The Search for Truth 

The Purpose of Creation Science

The purpose of creation science is worth considering. Why bother with creation science, and with the flood of Noah?

Though the flood of Noah did not exactly occur during the 6 days of creation, it is a topic often considered by creation scientists. Also, the story of the flood appears in the first few chapters of Genesis, close to the story of creation. But let's get back to the topic of this section - the purpose of the study of creation and the flood. Is it really of value or important to have the truth about these things?

I think of the words of Jesus that He is the truth. Also I think of what he said - that if people did not believe the words of Moses (who is often considered to be the author of Genesis, which contains the story of the flood), how would they believe Jesus?

I think that a valid reason to accept or believe the gospel is because of the evident truth of it. That seems in fact to be the reason for belief in many cases as given in the Bible. People were shown miracles - ie, proof, evidence - and then expected to believe. (At one point Jesus commented that people would not believe unless they saw miracles or signs.) The story of Thomas is often brought up at this point, but that story refers to Thomas believing without seeing the evidence of Jesus' resurrection - we need to remember that Thomas already had seen vast amounts of evidence of the truth of Christ's claims through the many miracles of which, as one of the disciples, he would have had intimate knowledge. However, the point to this is not the miracles themselves, in this context, but the use of evidence for coming to believe something, as taught by example in the Bible. We are admonished in the Bible to prove all things and to not judge according to the appearance.

So, according to Romans 10:17, faith is built on believing what one knows. The foundation for believing something is knowing about it. And the reason for believing is (or some might say, ought to be) evidence. We see the Bereans mentioned in the Bible as being noble, because they did not just believe what they were told - even though it probably was true - but they checked it out first before believing it.

God says to prove him - in Malachi - this seems to me like God was inviting man to conduct a scientific experiment.

Well, enough of that.

Jesus taught with parables. He talked in the language people understood - using things to which they could relate.

The Bible asks us, if the trumpet give an uncertain sound - who will know whether it is a call for action, or what? Also that speaking and not being understood is not desirable - rather being understood is.

For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

- 1 Cor 14:8-9

So what will people listen to? or understand? In one parable Jesus told, the master says that people will listen to his son - so he sends his son. Who will people listen to? Who or what will they accept?

If they listen to science, then it makes sense to present science – if we want to communicate.

This is where the relevance, the value, of creation science lies.

On Miracles 

One question that has come up in consideration of various flood model proposals, is whether miracles ought to be allowed in the explication of the model. This seems good to consider at the outset. Is it good science to use miracles, in order to justify belief in the miracle of creation? Or is this circular, and would be perceived as such?

First, let's clarify what we mean by miracle. We mean, or at least this context assumes, that miracle as used herein refers to something not specifically mentioned in the Bible. Of course the Bible mentions miracless, but here, we consider those are not mentioned in the Bible, but claimed in order to make a model work. This usage of the term miracle implies ad-hoc usage to explain difficulties.

Arguments for Including Ad-hoc Miracles

One argument in favor of allowing miracles is simple: creation itself is a very big miracle, and the God of creation is known for miracles. So why not allow them?

Arguments for Omitting Ad-hoc Miracles

One argument for not including ad-hoc miracles is that it would be circular, using the claim of a miracle to "prove" or to provide evidence for another miracle (creation or the gospel). This seems inappropriate to share with those who reject miracles out of hand. To communicate with them, to give them what they want, seems to indicate giving them evidence. This seems the justification for creation science, so using ad-hoc miracles in such a context seems puzzling and like talking in a language the audience does not relate to (or "understand").

Another argument for not including ad-hoc miracles will be explained by example.

Let's consider the following example and then examine the logical implication of allowing ad-hoc miracles.

A Silly Story

Suppose I have a theory of the flood. Let's call it the Green Cheese Moon theory, or GCM for short. We are going somewhere with this, trust me!

Now, according to my GCM theory, the flood was caused by water from the moon. The water from the moon was produced by the squeezing of the moon's material. The moon was made of green cheese when this happened. The cause of the moon's being made of green cheese was Martians. The way the Martians did this was by using a special machine they had, which turned moons into green cheese.

You may say, "This is silly!" Yes, that is the point. Now, would you consider this one of those "arguments to not use?" There are lists of arguments for creationists that they ought not to use. But, why do those lists exist? Why not use those arguments?

We will return to this question. For now, let's consider if there are any problems with the GCM theory.

List of Problems:

1. the moon was not at the time of the flood, (and never has been as far as we know) made of green cheese
2. even if the moon were made of green cheese, squeezing green cheese would not produce enough water to cause the flood of Noah (this may not be a problem - since there is some water in cheese, so this might be removed from this list of problems - not to worry though; there are plenty enough other problems!)
3. even if the moon were made of green cheese, there is nothing that would have "squeezed" it
4. even if Martians could have squeezed it, there is no evidence that there were Martians at the time of the flood
5. even if there were Martians, to squeeze an entire moon the size of ours would be very difficult, and unlikely to happen
6. there is no known motive or reason for Martians, if they did exist, to squeeze our moon
7. even if Martians did exist, and if they could squeeze our moon, and if the moon were really made of green cheese, and if such squeezing produced water - the water would have remained on the moon because of the moon's gravitation
8. even if all the above occurred... the moon is today not found to be made of green cheese
9. even if the above occurred, there are no Martians today

Solutions:

1. by a miracle the moon was transformed into green cheese just before the flood
2. by a miracle squeezing green cheese produced water
3. by a miracle there was a squeezing machine to squeeze the moon (a giant pair of tweezers!)
4. by a miracle there were Martians, created just before the flood, to operate the squeezing machine
5. by a miracle, like the strength of Samson, the Martians were miraculously provided marvelous muscular ability, and were able to perform this Herculean (or Samsonian) task of squeezing the moon
6. by a miracle, like the cows in the Bible pulling the Ark of the Covenant in a direction they had no motive to go, the Martians did something they had no motive to do
7. by a miracle, the law of gravity was overruled, and the water left the moon and came to earth as the rain of the flood
8. by a miracle, after the flood, the moon was transformed back from green cheese into its normal material
9. by a miracle, after the flood, the Martians disappeared

This theory is ridiculous, you might say! Certainly it should be on the list of arguments to not use.

But, consider: why not allow miracles to explain GCM theory? Are not miracles in the Bible? What is the difference between these miracles and those in the Bible?

Do you see the point of this GCM theory? It shows us that if we allow miracles, we open the door to GCM and other models equally improbable.

Well, what is the difference between the miracles listed above and the miracles in the Bible?

The difference is that the miracles of the Bible are plainly stated in the Bible; the above listed miracles are not plainly stated in the Bible; the above miracles are ad-hoc, added after-the-fact to prop up a theory, or, one may say, to solve the problems of the theory. 

So, should we allow miracles to solve problems of a theory? (by this we mean ad-hoc miracles)

Let's look a little deeper. 

Even if we decide to allow miracles for some theories that we think are worthwhile, we need to consider ...

1. why do we think those theories are worthwhile - is this opinion based on science or personal preference (i.e., bias)?

2. would other theories and arguments on the "do not use" lists need to be allowed again, and removed from those forbidden lists, since miracles can solve their problems, even as the GCM theory that is allowed to use miracles can similarly solve its problems via miracle invocation?

3. would allowing miracles for our preferred (GCM) theory, and not allowing miracles for other theories that we review or criticize, be inconsistent?

4. would we be invoking a double standard in doing what point 3 above describes?

5. rephrasing 3. above, "would allowing miracles for our preferred theory (for example, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics), and not allowing miracles for other theories that we review or criticize, be inconsistent?"

Does it seem consistent to accept problems for one theory as not problems, by allowing miracles for that theory, ... and then to reject other theories because of similar problems?

By the way - any and all problems of all arguments and models, by definition can be explained by miracles.

Suppose we say that it is not possible for a miracle to remove some problem with a theory - but what is the definition of a miracle? Something that is not possible in the natural. So, arguably, by definition, ALL problems of ALL models can be solved by miracles!

Implications

This means that if one has a list of arguments to not use, and one accepts the list as valid, rejecting ad-hoc rescue-device miracles, then, in order to be consistent logically, one must also not accept any ad-hoc rescue-device miracles to explain any other theory that one accepts.

This likewise implies (on the other hand) that if one does accept any ad-hoc miracle to prop up any theory, then one must also remove and discard the lists of arguments to not use, and accept all of those arguments on those lists, if one wants to avoid a double standard and if one wants to be consistent.