“Setterfield. Setterfield, Brown, and myself were an OECs until stumbling on the possibility of speed of light decay”.

What exactly does this mean?

If the speed of light is constant over time and space, the physical evidence would almost surely force us to conclude the universe is old.

If that is the case, then we have the following possibilities:

1. The Bible is not God’s Word

2. The Bible is God’s word, but the YEC interpretation is wrong

6 years ago, I was completely willing to accept #1 and/or #2. At this stage in my life, I do believe God is the Creator, that Behe’s IC argument is most easily answered via Special Creation, and that the physical evidence suggests universe did not evolve via Big Bang Cosmology, but via special creation.

My former professor James Trefil wrote the famous chapter “Why Galaxies Can’t Exists” to highlight problems with Big Bang Cosmology. His partial solution was Dark Matter, but we have never touched or handled or measured Dark Matter in the lab. It’s a total kluge. The better solution is special creation of the Galaxies and Stars.

Now, it seems to me at best we can’t make hard fast assertions about the universe being old. I tentatively think Setterfield is correct, Humphreys is wrong, and for sure Gish is wrong.

I love Gish, but I can’t assent to his created light arguments. Gish’s hypothesis is at variance with Romans 1:20.

God would make the world such that we will be forced to follow the evidence where it leads, and that eventually only certain conclusions will make sense. If Setterfield is correct, then Romans 1:20 will have been fulfilled for the laws of physics. If Romans 1:20 is followed literally, “appearce of age arguments” are actually unscriptural….

Salvador

Visit his website:

http://www.setterfield.org

Salvador

Yes, yes, conclusions reinforcing premises. [notwithstanding Augustine's comments about faith and understanding.]

IF you have the patience, and can see the Canadian TV Discovery channel indoctrinmentary “Global Warning” you will see just how far this sort of post-normal science can go. Appalling to say the least.

Anyway, I’m glad I wondered “out loud” about YECism. If the discussion can proceed without typical forum rancor then the S/N ratio must be OK.

As a kid my church affiliation was thick into YEC soup but never could I swallow it.

I do have friends that thrive on it. I also have friends that are taken in by global warming alarmism.

Yet, as a born skeptic, there would be a certain amount of “inner delight” if, in the end, I turned out to be wrong.

My observation is that, often, when you get individuals out of their herd, they become more reasonable. Just look at the number of anti global warming scientists who happen to be retired!

The creationist label is a convenient pejorative with which to label ID proponents. Since creationism is considered Darwinism’s defeated foe, it makes good sense that the NDEs want to associate the two, to avoid answering the tough questions.

Casting off the YEC “millstone” will not allow ID to escape the theory’s own ramifications: that there is a designing intelligence at the root of the natural world. It’s this concept — not a young earth — that causes such a reaction in the materialist community.

As far as I can tell, ID doesn’t accept YEC, but rather tolerates it.

As long as the implications of ID are theological, even though the theory itself is not, it’s going to be the target of the anti-religeous, and is going to be stereotyped as creation.

Excellent point re Darwinists and YEC alike in that they start off with faith that something is true then spin the facts to fit the faith.

You’re redeemed and off moderation.

1) All life we’ve looked at so far, prokaryotes and eukaryotes alike, employ a virtually identical genetic code as well as an organelle called the ribosome which builds proteins specified by that common code. I’ve yet to hear any explanation for this other than common descent that doesn’t sound contrived

Assuming God doesn’t exist that is the only explanation. Assuming, He does then of course, it’s not.

We know, without doubt, that natural selection, mutation, gene flow etc. influence how life develops and behaves.

The question then becomes is it possible for these forces to cause a single cell to evolve into all the types of life on Earth. It’s not been established and I don’t see how it’s possible.

So that leaves either some unknown force that caused all life to evolve from a common ancestor or all life did not evolve from a common ancestor.

Now, life can only come from life which leaves us with the obvious question as to where the first life came from.

Obviously some unknown (in the scientific sense) force made it. If this force made it once, why not twice? Or three or four or a dozen or a hundred times, and in groups of cells, to the point where RM +NS makes starts?

Fair enough, but I personally make a point to disapprove of the church-burning approach when the occasion arises and, every now and then, important folks such as Collins, Orr, etc do so as well. Despite what the impression may be from sites such as Pharyngula, these ebola boys represent only a handful of evolutionary biologists.

It is this religious agenda and philosophy of science differences that drive the controversy. Like the Darwinists, the YEC science conclusions must fit a world view so in that way the Darwinists and YEC’s are somewhat alike in terms of how they make scientific conclusions.

For ID and YEC to walk hand in hand to defeat materialist science conclusions, it would be difficult to for these two movements to disassociate their very big differences on religion and philosophy of science.

Remember it is not the materialists that ID is seeking to change but the average person who is not really aware of the details of the controversy. Right now they think ID is a religious movement with a narrow philosophy of science when it is really just the opposite.

So tell me how working with the YEC’s helps dispel this misconception. It doesn’t. It reinforces it.

If anyone is interested in a more thoughtful article about the “days” of Creation, article may be found here:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm