something to add to age of the earth teaching/discussion

[jetted4]

I don't remember this angle being brought up in anything I've read previously so I thought I'd throw it out there since I think it adds an interesting twist to interpreting data (and figuring out how the data fits with beliefs) related to the age of the earth.

 

I appreciate the challenge in dealing with anything related to origins.  Most areas of science deal with forming/testing hypotheses to develop theories about how phenomena that we can observe and recreate work.  When it gets to big sections of geology, your beliefs about the presence or absence of a God force you to make assumptions that drive your interpretation of the data.  Since we can't go back and recreate the experiment, so to speak, we are limited in our ability to even determine whether our core assumptions are valid.
 

If you do not believe that a God created the universe or that miracles can occur, but instead believe that everything came about through natural processes, then the only way for us to have everything in place that we have is for it to have taken many millions/billions of years to transpire...that will drive the assumptions in what questions to ask when testing geologic data.
 

On the other hand, if you believe that an omnipotent God did create the universe and that miracles can occur, then you come in w an entirely different set of assumptions.  (a) Some in this camp believe that the base assumptions used in geology are true - this group chooses to interpret that God created it all but that He did it millions/billions of years ago.  {b} Others in this camp hold to a literal 6-day creation and are forced to conclude that there are major flaws with the base assumptions used by modern geologists, which then puts them at odds with much of the scientific community. 
        -->> But there's a third group here that I find intriguing:  {c} If there really is an omnipotent/omniscient God who really did create everything, well then if He created an adult Adam and an adult Eve, what would prevent Him from creating an "adult" earth in which they and their offspring (and all other creatures...) would live?  If this is true and this God is a practical Being, then he would have (for example) created an earth already full of fossils at varying stages of decay so that humankind would be able (again, for example) to make use of fossil fuels without needing to wait billions of years for the decay of those first living animals. 
        If this is the case, then all of the modern geologists' conclusions are both true and false simultaneously...true in that the earth really is millions/billions of years old, but false in that this really old earth was created that way only some 10s of thousands of years ago because that was the most practical form for it to be created in.  (Having a "baby" earth that would take eons to get to a useable/functional condition would be no more practical than it would have been to create a newborn male and a newborn female (with no adults already having been created to take care of them)).
 

Makes for interesting material to contemplate.

[Dana]

It also makes God a trickster.

[jetted4]

It also makes God a trickster.

 

Not sure I agree.  If He has told us what He did in the verses about creation then we have to interpret the data from scientific explorations hand in hand with the other information He gave us to in order to figure out the truth.  The theory I posed above is very logical.  There are no tricks about His having created an adult Adam/Eve, so it doesn't seem like a trick for him to have created an "adult" earth also.

 

[IsabelC]

Ah, but there is a fundamental flaw in option C: assuming the god is omnipotent, then he (or she, or they, or it) would not be operating under such constraints as the age fossil fuels are required to be, therefore he could design and make fossil fuels that are instantly ready. Or he could create a world that has no need of fossil fuel in the first place (perfect comfortable climate, pre-grilled steak trees, tame pterosaurs for transport and so forth). Similarly, of course, he could easily build baby humans and make them sufficiently precocial to not require adult care. His options are essentially limitless.

 

 

 

 

[Five More Minutes]

It also makes God a trickster.

 

I agree with Dana that this is the fundamental flaw with that approach.

 

I was going to add more, but stumbled across a brief summary by Biologos of the argument against a young earth that appears old. They've expressed it much more elegantly than I could.

[jetted4]

Ah, but there is a fundamental flaw in option C: assuming the god is omnipotent, then he (or she, or they, or it) would not be operating under such constraints as the age fossil fuels are required to be, therefore he could design and make fossil fuels that are instantly ready. Or he could create a world that has no need of fossil fuel in the first place (perfect comfortable climate, pre-grilled steak trees, tame pterosaurs for transport and so forth). Similarly, of course, he could easily build baby humans and make them sufficiently precocial to not require adult care. His options are essentially limitless.

 

I don't see this as a flaw.  The logic I presented assumes that this creator God wasn't random but that He decided He wanted things to work a certain way, and therefore everything He created is consistent with that.  If the Bible indicates that Adam and Eve were created as adults, and it that information is true, then that is the approach God chose.  Yes he could have chosen any other, but once He chose a particular approach, then anything else He could have done instead becomes irrelevant.

 

I will read the Biologos that was linked in a later post.

[abacus2]

An issue with option C as I see it is that if God did in fact create an "adult" earth, then it is old for all scientific purposes. An option C person has no reason to argue with scientists about the age of the earth because they should expect scientists to find evidence favoring an old earth.

[HRAAB]

It also makes God a trickster.

 

Not only a trickster, but a god who enjoys playing games with his people.

[jetted4]

An issue with option C as I see it is that if God did in fact create an "adult" earth, then it is old for all scientific purposes. An option C person has no reason to argue with scientists about the age of the earth because they should expect scientists to find evidence favoring an old earth.

 

I don't see that as an issue.  I agree that anyone who considers option C viable would not argue with scientists about the age of the earth.  Those who struggle with the current explorations in geology about the age of the earth are those who think the only options available are A and B and don't realize option C is both viable and not at all inconsistent with the Bible.

 

[jetted4]

Not only a trickster, but a god who enjoys playing games with his people.

 

Again, I disagree (see earlier response to trickster comment).  If God wanted us to choose to believe in and be in a relationship with Him rather than forcing us to, then He would provide the information and then leave it up to us to draw our own conclusions according to our willingness to consider Him.  If a person doesn't want to believe that a God create the earth, then they are not going to be willing to consider the Bible as part of their investigations.  If you consider it possible that a God is behind it all, then that opens you up to being willing for the Bible and science to agree.  That, then, opens up the opportunity to take two pieces of a puzzle that seem at odds and study them side by side until you can discover how they fit.

     

Again, if God wanted structure/order as well as beauty and He wanted there to be a wealth of resources for people and other creatures to use, it is logic, not trickery, for Him to have created the earth in a form that has those resources in place. 

[Guest inoubliable]

Nothing to contemplate if you understand science.

