> The 'contrary evidence to be denied or explained away' is really
>conflicts of interpretations of the evidence rather than the evidence (or
>data) itself. Interpretations can be accepted, denied, or reinterpreted
>without affecting the evidence. Often times, interpretation of evidence is
>confused with and/or condsidered inseperable from the actual experiential
However, often the evidence itself is denied. Usually this seems to
reflect ignorance, coupled with erroneous assumptions about what to expect.
For example, claims that the geologic column was invented in support of
evolution ignore two lines of evidence. First, there is the historical
evidence that the geologic column was developed before Darwin published The
Origin of Species. Secondly, there is the physical evidence of the layers
in the earth. The existence of this evidence is at least implicitly
acknowledged by those advocates of flood geology who try to present an
explanation of how the Flood could have created the appearance of a
geologic column. To present such a model does not necessarily deny the
evidence, as Allen points out, but to juxtapose such a model with the claim
that the geologic column is merely the product of atheistic self-delusion
is self-contradictory as well as denying evidence.
>The reason for this is that death (of man and animal, but not of plants),
>as interpreted from the witness evidence, never happened on the planet (nor
>throughout the universe) prior to the fall of man.
Unless one follows the interpretations of Augustine, Calvin, Buckland, or
various other pre-1859 commentators as well as many later ones.
>Many YECs do accept such an all encompassing change at the fall, however, I
>find it hard to swallow. I allow for all the laws of thermodynamics (as
>invented, designed and made by God) to hold true from the oldest origins.
>This still eliminates the possibility and probablity of abiogenesis and
>Darwinian evolution in all its modern forms.
Actually, the laws of thermodynamics do not rule out abiogenesis nor common
descent without intelligent intervention. The sun is producing enormous
amounts of energy, which is lost into space. Some of it gets used on earth
along the way. The net entropy of the universe increases even though
something may get organized locally, because the amount of energy expended
in organizing is greater than the amount of energy stored by organizing.
If I were to clean my room, its entropy would decrease, but in doing so
some of the chemical energy previously stored in my tissues would be
dispersed as heat and would thereby become very difficult to put to any
further use, and the particles in the air would have slightly more energy
and entropy than before. Likewise, the formation of complex molecules or
systems, whether in the growth of an organism or in possible abiogenesis,
is possible if there is an input of energy, but much of that energy is
wasted through dispersal to the environment. How feasible aboigenesis may
be from a chemical perspective is not known, but it is possible from