Sunspots 997

 

Joel Duff has posted a thorough examination of the use of "design" by Christians, and argues, successfully, I believe, that there is a fundamental flaw in the Intelligent Design movement.

Duff has also posted a refutation of the frequent claim by young-earth creationists that evolution is not real science, because we can't observe it in action. He points out that baraminology can't be real science, either, if observing it unfold is necessary.

Neuroscience News reports on research showing that ability to sense and produce music is part of the nature of animals and humans.

Gizmodo reports that the use of artificial intelligence is adding to work loads, rather than cutting them.

Gizmodo also reports that Vice-President Vance believes that UFOs are demons.

NPR reports that some types of roaches form pair bonds. (These are not typical household roaches. There are many kinds of roach.)

Sunspots 996

 

Gizmodo reports on betting on Christ's return.

NPR points out two simple tests to tell us if food is ultra-processed,

The Naturalis Historia blog has a solid post on how Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have dismissed the strong Christian faith of the founders of the science of geology.

NPR on why we say "um" so much.

Also from NPR, a report that the Food and Drug Administration has acted to make genetic therapy on patients with rare diseases more treatable.

Thanks for looking!

Sunspots 972

Some things that I have spotted that may be of interest to others:

Joel Duff is perhaps the most articulate anti-Young-earth creationist blogger. He understands criticism, and knows the literature. When I  previously looked his posts, they were not entirely textual, but were mostly YouTube videos. That's not true now. His work includes videos, but the content of the video is generally also presented in text form, where it can be quoted, and where users can see what Duff has to say without disturbing anyone who doesn't want to listen. A recent post concerns the realization, by many Young-Earth Creationists, that it is impossible to explain supposed effects of the Flood, over a brief time period. Here's Duff's post: (The title begins with "Divine Intervention in Geology." an intriguing subject.)

One of my readers noted that the post above had an incorrect link. I believe that it is now corrected, and thank that reader.

Scientific American has a good article on how and why many trees change color in the fall.

Thanks for looking! I hope to publish Sunspots from time to time, but have ceased publishing every week.

The Six-Day War in Creationism, by Gene Nouhan

There are several books that seriously criticize Young-Earth Creationism, as it is taught by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG), and others. The Six-Day War in Creationism: A New Critique of the Young Earth Reform Movement and Its Excesses is the most thorough such book that I have read. It's also the longest. The length and content of that title gives a hint of that thoroughness, and length. 

Author Gene Nouhan  carefully considers the meaning of the Bible's original languages, and concludes that the Bible wasn't meant to say that the earth is but a few thousand years old, and doesn't. His related main criticism of the Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) movement is that its advocates do not usually explicitly claim that you have to agree with them for your eternal salvation, but that they argue so strongly for a YEC interpretation (never mind the lack of evidence) that the message that comes across is that only YEC believers can be saved.

Nouhan doesn't attempt to rule out a six day creation by examining scientific evidence. Others have done so, explaining that a young earth isn't consistent with geological, biological, or paleological findings. Nouhan's base is the original words in the Bible, as far as we can know them. I am not a scholar of biblical language, but Nouhan seems convincing. He calls upon logic and common sense.

Two other books that I recommend are not as thorough, but seem sound in Biblical scholarship, and make some important points. (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible, by Ben Stanhope, deflates claims from AiG that the Bible teaches that dinosaurs were contemporary with people in Noah's time, based on his analysis of the language of the Old Testament. Why does AiG make such claims? One possibility is that they genuinely believe that the Bible teaches that. Another possibility is that, as a culture, we are excited by dinosaurs -- see Jurassic Park, etc., the Flintstones, news reports on newly discovered fossils, and many other phenomena -- and that AiG is using this fascination to raise interest, attendance, and money. Stanhope considers archaeology, and some of the sciences, as well as history. An important sample is 

It’s historically outrageous to suppose a global flood ... [is] supposed to have managed to blast out the Grand Canyon in North America and fossilize the dinosaurs in Uzbekistan but couldn’t put a dent in the Sphinx at Giza or other hundreds of Egyptian sites and entire civilizations constructed far earlier and well documented as alive and well through this period. If you accept the calculation that a global flood occurred in 2300 BC, you absurdly end up having to compress or explain away nearly all of the world’s chronological and archaeological evidence dating to before the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period.

The Heresy of Ham: What Every Evangelical Needs to Know About the Creation-Evolution Controversy, by Joel Edmund Anderson, argues that AiG believes, and teaches, that Young-Earth Creationism is one of the foundational beliefs of the church, which belief is a heresy. Here's a quotation from the book:

... heresy is not limited to simply wrong teaching about something. It also can involve undue emphasis of a particular theological point or view, and actually elevate a secondary or non-essential issue to a level of primacy, equal to the resurrection of Christ.

And Anderson (and Nouhan) believe that AiG and those it influences and agrees with have done exactly that.