[idnib]

If you consider it possible that a God is behind it all, then that opens you up to being willing for the Bible and science to agree. 

 

Not really, no. 

[jetted4]

Not really, no. 

 

How so?  I guess I should clarify...if you are willing to consider that the God described in the Bible was behind it all, then you would be willing for science and the Bible to agree. 

 

 

[jar7709]

As long as we're adding things to the discussion, I wish more people studied how modern geology came to be.  It did not form out of a vaccuum, or a cabal of athiests getting together to disprove the bible.  In contrast, it started by careful observations by many, many scientists and naturalists, many, many of which were Christian and were hoping to find evidence for the Noachian flood.  Evidence became overwhelming though that it just couldn't be, that the only way to explain all the observations and evidence is using an old earth model, and those theories often did not go down easily among the establishment. 

 

So regardless of whether god made the earth recently to look old, the only thing human scientists and modern geologic science can reasonably do is to move forward and act upon the best evidence available. 

 

For anyone interested in more, I heartily recommend The Rocks Don't Lie, a wonderful, religion-respecting and recent book that goes stepwise through the changes in geologic science.

[idnib]

How so?  I guess I should clarify...if you are willing to consider that the God described in the Bible was behind it all, then you would be willing for science and the Bible to agree. 

 

I'm not Christian and the only Christians I know believe in both the Bible and an old earth, so I'm still going with "not really, no". 

[jetted4]

As long as we're adding things to the discussion, I wish more people studied how modern geology came to be.  It did not form out of a vaccuum, or a cabal of athiests getting together to disprove the bible.  In contrast, it started by careful observations by many, many scientists and naturalists, many, many of which were Christian and were hoping to find evidence for the Noachian flood.  Evidence became overwhelming though that it just couldn't be, that the only way to explain all the observations and evidence is using an old earth model, and those theories often did not go down easily among the establishment. 

 

 

I'll have to look into this further.  I remember reading more than once of evidences that did actually support the idea of a world-wide flood - e.g., that sea shells have been found up in mountains (in a way that did not fit with them having been hand carried to the location). 

       More substantially, a set of experiments conducted by sedimentologists about the way the sedimentary layers are laid down showing that it is, in fact, quite consistent with the occurrence of a world-wide flood.  Been a lot of years since I read them so it might take some work to find the right key words to hunt things down.

[jar7709]

No.  There are no sedimentary layers or worldwide sedimentary sequences that support a worldwide flood, though many people spent many years trying to connect the dots to find one.  There *are* many, many locations that exhibit evidence of sea level rise and fall (slow), localized flooding (fast), and/or various evidence of fluvial processes in widespread locales, but they are not puzzle pieces that add up to a global flood.  The book I recommended goes into this in some depth.  I suspect if you're strongly YE there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, but terms you could use to google more information on these topics could include "seashells on mountaintops",  "Nicolaus Steno", "sediment lamination", "depositional environments" and "quantitative stratigraphy".

[abacus2]

I don't see that as an issue.  I agree that anyone who considers option C viable would not argue with scientists about the age of the earth.  Those who struggle with the current explorations in geology about the age of the earth are those who think the only options available are A and B and don't realize option C is both viable and not at all inconsistent with the Bible.

 

 

I know people with this belief and some of them do still argue that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth.

[Free]

If there really is an omnipotent/omniscient God who really did create everything, well then if He created an adult Adam and an adult Eve, what would prevent Him from creating an "adult" earth in which they and their offspring (and all other creatures...) would live?  If this is true and this God is a practical Being, then he would have (for example) created an earth already full of fossils at varying stages of decay so that humankind would be able (again, for example) to make use of fossil fuels without needing to wait billions of years for the decay of those first living animals. 

        If this is the case, then all of the modern geologists' conclusions are both true and false simultaneously...true in that the earth really is millions/billions of years old, but false in that this really old earth was created that way only some 10s of thousands of years ago because that was the most practical form for it to be created in.  (Having a "baby" earth that would take eons to get to a useable/functional condition would be no more practical than it would have been to create a newborn male and a newborn female (with no adults already having been created to take care of them)).

 

Makes for interesting material to contemplate.

 

1. That would be an interesting theory if it were at all plausible scientifically. But it is not. Geology/Paleontology is not about finding a bunch of fossils "at various stages of decay" and concluding that the earth must be old. Geology is a complex field and to understand the mathematical and procedural nuances of any geological theory requires years of serious study.

 

2. If this is the position that you want to hold, then we could also argue that God could have also created this world just yesterday with all our memories and histories planted just to create an impression of age. If all objective evidence leads to create the impression of age, and there is no way to know if God created us 10 minutes ago or 10000 years ago, then such an argument for all practical purposes is futile.

[Free]

There are no tricks about His having created an adult Adam/Eve, so it doesn't seem like a trick for him to have created an "adult" earth also.

 

 

I think this statement reveals a lack of understanding of science. The earth and the universe are not "just simply old". Piecing together the various clues from studying astronomy, geology, paleontology, an engrossing story emerges, that which we know as the history of the universe and the earth.

 

We can study and know, for example, when the universe was born, when various stars were born and then died, how and when the solar system was born, how and when the earth was born, how the seas took shape, which volcanoes erupted when, which rivers once flowed and then stopped flowing, how the continents were once shaped and how they changed shapes over time, how and when the various mountain systems were born, when the planet was covered by ice and when was it covered by forests, what kind of trees and animals grew in the forests at various points of time in the past, what was the climate at various points of time, how did life progress over time and so on and on. (that is the just the tip of the geological iceberg)

 

I find it fascinating that scientists can study the clues left behind and reconstruct the past.

 

It is not as simple as saying that because Adam/Eve were adults, the earth must also have been old. Did Adam and Eve have a history? Did they have memories of crawling as babies or playing in the garden as children? The earth does. The earth has a history and a memory of the past in the form of tell tale clues that scientists dedicate their lives to studying.

 

You and I, as lay people have little understanding of the work that goes into such a study and therefore the "theories" that we will come up with in our ignorance are going to be laughably simplistic and embarrassingly naive.

