Friday, January 12, 2024

One can logically and scientifically hold to the Biblical account of the Earth’s age

Christians are commanded to take every thought captive, so I developed a rationale that harmonizes young and old earth perspectives. This is intended to demonstrate an additional viewpoint for those seeking to reconcile scientific evidence while staying faithful to God's Word.

With the frame of reference and primary authoritative source of truth for reality as the Bible and modern science as a secondary source, I propose that there is empirical and scientific evidence supporting that the earth is both young and old, depending on the observer’s frame of reference.

I do not assume the present is the best interpretive framework for distant past events.

Personal experience has given me confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible and that God is logically omnipotent and not bound by natural laws (supernatural).

The Biblical historical record evidence is that the earth is young, according to the frame of reference of the observer.

Modern science has provided evidence that time is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Modern scientific observations of the geological record indicates a geological chronological age of approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Modern scientific discoveries also support a young earth (e.g., DNA in fossilized dinosaur bones, polystrate fossils, etc.)

Conclusion: The historical observer experienced time at a different frame of reference during the Flood while the geological components of the earth were supernaturally chronologically accelerated, thus the earth can be logically understood to be both “young” in the Biblical frame of reference and “old” in the scientific frame of reference.

Thought exercise:

The geologic earth aged as naturalism predicts, it just processed at an accelerated time frame.

Some indestructible and immortal person standing underwater on the ground would observe time moving at a normal pace, therefore all the measurement systems modern science uses would be accurate.

On the other hand if someone on the surface of the water were able to look down to the ground below, they would see an incredible site of rapid geological change, because the inorganic components of the earth were being vastly and supernaturally accelerated - basically like hitting ultra fast forward on a video.

Organic material was not exposed to this process so it would not have degraded at the same rate. Thus, Dino-DNA in geologically old strata.

Naturalists, of course will reject this scenario, as they axiomatically reject the supernatural. There will therefore be no use case or evidence one could ever, ever, ever produce that they couldn’t rationalize away. Since they have no way of observing the past or duplicating the timeframe in a physical lab, they make up “just so” stories to fit their worldview based on their presuppositions.

In fact, the simulations that have been done using naturalistic assumptions basically illustrate my scenario. They don’t run the sim for 4.5 billion years, they artificially accelerate the time frame, just like God did with His divine Program. The frame of reference of the simulation observer is analogous to the Biblical observer’s.

This reconciliation allows the Biblical Christian to integrate modern scientific observations into our worldview without adopting materialistic naturalism’s presuppositions, which are essentially atheistic.

I think of myself as neither a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist, but rather a Biblical Science Creationist.

Sunday, January 7, 2024

Traditional Creationism Apologetic

Modern Biblical Christians are forced by popular culture to face this question:

Could God have created the universe using the natural (I.e., time, space, energy, and matter) processes He developed in a way that meets modern scientific observations and still aligns to the literal 6 day Biblical narrative?

Biblical Christians believe that God is, by inherent nature, logical but also not bound by natural human perspectives and wisdom.

1 Corinthians 3:19a

For the wisdom of this world is folly with God

Therefore, Biblical Christians have a responsibility to be skeptical of any scientific framework that implicitly or explicitly denies the Biblical Creator-God. Thus, we subjugate all scientific observations to the greater standard of Biblical Science. The branch of Biblical Science that deals with the observation and explanation of natural components is characterized here as Biblical Creation Science (BCS). 

BCS is essentially Natural Science with the foundational axiomatic assumption that all nature originates from an Intelligence best revealed in the Bible. BCS is contrasted with the currently reigning worldview of Atheistic Natural Science (ANS, my shorthand label), whose foundational axiomatic assumption is that creation is the product of non-intelligent random chance and the interaction of fundamental natural components (time, space, energy, and matter).

BCS assumes God is the transcendent Master Developer and that the Creation program deployment occurred in six 24 hour stages:

Day 1 - the introduction of natural components:

- The heavens (space) and the motionless watery earth (matter)

- A supernatural source of illumination (light) and starting the earth’s spin (time and energy)

Day 2: Earth’s atmosphere (ocean and sky)

Day 3: dry land, other water formations, and initial organic life (plants)

Day 4: the Earth-observable universe

Day 5: water and air based organic life

Day 6: land based organic life and the special creation of Man

Click image for larger graphic

Both BCS and ANS axiomatically assumes that, after the special creation event, natural laws generally progress in a uniform, steady and predictable manner. However BCS, unlike ANS, does not obviate miraculous events, such as the Great Flood and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Unlike ANS, BCS does not assume the present is the most trustworthy way of interpreting the past. 

