Check it out here.

Have a look, if you have the stomach for it.  It’s long and a little in-depth for the average reader, but feel free to take a look and let me know what you think.

But because both sides raised, essentially, the same point, I figure it warrants at least an explanation of my position here, and perhaps even a revisit to the concept of a young earth.

I began my journey on the road of Scientific curiosity as a convicted Young Earth Creationist … and it was difficult to convince me otherwise. I was positive that the flood was responsible for all the fossil formation and their placement in the rock. I was sure that the lack of transitional forms was evidence of special creation. I was unwavering in my belief that radiometric dating methods were altogether unreliable and/or completely fabricated.

Then I heard two arguments I hadn’t heard before. I’ll explain them below…

First of all, I believed with all my heart that the order of fossils in the ground was a result of both 1. hydrologic sorting and 2. an organism’s ability to escape the waters of the flood.

1. Hydrologic sorting – basically, water has the ability to sort objects.  It will sort objects of similar size, and weight together.

2. Organisms of higher intellegence and/or greater strength had the ability make their way to higher ground as the flood waters rose.  Thus, organisms of lower complexity would be further down the rock record than organisms of higher complexity.

The CreationWiki says that to argue agains hydrologic sorting as the lone mechanism for fossil distribution would be a strawman, although I’d be happy to consider any evidence for another mechanism of fossil distribution.

Anyway, I bought it.  It all made perfect sense, until you started thinking about plants.

I was making my case in a public forum with a couple of guys I didn’t know, thinking I had it all figured out.  Then one of them mentioned that grass and flowering plants don’t show up in geologic fossils until the upper portion of the rock, while other (similar) plants are present much further down in the formations, in completely different types of rock.  He linked to a couple of articles supporting his claim, and asked me to explain that using hydrologic sorting or organismic ability.

I couldn’t.

Then came the argument concerning dating methods.  I can hear Ken Ham saying it now.  Dating methods are based on assumptions!  Well, the dirty little secret was, those assumptions were entirely reasonable.  Those assumptions (radiometric decay rates) were based on empirical and observable evidence.  And the unreliability of Carbon dating?  Someone said it this way — you wouldn’t use a ruler to measure your driveway, would you?  The same goes for radiometric dating.  Carbon dating is unreliable past ~10,000 years (fact check?), so you use a dating method that is more accurate in dating older fossils.  Essentially, you get out the measuring tape and put away the ruler.

These both reminded me of the many times in high school when I had heard the explanation of a light year.  I remembered how it didn’t make sense that would could see stars millions of light years away if the universe were only thousands of years old.  I wrote more on that topic here.

So, I converted … sorta.

I started studying the text of Genesis, looking for mistranslations … looking for hints or indications … even just holes in the text where the whole story may not have been told … for whatever reason.  I started reading more about what Intelligent Design as a science really meant.  Was it creationism?  Could it be a true science, devoid of any appeal to religion?  I thought so.

So here’s my current situation.  I’m up against a wall when it comes to my friends on the young earth side.  I’ve been told that my position isn’t intellectually honest.  So, I’m opening myself up for correction.  Where, in my journey, did I go wrong?  What information that I was presented was inaccurate?  If I believed a lie, then I want to know it!

So, hopefully in the coming weeks, I’ll be revisiting some of the common arguments from the YEC community and presenting them to the community here.  If I’m wrong in their dismissal, I’ll admit to it.  I’m never beyond learning a new thing or two, or changing my mind.

Let’s kick things off right though.  Take a look at the arguments above that led to my accepting an old earth, and pick them apart if they are weak.  Go ahead!

On the one hand, I feel like I’ve been given false information about origins science for the vast majority of life. Not intentionally, of course … the people who gave me the information were given it by someone else, and the information propagated down the line, eventually getting to me.

On the other hand, after embracing science for the last couple of years finally, I still find much of the explanation of origins and Darwinian evolution to be speculative at best, and illogical at worst.

Both sides say the same thing … if I only understood their position better, I would become a convert. The problem is … BOTH SIDES are saying that same thing! And no matter how much you tell me to trust you, I need to be convinced intellectually before either is going to win me over. I very rarely take anyone’s word for important issues. If a person walked up to me and told me to vote for a particular candidate for President, even if it was someone I respected, and just told me to trust them without explanation, I certainly wouldn’t do so. I’ll vote for the candidate that convinces me to do so, not the candidate a person assures me is the best, simply on their word. It just doesn’t work that way for me.

Likewise, I would never expect a person to adopt my position on science or politics just on my word. If I want to change your mind, then I engage in a conversation with intellectually stimulating questions.