[jetted4]

Actually I am not wed to the idea that there has to be a young earth.  I find option C plausible, but do not rule out option A (that God created it all a long time ago).

 

I haven't dug into this topic in some years...something happened to come across my radar a couple of days ago that brought it to mind so I thought I would post the option C idea as possible food for thought.

 

Once we scale down school for the summer I will investigate the materials mentioned above to see how they address the topic.

 

[Mom-ninja.]

I think the attempts at logic to try and make the Bible and science agree is just another example of confirmation bias.

[jetted4]

I think the attempts at logic to try and make the Bible and science agree is just another example of confirmation bias.

 

Perhaps, but the same can be said about anything that a person is emotionally invested in - which includes stem cell research, global warming, abortion, earth origins....

 

Regardless of whether you believe there is a God behind things or not, if you have a strong emotional investment in your belief being right, you can't help but have it affect the types of questions you ask, where you look for answers, and whether you discard any information as irrelevant along the way. 

 

What the presence of confirmation bias cannot prove is whether any particular belief is true or false.  You may very well have a "confirmation bias" toward one view on a subject, and it can still be true.

 

Time to sign off and get back to studies for now.  I'll start exploring materials in a few weeks.

[Free]

Actually I am not wed to the idea that there has to be a young earth.  I find option C plausible, but do not rule out option A (that God created it all a long time ago).

 

How do you find Option C plausible? How do you reconcile the idea that god planted a false history for the Universe and left evidence for events and things that never even existed, with the idea that god is not a trickster/deceiver?

[albeto.]

I don't remember this angle being brought up in anything I've read previously so I thought I'd throw it out there since I think it adds an interesting twist to interpreting data (and figuring out how the data fits with beliefs) related to the age of the earth.

You seem genuinely interested in broadening your knowledge about this area. Mind if I offer a few thoughts of my own?

 

:)

 

I appreciate the challenge in dealing with anything related to origins.  Most areas of science deal with forming/testing hypotheses to develop theories about how phenomena that we can observe and recreate work.  When it gets to big sections of geology, your beliefs about the presence or absence of a God force you to make assumptions that drive your interpretation of the data.  Since we can't go back and recreate the experiment, so to speak, we are limited in our ability to even determine whether our core assumptions are valid.

You might think of science as a methodology by which we can explore and understand the natural world. Why the natural world only? Well very simply, it's all we can explore. It's a methodology by which observation, data collection, critical analysis, peer review, and other components are applied into an equation of sorts. The more information we can apply into the equation, the more detailed our understanding will be. So in that sense, I'd say that science is a methodology by which we explore and understand the natural world, scientific laws identify known observable phenomenon, scientific theory identifies the mechanics that explain that observable phenomenon.

 

When it comes to geology, belief in any deity is irrelevant, as the fact themselves are used to understand. It's erroneous to assume that we cannot recreate experiments that lead to greater understanding. We can, and do build on knowledge, and the peer review process helps weed out personal biases, illogical conclusions, and faulty assumptions that otherwise cloud our understanding. One need not recreate the origin of life on earth to understand the mechanism that explains the biodiversity we see in the world around us. What we are limited by is not the validity of core assumptions, but the data retrieved and the application of critical thinking skills.

 

If you do not believe that a God created the universe or that miracles can occur, but instead believe that everything came about through natural processes, then the only way for us to have everything in place that we have is for it to have taken many millions/billions of years to transpire...that will drive the assumptions in what questions to ask when testing geologic data.

This is an argument that attempts to put the cart in front of the horse. There is already some correction about this, and I'll offer a couple more links to help illustrate just how this idea of an ancient earth was developed: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml and http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html

 

On the other hand, if you believe that an omnipotent God did create the universe and that miracles can occur, then you come in w an entirely different set of assumptions.  (a) Some in this camp believe that the base assumptions used in geology are true - this group chooses to interpret that God created it all but that He did it millions/billions of years ago.  {b} Others in this camp hold to a literal 6-day creation and are forced to conclude that there are major flaws with the base assumptions used by modern geologists, which then puts them at odds with much of the scientific community.

 

Interestingly, the epistemology used here is not founded on objective evidence that anyone can explore, challenge, and falsify, but on faith that is subjective and often personal. As a methodology, religion accepts personal beliefs are credible and accurate explanations of reality. Evidence that disagrees with this must be rejected. As a methodology, science accepts objective data and a series of skeptical approaches to falsify the hypothesis inspired by data, and personal belief is not incorporated into the process.

 

-->> But there's a third group here that I find intriguing:  {c} If there really is an omnipotent/omniscient God who really did create everything, well then if He created an adult Adam and an adult Eve, what would prevent Him from creating an "adult" earth in which they and their offspring (and all other creatures...) would live?  If this is true and this God is a practical Being, then he would have (for example) created an earth already full of fossils at varying stages of decay so that humankind would be able (again, for example) to make use of fossil fuels without needing to wait billions of years for the decay of those first living animals. 

        If this is the case, then all of the modern geologists' conclusions are both true and false simultaneously...true in that the earth really is millions/billions of years old, but false in that this really old earth was created that way only some 10s of thousands of years ago because that was the most practical form for it to be created in.  (Having a "baby" earth that would take eons to get to a useable/functional condition would be no more practical than it would have been to create a newborn male and a newborn female (with no adults already having been created to take care of them)).

 

Makes for interesting material to contemplate.

Sure does. This is a topic that has been debated over the centuries, mulled about and bounced between the most learned minds of humanity, it's so interesting to contemplate!. The thing is, the conclusive theory is the one that stands up to logical scrutiny - the theory of evolution explains the biodiversity we see in the natural world. One of the problems with the idea of a young-but-old-looking earth is that its foundation rests in the idea, "It Could Be." If we use this as a foundation for knowledge - "It Could Be" - then what's to prevent us from discerning that Scientology is correct? After all, it could be that we have lived on this earth for millions and billions of years, dropped off into a volcano, our memories wiped, and ignorant of the thetans that affect our lives. Then again, it could be that this life is a precursor for the life we will ideally lead as gods and goddess of our own worlds. It could be that we're compelled to do what we do because there is a force greater than us, one that escapes our powers of observation, that guides the very movements of our hands and feet and we simply justify to ourselves what we do without choice. It could be that chemtrails have clogged your brains and you all forgot your purpose in life is to serve me.

 

That's the problem with relying on religious belief as a foundation for exploring and understanding the world - it has no objective credibility. It relies on the assumption and belief that an idea is true because it makes sense to someone that way. The scientific method, in contrast, was developed over generations and centuries to weed these natural biases out, and instead offer great trends to discover, explore in detail, and ultimately falsify. A religious methodology is doomed from the start because all the reasons that support its conclusions can be used to support its opposition.

[jetted4]

Thx, albeto for the responses.  When I have more time in a few weeks, I will read through it all again and do additional research.

[Saddlemomma]

I think the attempts at logic to try and make the Bible and science agree is just another example of confirmation bias.

 

Not really.  Even though the Bible is not a book of science, it doesn't negate science, nor does Theology.  In fact, many of the earliest scientists used logic, reason and their faith to advance their theories and hypotheses. These were rational and reasonable Christians who saw no conflict between the rational process of thoughtful examination and their belief in the existence of God. They saw no conflict between the pursuit of science and the pursuit of theology. In fact, they saw the two endeavors as inextricably connected. Here are just a few great Christian thinkers throughout history:

 

 

• John Philoponus (c.490 to c.570) He theorized about the nature of light and stars and criticized Aristotelian physics
• Bede, the Venerable (c.672 to 735) He wrote two volumes on "Time and its Reckoning" that revealed a new understanding of the "progress wave-like" nature of tides
• Pope Silvester II (c.950 to 1003) He influenced and shaped the teaching of math and astronomy in Christian schools
• Hermannus Contractus (1013 to 1054) He wrote on geometry, mathematics, and the astrolabe (a historical astronomical instrument used by classical astronomers and navigators)
• Robert Grosseteste (c.1175 to 1253) He is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He wrote books on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He believed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory
• Pope John XXI (1215 to 1277) He wrote the “Thesaurus Pauperum†(a widely used medical text)
• Albertus Magnus (c.1193 to 1280) He was a scientist who may have been the first to isolate arsenic. He wrote “Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomenaâ€
• Roger Bacon (c.1214 to 1294) He contributed in areas of optics, mechanics and geography; he promoted empiricism and was one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method. He was also responsible for promoting the concept of the "laws of nature"
• Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250 to c.1310) He gave the first correct explanation for the rainbow in “De Iride et Radialibus Impressionibus†(or “On the Rainbowâ€)
• Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290 to 1349) He was called "the Profound Doctor"and his studies lead to important developments in mechanics
• Jean Buridan (1300 to 1358) He developed a theory known as „impetus‟; an important step toward the modern concept of „inertia‟
• Nicole Oresme (c.1323 to 1382) He was one of the early founders and promoters of „modern sciences‟. He made many scientific discoveries, including the discovery of curvature of light through atmospheric refraction
• Nicholas of Cusa (1401 to 1464) He made contributions to the field of mathematics and developed the concepts of the „infinitesimal‟ and of „relative motion‟
• Otto Brunfels (1488 to 1534) He was a botanist and his “Herbarum Vivae Icones†was a formative work in the field of botany
• Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 to 1543) He introduced the „heliocentric‟ world view, discovering hat earth and the solar system planets revolved around the sun
• William Turner (c.1508 to 1568) He is the "father of English botany" and was also an ornithologist
• Ignazio Danti (1536 to 1586) He was a mathematician who wrote about Euclid (an astronomer, and a designer of mechanical devices)
• Giordano Bruno (1548 to 1600) He was an Italian cosmologist who argued that the Earth revolved around the Sun and that other worlds also revolved around other suns
• Bartholomaeus Pitiscus (1561 to 1613) He was a mathematician who may have coined the word trigonometry in the English and French Languages
• John Napier (1550 to 1617) He was a Scottish mathematician renowned for inventing logarithms and his promotion of the use of decimals
• Johannes Kepler (1571 to 1630) He invented “Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion†based on data he got from Tycho Brahe's astronomical observations
• Laurentius Gothus (1565 to 1646) He was a professor of astronomy who wrote many books on the topic
• Galileo Galilei (1564 to 1642) He was a renowned scientist defended „heliocentrism‟ (to his own peril
• Marin Mersenne (1588 to 1648) He was a mathematician who communicated with other mathematicians related to concepts concerning what are now known as “Mersenne primesâ€
• René Descartes (1596 to 1650) He was one of the key thinkers of the “Scientific Revolution†and the Cartesian coordinate system (used in plane geometry and algebra) was named after him. He did formative work on invariants and geometry.
• Blaise Pascal (1623 to 1662) He was a great thinker, known now for “Pascal's Law†(physics), “Pascal's Theorem†(math), and “Pascal's Wager†(theology).
• Nicolas Steno (1638 to 1686) He was considered a pioneer in both anatomy and geology
• Seth Ward (1617 to 1689) He was the Savilian Chair of Astronomy and wrote the foundational volumes, “Ismaelis Bullialdi Astro-Nomiae Philolaicae Fundamenta Inquisitio Brevis†and “Astronomia Geometricaâ€
• Robert Boyle (1627 to 1691) He was a scientist and theologian who proposed that the study of science was not in conflict with the study of God but could actually glorify God
• John Wallis (1616 to 1703) He was a mathematician who wrote “Arithmetica Infinitorumis†and introduced the term “Continued Fraction†He also worked in areas of cryptography and helped develop calculus
• Gottfried Leibniz (1646 to 1716) He was a “polymath†who did work on determinants and the development of a calculating machine
• Isaac Newton (1643 to 1727) He is still considered to be one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history. He founded the principles and theories of “Newtonian Physicsâ€
• Carolus Linnaeus (1707 to 1778) He is known as the "Father of Modern Taxonomy", but he also made contributions to ecology
• Leonhard Euler (1707 to 1783) He was an important and substantial mathematician and physicist
• Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718 to 1799) She was a mathematician who was eventually appointed to a position within the Vatican by Pope Benedict XIV
• Isaac Milner (1750 to 1820) He was a “Lucasian Professor of Mathematics†and he developed a process to fabricate Nitrous Acid
• Olinthus Gregory (1774 to 1841) He wrote “Lessons Astronomical and Philosophical†and as a mathematician he became the mathematical master at the Royal Military Academy
• William Buckland (1784 to 1856) He was a geologist who wrote “Vindiciae Geologiae†(The Connexion of Geology with Religion Explained)
• Lars Levi Læstadius (1800 to 1861) He was a botanist who wrote proficiently and discovered four species
• Edward Hitchcock (1793 to 1864) He was a geologist and paleontologist who wrote on the topics of “Natural Theology†and fossilized tracks
• William Whewell (1794 to 1866) He was a professor of mineralogy who wrote “An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics†and “Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theologyâ€
• Charles Babbage (1791 to 1871) He was a mathematician, philosopher and mechanical engineer who wrote “The Difference Engine†and the “Ninth Bridgewater Treatiseâ€
• Adam Sedgwick (1785 to 1873) He was a geologist who won both Copley Medal and the Wollaston Medal.
• John Bachman (1790 to 1874) He was an American naturalist who wrote many scientific articles and named several species of animals
• Robert Main (1808 to 1878) He was an astronomer who won the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
• James Clerk Maxwell (1831 to 1879) He was a mathematician and theoretical physicist who developed the classical electromagnetic theory (he was able to synthesize all prior unrelated observations, experiments and equations of electricity, magnetism and optics into a consistent theory)
• Gregor Mendel (1822 to 1884) He is considered the "Father of Modern Genetics" for his studies related to the inheritance of traits in pea plants
• Philip Henry Gosse (1810 to 1888) He was a marine biologist who wrote “Aquarium†and “A Manual of Marine Zoologyâ€
• Asa Gray (1810 to 1888) He was a botanist and wrote what is now known as “Gray's Manual†(which is still an important botanical book). He also wrote “Darwiniana†in which he wrote about the relationship between Evolution and Theology
• Francesco Faà di Bruno (1825 to 1888) He was an Italian mathematician who is famous for “Faà di Bruno's Formulaâ€
• Julian Tenison Woods (1832 to 1889) He was a geologist who wrote “Geological Observations in South Australia†and “History of the Discovery and Exploration of Australiaâ€
• Armand David (1826 to 1900) He was a botanist and a zoologist who described several species new to the West
• George Stokes (1819 to 1903) He was a mathematician and physicist who was a President of the Royal Society and made contributions to “Fluid Dynamicsâ€, optics and mathematical physics
• George Salmon (1819 to 1904) He was a mathematician who won the Copley Medal for his work in mathematics
• Henry Baker Tristram (1822 to 1906) He was an ornithologist and a founding member of the British Ornithologists' Union. He wrote “The Fauna and Flora of Palestineâ€
• Lord Kelvin (1824 to 1907) He was a mathematical physicist and engineer who won the Copley Medal, the Royal Medal, and made important contributions in the field of Thermodynamics.
• Pierre Duhem (1861 to 1916) He was a physicist, a mathematician and a philosopher of science who contributed to the field of “Thermodynamic Potentialsâ€
• Dmitri Egorov (1869 to 1931) He was a Russian mathematician who made important contributions in the area of “differential geometryâ€
• Max Planck (1858 to 1947) He was a physicist who is considered to be the founder of Quantum Mechanics. He won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics
• Robert Millikan (1868 to 1953) He was a physicist who won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics. He wrote about the important relationship between faith and reason in “Evolution in Science and Religionâ€
• E. T. Whittaker (1873 to 1956) He was a mathematician who contributed to the fields of applied mathematics, mathematical physics and the theory of “Special Functions†He was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and he wrote “Theories of the Universe and the Arguments for the Existence of Godâ€. He also received the Copley Medal
• Arthur Compton (1892 to 1962) He was a physicist who won a Nobel Prize in Physics
• Georges Lemaître (1894 to 1966) He was a professor of physics and an astronomer who first proposed the Big Bang theory
• David Lack (1910 to 1973) He was an ornithologist and the Director of the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology. He wrote “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Belief†and was known for his study of the genus Euplectes
• Charles Coulson (1910 to 1974) He was a prominent researcher in the field of theoretical chemistry who won the Davy Medal.
• Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900 to 1975) He was a geneticist who was critical of young Earth creationism. He argued that science and faith did not conflict
• Michael Polanyi (1891 to 1976) He was a „polymath‟ who was active in physical chemistry, economics, and philosophy. He wrote “Science, Faith, and Societyâ€
• Aldert van der Ziel (1910 to 1991) He was a physicist who researched “Flicker Noiseâ€. He wrote more than 15 books and 500 scientific papers. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers named an award after him
• Carlos Chagas Filho (1910 to 2000) He was a neuroscientist who led the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and wrote "The Origin of the Universe", "The Origin of Life", and "The Origin of Man"
• Sir Robert Boyd (1922 to 2004) He was a pioneer in British space science and was Vice President of the Royal Astronomical Society.
• Arthur Peacocke (1924 to 2006) He was a biochemist who worked in areas related to the theory of Evolution. He won the Templeton Prize.
• C. F. von Weizsäcker (1912 to 2007) He was a nuclear physicist who co-discovered the “Bethe-Weizsäcker Formula†He wrote “The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony†and led the Max Planck Society
• Charles Hard Townes: He is a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics and wrote “The Convergence of Science and Religionâ€
• Ian Barbour: He is a physicist who wrote “Christianity and the Scientists†and “When Science Meets Religionâ€
• Stanley Jaki: He is a professor of physics at Seton Hall University who won a Templeton Prize and promotes the idea that modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society
• Allan Sandage: He is an astronomer who made several discoveries concerning the “Cigar Galaxy†and wrote the article “A Scientist Reflects on Religious Beliefâ€
• John Polkinghorne: He is a particle physicist who wrote “Science and the Trinity†and won the Templeton Prize.
• Owen Gingerich: He is an astronomer who teaches the History of Science at Harvard and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the International Academy of the History of Science
• R. J. Berry: He is a geneticist and a former president of the Linnean Society of London who wrote “God and the Biologist: Personal Exploration of Science and Faithâ€
• MichaÅ‚ Heller: He is a mathematical physicist who writes on “Relativistic Physics†and “Non-Commutative Geometryâ€. He also wrote “Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion†and won the Templeton Prize
• Ghillean Prance: He is a botanist involved in the “Eden Project†and current President of “Christians in Scienceâ€
• Donald Knuth: He is a renowned computer scientist and is known as the “Father of the Analysis of Algorithmsâ€. He wrote “The Art of Computer Programmingâ€
• Eric Priest: He is a mathematician and an authority on Solar Magnetohydrodynamics who won the George Ellery Hale Prize
• Robert T. Bakker: He is a paleontologist who was an important player in the "Dinosaur Renaissance" and an advocate for the theory that some dinosaurs were warm-blooded
• Joan Roughgarden: She is a biologist and Stanford professor who wrote “Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologistâ€
• Kenneth R. Miller: He is a biology professor at Brown University who wrote “Finding Darwin's Godâ€
• Francis Collins: He is the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute who wrote “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Beliefâ€
• Simon C. Morris: He is a British paleontologist who studied the Burgess Shale fossils and was the co-winner of a Charles Doolittle Walcott Medal and also won a Lyell Medal
• John T. Houghton: He is a professor of atmospheric physics and is co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He won a gold medal from the Royal Astronomical Society
• Christopher Isham: He is a theoretical physicist who developed “HPO Formalism†and wrote “Physics, Philosophy and Theologyâ€
• Stephen C. Meyer: He is a geologist with a PhD in history and philosophy of science from Cambridge who co-founded the Discovery Center and co-wrote “Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe†and “Darwinism, Design, and Public Educationâ€
• Michael J. Behe: He is a biochemist and a professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who coined the term "irreducible complexity" in his study of cellular structures. He wrote (or co-wrote) “Darwin's Black Boxâ€, “Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe†and the “The Edge of Evolutionâ€
• William Albert Dembski: He is a mathematician and statistician who taught at Baylor University and wrote “The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities†and “No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligenceâ€
• Charles B. Thaxton: He is a physical chemist who holds a doctorate degree in the history of science from Harvard University. He wrote “The Mystery of Life's Origin†and “The Soul of Scienceâ€.
• Guillermo Gonzalez: He is an astrophysicist who studies the late stages of stellar evolution using spectroscopy, and he is also doing research on extrasolar planets. He wrote “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discoveryâ€
• Paul Kwan Chien: He is a biologist known for his research on the physiology and ecology of intertidal organisms. He is a professor at the University of San Francisco where his research is centered on the transport of amino acids and metal ions across cell membranes as well as the detoxification mechanisms of metal ions. He wrote “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang†in “Darwinism, Design and Public Educationâ€
• Cornelius G. Hunter: He is a professor of biophysics at Biola University whose research is centered on nonlinear systems and molecular biophysics. He wrote “Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evilâ€, “Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Scienceâ€, and “Science's Blindspot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalismâ€
• Scott Minnich: He is a microbiologist who is studying the temperature regulation of Yestis enterocolitca gene expression and coordinate reciprocal expression of flagellar and virulence genes. He co-wrote and presented a paper to the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, entitled “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuitsâ€
• Henry F. Schaefer, III: He is a computational and theoretical chemist who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University. He is a member of the International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science and is the Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, at UC Berkeley
• Geoffrey Simmons: He is a medical doctor and wrote “What Darwin Didn't Know: A Doctor Dissects the Theory of Evolution†and “Billions of Missing Links: A Rational Look at the Mysteries Evolution Can't Explainâ€
• Wolfgang Smith: He is a mathematician, physicist, and a philosopher of science who has written extensively in the field of “Differential Geometryâ€. He has either written or contributed to “Cosmos and Transcendence: Breaking Through the Barrier of Scientistic Belief†and “The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology: Contemporary Science in Light of Traditionâ€
• Marcus R. Ross: He is a vertebrate paleontologist who contributed “The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang†in “Darwinism, Design and Public Educationâ€