Nouhan's book is not perfect. There are a few things that the editor missed, such as using "tenant" when "tenet" was what was meant. The acronym SDWC is commonly used, but never expanded. (It means "Six Day War in Creationism," of course. There are hundreds of footnotes. Some of them, to web sources, don't give the UUL but give the site's name (Answers in Genesis, for example) and the date. Some of those sources would be hard to fine. Some footnotes are not to an outside source, but give part of Nouhan's argument. I'm not clear as to why these are not part of the main text. Finally, Nouhan overuses italics. When it doubt, italicize, seems to be his thinking. These are minor flaws, or maybe flaws at all. It's a good book.

Thanks for reading!

The following graphic does not directly relate to this post, but it's my blog. It's impossible to take Genesis 1 and 2 as two straightforward sequential lists of events:

 

"An Open Letter to Ken Ham"

The Sparks blog has posted an open letter to Ken Ham, which is well worth reading.

Heat caused by a world-wide flood -- Answers in Genesis says the amount is too great for a natural explanation

A recent article in Answers Research Journal, the science publication organ of Answers in Genesis, states that Young-earth/world-wide flood models would mean that there would have been an enormously too great an amount of heat for the earth to have survived as we know it. Here's a quotation from the article:

"The main conclusion of this article is that the total amount of geological heat deposited in the formation of the ocean floors and of LIPs [Large Igneous Processes] is overwhelming: it cannot be removed from the biosphere within a biblically-compatible timescale by known natural processes. Using CPT-style [Catastrophic Plate Tectonics] Flood models as our theoretical framework, no more than a tiny fraction of the total could have been released into the atmosphere and oceans during and after the Flood."

The article indicates that this problem for Young-earth creationism has been known among Young-earth geologists for decades. I am not a geologist, and make no claim to understand the geology behind the article. I do understand, however, that a Young-Earth Creationist is stating, in a publication dedicated to the proposition that the earth is but a few thousand years old, that there are no natural processes that would explain the state of the earth's crust now, if a young earth explanation is attempted. Not surprisingly, the author suggests that there was miraculous intervention associated with the Flood.

Answers in Genesis on the vapor-canopy hypothesis (aka the firmament)

The King James version uses the term "firmament" in Genesis 1. Other versions of the Bible use other terms, such as canopy or expanse.

It doesn't matter much. Many Young-Earth Creationists (YEC), especially Answers in Genesis (AiG), the most prominent YEC organization, have stopped pushing the existence of a firmament. Here are some links to AiG articles:

"Running out of Puff."

"What is the State of the Water Vapor Canopy Model?"

"The Collapse of the Canopy Model"

There may well be more such.

All of these articles were published in the AiG official web site, and deny the necessity of a vapor canopy. Rejection of the firmament/vapor canopy is for several reasons, such as one would make stars very difficult to see (and apparently people in Bible times were familiar with the appearance of the stars.) Another reason is that a firmament would increase global warming, probably making life impossible.

I appreciate the abandonment of the vapor-canopy model by AiG. (Not all Christians, probably even not all Christians trained in science, have rejected it, unfortunately.)

More on animal variety after the Flood

In a previous post, "Young-earth creationism and the kinds of animals," I examined claims of Answers in Genesis (AiG) the most important young-earth creationist organization at this time. Among their claims is a proposal that, upon leaving the Ark, each individual (or each pair, or each group of seven) animals produced many kinds of offspring -- new species -- apparently almost as soon as the Ark landed. As far as I know, there is no credible scientific evidence for this theory. AiG is claiming that there was rapid evolution (although they seldom use that word) at this time, but that evolutionary processes were not responsible for the development of the species that went into the Ark. So evolution is both responsible, and not responsible, for speciation.

This sort of hyperevolution is a new belief among AiG leaders. It would have been seriously doubted and denied by young-earth creationists a few decades ago.

Does AiG still believe in hyper-evolution? Yes. I was doing an internet search on the question of whether the mustard seed is really the smallest seed. (Mark 4:31) I found this in an AiG publication:

"Evolutionists are assuming that the seed sizes we observe in the present were the same in the past. It is quite possible that some or all of the plants with smaller seeds had yet to differentiate into the species we observe today. The jewel orchids, for example, might not have branched from the originally created orchid kind at the point Jesus made his statement."

Note that the quote includes the idea of plants becoming new species, presumably at some time after the Flood. "Yet to differentiate into the species"

Jewel orchids have smaller seeds than mustard.

I was glancing at a list of recent AiG publications, and found this, by Ken Ham, head of AiG: "We also know that God created a great variety of genetic information into each kind so that they could adapt to their environment and branch out into different species."

No doubt, many other AiG publications and other communications put forward the idea that, upon leaving the Ark, organisms reproduced an amazing variety of species, using some sort of God-created hyperevolutionary mechanism, with built-in directions for diversifying -- not merely natural natural selection, because there hasn't been enough time since the Flood.

Thanks for reading!

What did the animals on Noah's Ark look like?

