ContentBlocks 8 1 Ads Shiloh Standard copy

Research Topics

There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists

There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists - the evolutionists - rely on a minority of the relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists - the creationists - uses the majority of the relevant data. Adding to the irony is the public's wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore, many ask: 'if the evidence is so strongly for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?' The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old!

Going round in circles

They trust in what's called 'circular reasoning', not data. I once encountered such a clear example of this misplaced trust, that I made detailed notes immediately. It happened when I spoke with a young (in his early thirties, career-ambitious, and upwardly mobile) geochemist at Sandia National Laboratories, where I then worked as a physicist. I presented him with one piece of evidence for a young world, the rapid accumulations of sodium in the ocean. It was ideal, since much of geochemistry deals with chemicals in the ocean.

I wanted to see how he explained possible ways for sodium to get out of the sea fast enough to balance the rapid input of sodium to the sea. Creationist geologist Steve Austin and I wanted the information in order to complete a scientific paper on the topic. We went around and around the issue for an hour, but he finally admitted he knew of no way to remove sodium from the sea fast enough. That would mean the sea could not be billions of years old. Realizing that, he said, 'Since we know from other sciences that the ocean is billions of years old, such a removal process must exist.'

I questioned whether we 'know' that at all and started to mention some of the other evidence for a young world. He interrupted me, agreeing that he probably didn't know even one percent of such data, since the science journals he depended on had not pointed it out as being important. But he did not want to examine the evidence for himself, because, he said, 'People I trust don't accept creation!'

Faith, not science

I asked him which people he was relying upon. His answer was, 'I trust Stephen Jay Gould!' (At that time Gould, a paleontologist, was still alive and considered the world's most prominent evolutionist.) Thus the geochemist revealed his main reason for thinking the earth is old: 'People I trust,' i.e., scientific authorities, had declared it. I was surprised that he didn't see the logical inconsistency of his own position. He trusted Gould and other authorities but ignored highly relevant data!

Perhaps the geochemist thought it so unlikely the earth is young that he wasn't going to waste time investigating the possibility himself. But if that were the case, then it shows another way the old-world myth perpetuates itself - by intellectual inertia.

I remember having similar attitudes when I was a grad student in physics, while I was still an evolutionist. I was wondering about a seeming inconsistency in biological evolutionism. But, I told myself, surely the experts know the answer, and I've got my dissertation research to do. I had no idea that (a) the experts had no answer for it, and (b) the implications were extremely important, affecting my entire worldview.

Before I became a Christian, I resisted evidence for a recent creation because of its spiritual implications. The geochemist might also have been resisting such implications, and was merely using scientific authority as a convenient excuse.

The Bottom Line

Many scientists are not the independent seekers of truth the public imagines, so the public should not trust them blindly. For a variety of reasons, scientists depend on other scientists to be correct, even when they themselves have some reason for doubt. Unfortunately, as most creationist scientists can tell you, the young geochemist's reaction is not at all exceptional. Many scientists, without serious questioning, trust the opinions of their own 'experts'. However, I'm happy to report that others, when presented with creationist data, have become very interested and have investigated it. Many have become creationists that way, as I did.

D. Russell Humphries, Ph.D. is a Creationist physicist, writer and speaker for Creation Ministries International. Dr. Humphreys received a B.S. degree in physics at Duke University, 1959-1963. After this, he moved to Louisiana State University (LSU) to study postgraduate physics. In 1969, while doing his dissertation research for LSU in the mountains of Colorado, he committed his life to Christ. In 1972, he was awarded a Ph.D. in physics, on cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist due to both the biblical and scientific evidence. His full bio can be read at: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3568. This article has been reproduced here with permission from CMI.

SUPPORT ABR

ABR fulfills its mission through memberships and generous donations from supporters.

Join us in our mission! No matter what your level of interest, from keeping abreast of the fascinating research that comes out of the field work, to actively participating in an archaeological dig, you can become an integral part of our ministry.

Please click here for our support page.

ASSOCIATES FOR BIBLICAL RESEARCH

Phone: 717-859-3443

Toll Free:  800-430-0008

email: comments@biblearchaeology.org

PO Box 144, Akron, PA 17501

ABRSocialMediaFacebook

ABRSocialMediaTwitter

ABRSocialMediaYouTube

Site Design and Management by: Nehemiah Communications [http://nehemiahcommunications.com] & Enktesis [http://enktesis.com]

ABRT 28 | 8/1/2019