I don't think any of these scientists checked their theology, logic or reason at the door when it came to science.  I do think that people today are woefully unaware of the significance theists played in advancing science throughout history.  As one Apologist, J. Warner Wallace states: "The earliest of Christians understood the connection between reason, logic and faith, and they did not see these concepts as mutually exclusive."

[albeto.]

Not really.  Even though the Bible is not a book of science, it doesn't negate science, nor does Theology.

 

By its very nature, religion negates science. Religion claims to explain and offer an understanding of the world via divine revelation, a super [outside] natural source of information. Science claims to explain and offer an understanding of the world via exploration of the natural world - no super/other components involved. By its very nature, science cannot explore what is outside its limitations, which is exactly what religion claims to do, even in opposition to known information. That opposition is where religion attempts to negate science. 

 

In fact, many of the earliest scientists used logic, reason and their faith to advance their theories and hypotheses.

 

 What fact has been uncovered by religious faith? In what way does faith contribute to the scientific method? 

 

As one Apologist, J. Warner Wallace states: "The earliest of Christians understood the connection between reason, logic and faith, and they did not see these concepts as mutually exclusive."

 

Religion offers an explanation of the world via information gained through supernatural revelation.

Science offers an explanation of the world via information gained through exploration of the natural world. 

 

The two methodologies are by nature mutually exclusive. They will always be in conflict. One acquiescing to the other doesn't reveal a connection, it reveals acceptance of the credibility of one claim (science) over the other (religion). 

 

[MistyMountain]

I'm confused. Things don't fit into 3 neat little boxes and the description of not believing in God so you come up with a natural explanation isn't true at all. Some religious people do realize that the evidence clearly points to the origins of the earth, evolution, humans contributing to global warming by putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere etc etc. They are not mutually exclusive. Science doesn't claim to know all the answers but we do have solid evidence for lots of stuff. Scientists didn't come up with a bunch of theories because we don't believe in a creator.  Our understanding of how things occurs changes over time. There is still a lot we don't know but that is a good thing. Option C doesn't really make sense.