An article published by Answers in Genesis complains about illustrations of the animals on Noah's Ark, often found in children's books, and elsewhere. (It complains about other things, but I'll try to stick to a discussion of what the animals on the ark looked like.)

Here is a quotation from the article:

Zebras, Clydesdales, and donkeys are all part of the horse kind and came to look like they do today since the Flood as part of the one horse kind. Species and the biblical kind are not necessarily the same things. The original horse kind likely had features resembling each of these. They diversified into what we have today through natural selection in the wild and artificial selection for man’s benefit. The same is true with the cat kind. Domestic cats, lions, bobcats, tigers, and so on, are all varieties in the one cat kind that have developed through variation since the Flood. It is better to draw generic representatives of each kind ...

Let's re-state that section of the article. The author, speaking for Answers in Genesis (AiG), claims that the animals on the Ark did not look a lot like the animals of today. Why is that claim made? The main reasons are that AiG believes that there was a world-wide flood, about 2348 BC, and that all land animals descended from creatures that were rescued on the Ark. AiG also believes that there would not have been room for each species of animal (and food needed to keep them alive) on that vessel, so that there were, instead, founders of each kind, which, since the Flood, diversified rapidly into the multitude of species that live on earth now. (Apparently this sort of belief has not been around for very long in AiG circles, but it is strongly held now.) In other words, the quotation says, there were no tigers or lions, etc., on the Ark, just a pair of cat family ancestors - generic representatives. So how did approximately 40 living species of cats come about? (And some additional extinct ones -- AiG belief is that extinct animals became extinct after the Flood.) AiG's answer is that there was rapid evolution (although they seldom use that word) after the Flood, and that all of these, living and extinct, are descendants of the pair of cat ancestors that were on the Ark. AiG thinks that distinguishing features didn't arise until after the animals came off of the ark -- the cat ancestors probably didn't have stripes, a mane, spots, cheetah-like speed, the ability to climb trees, and other features now found in one or a few species of the cat family, but not the entire family.

Another AiG source says this: "Recent studies estimate the total number of living and extinct kinds of land animals and flying creatures to be about 1,500. With our “worst-case” scenario approach to calculating the number of animals on the Ark, this would mean that Noah cared for approximately 7,000 animals." [pairs or sevens of each kind]

That seems like a lot, but according to my calculations, there are over 31,000 species of animals alive on earth today, to say nothing of extinct ones. That would mean that each of the kinds on the Ark would, on average, have diversified into about 20 species each, all within less than 4600 years.

That's preposterous, of course. Such rapid and extensive speciation, in vertebrates, has not been observed. Biologists generally believe that new species can't develop unless isolated from others in the same line in some way, either by being geographically separated, by mating at different times, or other behavioral differences, or by hybrid sterility. Cave art does not seem to indicate that early humans saw animals that were substantially different than those we see today. Although the Bible does not describe vertebrate animals in any detail, the behavior described (lions as predators, for example) does not suggest that lions, in Bible times, were much, if any, different from those that live today. Samson and David had interactions with lions. Jacob's blessing on his son Judah includes this: Genesis 49:9 "Judah is a lion’s cub. From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down, he crouched as a lion, as a lioness. Who will rouse him up?" Jacob died in about 2000 BC. Samson lived at about 100 years before David, who lived at about 1000 BC. (For my post, indicating all the mentions of lions in the Bible, see here.) As I indicated, the Bible does not describe animals definitively, but it sounds like, by the time of Jacob, as well as Samson and David, lions were like those alive today. If they hyperevolved somehow, from an ancestral cat type, this would have happened in less than 400 years, using AiG's timeline.

It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to suppose that the Flood was not world-wide, and that cats, and other animals, diverged over a much longer period of time.

For an expanded discussion of these ideas, see my post here.

It seems to me that it's OK to put lions, tigers, bears, donkeys, giraffes, etc., in illustrations of Noah's Ark. We don't really know if there was a world-wide Flood, and the proposal that children's Bible story art be based on unproven, even false, ideas is dangerous.

Sidelight 1: By the time of Zechariah, about 500 BC, horses, mules and donkeys must have diverged, although, even today, they haven't completely diverged, as mules are the offspring of a donkey-horse mating. According to AiG, that divergence took place after the ark. According to all sorts of other evidence, it took place over a much longer time.

Zechariah 14:15 "So will be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the donkey, and of all the animals that will be in those camps, as that plague." The Masoretic Text uses three different names for the members of the horse family named in this verse, indicating that there were three different animals, all horse-like. (The King James uses "ass" instead of donkey.) The use of these words goes back way before Zachariah -- for example, Pharaoh's army included horse-drawn chariots.

Sidelight 2: The author of the quotation at the beginning of this post, and AiG, should be commended for at least one thing. The author says that artists often portray Adam and Eve as white, or white, blue-eyed blondes, and states that this is most likely not the way that they really looked.

Thanks for reading.

*Added November 6, 2023: The article from AiG also includes this complaint (and over a dozen others): "Not including dinosaurs and pterodactyls (e.g., dragons) on the Ark"

Denis Lamoureux on the Bible and ancient science

Denis Lamoureux has written a good book. The title is The Bible & Ancient Science: Principles of Interpretation. (Note that there's an ampersand, not an "and" in the title.) The point, made over and over, by analyzing the original language of the Bible, is that the Bible was written from the standpoint of ancient science.

Lamoureux discusses the statement, by Jesus, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed (it isn't) in Mark 4:30-32. Jesus wasn't teaching botany, nor was He mistaken, or lying. He was speaking to the people of the day, using the knowledge that they had. The message, about the Kingdom, was far more important than the size of the seed.
 

The author also discusses the beliefs of Biblical writers on human reproduction. They thought that a woman was merely a sort of field, where the male implanted something which grew into a child. Infertility was always the "fault" of the woman. The Bible reflects that belief. Again, the Bible isn't a text on human reproduction. It's a text on God's plan of redemption, and false beliefs about peripheral issues are just that, peripheral.

Another item. The Biblical authors thought that the earth was circular and flat, surrounded by water, and that there was a solid firmament above it. But Genesis 1-2 isn't a textbook of astronomy, geology, meteorology or oceanography. It was written from the standpoint of the beliefs of the people of the day, and tells us that God is creator, that the creation was good, that humans sinned and need a Redeemer. There is no firmament, even though the Bible writers thought that there is. The earth is not flat -- careful study of the Hebrew of the Bible, which Lamoureux appears well-qualified to do, shows that the Bible does not teach that the earth is a globe, but describes it as if it was flat.

(The illustration above is not from the book)

Lamoureux, like many others, points out that the apparent sequences of events in Genesis 1 vs. 2 seem to be contradictory. But Genesis 1-2 was not meant to be taken as a literal, step-by-step account (or accounts) of what happened at the beginning, and it isn't that. Does this downgrade the Bible, or the Gospel? No, argues Lamoureux. The first part of Genesis was made to teach eternal truths, namely that one God created, without using stuff from some other entity, that creation was good, and that sin entered the world.

Although he doesn't mention Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis much, the book demonstrates that the AiG thesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, is not really based on scripture, in spite of what AiG believes  the Bible says. Lamoureux directly criticizes the writings of Henry Morris, the most important young-earth creationist of the 20th century, for the same reason -- he took Bible passages that were not meant to be taken literally, and not meant to describe the world in terms that we would use now, and took them literally, and as if they describe the world as we now understand it.

There's more serious, and good, thinking and teaching in the book.

I was pleased to be able to read this in Kindle format, using my Kindle Unlimited membership. But the Kindle version's type size was almost too small to read on my 9 inch tablet, and, unlike most books in Kindle format, the type size can't be changed on this one. 

Thanks for reading. Read Lamoureux.

Sunspots 820

 Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

The Arts: (And archaeology) A 17,000 year old conch shell, apparently modified for producing sound, has been found.

Christianity: Joel Duff examines the reach of the most important young-earth creationist outlets.

Computing: Gizmo's Freeware recommends a site where you can find out about abbreviations and acronyms.

Gizmo's also pointed to HotSymbol, from which lots of symbols and emojis may be easily copied: 🙄

Education: (or something) An 8-year-old complained to National Public Radio, saying that there weren't enough stories about dinosaurs on NPR's "All Things Considered."

Relevant has a post on black history in the US.

Finance: (or something) Amazon has a use for used cardboard boxes, according to Gizmodo.

Humor: (or something) Listverse shows us 10 kitchen gadgets that you don't need.

Politics: FiveThirtyEight on why it is unlikely that there will be a successful third (or fourth) party.

(And Christianity) Christianity Today reports on a survey that indicates that quite a few white evangelicals are believers in QAnon.

FiveThirtyEight on the power of Trump loyalists in state and local politics.

Science: Gizmodo on missions to Mars (The UAE, China, and the US are involved, separately), which are so active now, and what these missions hope to accomplish.

Gizmodo also reports on research on pigs that are able to play video games -- and win.

And Gizmodo reports on new types of living things, found under the Antarctic ice.

The graphic used in these posts is from NASA, hence, it is free to use like this.

Thanks for looking!

Sunspots 793

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Christianity: Weekend Fisher sees the world more clearly, because of COVID.

Environment: As the Antarctic heats up, some penguins are better off, some are much worse off, says Gizmodo.

Gizmodo also reports that hurricane prediction numbers have been increased over previous predictions.

NPR reports that, in addition to trying to save tigers and whales, we should be concerned about tapeworms and other parasites.

Finance: (or something) Gizmodo reports that people are working longer hours during this pandemic.

Health: NPR reports that airlines can require passengers to wear masks.

History: He Lives argues that being a believer in a young earth, as apparently most of the church fathers did, is not the same thing as being a young-earth creationist today.

Politics: Ken Schenck talks about race, and points out a variety of white responses to the topic.

FiveThirtyEight says that most Americans don't want to postpone the November 3 election.

Science: Gizmodo reports that it's relatively easy to measure tire wear, and detect nails, by radar.

Gizmodo also reports on studies of Jupiter's atmosphere, including lightning and mushy hail.

The graphic used in these posts is from NASA, hence, it is free to use like this.

Thanks for looking!

Todd Charles Wood, Young-Earth Creationist, on the death of Glenn Morton, ex-Young-Earth Creationist

Todd Charles Wood is a young-earth creationist, perhaps the most significant scientist who believes that the earth is not very old. He has had helpful discussions with old-earth creationists, as well as other young-earth creationists. His blog is must reading for me. He recently published a tribute to Glenn R. Morton, who died a few days ago. Morton was a young-earth creationist geologist who came to doubt young-earth creationism because YEC explanations didn't explain the geology he found as a petroleum geologist. Not only that, but Morton asked other practicing geologists, trained by the Institute for Creation Research, as he had been, if there was anything they were taught there that actually helped them in their work. None of them could name one fact or phenomenon that did so.

In his tribute, Wood laments the treatment of Morton, whose Christianity was frequently questioned, as he began to be more open about his doubt of  YEC. And, says Wood, he's been there, although he is a staunch proponent of YEC. A prominent YECer called him a heretic last week, apparently for questioning some part of YEC doctrine.

Says Wood: There's something really defective in a group that deals with disagreement by demonizing the opposition and excommunicating people who think differently.  That's how cults work.  That's how con artists work.  But I think it's even worse than that.  If you say you can only be a good Christian if you believe in young-age creationism, you just added something to the gospel.  That makes the you the actual heretic!

Beliefs in origins are secondary to the gospel, and Christians should remain in fellowship with others who differ in their beliefs on this subject, as Wood tries to do.

Thanks for reading!

 

*  *  *  *  *

Added August 15, 2020: The Panda's Thumb, a mostly anti-creation blog, has published a tribute to Morton.

The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton

I recently read John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, which, judging by things I had read about it, is an important book. It lived up to what I had heard.

What lost world is Walton discussing? It is the worldview of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture, the culture of the human author of Genesis, and of those who heard and read that book. Walton believes that we, living in the 21st century, have our own worldview, and that we often do not understand that another one is possible, or, in the case of ANE people, that a different worldview is to be expected, let alone understood.

Walton does not believe that we, of the 21st century, mean the same thing about God’s creation, in the first chapter of Genesis, as the people of the ANE meant and understood. His book summarizes what Walton believes is a major consequence of our worldview, so different from that of the human writer(s?) of Genesis one. Walton states that “I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins.” But, he says,

Most interpreters have generally thought that Genesis 1 contains an account of material origins because that was the only sort of origins that our material culture was interested in. It wasn’t that scholars examined all the possible levels at which origins could be discussed; they presupposed the material aspect.

and All of this indicates that cosmic creation in the ancient world was not viewed primarily as a process by which matter was brought into being, but as a process by which functions, roles, order, jurisdiction, organization and stability were established.

As an example, Walton uses the sun and moon. ANE culture didn't understand that the sun and the moon were large bodies beyond our atmosphere, nor that the moon was in orbit around the earth, and the earth was in orbit around the sun. The ANE understanding of Genesis 1:14-18 would have resembled someone painting, or installing, these lights on the the firmament. Walton sees that passage as about function, not about creating from nothing, and notes that Genesis 1 indicates the functions of what we now think of as heavenly bodies:

Genesis 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, 18a and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. (World English Bible, public domain)

By the way, ANE culture believed that the clouds and the heavenly bodies were held up, and in place, by a transparent sphere, a ceiling, the firmament. There isn't a firmament. Does that mean that the Bible is in error? Not so. The Bible is inerrant, but inerrant in what it affirms, not in what it reports or adjusts to in the culture of the time it was written. It doesn’t affirm ANE concepts of astronomy, nor, for that matter, 21st century concepts of astronomy. It just reports them, or uses them. Walton points out that we usually talk and write as if the sky really was blue, (It is often red or pink near dawn and sunset. For the reasons for that, see this Scientific American article.) and as if the sun really rose and set. Neither is really true, but, if some portion of the Bible were to be written today, and made reference to these phenomena, it would not be in error, unless blue sky and a rising sun were an integral part of the message of the gospel.

There are other ANE concepts that we no longer hold, such as that the earth is flat, with four corners.

To Walton, Genesis 1 was not meant, by God, to be taken as sequential history, setting forth a literal description of God’s acts in making things. Rather, it was meant to contradict other creation stories, about false gods, and to describe God’s work in making a functioning, harmonious earth, with its inhabitants.

Walton discusses the first three days, so-called, from Genesis 1, and concludes that they, as described, were meant to credit God for creating time, weather, and food, in that order.

Even humans, says Walton, were mentioned not principally as something made, but as something with functions in God's creation:
Genesis 1:26b “... Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

He also writes that “Of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any material component (days 1, 3 and 7).”

Beside his interpretation of Genesis 1 as describing function, not making, Walton has another important idea, namely that Genesis 1 should be interpreted as God preparing a temple for himself, and, on the seventh day, inhabiting it. Besides his interpretation of what the original Bible language says, Walton has also looked at lots of ancient writings by non-Hebrew ANE authors, and that, too, has influenced his view of what he calls temple inauguration. Walton explicitly denies that Genesis is based on these other writings.

It so happens that I was reading a book by N. T. Wright, an important bible scholar, as part of my devotional reading, while I was writing this. I was surprised to read the following:

When God made the world, he “rested” on the seventh day. This doesn’t just mean that God took a day off. It means that in the previous six days God was making a world—heaven and earth together—for his own use. Like someone building a home, God finished the job and then went in to take up residence, to enjoy what he had built. Creation was itself a temple, the Temple, the heaven-and-earth structure built for God to live in. - N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters

Now, finally, about the age of the earth. Says Walton: If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth.

and “The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth.”

Walton does not claim that he wrote as he did with a view to contradicting Young-Earth Creationism, but, as he says, it is clear that this important Bible scholar is not wedded to YEC.

Thanks for reading!

This graphic below (not from Walton) indicates that it is impossible to read both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as if they were simple narratives, expressing events in sequence as they happened:

Creation Unfolding by Ken Coulson

I recently read Creation Unfolding: A New Perspective on Ex Nihilo (available to read free to Kindle Unlimited members) by Ken Coulson.

It was an interesting book, and I'm glad I read it.

Coulson is a Young-earth creationist (YEC). He is a geologist, not a biologist. The book says very little about biology, nor, of course, about evolution. The author has researched his subject thoroughly, except that he doesn't deal with the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. He takes both chapters as if they were meant to be literal, history-like descriptions.

How is Coulson different from many other YECs? I point out three significant ways.

First, he doesn't believe that nature, general revelation, was meant to reveal God as creator. He puts it this way:
In 1 Corinthians 1:21 (ESV), Paul makes God’s design abundantly clear: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” The world is not allowed to come to know the God of creation by pursuing its own wisdom (e.g., through scientific endeavor). This is by God’s sovereign design.

Coulson goes on to say that, if God had wanted to make His creativity indubitably clear, He could have stamped each child born with a stamp proclaiming this. He doesn't say so, but perhaps, if Coulson had thought of this, he might have said that cloud formations could have said "made by God," in the language appropriate to each area of the world.

There are YECers, and other Christians, who would argue that Psalm 19 and Romans 1 tell us that God has revealed Himself though His creation, and holds us responsible for understanding that. Statements like this are made: "Look at the retina of the eye. (or some other natural wonder) How marvelous it is! You should believe in the God who created it!"

The picture at the top of this post, quoting Hebrews 11:3, indicates that we understand God's creative power through faith, and that perhaps those without faith cannot grasp this.

Second,  here's what he has to say about the Flood:
The Flood of Noah was a real, world-wide watery catastrophe. As such, geological evidence should exist that supports this catastrophe. Many YEC, however, have overstepped the line here by proposing that almost all the world’s sedimentary layers were deposited in the Flood. To think otherwise is sometimes viewed sacrilegiously. Now, it may be that nearly all the Earth’s geological layers were in fact deposited during Noah’s Flood, but there is nothing in Scripture that demands this. For all we know, the entire Flood record could extend to a single geological package of strata that represents a single geological period.

Not many YECers would agree with that.

Third, Coulson introduces a concept, and a term, that, as far as I know, is his, er, creation.

The term is Supernatural Formative Process(es) (SFP) which acronym is abundant throughout the book. For example: "In other words, although Adam’s bones and Eden’s trees would suggest processes leading to real histories, those processes and histories, as with those of the crust’s first crystals, are only apparent." In other words, Coulson argues that the earth, and the surrounding universe, only appear to be billions of years old, because God changed the rates of natural processes. And,

For example, if all rates everywhere in the universe were doubled, the participant would not notice this doubling unless there existed an unaltered rate that could serve as a frame of reference (Poythress 2019, p. 221). I propose that God has provided this frame of reference in the refrain that occurs at the end of each creative day: “And there was evening and there was morning.” This would mean that except for the rhythm of night and day, all other rhythms were accelerated in a time-lapse fashion.

So SPF are "natural" processes, which may be accelerated by God, and, if appropriate, kept in synchrony with other such processes, because the rates of each are sped up proportionally.

Coulson discusses several events, some biblical (like the water being transformed into wine in John 3) and some not so (the discovery of SN1987A, a supernova that looks like the light from it started heading toward us a long time before 6000 BC.)

Although Coulson claims that an appearance of age is not God being deceptive, because God altered various rates of processes, it's hard for me, after reading the book, to accept any Appearance of Age concept without thinking that God has unnecessarily hidden what He has done, and maybe is even being deceptive. God, of course, could have modified all sorts of rates, maybe even all of them except night and day, and presented us with an earth that is, actually, only a few thousand years old, in a universe that is also only a few thousand years old, regardless of their appearance. But did He? I don't think so. Perhaps I'm wrong.

It seems to me, and to many others, in the present, and in the history of the church, that most YECers, including Coulson, are starting from wrong presuppositions, namely that the days of Genesis 1 were consecutive 24-hour days, and that the Bible teaches that the earth, and the universe, were created in about 6000 BC. Many Christians, of the present and the past, believe that the first part of Genesis was not meant to be interpreted in a literal fashion. It is easier for me to believe that it was not so meant, than to believe that God adjusted all sorts of geophysical, chemical, astronomical and biological processes.

For some discussion of the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, see here.

There's also this simple graphic:

Which, I believe, shows that Genesis 1 and 2 cannot both (or either) taken literally.

Thanks for reading!

Sunspots 777

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Christianity: He Lives argues that there are only two kinds of  God's laws.

Christianity Today argues that gullibility is not a spiritual gift, and notes that evangelical Christians are more likely to fall for conspiracy theories than the population at large.

GeoChristian reviews a book about the interaction/discussion between a young-earth creationist, Todd Wood, and an evolutionary creationist, Darrel Falk. They learned to respect each other as Christians.

Relevant has an essay on how Ecclesiastes resonates with the current pandemic.

Environment: NPR reports on a study that shows that outdoor cats have a big impact on birds and small quadrupeds.

Humor: Gizmodo reports that we are living in the golden age of crossword puzzles.
 
Politics: (or something) The US Postal Service is in financial trouble, and some people are suggesting that we buy stamps, as a way of helping it, according to NPR.

FiveThirtyEight discusses what happens if a presidential candidate dies or can't run for office for other reasons. (We have the two oldest candidates ever, running.)

Science: Gizmodo on "Why is it so hard to figure out if the Corona virus is airborne?"

The graphic used in these posts is from NASA, hence, it is free to use like this.
Thanks for looking!

Answers in Genesis believes in evolution, although it's reluctant to use that word

Lest there be any doubt, Answers in Genesis (AiG) believes in evolution, although it is reluctant to use that word: A museum exhibit about the processes associated with “natural selection” and “speciation” throws much light on such questions. Noah actually only needed about 16,000 animals on the Ark to represent all the distinct kinds of land-dwelling animals. The above quote was taken from an AiG source, and is part of the explanation as to how the ark could have held enough animals to become so many species. How? because natural selection after the flood led to abundant speciation!

If natural selection and speciation aren't part of evolution, in fact most of it, I'm not sure what evolution means. Darwin's book title began like this: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection... See here for more on AiG's proposals on how so many animal types came to be.

See here for unrelated problems with the AiG source, which is an attempt to portray the scope of human history.

Added May 19, 2020:
For more on proposed rapid speciation, from AiG and other Young-Earth Creationists, see here.

Added July 18: 2022: Todd C. Wood, a young-earth creationist with solid scientific credentials, discusses this matter briefly, and objects to calling Ken Ham, head of AiG, an evolutionist.

Evidence for a relationship between apes and humans

Young earth creationists sometimes say that it is impossible for humans and the great apes to be descended from a common ancestor, because their genes are more different than you would expect, if that were the case.

I recently read a post, by R. Joel Duff, that has been up for a few years, but is still relevant and interesting. It examines the evidence on the point above, based on mitochondrial DNA. All animals have mitochondria, which are necessary for a cell to obtain energy from food molecules. Mitochondria have only a dozen or so genes, so it is much easier to get a DNA sequence from, say, fox mitochondrial DNA, than from the entire fox genome. Also, mitochondria are passed from one generation to another in the egg cell, with no recombination with male-derived DNA, so there is little change from generation to generation,

Duff examined available data on mitochondrial differences between various animals, including humans. His findings included the following:

Humans vs. Chimpanzees: out of 16569/16569 base pairs, 91.2% were the same.
Red Fox vs. Wolf: out of 13785 fox/16054 wolf base pairs, 86% were the same.
Domestic cat vs. leopard: out of 14352 cat/16206 leopard base pairs, 89% were the same.

For further discussion, more comparisons, and indications of methods, see Duff's post.

Young-earth creationists mostly claim that, following the Ark's landing, less than 5,000 years ago, less than 200 kinds (baramins) of animals were released, and these animals rapidly evolved so as to produce several, perhaps even many, species each. These animals, they say, mostly did not look like the animals of today, or the animals shown in story books about creation, or the Ark. For example, there were a pair, or perhaps seven pairs, of ancestors of all dog/wolf/fox-like animals, which evolved into coyotes, wolves, foxes, wild dogs, dingoes, and more types of present animals, and there were ancestors of all catlike organisms, which evolved into lions, tigers, panthers, ocelots, and more creatures. The "more" is said, by most Young-earth creationists, to include extinct creatures, such as saber-tooth tigers. Answers in Genesis, the most prominent Young-earth creationist organization, says this: "In addition to all the big cats that filled the earth after the Flood and then went extinct (such as the saber-toothed cat), forty species of cats survive."

