RE: Kurt Wise on the creation crisis in Christian colleges

From: Tjalle T Vandergraaf <>
Date: Sun Feb 05 2006 - 15:40:05 EST

My response was not based on a misinterpretation of the history of science.
My response was cast in the framework of relating to YECs. In that
relationship, I find it more productive to acknowledge our imperfect
knowledge of past events. As to "occasional goofs," I would add the
Thompson model of the atom, the phlogiston theory, and the incorrect
understanding of the source of solar energy. Ted Davis can add many more,
I'm sure. To us, these "goofs" may appear little more than occasional
hiccups in our quest for understanding but, that's probably because of our
vantage point in the 21st century.


Chuck Vandergraaf\



From: [] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Kurt Wise on the creation crisis in Christian colleges


This response apparently totally misinterprets the history of science.
Copernicus was not abandoned when Kepler refined the orbits and Newton
explained them. Newton wasn't lost when Einstein added a further refinement.
Fact is, Newton's equations are used in every space launch. There are
occasional goofs. I think of N-rays and cold fusion. But they were quickly
spotted. On the other hand, what has been rejected in the absence of
definite evidence, e.g., continental drift, has been accepted when data
became available. I expect that there will be breakthroughs in the future,
but they will build on what we know, not wipe it out.


Matters have not progressed as simply with biology because the developments
are more recent and more complex. However, the work in sequencing, gene
action, protein action, etc., all tie together to indicate that creatures
developed from an original living entity.* The one thing remaining is the
origin of life, the sole hope for an honest expectation of divine
intervention. Christians see providence in the whole, but this is outside of
scientific investigation. Of course, a human being can imagine almost
anything--War of the Worlds, Zeus's thunderbolts, Minotaurs, Kali, etc.
almost ad inf.



*Of course, one can always posit a Creator without much imagination, which
to me makes as much sense as creation five minutes ago. Neither can be




On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:34:13 -0600 "Tjalle T Vandergraaf" <>

Dave Siemens wrote, "I note that none of the individuals Michael mentioned
had access to radio-dating, for radioactivity was not discovered till 1896.
I don't have a date for the discovery of the U-Pb series, but it was later.
Now we have additional series that coincide to demonstrate antiquity." And
"Since our understanding of the nature of nuclei gives a solid theoretical
foundation to the computation of the timing of the release of alpha and beta
particles and gamma rays, there's little hope that there'll be a revision
because of a brass mirror. The fuzzy image refers specifically to the
spiritual future."

Yes, I know all that and the information obtained from the Oklo deposit
presents a pretty airtight argument for an old earth. There *is* probably
little chance that our current views will change but I still think that a
certain amount of humility is warranted. My tack is to present the
arguments for an old earth but also mention that our views are based on our
current understanding.
Received on Sun Feb 5 15:42:06 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 05 2006 - 15:42:06 EST