[TracyP]

I played with the idea of "option C" for awhile. In the end, I decided it did make God out to be deceitful. Unlike Adam and Eve, the fossil layers are there for all to see. An omniscient God would know the clash that would ensue between science and the biblical narrative. It would indeed make Him a trickster to leave so much evidence for OE and Evolution, yet expect people to believe the Genesis creation account as scientific fact.

 

[TracyP]

Not really.  Even though the Bible is not a book of science, it doesn't negate science, nor does Theology.  In fact, many of the earliest scientists used logic, reason and their faith to advance their theories and hypotheses. These were rational and reasonable Christians who saw no conflict between the rational process of thoughtful examination and their belief in the existence of God. They saw no conflict between the pursuit of science and the pursuit of theology. In fact, they saw the two endeavors as inextricably connected. Here are just a few great Christian thinkers throughout history:

 

 

• Nicolaus Copernicus (1473 to 1543) He introduced the „heliocentric‟ world view, discovering hat earth and the solar system planets revolved around the sun

 

 

The fact that Christians have made scientific breakthroughs does nothing to refute Mom-ninja's point. Confirmation bias is when you try to fit new information into what you already believe to be true. For example, let's look at Copernicus. The Bible says that God made the sun stop moving at Joshua's request. Copernicus wasn't arguing that the sun used to rotate around the earth in Joshua's time, but at some point since everything changed. Christian or not, he(and the others) were seeking to understand the evidence no matter where it led. They were even willing to present this evidence when it made parts of the Bible illogical - as in the case of Copernicus. They were religious people, but they were not trying to make science fit their religious beliefs.

[Leav97]

I've never understood the desire to merge science and religion.  To me it seems like trying to define God using the physical world.  Even before becoming an atheist I found the idea of defining God with science to be uncomfortable. 

[PachiSusan]

I don't believe that God put fossils in the earth to "test" our faith" or to "Trick" us into thinking the world is much older. He doesn't have to resort to such parlor tricks, and the Author of all truth would not build our world on a lie. 

[...................]

I have brought up the idea of creating an adult earth numerous times on this board. A few always find it interesting. I certainly feel it is useful.

[IsabelC]

Perhaps, but the same can be said about anything that a person is emotionally invested in - which includes stem cell research, global warming, abortion, earth origins....

 

Regardless of whether you believe there is a God behind things or not, if you have a strong emotional investment in your belief being right, you can't help but have it affect the types of questions you ask, where you look for answers, and whether you discard any information as irrelevant along the way. 

 

 

 

This is incorrect, because, by and large, people are not emotionally attached to scientific theories. I have no emotional response to the age of the earth. Right now, the overwhelming majority of properly qualified experts say that the earth is old, so as a non-expert I am inclined to accept this. However, if tomorrow there emerged incontrovertible evidence of a young earth, I would be surprised but not upset. I would change my view on the age of the earth, but I would not change my morals or the way I live my life, because there is no emotional investment. My beliefs about the age of the earth have no effect on any of my other beliefs or feelings.

[dbaeimers]

I personally believe in option C.  Nothing else makes sense to me.  It also does not make sense to me that God would create a young looking earth when everything else He created looked as an adult.  As for fossils, I believe that He wanted us to believe unseeing.  

[jetted4]

Even though I am really supposed to be working on other tasks right now :glare:, one person's post that there wasn't evidence for Noah's flood got me curious so I did a quick search and came across this write-up.  It is quite extensive so I have only skimmed through less than half and haven't had time to look up the references, but I thought I would post in case anyone was interested in reading it:

 

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

 

[jar7709]

[ name=jetted4" post="5704612" timestamp="1402026824]

 

Even though I am really supposed to be working on other tasks right now :glare:, one person's post that there wasn't evidence for Noah's flood got me curious so I did a quick search and came across this write-up. It is quite extensive so I have only skimmed through less than half and haven't had time to look up the references, but I thought I would post in case anyone was interested in reading it:

 

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

 

I don't have time to rebut this website point for point, and frankly that feels like an exercise in futility in this venue, but that website is full of misreadings and misunderstandings. Here is just one of many bible-sympathetic and well-written rebuttals to a specific point mentioned on that article: http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/icr/drjohn/drjohn_81.htm

[Free]

I personally believe in option C.  Nothing else makes sense to me.  It also does not make sense to me that God would create a young looking earth when everything else He created looked as an adult.

 

What is it about option C that makes sense to you? I asked the same question to the OP before:

 

How do you find Option C plausible? How do you reconcile the idea that god planted a false history for the Universe and left evidence for events and things that never even existed, with the idea that god is not a trickster/deceiver?

 

She has not yet responded. I presume that is because she has arrived at her position without understanding the science and is therefore unable to explain her reasoning.

 

As for fossils, I believe that He wanted us to believe unseeing.  

 

So you believe god has planted elaborate false clues and red herrings to deliberately mislead? Such an idea of the "all powerful divine" amuses me because this god seems tiny and petty and not even capable of matching the wisdom and compassion of some of the awesome people on this board.

[Free]

This thread reminds me of the question "Did Adam and Eve have a navel?". Check out the wikipedia article on Omphalos hypothesis to understand the criticisms for option C.

[IsabelC]

BINGO!

 

I knew as soon as somebody mentioned them being created adults that the navel question was going to come up at some point.

 

 

[jetted4]

What is it about option C that makes sense to you? I asked the same question to the OP before:

 

 

She has not yet responded. I presume that is because she has arrived at her position without understanding the science and is therefore unable to explain her reasoning.

 

 

So you believe god has planted elaborate false clues and red herrings to deliberately mislead? Such an idea of the "all powerful divine" amuses me because this god seems tiny and petty and not even capable of matching the wisdom and compassion of some of the awesome people on this board.

I had not responded for 2 reasons. First, because I had already addressed at least some of your criticism in prev posts and, second, because I had already said that it was time for me to sign off and focus on other responsibilities.

 

I had thrown it out there as a quick food for thought for any who wanted to consider the idea, not expecting to have people demand that I provide a full treatise for why I am willing to consider the option. 