There is, so far as I know, no scientific, or historical, evidence to support such claims, and what evidence exists from ancient art also does not support them. As far as we can tell, lions, and most other animals, have changed little over the past several thousands of years.

Duff's post is one of many that point out scientific evidence against the current Young-earth creationist paradigm.
 
Duff's conclusion is that, although mitochondrial DNA does not tell the whole story, comparing mitochondrial DNA indicates that the claim, that humans and the great apes are too different to be in the same kind/baramin, does not hold up. The proposed canine and feline kinds/baramins have more differences among them than humans and chimpanzees do between them. Duff also, wisely, says this: "I make no claim that the data I present are convincing evidence of common ancestry or of the lack of common ancestry."

Thanks for reading. Read Duff's post -- in fact, if you can, subscribe to his blog.

Important early theologians didn't believe that creation took six 24-hr days

He Lives quotes from some church fathers, important ones, who didn't believe that creation was in six 24-hour days.

Read He Lives!

Animal suffering in the Old Testament

Jeremiah 14:1 The word of Yahweh that came to Jeremiah concerning the drought. 14:2 Judah mourns, and its gates languish, they sit in black on the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up. 14:3 Their nobles send their little ones to the waters: they come to the cisterns, and find no water; they return with their vessels empty; they are disappointed and confounded, and cover their heads. 14:4 Because of the ground which is cracked, because no rain has been in the land, the plowmen are disappointed, they cover their heads. 14:5 Yes, the hind also in the field calves, and forsakes her young, because there is no grass. 14:6 The wild donkeys stand on the bare heights, they pant for air like jackals; their eyes fail, because there is no herbage. 14:7 Though our iniquities testify against us, work for your name’s sake, Yahweh; for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against you. (World English Bible, public domain. See Joel 1 for a similar passage.)

The above passage indicates a time of animal suffering in Israel, as a result of a drought. Apparently the drought was a consequence of sinfulness in Israel.

For centuries, people have wrestled with the question of suffering in the world. This post will not attempt to present a solution to those wrestlings. However, one aspect of suffering, not as commonly dealt with as human suffering, or, in particular, my suffering, is the suffering of animals. There are at least two important questions related to this topic. The first is the general question: "How could a good God allow animals to suffer?" I refer you to this post, by BioLogos, on this topic.

The second question is "How could God have used natural selection, which involves animal death, to bring about the present diversity of animals?" and the related "How could God have used millions of years of natural selection to bring about the life forms we now have?" The second question implies an argument for young-earth creationism -- "wouldn't it have been more merciful for God to have specially created each type of animal a few thousand years ago, than to have used natural selection for millions of years, to accomplish basically the same thing?"

A few remarks on that subject. First, the vast majority of land/air dwelling organisms are not animals, but plants. Second, natural selection does not always require animal suffering. In many, maybe most cases, animals die of old age without having reproduced successfully, rather than being torn limb from limb by a predator. In many others, they die of starvation, or cold, or disease, or parasites. Some of these deaths may be painful, but perhaps some aren't. (I won't claim, as some have, that animals cannot suffer.) This post, again, from BioLogos, considers suffering and natural selection, and probably brings up ideas you haven't had before.

Some young-earth creationists argue that God wouldn't have allowed natural selection, over a long period, to bring about the organisms which are alive today, in part because God doesn't like animal suffering. But some, maybe the very same, young-earth creationists argue that the Ark held no more than about a thousand different kinds of land animals, of all kinds, and the variety that we have today is due to natural selection, acting much more rapidly than mainstream scientists believe it did. But if that was true (and there are good reasons for doubting it) then lots of animal suffering and death must have occurred after the Ark landed.

Back to animal suffering. If the Flood was, indeed, world-wide (many Bible scholars doubt this) then there would have been massive, world-wide, animal suffering from drowning.

There are many references to hunting and fishing in the Bible, without, so far as I know, a single condemnation of these practices. Jesus, Himself, may have caught fish. 

The Old Testament has lots of references to the use of live animals, which were killed, as part of the rituals of sacrifice. Leviticus 4 is one of these. See 2 Chronicles 29 for a description of the sacrifice of thousands of animals on a single occasion.

Job 4 mentions animal suffering: 10 The roaring of the lion,
    and the voice of the fierce lion,
    the teeth of the young lions, are broken.
11 The old lion perishes for lack of prey.
    The cubs of the lioness are scattered abroad.

So does Psalm 34:10 The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger,
    but those who seek Yahweh shall not lack any good thing.

I see no scriptural justification for being cruel to animals. In fact, there is plenty of scripture teaching that we should care for them.

Thanks for reading!