An Argument to Not Use


This forum is read-only for most visitors; only authorized users can post.
However, if you logged in to this site, you may be an authorized user. To help determine if you can post, look for "New Topic" or "Reply."

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous (not verified)
An Argument to Not Use

An Argument to Not Use

On the CMI website, on a page recommending that certain arguments be avoided by creationists, we read the following:

Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is ‘the truth’ (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments. 1

Below is a quote from the AIG site; the quote below is from an article listing arguments that ought not be used by creationists:

Using bad arguments allows evolutionists to easily “refute” creationists by sidestepping the actual case for biblical creation. Even one instance of using a faulty argument can lead someone to write off creationism as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists... 2


The arguments that we use must also be rational. 3

What makes an argument discredited?

Let's find out what's wrong with these discredited arguments, and look at one method of fixing them.

The problem - and a "not recommended" solution (currently in use by many)

First, the given reason for discrediting these arguments is an apparent problem with the science in these arguments - i.e., there is claimed to be some scientific reason the arguments fail. That is, the science (or scientific mechanism(s) invoked) supposedly does not produce the desired result. We shall examine an approach used by many creationists to "fix" this, though, going beyond science: with the assistance of miracles

Common element

The "arguments to not use" seem to have one thing in common - they don't work (or are claimed to not work) scientifically.

Miracles to the rescue! (the "not recommended" approach)

Let us pretend to be in favor of the discredited arguments, and that we want to make them work. 

How can we make these discredited arguments work? Miracles will make these discredited arguments work: All of them. 

How so? 

By definition! Miracles are things that are not ordinarily possible (without invoking the supernatural). A miracle is something that cannot be done by ordinary mechanisms, or according to the known laws of science - unless there is a miracle, of course! (If something cannot be done, it is common to say that a miracle is needed.)

So, the person arguing for the "do-not-use" arguments might say, why not use these supposedly discredited arguments, in conjunction with miracles? Miracles remove the problem of the lack of a method for them to work; miracles simply will deal with the difficult aspects of the discredited arguments, resulting in those same arguments working!

Wrong reasoning

NOTE: the reasoning below is not claimed to be valid; it is simply an example to illustrate the obvious problems with the practice of invoking hypothetical, ad-hoc, extra-biblical miracles as a rescue device to prop up our favored non-workable models, which reasoning we might (erroneously) use to rescue, fix, and justify the use of those failing, non-working models.

Even though the problem arguments we are discussing may be scientifically invalid, or scientifically "broken" - we must understand that they are not really broken! For, we must remember - we have miracles!  We can count on miracles!

There, now; with miracles, we can keep all of our favorite theories!

And, as a result of our use of miracles to prop up our models, the work of creation science can go on, accomplishing its purpose: which is, to give young people in colleges, those front-line troops, facing, say, some evolutionist professor, the best ammo possible to use in dealing with atheistic scientists, to prove scientifically the miracle of creation, using the very miracles those atheistic scientists will be sure to readily reject - errr, ahem - I mean, readily accept (though some disagree, insisting they would reject those miracles)! 

Don't regard those reports of believers from strong Christian homes, who have ostensibly left the faith in these confrontations with evolution. No, those reports must be false! After all, when atheistic professors say to a creationist student, "Prove it!" the student can then use these so-called discredited arguments - plus miracles - (to solve their scientific problems) - and, Voila! The professor will always be convinced! These professors all readily accept ad-hoc miracles as proof! Instead of the professor convincing the student to doubt the Bible, these miracle-backed proofs from the student will win over the professor!

And, don't regard those who argue that the professor will not believe the arguments, simply because miracles are needed to make them work. Atheistic, evolutionary professors like miracles - they accept them all the time! (Remember, belief in evolution, which is quite impossible, requires belief in miracles!)

Last, but not least - the best reason of all - we like to use these arguments! They are our own personal favorites!

You may be beginning to see some problems with the above line of reasoning.

Correct reasoning

Well, there really is a problem with the above.

Atheistic professors and atheistic scientists may actually not be eager to accept biblical miracles as part of the scientific evidence in support of the Bible. Proving a miracle of creation by invoking known laws of science or math, that the professor accepts (such as laws of geometry), may convince the professor - but there is no doubt at all that evidence that requires miracles will assuredly be rejected.

Our hypothetical evolutionist professor thinks, "You are trying to support miracles by invoking miracles. This is circular reasoning, and not valid." Does this impress the professor with the truth of the Bible, or the arguments of Christians? Needless to say, this does not impress the evolutionist/atheist with the reasoning abilities of Christians, nor with the validity of creation science in general.

