Same Evidence; Different Theories

I have written before how some evolutionists lie and say that there is no evidence for creation. Perhaps I should be a little nicer and give some people the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying they lie, some people may not understand the concept of a scientific theory. Usually, evolutionists accuse creationists of not understanding the definition of a scientific theory and in some cases, they may have a point. But when evolutionists say there is no evidence for creation, I suspect it's they who don't understand what a theory is. On the other hand, maybe these people are intentionally conflating their theory with the evidence.

According to Wikipedia, “A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.” In other words, a theory is a scientific model constructed to explain the evidence. The theory isn't the evidence and the evidence isn't the theory. Theories are invented to make sense of the evidence but the evidence itself is neutral.

Suppose you found a fossil. The rock doesn't tell you anything about itself. It's a dumb rock (dumb as in not speaking). It doesn't tell you how old it is. It doesn't tell you how it was made. It doesn't tell you what it is a fossil of. It really doesn't even tell you it's a fossil. It simply exists and we have different ideas on how it came to be. Evolutionists believe fossils were laid down by successive, local floods over billions of years. Creationists believe many or most fossils were created simultaneously only a few thousand years ago during the global flood described in the Bible. We have different theories, but it's the same fossil.

When you ask someone who believes in evolution what evidence is there for his theory, he might say things like the fossils, the rock layers, and even dinosaurs. And what is the evidence for creation? It's things like the fossils, the rock layers, and even dinosaurs. It's the same evidence; we merely have different theories to explain it. We live in the same world, don't we? How can there be different evidence?

Sometimes I'm not sure what evolutionists are thinking. I know they're convinced of their theory. Perhaps they believe their theory explains the evidence so well that they believe the truth of evolution is obvious. In that sense, when they say there is no evidence for creation, they are using a type of hyperbole. It would be like me believing Michael Jordan is so great a basketball player that I might say, “there are no other basketball players.” But I suspect that's not what they mean. I think they intend to be literal. If so, to say there isn't evidence for creation is to demonstrate a gross ignorance of either what evidence is or what a theory it is.

Genesis 38: What Happens in Timnah Stays in Timnah

You've probably seen the commercials: “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.” It's a simple concept, really. The idea they're selling is that you can come to a wild town where you don't know anyone, indulge yourself in whatever you desire, and then return home like nothing happened. No one will know what you've done. At least, that's what they want you to think.

I imagine that's exactly how Judah felt in Genesis 38 when he visited Timnah. He was going there to have his sheep sheared. He might have been thinking the same things the Las Vegas commercials are promoting. He's alone in a strange town and probably thinks he can indulge himself with anonymity.

On the road leading to Timnah, Judah encounters a veiled woman. The Bible doesn't say why, but for some reason Judah believes she's a prostitute. The Bible does says she was veiled. Perhaps that was a practice among prostitutes so that they can engage in their trade while remaining anonymous. If so, isn't it curious that Judah would be aware of such a practice? I wonder if he's done this before. Anyway, Judah propositions the woman and agrees to give her a kid (a baby goat) in exchange for sex. The woman agrees but Judah wasn't traveling with a goat. Instead, he leaves some personal items with her as a sort of deposit until he can send the kid later.

Here's where it gets interesting. What Judah did not realize is that the veiled woman was his own daughter-in-law, Tamar, the widow of his late son, Er. Tamar had been waiting on the road leading to Timnah so that she could confront Judah about marrying his youngest son, Shelah. The Bible doesn't say why she agreed to Judah's advances; perhaps it was so that she could later blackmail him into letting her marry his youngest son but Tamar became pregnant as a result of her time with Judah.

Judah went on his merry way believing the elicit encounter was over and done. After all, what happens in Timnar, stays in Timnar, right? Well, some time after returning home, he found out that Tamar was pregnant. He became furious because he knew she was betrothed to his son and demanded that she be punished. Realization set it, though, when she produced the personal items that he had given her as a pledge. In modern vernacular, we might say he was “busted.” Tamar went on to deliver twins – Pharez and Zarah.

It's not hard to imagine the horror Judah felt when he learned that his supposedly discreet fling would have such public and lasting consequences. But I think not even Judah was fully aware just how enduring his shame would be. Not only are we reading about his exploits centuries later, but he and the product of his affair are immortalized in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:3. How sad it must be to be mentioned in the Bible not because of your devout faith, but for your complete lack of morals. What might have been a badge of honor is diminished to a source of embarrassment.

I wonder sometimes if we might act differently if we knew our dirty secrets would all be revealed. The idea that whenever you're in strange a place anything you do will be kept secret is a lie. Perhaps our misdeeds will not be published in the Bible but we should never suppose that they will never be known. We are warned in Numbers 32:23, “and be sure your sin will find you out.”

Bacteria That's How Old?

LiveScience just recently reported an amazing find. In Death Valley, scientists have recovered salt crystals that are supposedly 34,000 years old. They were surprised to find bacteria trapped inside and still living. Brian Schubert, who discovered the “ancient” bacteria said, “It was actually a very big surprise to me.” It would be a very big surprise indeed.

One argument often advanced in support of evolution is that there is some supposed harmony or agreement across various lines of evidence. However, it seems to me that the alleged harmony is more often forced upon the data rather than derived from it. I've blogged about this before (here and here). This most recent find could be yet another example.

The bacteria in question had apparently fallen into some type of suspended animation where it was able to survive starvation. But even in such a state, scientists are puzzled over how the bacteria could resist DNA degradation. DNA is a complex molecule and even under the most ideal circumstances, it degrades quickly over time. Scientists once estimated that DNA could not survive more than around 10,000 but recent findings have forced them to push that back even further. Even so, for living organisms to be suspended for 34,000 years with no degradation is a stumper. Professor Tim Lowenstein is quoted in the article as saying, “We're not sure what's going on.”

Here's a possible solution for Prof. Lowenstein: maybe the bacteria really aren't 34,000 years old. Maybe it's only a few thousand years old and it's the estimate of the age of the salt crystals that wrong. Isn't living bacteria in the crystals evidence that the crystals may not have been as old as once considered? Of course, scientists won't open that Pandora's box. The old dates assumed by secular scientists are ensconced and any new evidence that might contradict them is viewed in light of the old-earth assumption. The bacteria living inside the rock example will not be considered as evidence that the rock may not be 34,000 years old. Instead, the date assigned to the rock is ironclad evidence that the bacteria has survived longer than ever thought possible.

Once again the theory is saved. The data continues in perfect harmony. What could be seen as evidence for a young earth is dismissed with the wave of a hand. There's no controversy here, folks. Move along.

Sanctity of Life Day, 2011