But being caught in the middle of two opposing philosophies is still frustrating. Believe me, I wish I had a more concrete position, but I don’t. When people ask me if I believe that Young Earth Creationism is a valid scientific position, I say no. When people ask me if I believe that strict Darwinism is a valid scientific position, I say no.

And it’s not a comfortable position to be in.  Ignorance, for me, is torture … not even close to bliss.

In fact, I only wish I had more time to devote to studying the subject.  Unfortunately, I’m forced to “trust” experts on both sides, all of whom tell me that they’re right, and the other side is wrong.

Could it be that neither side has it figured out yet?  Could it be that tentatively reserving endorsement is actually the most logical thing to do right now?  Maybe in 50 years, new evidence will arise.  Think about it … if a person in the 1700’s decided on the available evidence that the majority scientific position was correct, they’d certainly be surprised here some 300 years later, no?

Could it be that this “us verses them” mentality actually smothers a good scientific debate?

I’ve never claimed to have it all figured out.  In fact, I’ve made it clear that I don’t!

Is that smart?

But in reality, the series has run its course, and I think it’s time for it to come to an end.

So I have a couple of questions for the reader community.

First question is this … do you have any suggestions for a few last Dangerous Questions?  Maybe you’ve heard one, or maybe you’ve asked one yourself before.  If you know a good question to ask that you might think would be useful for an upcoming post, let me know by sending me an email.

Second question is this … what should our next series be? I’m not sold on any topic yet, and I want it to be reasonably useful and popular, something interesting, something provocative, something that will get us all thinking.  The only thing I ask is that it not be about straight up politics.  If it has to do with faith and politics, or science and politics, I’m game for that.  Just no more straight up political posts.  Sorry

I’m putting it in your hands!  What will this blog look like in a month?  Let me know what you think!

You see, all domesticated dogs in use today by humans descended from the Wolf.  Without going into much detail (mainly because I still don’t know enough myself), humans decided to domesticate the wolf through a long process of artificial selection … breeding for particular qualities.

So the question has to be asked: is domestication just a recent and observable example of Darwinian evolution in action?

As the dog descended from the wolf, its genetics were altered through random mutation and artificial selection … no one can deny that.  Also, no one can deny that natural selection works quite well too … although not necessarily in a definable manner.  The question, as always, is … what is the power of the mutations?  Can they provide enough novel genetic information for the environment to select for the novel traits?

With the dog, we don’t really have to ask “Can it?”  In this instance, we can ask, “Has it?”

So, has the domestication of the dog from the wolf been a process of additional genetic information?  Has the wolf “degraded” into the dog, or has it “progressed” into the dog?

Please answer in the comments below and we’ll see where this goes.  In all honesty, I don’t know the answer to this question, but I am curious to find out what the answer is

Since I happen to be a church-going Christian, and a lover of science, I have two groups of people telling me 2 different things.  The scientists tell me that over millions (billions?) of years the relatively small Colarado river slowly eroded the rock and the canyon was formed.  Of course, clergy have a different explanation.  They say that’s rubbish (funny word) because 1) there were no “millions of years” and 2) no river as small as the Colorado could do such a thing.

So who’s a guy to believe?

I’m relatively practical.  I call things like I see them.  I’m not a trained scientist.  All I know is what I can understand.  And to me, neither explanation made very much sense.  For instance, if the Amazon (as large and mighty as it is) didn’t carve out a canyon, then why would the Colorado?  Or the Nile, or the Mississippi for that matter.  Also, I can understand a small amount of erosion, but an entire canyon’s worth???  That just didn’t make sense.

But neither did the “the flood did it” argument from the Creationists.  How could even massive amounts of water in around a year’s time wash away so much rock?  And why is it a canyon?  If the water was so powerful, then the canyon’s edge should be gone as well, right?

Well, it turns out my layman assumptions were wrong on both parts.  My first clue came in the form of the Discovery Channel.  I was watching a random TV show (can’t even remember which one … maybe Man vs. Wild) and noticed that the host was walking through a rock crevice.   And sure enough, at the bottom of this crevice, there was a small, trickling stream.  Yep, over the years (a relatively small amount of time) this little creek had carved out a crevice that was so deep, you could not climb out.  And if a small stream could do it in a few years, a river could do it in millions of years.

But on the flip side, I learned that there was a good bit of research being done on the Creationist/Flood side as well.  Turns out, the sedimentary layers found withing the canyon seemed more consistent with some sort of rapid deposit theory.

But the debate rages on.  And I’m stuck in the middle wondering who’s right.  Both seem plausible to me.  If there were millions of years to work with, I believe the Colorado could carve the canyon out.  But if not, and there were a global flood, it seems believable that such a flood could indeed leave a canyon this large in it’s path.  But both sides have key arguments that contradict the other side’s arguments.  This page makes some good points.  And this page makes good points of it’s own.