The purpose of creation science is to use scientific evidence (not assumed, un-proven, ad-hoc miracles) to persuade those who do accept science (but not necessarily assumed, un-proven, ad-hoc, miracles) to accept a miracle (of creation).

The target audience does accept science - so why not let science convince them?

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth that, even though one speaks truly to God things that non-Christians do not understand and will not accept, those non-Christians will misunderstand that practice and will not "get it;" so instead, Paul advises presenting these non-Christians something else, something that they will accept.4

The atheistic audience tends to not accept miracles, which should not come as a surprise. Especially, atheistic science professors tend not to accept miracles by God; so arming our youth with "miracle-science" and sending them out to deal with the arguments for evolution, is a recipe for disaster. Just think: we give them "Creation science" that assumes and requires miracles, as "evidence" to present to those who reject miracles???

Not only will this fail to convince evolutionary science professors, but it leaves open the possibility of the science professors' convincing the student that the student's arguments and beliefs are wrong. The fact is that the reasoning presented by creation "science" that invokes ad-hoc miracles, in order to prove miracles, really is circular, and the professor is right about this! If the professor points this out, the professor is correct, and a reasonably intelligent student may recognize that the professor is correct in pointing out this circularity as being the actual case, and may see the professor's pointing this out as being supportive of the professor's position - a position for evolution, and against creation... and, by implication, against the gospel.

This perceived validity of the professor's opposition to creation science could lead to the student's questioning the source of the invalid circular reasoning (i.e., questioning "Creation Science"), and to question other information (such as the gospel) promoted by that same source. The questioned source of the circular reasoning, the "creation science" source, also advocates for other parts (than Genesis) of the Bible, such as the New Testament and the gospel; thus, questioning this creation "science" source of illogical miracle-arguments, could lead to the student's questioning the Bible and Christianity itself. 

We see it may appear to the student that the professor's position (of opposing God as creator) has gained some "points," whether it actually has or not. This is a misrepresentation that is not necessary, since it is not necessary to arm students with illogically circular reasoning arguments.

Using science (scientific evidence) to support and inform people of the truth about miracles is the way creation science is supposed to work, instead of doing creation science backwards by using assumed, un-biblical, ad-hoc miracles to support "science" (non-working scientific models). Actually, these "scientific" models are really un-scientific models, since they will not work - without the miracles.

CPT (Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, a flood model) has this backwards. CPT uses (the assumption of or belief in) miracles to support a scientific model.

Do you see how this is backwards?

We don't (or shouldn't) use (ad-hoc) miracles to support our "science;" rather, we (ought to) use science to support a miracle of creation.

Our audience doesn't believe in miracles; that's why we don't use miracles, but instead use science, to show them evidence FOR miracles (like creation). Well, that's not actually true; it's not what we actually do, but it is what we ought to do.

It is illogical and circular to use what one does not believe in to prove that very thing.

For example, consider this hypothetical conversation:

"I know you don't believe in miracles, but I can prove the miracle that Jesus walked on water!"

"Well, that's impossible. Your theory requires a liquid to support a denser material. That is contrary to laws of physics."

"Oh, true enough - in the natural - but a miracle can do it! For instance, a miracle of changing the density of water, or the law of buoyancy, or possibly the law of gravity - or possibly miraculously freezing the water under Jesus' feet - could do it. There are many possible ways!

"Oh, I see - that explains it! Now I'm convinced; I didn't accept miracles before, but your explanation is so scientific, since it involves laws of physics, changing the water, so that I now see and believe that the miracle of walking on water did happen! - you have proven miracles! I'm convinced!"

Do you see the flaw in the reasoning of the skeptic? He is convinced to believe in a miracle - by assuming another miracle!

If he won't accept miracles - not the miracle of creation, etc. - then, why would he accept miracles as part of the argument in any so-called "proof" or evidence?

As pointed out before, he would not, and this approach is circular. This approach does not work.


If you say the above is not valid, since a miracle can actually prove something - then you are correct in that miracles can occur, and may be evidence to those who witness the miracles - but you misunderstand this situation. The idea that an appeal to ad-hoc, non-observed miracles can be used to support theories, theories which are then used to support/prove miracles - is wrong. (Here, the words support, prove, provide evidence, etc. are loosely used somewhat interchangeably, for our purposes, all of which are indicative of being used for support of an argument, theory, or position.)

A miracle that is observed and measured and recorded is not just a miracle; the measurements, observations and recording of data can reasonably be considered to be scientific data. This data can scientifically confirm that the miracle occurred; but this is by the use of science, not by the mere appeal to (only) belief in miracles.

Example: Elijah performed a miracle in calling fire down from heaven; but this miracle was scientifically confirmed by observation of multiple witnesses. Elijah performed a test (this is like a scientific experiment) - see if my God, or your god, answers by fire from heaven, fire that you can see. It can easily be explained as, "Use the science - the result of the experiment - to figure out which God to believe."

The miracles of CPT were NOT observed, were NOT recorded, and were NOT measured (i.e., they were not science); they are assumed

Elijah did not try to convince the people of Israel to believe in miracles by telling them to assume a miracle; he provided evidence in support of miracles by cold, hard, reality - by evidence, scientific evidence - that the people actually saw. (Though not mentioned, in addition to the evidence of seeing, it is obvious that people could have touched the ashes from the miraculous fire, held the ashes in their hand, examined those ashes and tested them, etc.)

This is how to convince those not believing in miracles, that miracles are real; by proof supplied by evidence, not by invoking even more unseen, unconfirmed, merely assumed, ad-hoc, model-rescue-device miracles which serve the sole purpose of propping up a favorite, failed, non-working model or theory (like CPT), as proof of that model; especially when there is a scientifically better model or theory (such as HPT, or Hydroplate Theory, another flood model). Such invocations of merely assumed, unproven, miracles do not constitute proof, and especially are not appropriate for presentation to an audience that is known to reject miracles out of hand.

Invalid criteria to justify use of ad-hoc miracles ...

... to remove problems of failed/non-working scientific arguments / models

Well, the above may sound like very good arguments for not using miracles. But to be fair, let us look at some possible reasons that rightly - or wrongly - might be used to justify the use of ad-hoc miracles, to justify arguments that would require such miracles to work.

Popularity vs. truth

Some discredited arguments were, at one time, very popular. Popularity might be used to justify support of the popular model, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Yet scientific truth or validity is not determined by popularity. Nor is scriptural truth.

Popularity doesn't make the discredited arguments true. Truth is not determined by vote nor by popularity contest. One of the 2 houses of a state legislature many years ago voted to change the value of pi. Regardless of the vote, the real value of pi (as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter) was not changed - if you divided a circle's circumference by its diameter, the result would not be changed regardless of the popularity of this edict, nor by a thousand such popular votes.

The strength of one's emotions

How strongly we feel about some issue might be used to justify use of ad-hoc miracles. How strongly we feel about some issue

  • may affect our opinion on that issue, and
  • may affect our actions to advocate for a certain position about that issue, and
  • may affect our decision to use arguments to support that position;

but it does not affect the truth value of that issue. Whether something is true, or an argument is valid, is obviously not determined by how strongly we feel about it.


Many authors have put in much time and effort on some of these so-called discredited arguments. Why not go along with their line of reasoning? So what if their line of reasoning is wrong? We don't want to offend the author of the argument! What about the author's ego? After all, some of these arguments come from creation scientists who may have invested lots of time and money in them. Isn't this concern a good reason for use of ad-hoc miracles to support those author's theories?

Ought we not to respect those scientists and their efforts by continuing to promote their theories? 

Truth, again, seems to be the issue.

Does ego trump truth?

Tolstoy wrote that ego does tend to trump truth:

I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives. 5

This line of reasoning can lead to the proverbial "good old boys club." Is the goal of creation science organizations to be "mutual admiration societies," while truth languishes, or to search out truth and share it?

Credentials of those who espouse the model/theory/argument

Aren't the credentials of proponents of the use of ad-hoc miracles justification to use those miracles? No, because credentials do not in themselves constitute proof, and are in and of themselves non-conclusive, as hinted in the quote from Tolstoy above. (Some positions supported by credentialed scientists are opposed by other credentialed scientists; in this case, the credential argument implodes and negates itself.) Credentialed opinion should not trump the scientific evidence, even if this evidence opposes the "credentialed" opinion.

Galileo said something worth noting:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.6

Max Planck wrote about this:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. 6

Those opponents referred to by Planck are obviously credentialed.

Proposed (but not very good) solution and approach (currently in use)

So, let's keep up the good work - keep promoting these so-called "discredited" theories (especially CPT)! That preserves the egos of those scientists who came up with them; isn't this the work of a Christian in creation science, to respect fellow scientists and believers, brothers and fellow laborers in the faith?

Unfortunately, such respect seems too often to be one-sided and for only those believers that support the currently-in-vogue theory, the prevailing paradigm.

Proponents and creators of other theories, arguments, models, etc. which were "not invented here" or that "someone else (or someone not from my organization) thought of before me" have to "toe the line" and not use invalid arguments, and see their favored other theories, arguments, models, etc. discouraged;

... while, on the other hand, ...

theories that are somehow tied to or linked with the group or entity involved in making the decision (of which theories are to be used), seem to be given a pass (that is, allowed to invoke ad-hoc miracles without opposition).

Is this really being done?

Really, one might say? questioning the claim above, one might say, Really? Where is the evidence for this preferential treatment of some models over others?

The obvious prototypical, classical example of this is CPT, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, in its being promoted and not being opposed by organizations tied to the originators and supporters of the theory, in spite of its "multiplied multiplicities" of required miracles, ... while other arguments are much less promoted (or not at all), do get opposed (as shown by virtue of their existence on the discredited lists) and are not allowed to invoke miracles. To illustrate the lack of promotion for other models, a search for another model using the search term "hydroplate" on revealed no results, while a search for "catastrophic plate tectonics" revealed 7 pages of linked results. 7

Analysis of the rationale for using the current methods

The rationale below for using assumed ad-hoc miracles to support arguments and models of creation science will be examined: 

assumed ad-hoc miracles ought to be allowed, in order to support CPT (or other so-called discredited arguments), because these arguments will convince doubters of creation's miracle!

or, in other words, 

appeal (to unbelievers) to believe in miracles leads to belief in CPT (or other discredited arguments) which in turn leads to belief in creation's miracle

I.e., to prove a miracle, assume a miracle (assume what is to be proven). This is circular and not logically valid.

The miracles must be accepted by those the reasoning is trying to convince. Therefore, we can restate this as 

acceptance of miracles (claimed by CPT) leads to belief in CPT (or other "discredited" arguments) that leads to acceptance of (belief in) creation's miracle

In other words, this method uses acceptance of miracles to establish a theoretical model, and then uses that model as evidence to accept real miracles of the Bible. 

This method assumes the following:

(in the shorthand notation below,  ==> indicates "leads to")

claims of miracles ==> (leads to) belief in a scientific model or argument ==> (leads to) belief in creation's miracle


claiming unproven, ad-hoc, non-biblical miracles and presenting them to atheists, leads to belief in creation's miracle

which is (sorry) just not true

For claims of miracles to lead to belief in the scientific model/argument, the claimed miracles must first be accepted, i.e., believed.

Even the prophet Elijah in the Bible did not use this extreme method!

Elijah used evidence, not assumptions. He did not tell the people to serve God without evidence; He even told the people that if the evidence of their eyes showed that Baal answered by fire, then they should worship Baal!

So, instead of the "proof-by-assumed, ad-hoc, un-biblical, guaranteed-to-not-be-accepted miracles" approach above, why not utilize the approach below?

Better solution/approach (not being used currently)

scientific evidence (which the audience does recognize as valid) ==> (leads to) realization of the truth of creation's miracle

Share truth! Be consistent with how we deal with theories and arguments, instead of arbitrarily favoring those we prefer, and instead of using a double standard.

Refuse to invoke the assumption of hypothetical, non-biblical, ad-hoc miracles to convince people - people who reject miracles! - that the miracle of creation occurred. Reverse this - instead, use what these people will listen to, what they do accept - scientific reasoning - and use that to persuade them of creation's miracle!

Summary of why to use / not use arguments

Summary of reasons to accept so-called "discredited" arguments

  • they were (at least at one time) accepted by large numbers of people
  • miracles can make them work
  • their authors may have put in time and effort to create them
  • to make the authors (egos) feel good
  • those who hold to them may feel strongly about them

Summary of reasons to NOT accept so-called "discredited" arguments

  • they don't work scientifically
  • they don't reach the intended audience
  • there are better arguments

The Reality

This is the real situation.

Below is a pretend scenario of some true believer - a true believer in his model as being true - being explained what has just been explained above.

What? You mean, this is really happening? People are really invoking miracles to prop up these discredited arguments, and actually USING them??! Hurting creation science?? No, no; it couldn't be!

Yes, it is.

Where? What argument? Who? How? I just don't believe it!

Well, there is a theory called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics...

Oh; but that is accepted by lots of creationist organizations!

... did you hear what you just said? Think. You are giving the number of those who accept it...  as a reason for accepting CPT, and you just agreed that reason was not valid. 
You do agree that popularity is not a valid reason to accept a theory, right? You did a minute ago. What is important; whether the theory is accepted, or whether it is true? and whether it meets criteria to be used as good science, without ad-hoc miracles? 

OK, that is true. But... Well, ... look at all the investment of research, time and money into the theory! Wouldn't it be hard for them to drop it?

Look at the above - there you see the same argument you just now made. Yet, when you read it, you agreed it was ridiculous, didn't you - to use discredited arguments simply because of the time the authors put into them?
There were lots of arguments on the should-not-be used lists, that had lots of time put into them. However, perhaps the time was put in by people associated with other groups, or who were not tied to the organization that created the list. (Not invented here, bias, double standard - one standard for "us" and another for "them," for the other groups.) 

Well, those arguments were silly... and maybe not all of them fit that category!

Then evaluate them on the basis of the categories they do fit. ... But, what's different here? with CPT? 

Well, it's accepted; and it is sooo much accepted! I mean everybody accepts it. I mean everybody in the major creationist organizations...

And, what does that have to do with its validity? does that constitute proof? remember what I just said - you are quoting the reasons I gave to use discredited arguments, and which you agreed to be invalid. 

But, the scientists that accept it are PhDs in many cases...

Ah! You recall the credentials argument, as not constituting proof?

-- silence --

One is perhaps reminded here of the rich young ruler who "went away grieved" perhaps not wanting to hear what he had heard. 

Elephant in the Room

The reasoning behind not using the arguments on the "do not use" discredited lists, together with the understanding that ad-hoc, unproven, extra-biblical, hypothetical miracles can make those same discredited arguments actually work, and that such miracle-fixes should still not be used ... leads us inexorably to the conclusion that we likewise ought not to use miracle-fixes for Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT), and also ought not use the CPT model itself in explaining the Flood, due to its similar (though in most cases, much more severe and larger in number) problems that cannot be fixed without such ad-hoc, extra-biblical, hypothetical miracles. See below for more on this.

This is compounded by the fact that other good arguments (with far fewer problems - or even none) are available. One far better argument/model than CPT is another flood model, Hydroplate Theory (HPT). Later in this document, the abbreviations CPT and HPT will be used in place of the longer names.

Miracles for CPT

If only one of the miracles that are listed below is found to be really required for CPT, that means CPT requires a miracle.

So, reader, do this please - focus on the relevant issue, rather than being distracted by criticizing the list itself! Some folks may want to combine multiple miracles into one miracle - and is it not a miracle to cause two things to happen that otherwise could not? Arguably, 2 miracles could then be said to be one miracle. But this is irrelevant for the point at issue here.

Also some miracles that are listed may be related in some way(s).

But the categorization of the list of ad-hoc miracles is not the point - the relevant point is that even one ad-hoc miracle is on the CPT miracle list, and that is the problem.

Why have creation scientists who have put items on the discredited arguments lists, not also been looking for mistakes in the use of CPT? If they have, I haven't seen the evidence - not yet have I seen CPT on any of those lists of arguments to not use. Why not?

If all of these required miracles for CPT listed below are wrong, except one, then, instead of focusing on any mistakes in the list below, focus on why that one miracle is to be allowed for CPT.

Also think about why would we insist on still using CPT, while other arguments (which also can be "fixed" by a miracle) are not being used, and why people are being advised to not use those arguments, even though they also, like CPT, can fix their ostensible problems by invoking miracles?

In short, think about why other models/theories (on the do-not-use lists) are rejected, while CPT is allowed, when CPT arguably is far more in need of miracles to solve far greater problems?

Consider the required miracles for CPT: invoking temperature drops for thousands of cubic miles of material by hundreds of degrees to initiate the flood - changing the strong nuclear force - expanding the universe by a factor of 20 - capturing, and then releasing, a moon-sized object - etc... To deny that these CPT problems that require miracles are bigger problems than the problems of many other arguments on the do-not-use lists, suggests bias and cognitive dissonance. Some of those problems seem minor by comparison with the problems of CPT!

This obviously is a double standard. Is there a double standard - perhaps not in official position statements, such as the opening quotes at the beginning of this essay, but in the bias of human minds? Evolutionist Stephen Gould said all scientists were subject to such bias, and that it was sub-conscious. If so, then perhaps a little consciousness-raising about the issue may have beneficial results.

Back to the required miracles for CPT: Focusing on mistakes in the required miracles below, doesn't help the crying need for good science that is the supposed reason for not using discredited arguments in the first place. So, don't be distracted from the relevant issue; let's not be side-tracked!

CPT ad-hoc miracle list

Well, here are SOME of the required miracles for CPT to work. Remember, there is a problem if only one of these is required for CPT:

  • a miraculous acceleration of nuclear decay (there is a proposal for a scientific mechanism to produce accelerated nuclear decay, namely modification of the strong nuclear coupling constant - but this itself requires a miracle to change the strong force, so a miracle is still required)
    • a miraculous expansion of the universe to 20 times its size to to remove the heat produced from accelerated nuclear decay, as well as to remove the heat produced by CPT itself, to prevent melting the earth's crust
      • a miraculous protection of the people and animals on the ark from freezing, due to the above cooling
      • a miracle of stopping the expansion at just the right point to remove just enough heat without overcooling to the point of the earth's becoming an "ice cube"
    • a miraculous protection of the animals and people on the ark from the amazingly large amounts of radiation released by the accelerated nuclear decay (some might argue that the water of the flood would offer protection from radiation; this depends on the amount of radiation, the duration, and the amount of water - even if this miracle is removed, let's keep in mind that the problem is the presence of even one required miracle from this list)
  • a miraculous reversal or slowing back down of the accelerated nuclear decay
  • there seems to be required circulation or convection in the mantle, through the cross-over depth8,9,10,11 which is not possible, thus seemingly requiring another miracle; this has been responded to by saying that this only applies to liquid magma, and that solid rock actually does convect without such cross-over depth limitations - however, convection of solid rock refers to extremely slow movement of putty-like mantle material, while CPT is greatly sped up movement, so this issue may still be problematic - even if this is not a problem, this is only one item on a long list - there are still many miracles required, so consider the other required miracles
  • a miraculous drop in temperature to initiate subduction 
    • a miraculous confinement or localization of the temperature drop to continental edges
    • a miraculous timing of the onset of the temperature drop to the time of the flood
  • a miraculous change of viscosity of the mantle to initiate subduction 12
    • a miraculous timing of the onset of the change of viscosity of the mantle to the time of the flood
  • a miraculous timing of the onset of the subduction to the time of the flood
  • a miracle (or several miracles) to make subduction even possible 13,14,15
  • a miraculous appearance of a moon-sized body at the time of the flood, captured by and orbiting the earth 6 times, to explain sedimentary strata 16,17
  • a miraculous removal of this moon-sized body after 6 orbits

One other item left off the above list, is the appearance of the water. Some think this still requires another miracle: Jane Albright tells us the following: 18

Where did the water come from?

CPT critics point out that the theory does not harmonize very well with Genesis’ straightforward, cause-and-effect, chronological account of the flood: ...

... When I asked CPT proponents these questions during my interviews, I received a variety of vague answers.

... explanations for the source of the floodwaters seem to raise serious technical questions. ...

... scenarios describe something quite different than the plain Genesis narrative. For Bible-believers, this is a huge problem with CPT.

This is the list so far; there might be other items that can be added. The above list has indeed grown with time.

Well, now, some might say, let's not get extreme, here - meaning to not get extreme in pointing out problems with CPT. It is interesting to look at whether the same objection is leveled at pointing out so-called "problems" with HPT. ("Problems" is in quotes because I know of no real problems with HPT, though there are some claims of problems that are easily refuted.)

Reporting on an extreme problem has historically often been used as a straw man to deflect attention away from the real problem. The "extreme" lies not in the reporting of the problem herein described, as much as in the existence of the problem that is being reported.

If there is anything extreme in this list of proposed miracles for CPT, is it the mere reporting of the proposal of these miracles as of questionable validity, or is it in the proposal itself of these miracles as valid, that is extreme?

The miracles themselves are obviously what is extreme, if anything is. The common saying, "Don't shoot the messenger," illustrates this diversion of attention away from the real problem, to the messenger.


CPT requires... at least one (that is being generous) miracle ... actually, more than one miracle - actually, quite a few miracles. 

CPT is justified by appealing to miracles, in order to make scientifically impossible things possible, ... in order to support a theory.

Why? There is at least one motivation (among many potential other motivations): to preserve an explanation that, IF true, could be used to argue for creation! Certainly THIS is acceptable and valid! some may argue.

In fact, this seems to be the way some have argued, and are arguing, for CPT.

However, this exact line of reasoning will apply to all arguments on the discredited lists. The motivation for all of them is to preserve an explanation that, IF true, could be used to argue for creation! Certainly THIS is acceptable and valid! some may argue.

Both CPT and other "discredited" arguments, in the final analysis, stand together, and both CPT and "discredited" arguments fall together. The same criteria for one are (or ought to be) the criteria for the other - either "no miracles allowed!" applies to both; or, miracles ARE allowed - for both.