 

As I also mentioned above, I will revisit the subject in my own research over the summer when I have more time - this post was intended for people to use themselves and conduct their own research to determine whether they see it as plausible.

 

I understand that not everyone shares the same views, but I am disappointed by the tinge of disdain that seeps through in some of the criticisms.  This forum should be a place of mutual respect - even if you feel someone's perspective is wrong.

[albeto.]

  This forum should be a place of mutual respect - even if you feel someone's perspective is wrong.

 

I'm confused. Where have you been treated with disrespect? 

[jetted4]

Perhaps am reading into things, but there is more than one for which the tone seems a bit condescending or hostile.  Gotta go.

[jetted4]

ok.  going to add one more comment then set this aside.  If a book claims to be fiction, you can read it for inspiration or to enjoy the story, but that's pretty much it.  If it claims to be fact, but makes false statements, then it is of limited use at best.  The Bible presents itself as God's word - facts of history, not just stories to inspire.  Wherever the Bible makes claims about history or science, if it can be proven unequivocally false, then that would move it into the category of myth/not a source of truth to build one's life around.

 

I firmly believe that there's no point in trusting statements in the Bible about who God is or what sort of relationship we are supposed to have with him if He is supposed to be all-knowing, but His book is riddled with errors.

 

So...I know there are some who have posted above that believe that they have already proven the Bible false - if you are correct, then you are right to throw it out.  Others are less confident that the "proofs" against it are objective and accurate so are still on the fence.  And still others have tested and feel confident that they can trust it with their lives. 

 

Given that God is an emotional subject (yes, I realize there are some who conduct science with an open mind, but a large portion of humanity does care very deeply one way or the other), I doubt we will ever reach a time when everyone can agree that the evidence is clearly 100% in support or 100% against the existence of a God or which God it is or what involvement He might have had with our origins.

 

I do, though, think it is worthwhile is for us to share thoughts/ideas - even if we haven't had time to research them thoroughly ourselves - so that others can decide whether to investigate in order to draw their own conclusions.  If you have an open mind, you should never be afraid to hear a view that contradicts your own (I include myself in this).  Instead, it should inspire you to further explorations/studies. 

 

As I at least implied above, I do not pretend to be an expert, nor do I claim to have researched the subject thoroughly.  I just thought I would share an idea that seemed plausible to me and let others decide whether they wanted to examine it in any detail themselves.

[dbaeimers]

What is it about option C that makes sense to you? I asked the same question to the OP before:

 

 

So you believe god has planted elaborate false clues and red herrings to deliberately mislead? Such an idea of the "all powerful divine" amuses me because this god seems tiny and petty and not even capable of matching the wisdom and compassion of some of the awesome people on this board.

 

 

First it does not make sense to me that God would make an infant Earth when everything else he made was adult.  The trees that He made on the very same day He made them would have had rungs to depict age even though they were just made.  The flowers would have looked fully mature because that is what they were to look like, even when they were hours old.  It would have needed to be mature to function and sustain life.

 

The second thing that does not make sense to me is that everything just happened to be and fell into place.  That would be the equivalent of saying that some cans of paint spilled together and happened to arrange itself as a beautiful Thomas Kinkade painting.  There is just no way that all the beauty of the earth happened by chance.   

 

The only remaining option to me is that God created the Earth as fully mature just as he made everything else.  Believing in God is supposed to take faith.  You may not agree, but I have a strong belief that this is how things came into being.  I was not there.  You were not there.  None of us were there.  All any of us has is the common sense God gave us to decide for ourself what we think happened and that is what I believe happened.  I also do not believe we truly have to know.  It can be fun to guess and wonder how everything came into being, but there is no true way to know.  

[idnib]

Excuse my ignorance, but does the Bible explicitly say Adam and Eve were created as adults? 

[dbaeimers]

Excuse my ignorance, but does the Bible explicitly say Adam and Eve were created as adults? 

 

Yes.

[Free]

The trees that He made on the very same day He made them would have had rungs to depict age even though they were just made.

 

Actually I don't see why the trees should have growth rings. The purpose of growth rings is not to "depict age". Growth rings are just patterns of wood growth depending on season and climate and can be used to determine age since we can know the seasonal changes in a year. There are years with very narrow rings which are due to droughts, and sometimes even missing rings. So you see, even growth rings don't just mutely exist, tell a story of the past if you are willing to look and listen.

 

 

It can be fun to guess and wonder how everything came into being, but there is no true way to know.

 

If all humans just believed that, we would never have made the progress that we have. I am grateful to all the people who do not stop at just wondering, and who push to find solutions no matter how impossible the problems seem.

[a27mom]

I have always thought option c a strong possibility. Which is why I considered myself young earth. It wasn't until I began homeschooling that I discovered young earth could mean something different. So now I hesitate to call myself YE, because I don't agree with a lot of "YE" scientific interpretations.

 

The idea that it is trickery does not make sense. Certainly there are people who reject God and misinterpret many things in his creation, that doesn't mean he is tricking them. If I plant a mature tree in my yard because I want shade, or already growing tomato plant because I want tomatoes before frost, it doesn't mean I am involved in trickery. It is plausible if you believe in an all powerful God, to believe he created the earth already in process, not because he wanted to trick us, but because his processes have purpose at all their stages.

 

In actuality I am not firmly wed to option C. I believe it is possible to "literally" interpret scripture in the Hebrew and allow for an old earth. (I do not personally believe Human evolution is plausible according to scripture, nor do I even find it all that plausible from what I studied in biology, but I am very interested in hearing why others believe it is plausible)

 

I also find the idea that if you believe the supernatural intervenes in the natural world you are somehow expelled from science to be an overreach. Many historic scientific discoveries were made by individuals who were looking for the wonder and order in God's creation, and refused to "leave God at the door". I do find it quite sad that in some circles there is such a hostility from different groups (both the anti-god and anti-science types). The definition of science simply is not as narrow as some of the "anti-god" types make it out to be, and yes it also isn't as broad as some of the "anti-science" types would declare it to be either. But if one truly believes in God they can not somehow divorce God's existence from science, and that does not disqualify from science either.