RE: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6 & The End

From: Jon Tandy <>
Date: Thu Oct 11 2007 - 10:30:19 EDT

I think it's a bit precarious arguing against the invocation of "miracle"
when presenting this to a popular Christian audience. "You're a Christian,
and you don't believe in miracles?" they will ask.
I believe we need to be clear in such discussions that as Christians, we
believe in the possibility of God doing miracles which are beyond any human
explanation. The point here, though, is truthfulness. It is disingenuous
to say "science proves" Young-Earth Creation, when in the end it's not
science that proves it, but rather some highly contrived and speculative
miraculous events that are neither witnessed in the scriptural record nor by
any observable evidence. If you want to believe that "God did it" in a
certain way, and ignore the scientific evidence, then at least be honest and
admit this is a purely theological conclusion. I don't believe God is going
to condemn a person who is ignorant of the scientific facts and simply
chooses to believe a theological assertion of God as Creator. However,
lying about what science actually "proves" is not something a Christian
should do. If one is going to claim a scientifically verifiable explanation
(or even invoke an unproved hypothesis), then there needs to be a forthright
acknowledgement of the scientific evidence or lack thereof.
It seems that the popular presentations of RATE is where this really becomes
a problem, even though the technical volumes admit the scientific
Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:36 AM
To: Randy Isaac;
Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6
& The End

Like others, I agree with Randy's evaluation. I would point out though that
the reliance on "divine intervention" - i.e., miracle - has been clear in
this most recent phase of YEC claims even before the RATE project began. In
Starlight & Time Humphreys had to say that God somehow brought about an
enormous expansion of space during the creation week. As I've said before,
natural processes plus a miracle = a miracle as far as scientific
explanation is concerned. Humphreys' cosmology and the RATE project
(together or separately) are precisely, without remainder, in the category
of the famous "Then a miracle occurs" cartoon - i.e., they are a joke as far
as science is concerned.

----- Original Message -----
From: Randy <> Isaac
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Denver RATE Conference (Thousands...Not Billions)_Part 6
& The End

Most of all, note the reliance on "divine interpretation." This is perhaps
the clearest statement yet from ICR/CRS that known scientific concepts are
not consistent with the young-earth position. In my article, I focused on
the deception of those who claim RATE concluded that science has shown the
young-earth position to be credible while the actual technical report states
clearly that there are unresolved problems that cannot be solved by any
known scientific process. I did circulate my article to the Creation
Research Society board of directors prior to publication, with no response.
It is now interesting that DeYoung essentially admits that the young-earth
advocate cannot close the loop with science but needs to fall back on
"divine intervention." In so doing, he has been truthful in reporting the
failure of RATE to settle the issue of the age of the earth scientifically.
If the audience left the conference thinking that RATE had demonstrated the
scientific feasibility of a young earth, then that was merely what they
wanted to hear--they were told factually that "divine intervention" must be

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 11 10:34:33 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 11 2007 - 10:34:33 EDT