The way things are now, however, seems to be that miracles are allowed for one, but not for the other.

Is this fair? Is this reasonable? Is this biased? Is this use of a double standard?

Why do people accept CPT?


1- They don't understand it

I found CPT not the simplest model to follow. Be that as it may, almost no one I have talked to  - including PhDs (in sciences) - understands it completely. They may accept this theory, even as some accept evolution, by virtue of simply blindly trusting the authority of the scientists who promote it. That is, creationists may simply assume CPT is valid because some other creation scientists accept it. However, this is well known to be logically invalid, and is actually taught as a logical fallacy in introductory courses on logic.

2- There has been a lot of time and effort put into the theory

Well, that was true for quite a few arguments on the discredited list, but it did not keep them off the discredited lists. (Of course, one theoretical possibility is that some of those discredited arguments were put forward by people who were not closely associated with the organizations who created the lists, while CPT's proponents and authors were closely associated to these groups. Of course, this implies "vested interests" and/or bias at work, which we would hope are not factors!)

3- CPT helps support the Bible!

This can also be said of all the discredited arguments; they are all arguments for biblical creation by God.

Ah, some may argue, but they don't actually support the biblical story, because of their problems! We need to realize something about this type of problems, however; CPT suffers from the same type of problems

The reason those discredited arguments are on the "do not use" lists, is that they fail scientifically - that is, they require miracles (beyond merely science) in order to work at all; without miracles, and leaning on science only, they fail - which is the precise, same, identical situation for CPT. That is the nature of their problems: they fail without miracles.

So if CPT supports the Bible, in spite of its scientific problems, because those problems can be explained away by miracles, ... then the same is equally true for the discredited arguments. And if discredited arguments are not supportive of the Bible, due to their problems, then neither is CPT - the same arguments, justifications, and reasons apply to both situations.

4- Miracles are Biblical

This reason also fails. If the position that miracles are Biblical is used to justify creationist theories and ideas that would otherwise be impossible scientifically (without miracles), then this justification also justifies all the arguments on all the discredited lists.

Of course, the current (seemingly inconsistent) situation is explainable, including the seeming double standard, IF we choose to NOT justify all these discredited arguments, and allow creationists to apply this justification selectively. We could then justify only those items that were selected arbitrarily by certain creation scientists.

However, that is not scientific.

(Some might say it is not particularly honest nor ethical either, but the goal here is to deal with the science, with consistency, with bias, and with the practicality of reaching our audience with information they will accept. Also, if bias is largely sub-conscious, as Gould suggests, then honesty seems not to be an issue.)

Is such selectivity religious, though? It does not seem so. Commendable? No... Spiritual? No.


Actually, however, bias is understandable, and evident throughout history (illustrated by people faking data to support their theories). This does not make it right, just understood. Even if some bias is largely sub-conscious, as Gould suggests, this also does not make actions motivated by such bias right, nor statements based on such bias correct. We understand that historically, there is evidence of many practices, including mistakes, sins of all kinds, crimes, rebellion against God, ... and we also understand that historical precedent does not justify acceptance of a flood model any more than it justifies mistakes of history such as blood-letting and use of leeches, crimes of history, or bias and resistance to truth throughout history.

Opening Quotes Revisited

Referring back to the opening quotes, we see that the line of reasoning in the opening quotes, though intended for the discredited lists, applies equally to the use of CPT; to wit, that there are good models/theories, so that there is no need to use the not-so-good-due-to-multiple-miracles theory of CPT. Some of these quotes are repeated below:

Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is ‘the truth’ (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments. 1

Using bad arguments allows evolutionists to easily “refute” creationists by sidestepping the actual case for biblical creation. Even one instance of using a faulty argument can lead someone to write off creationism as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists... 2

Per the above quote from AIG (Answers in Genesis), it would seem the use of CPT, according to the reasoning from AIG, may lead someone to "write off creationism" and to "dismiss creationists."

Which is it?

Well, using CPT is good or it's not. CPT either should be used - or, as claimed for arguments on the discredited lists, it should not be used.

I can imagine some saying, "Well, ... people need to believe," as reason for keeping the CPT model active (believing in impossible things via miracles).

Then, per this reason, we need to allow CPT to be used, ... and, since people also need to believe when they look at other items on those "discredited arguments to not use" lists, not just CPT, we need to also allow those other "discredited" arguments and therefore remove those "discredited" arguments from the "do-not-use" lists; that is, completely remove the do-not-use lists in their entirety.