So is this debate wrapped up in the assumptions of the respective sides?  Is the explanation dependent on the knowledge of the age of the earth?  It would seem that way.  And for my part, I still ride the fence.

What do you think?

This is an often-used phrase by Richard Dawkins, probably the most famous atheist on earth.  He uses this phrase many times during interviews when the interviewer asks a question about the origin of life or the universe.  Is it a cop-out?  I don’t think so.  But it is rather unsatisfying, both to me, and to just about every interviewer he says it to.

But is it any more satisfying to say “God did it”?  It certainly isn’t intellectually satisfying, although it may bring some sort of strange peace to someone who really isn’t interested in the question at all.  They just want a simple answer… something that makes them feel good about not knowing the answer.

I’ve learned this the hard way.  Humans, not just Christians, don’t like their thinking challenged very much at all.  We like feeling like we know all the answers, have it all figured out.  It gives us a sense of control.   And I’m not necessarily criticizing that.

What I am criticizing is our overwhelming desire to be ignorant.  For most people, ignorance is bliss.  For me, and an unknown number of other people, ignorance is torture.  We’re no longer content to live in the dark.  What’s the point?

But that may lead to some “dangerous” questions.  Questions that make people uncomfortable.  This goes for the church and for civilization in general.  The church can’t any longer ignore questions like “what about sex?”,  “what about music?”, “what about alcohol?”.  People are asking the questions, and if we don’t provide intellectually satisfying answers, they’ll get them from someone else.

The same goes for science.  Science is now being forced to ask some pretty dangerous questions.  Questions that for decades went unasked.  Is there evidence for design in nature?  Is Darwinian evolution as powerful as we thought?  But science is also asking some questions, some dangerous questions.  What if it didn’t happen like your preacher said it did?  Are you willing to embrace that question?  ask it yourself?

I’d like to close with this quote from my buddy Matthew’s blog.  I’m not sure who said it originally, but it’s so fitting, it needs to be repeated over and over:

Your thoughts are your freedom. Let others think for you and you shall become a slave.

Amen!!!

He argues this based on a simplistic CSI (complex specified information) filter that goes a little like this (quote from his article):

1. Assume all physical processes are either random, necessary, or designed
2. Assume life originated by one of these processes
3. Then life’s origin must follow the behavior of whichever system caused it.
4. Assume it is proven that random processes produce complex, unspecified systems
5. Assume it is proven that necessary processes (i.e. simple deterministic laws) produce non-complex systems
6. Then by default the causal antecedent of life must be a designed cause.

Basically, life must have come about via either a random process, a necessary process like chemistry (in other words, life was inevitable), or from a designing entity.

I’ve said similar things here and elsewhere about the origin of life … one must first determine that it is not possible for life to originate from known undirected natural processes (that would include both random and necessary processes).

Using deductive reasoning, and assuming that since life has neither been shown to be the result of a random process (the probability is essentially zero), nor is it necessary (as George pointed out here), we can conclude that design is the only remaining conceived explanation.

All that’s left it to determine (what little we may be able) is how the design process progressed. Did it happen all at once? Did it happen in small bursts along the natural history timeline?

So, is Matthew wrong? Does disproving Darwin actually, by default, prove design? (It should be noted that Matthew points out that there is no such thing as real proof in experimental science)

I’m curious if there are any flaws in his logic or if this reasoning is … well … reasonable? I personally think it makes sense, although I do think the ID argument is strengthened in the presence of positive evidence for ID in terms of experimental data. Regardless, the argument is interesting at least.

Feel free to discuss in the comments below.

What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena.

Indeed, there are usually 2 different answers depending on who you ask. However, I do believe that if an ID critic would actually take the time to talk to an ID proponent, he would find that his assertion that ID is just a new form of “creationism” is just dead wrong. I applaud the ID critic who has moved past this ridiculous argument. He goes on to say,

If you ask me, I’ll give you a different answer…For me, ID begins exactly as William Dembski said it begins – with a question:

Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

I had completely forgotten about this question from Dembski. How beautifully simple. ID is curiosity. ID is discovery, it’s questions, it’s research. ID is defined by the fundamental question — “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?”

The question is a good one, as it stems from the fact that certain things do exist in our reality only because they were brought into existence by an intelligent cause. If human beings did not exist, for example, Mount Rushmore would not exist. Thus, Mount Rushmore’s existence is dependent on intelligent causation. So one begins to wonder if there are other aspects of our reality that are likewise dependent on intelligent causation. If so, can we detect them? If so, just how reliable is our detection?

Be sure and visit the site and read the story, Intelligent Design 101. I think Mike makes some interesting points and does a pretty good job of outlining the basics of Intelligent Design for someone who may be somewhat unfamiliar with what ID is (and what it is not).