nhchurch.org/joomla/images/mp3/sermons/2009/september5.mp3

It is only about 15 minutes long, not counting the Scripture reading given by another elder. Many people have told me they appreciated it very much.

I discussed the fact that nature has been disrupted by the "curse on the ground" which came because of man's sin (Gen. 3:17). I also speculated that part of this degeneration in nature may have come about as a result of the flash of radiation that would have accompanied a temporary increase in the rate of nuclear decay--something strongly indicated by the findings of Dr. Russell Humphreys and others that there is way too much radiogenic helium in granitic zirconium that has not diffused out yet. Link to article: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium_lo_res.pdf

I also cited the Apostle Paul's discussion of why God subjected nature to pain and travail in Romans 8:19-23. It was for "our sakes" and nature will be restored to perfection when the children of God are restored to perfection.

There are several ways in which the degeneration of nature is for our sakes. Not just because our failure as divinely-appointed stewards of the earth opened nature to the consequences of our sin, but also to teach us the seriousness of sin, as emphasized by the blood sacrifices in the religion of the patriarchs and in the sanctuary, that sin leads to death.

My personal suggestion is that there is yet another purpose. God has ordained that nature should give us an object lesson of where sin's principle of selfish striving leads. Do we think it is OK to sabatoge a co-worker so we can win a position we are competing for? Look at nature, and see where such selfish striving ultimately leads, what kind of world it produces. If our children try to build themselves up by disparaging their siblings, then point them to the lesson of nature, so they can realize where selfish striving leads.

And remember the promise, that nature will benefit when the children of God are glorified. I believe that when God populates the New Earth, He will resurrect many of the animals that lived with us in history, as compensation and reward for the instructive role they played in encouraging us to turn from sin. Wouldn't it be ironic if the failed prophet Baalim is not there, but his donkey is?

[Dr. Shane]

In my church (Eight Mile Plains in Brisbane, Australia) there are 2 PhD holders with research jobs, one of who has discussed her YEC views with me, and probably half a dozen medical doctors, afaik with similar views.

There are a lot of scientists that believe in God and even in the literal account of creation in the Bible. The issue is what to do with scientists and others that believe in evolution. I have never heard anyone say they should be disfellowshipped. The discussion is if they should be employed by the church in a teaching position or nominated to positions within the church of teaching. The controversy is about evolutionists teaching others in the church to doubt the Biblical account.

[Bravus]

Hmm, still no citation for the claim of changed nuclear decay rates. Unsurprising...

Shane, I agree that the teaching roles are the issue at the moment, but you have to recognise that the extreme hostility shown to all scientists, to science and to higher education as part of the debate is unhelpful in helping believing scientists feel welcome in the church.

[Ron Lambert]

Sorry Bravus, I meant to send you a link, but got sidetracked. Here is one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp

"Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory"

"Here I report the experimental demonstration of radioactive decay-rate acceleration by an astonishing nine orders of magnitude. It requires special conditions but, in and of itself, no alteration of known physical constants."

And what snarky kind of insinuation were you making when you commented, "Unsurprising"? That is hardly constructive or Christian. You owe me an apology.

[Guest]

Is Bravus being snarky again?

[Dr. Shane]

I have not been on a nominating committee that had to deal with the possible nomination of an evolutionist to a teaching position. I have been involved with in the process with legalists being nominated and there was concern over what they would teach others. We are not going to run legalists out of our church but we are right to keep them from teaching positions. I think the same should apply to evolutionists.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have just seen your link. Thank you for it. I have not had the time to give it the thought that I need to evaulatte it. SO, anyting that I say now is subject to future revision:

1) Propnents of the so-called Big Bang would be the first to state that in the first moments of time, after the bang, the laws of physics, as we know them now, did not exist.

2) I believe that they would be willing to state that in those early moments, nuclear decay may not have been as we know it today.

3) Weakened nuclear force: I will have to give more thought to this. Of course, in those early moments, we probably kinow nothing about nuclear force.

4) I personally know of solid SDA PhD physicists whom I believe would state that the article speculates beyond the hard evidence. There is a whole lot of supposition there.

Well, Bravus, if I am out on a limb without support, feel free to tell us so.

[Dr. Shane]

There is a lot of speculation and assumptions being made whenever we look at hard evidence today and try to figure out exactly how it became the way it is now. Nuclear physics is itself pretty complex when we just stay in the here and now.

[Bravus]

Wasn't trying to be snarky or rude, and you have my whole-hearted apology, Ron, if I came across that way. I think this is partly a cultural difference: Aussies have a bone-dry, laconic style of humour in which sarcasm is friendly joshing, where Americans tend to use sarcasm almost exclusively in a hostile way. I should have remembered that and apologise for not doing so.

I've read that article at Answers in Genesis, and it pointed me to the original report of the experiment:

Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996.

Here's the abstract for that paper:

Quote:

We observed the bound-state β- decay of fully ionized 187Re nuclei circulating in a storage ring. With two independent methods the time dependent growth of hydrogenlike 187Os ions has been measured and a half-life of 32.9±2.0 yr for bare 187Re nuclei could be determined, to be compared with 42 Gyr for neutral 187Re atoms. With the resulting logft value of 7.87±0.03 the half-life of 187Re ions in any ionization state can be calculated. Thus one can correct the 187Re-187Os galactic chronometer calibration, by taking account of the β- decay enhancement in stellar interiors, which will lead to a more accurate estimate of the galactic age.

It also led me to this more recent (2007) review article:

http://www.geochronometria.pl/pdf/geo_27/Geo27_05.pdf

It clarifies that the 1996 Bosch paper referred to a specific, unusual case of beta-decay: bound-state rather than continuum-state beta-decay. It is this bound-state decay that is believed to be speeded up by heating.

These authors state:

"Of course, the bound-state beta decay of 187Re isotope in terrestrial conditions is quite negilible but in terms of stellar nucleosynthesis plays a significant role."

So, bottom line: it's definitely an extremely interesting finding that one specific case of nuclear decay is *not* atmosphere-independent. It's definitely a finding that needs to be followed up and discussed further.

It does invalidate at least a very simplistic version of geochronology that assumes all radioactive decay rates are always atmosphere-independent. It should not be over-generalised, however, to claim that all radioactive decay rates *were* changed by temperature... and the temperatures required to achieve the fully-ionised state required would have the same kinds of effect of melting the planet that I've talked about here before.

And the original Answers in Genesis article also acknowledges, appropriately, that even this 9 orders of magnitude rate change is not sufficient for the purposes of recent creationists, and that they'd need to account for a *further* 5 orders of magnitude.

[olger]

olger says "If we tolerate unbiblical teaching, eventually we will be dealing with ungodly behavior."

g

[Guest]

The way we keep them out is on page 2. That way they don't have time to act up.

[olger]

Excellent ~~!!

[Ron Lambert]

Accepted, Bravus. I have known some Aussies, and while generally they were very friendly, they could sometimes be a bit hard-nosed, too. What is that saying about using a sledge hammer where a flyswatter would do?

You have caught the basic point--it has undeniably and without contradiction been proven in the laboratory that under certain conditions, some forms of nuclear decay are NOT constant, and can be altered as much as nine orders of magnitude (billions of times faster). This then being proven, it can no longer be claimed that nuclear decay rates are always constant and unchanging. And if this one incidence has been found, where matter is heated up to the plasma state, how can we deny that there might be other conditions yet to be discovered where the rate of nuclear decay can change, as well?

Frankly, I do not believe I need to come up with a natural mechanism whereby God created the trees of Eden with apparent age. Nor do I feel I need to come up with a natural mechanism whereby God could create a mature universe, with light from every remote point reaching to every other remote point, so the universe is filled with light, and not utterly dark. This is where the character of the Creator becomes a valid factor in understanding ultimate origins. Neglecting the Creator Himself in trying to account for the existence and origin of the universe is as foolish as trying to figure out how the Gold Gate Bridge "built itself," without taking cognizance of the architect.

But the possibility that at times in the past, the rate of nuclear decay may have been changed even temporarily, has interesting implications--such as for the "curse on the ground," mentioned in Genesis 3:17, which apparently resulted in vast mutations and degeneration in nature (thorns and thistles, fangs and claws).

[Stan]

Biblical teaching follows experience of someone with Godly Behavior..

What is in a person minds is dwarfed by what comes out of person mouth.

[Guest]

Biblical teaching follows experience of someone with Godly Behavior..

What is in a person minds is dwarfed by what comes out of person mouth.

That's downright profound Stan. I know I am certainly guilty of dwarfing my thoughts then.

[bonnie]

Biblical teaching follows experience of someone with Godly Behavior..

What is in a person minds is dwarfed by what comes out of person mouth.

Seems to me that the bible says "out of the heart(mind) the mouth speaketh"

[epaminondas]

epaminondas, building an argument based on attacking a few individuals who were manifestly guilt of sloppy thinking, is propaganda only, not valid debate. Implying that they are representative is unwarranted and unfair.

The questions you raise about nature, why--in the words of Tennyson--God would create "nature red in tooth and claw," are good questions. I presented a sermon on this subject at my church on September 5, 2009: "Why Red in Tooth and Claw?" The sermon was recorded, and you can listen to it at: http://www.nhchurch.org/joomla/images/mp3/sermons/2009/september5.mp3

It is only about 15 minutes long, not counting the Scripture reading given by another elder. Many people have told me they appreciated it very much.

I discussed the fact that nature has been disrupted by the "curse on the ground" which came because of man's sin (Gen. 3:17). I also speculated that part of this degeneration in nature may have come about as a result of the flash of radiation that would have accompanied a temporary increase in the rate of nuclear decay--something strongly indicated by the findings of Dr. Russell Humphreys and others that there is way too much radiogenic helium in granitic zirconium that has not diffused out yet. Link to article: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium_lo_res.pdf

I also cited the Apostle Paul's discussion of why God subjected nature to pain and travail in Romans 8:19-23. It was for "our sakes" and nature will be restored to perfection when the children of God are restored to perfection.

There are several ways in which the degeneration of nature is for our sakes. Not just because our failure as divinely-appointed stewards of the earth opened nature to the consequences of our sin, but also to teach us the seriousness of sin, as emphasized by the blood sacrifices in the religion of the patriarchs and in the sanctuary, that sin leads to death.

My personal suggestion is that there is yet another purpose. God has ordained that nature should give us an object lesson of where sin's principle of selfish striving leads. Do we think it is OK to sabatoge a co-worker so we can win a position we are competing for? Look at nature, and see where such selfish striving ultimately leads, what kind of world it produces. If our children try to build themselves up by disparaging their siblings, then point them to the lesson of nature, so they can realize where selfish striving leads.

And remember the promise, that nature will benefit when the children of God are glorified. I believe that when God populates the New Earth, He will resurrect many of the animals that lived with us in history, as compensation and reward for the instructive role they played in encouraging us to turn from sin. Wouldn't it be ironic if the failed prophet Baalim is not there, but his donkey is?

Ron, you are preaching to the converted here. These problems are very real for many people. For some it just provides an excuse to not believe, but others see that as serious problems without answers tipping the scales away from a loving God.

Condense it down to at most two pages. Choose words stating the case so well that there can be no question about it. Then get it out to these people.

One reason God allows all suffering is maybe because He knows whatever anyone or thing suffers here on Earth is nothing compared to eternity. And what happens down here is just a preparation for eternity.