The upshot of all of this is that any and all reasons to keep using CPT and to keep CPT off "discredited arguments" lists apply equally to other arguments/models that are currently on the lists - unless we want to start using a double standard

We looked at several reasons to keep some arguments and to not use others, and we saw that some of the reasons were invalid. We also saw how tempting it can be to use those same invalid reasons to support one's favorite theory. 

We also considered that some may not want to apply these criteria equally, and may say, "Well, the arguments developed by our groups, or the group we favor, or the people we favor, ummm, ...well, they are different; it's ok to use them in spite of the problems they have. Maybe those problems will get solved with more research!"

Yes - and the same can be said for all the arguments on the "do not use" lists, the other ones that those same people may advise against using: maybe one day ... the problems will be resolved. It should be remembered how many problems CPT has that are only solved with miracles, including the expansion of the universe's volume by a factor of 20, so it seems difficult to argue that CPT has more hope of eventually being "one day" made to work than any argument on those lists. It would seem likely that all those arguments to "not be used," have more hope of being resolved in the near future - without miracles - than does CPT.

And if we allow miracles, then there is no problem with any argument; they all work, and the "do not use" lists should be eliminated.

On the other hand, if we say no to miracles for the "do not use" lists, then, to be consistent (that is, free from double standards), we need to say no to CPT's miracles and likewise reject miracles for CPT. 19

The Commanders

by Anonymous

The commanders lean back and yawn. One puffs on his cigar. Another passes a drink. They are playing cards.

An officer, junior grade, interrupts. "Sirs," he says, "the men on the front lines are being devastated. They need supplies!"

One general yawns, points toward a box beside the wall. The box contains rusty arms from 20 years past, destined to be picked up as scrap the next month. "Give them that," the general says. 

The junior officer notices another box in the same room, with modern up-to-date equipment in it. "Sir," he says, "could we send them this other box?"

"Huh?" the general snorts. "Don't you know you're interrupting our game?"

"Sorry, sir; it's just that our soldiers on the front lines need good equipment, and that other box ..." The junior officer pauses as the general turns to glare at him.

After a few seconds staring at him, the general slowly, clearly states, "I don't know what's in that other box. But I DO know the box I am sending them DOES contain useful weapons. It worked in the last war."

An admiral looks across to the general and says, "Don't you mean the war before that one? But the point is," the admiral continues, directing his remarks now to the junior officer, "that the box we are sending is known to work."

The junior officer says nothing, but a civilian working in the office, cleaning up, says, "Why don't you look into the other box, sirs?"

Glares, not very friendly, meet this civilian. "We don't need to," a formerly silent general said. "We ALREADY KNOW what's in that other box is not any good; so why bother checking?"

The civilian asks a few more questions, and ascertains that the commanders have no idea - not even a clue! - what is actually in the other box; but in spite of that fact, they will not be dissuaded from their card game, nor persuaded to investigate the other box - even though the lives of the soldiers on the front lines may well depend on it.

The generals have their priorities - they have a card game going on!

The box of useless material is sent off, while the box that could save lives remains beside the wall.

Soldiers die. The commanders play more cards and drink more beer.

What is the point of the above?

Sam and Bill discuss this.

Sam says, 

Let me explain. Draw an analogy.

Let the commanders be creationist scientists.

The front line soldiers could be college students. Their enemy is the argument that science has disproven the Bible (for example, via evidence for evolution, which is not true).

The bad ammo box is bad creation science - some creationist theory that has many scientific problems, so that it cannot scientifically work - except by miracles (extra ones not mentioned in the Bible, added just to fix the impossible science).

The box with good ammo is some other, good, scientifically sound, theory - which is being ignored by creation scientists.

The soldiers trying to use the ammo, having grenades explode in their hands, can be college students trying to use the theory that needs miracles to work, to explain to others how scientific it is to believe in creation - the explosion of the grenade injuring the soldier is those others' throwing back the students' theory pointing out how unscientific it is.

The refusal to look into the good box, by the commanders, is the refusal of creation scientists to examine good theories - due to bias.

Bill says,

Not true! Creationists are working hard, trying to help! Some have faced opposition; they are not goofing off. They put in lots of time and effort, speaking, writing, etc. You just fail to appreciate them!

Sam says,

I am just trying to open the eyes of those creationists, since bias seems so easy to see in others - not so easy to see in oneself. An illustrative story may help as it did with David in the Bible, when Nathan presented such a story. 20

Miracles In, Creationism Out

Miracles In, Creationism Out

Miracles In, Creationism Out, at, is an example of the impact of creationists' invoking miracles, on evolutionists.