An example of this is the assumptions of ANS cosmological, geological, and biological evolutionary theories which posit the necessity of homogenous uniformity of natural forces, particularly the requirement of the unchanging flow of vast quantities of time.

BCS assumes the natural component of time is malleable to God and the implicit/explicit assumption of homogenous steady-state time flow in all places and all times by predominant ANS evolutionary theories is false.

The Bible clearly states that human observations of God’s utilization of time are not perceptually equivalent (See Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). And in Joshua 10 we are even given an example of God manipulating and slowing local time to accomplish His purpose while time progressed naturally external to the local area. The sun didn’t actually stand still, it was perceived that way by the local audience.

The Creation account is undeniably recorded from an “Earth local” perspective, so the unfolding of the observable universe would have looked like a 24 hour “fast forward” of the creation events outside that viewpoint. All natural components would have progressed in a way that meets current scientific observations, except the natural component of time was accelerated. Something very similar took place under the water cover of the Flood event to break up the monolithic land mass (I.e., Pangea) of Day 3.

This interpretive framework rebuts any argument that “the Universe is old or God is a deceiver” in favor of God being in full control of the natural forces He created as a part of His program.

God expects that Biblical Christians subordinate human wisdom to His Word. Therefore, we should subject all scientific observations and conclusions to this standard. 

In other words, when ANS frameworks contradict BCS, faithful Christians should develop explanations that align with the Bible first, man’s wisdom second. 

The universe is both old and young. It’s age is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Otherwise we are guilty of presuppositional capitulation.

God’s observations fundamentally shape reality. 

Man’s does not.

If you’ve found this to be compelling or helpful, please share!

Sister article here

My general external posting disclaimer

I’ve been debating atheists and other worldviews online for about 20 years, on and off. It has proven a very effective method to refine my thinking. However, I have found it useful to set some ground rules:

  1. My apologies, in advance if I don’t get to your particular comment; the replies are occasionally voluminous, so I am forced to “cherry pick”. I post these topics to defend and bolster faith with reason, engender lively debate, and for worldview comparison. I’m not here to convert you. That’s not my responsibility. My worldview is based on classical Reformed Theology, so please keep that in mind.
  2. I sometimes toss out some non-fully formed thoughts out into the marketplace of ideas to get an idea of objections or perspectives I may not have considered as I mature my thoughts and apologetics. IOW: I don’t mind someone pointing out if I am illogical, but…
  3. I tend to disregard ad hominem responses. Starting off with “you’re stupid” or “you’re a liar” won’t get me engaged. In fact, you’ll likely get ignored and not get to substantiate any good reasoning that follows with my participation. Echo chamber debates are not very productive.
  4. To deal with topics that engender a voluminous response, I look at comments that get either the most "up votes" or supporting comments, then work to respond to that commentor.
  5. Sadly, replying to comments has to fall sometimes to my greater priorities. My lack of response is likely me focusing on other things I deem higher priority and definitely not a tacit capitulation. I deny any claims of that, in advance. If you are respectful and reasonable, I will try my hardest to respond. If you’re a jerk, you become lowest priority and should refer to ground rule #1.

Wednesday, January 3, 2024

God’s good purpose, the Problem of Evil, and the Epicurean Paradox

First off, without an ultimately good God as an objective moral and teleological absolute, meaning and morality are subjective, so the foundational proposition of the Epicurean Paradox, “evil exists”, is objectively illogical.

However if God necessarily exists and is objectively and ultimately good, then evil must serve some objectively necessarily and ultimately good purpose. That is, evil is logically necessary for God’s good purpose. To wit: 

P1: All that exists serves God’s good purpose 
P2: Evil exists
C1: Evil serves God’s good purpose 

Which, in turn, logically and necessarily begs the question, what is God’s good purpose?

The Biblical Christian worldview supplies the framework for the most logical, intelligible, and cohesive understanding of God’s good purpose, the role of humans within it and the logical necessity of evil: 

A good and loving Creator-Father purposed to glorify His Son as the Judge and Savior of a Creature (Mankind) to whom He has imparted an eternal spirit, moral awareness, and individual sentience. God purposed Mankind as the object of divine Law, Justice, Mercy, and Grace.
Mankind, as a morally aware and sentient being, committed evil by breaking God’s Law and initiated the process of God’s good purpose.

Those that are given ultimate Mercy and Grace will be glorified through Christ and enter into eternal communion with God and those that do not will receive the consequences of eternity separated from God’s Grace and Mercy, eternal Judgement. 

God revealed and curated the truth of His good purpose over time by the Holy Spirit via the Bible; the Biblical Christian’s primary material (vs immaterial) authoritative source of truth.