Van Bebber/Taylor

Commentary and critique on:
Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross by Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor

Dr. Hugh Ross is an Old-Earth Progressive Creationist who has written a number of popular books on his theology. Ross agrees with most modern science, such as the current scientific consensus that the Earth and the universe are billions of years old. Young-Earth critics of Ross, Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor argue that Ross' theology is contrary to the Bible and have written a counter-point book, Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross. I found Van Bebber & Taylor's book interesting, yet aggravating. Their expertise is theology, and they do present a good argument against Dr. Ross' Progressive Creationism theology. On the other hand, the approach to science that Van Bebber/Taylor take is, in my view, appalling. I do not intend to do an exhaustive critique of this work, I will simply focus on some of their key arguments regarding science.

As noted, Dr. Ross agrees with most scientists that the Earth and universe are billions of years old, but Van Bebber/Taylor disagree. So, how could the scientific consensus on this issue be so wrong? I would like to quote some of Van Bebber/Taylor's answer:

Science cannot directly deal with the past. Scientists cannot go back in time for a hands-on examination of events long ago. Scientists are limited to testing and observing things as they exist now-in the present. We are all impressed with the strides science has made in computer technology, medicine and space travel. However, we must remember that these are far different subjects than the question of ancient origins. Computer chips and medical inventions exist in the present. Humans can directly observe them. Tests can be confirmed simultaneously in labs throughout the world. However, beliefs about ancient origins are different; they are beyond the reach of finite, moral humans and therefore involve much hypothesis, assumption and guesswork.

This paragraph caught my attention because I hear similar sentiments echoed by others on a regular basis. I hear phrases like, "how can anybody really know what happened billions of years ago?" This type of reasoning is so pervasive, and yet so misguided that I feel compelled to respond. Van Bebber/Taylor say that "science cannot directly deal with the past." Technically, this is true. But it is also likewise true that science cannot directly deal with the future either. If a scientist or engineer is today designing an aircraft, will it fly tomorrow? We all take for granted that if we drop a hammer today, it will fall to the ground. If we speculate on what will happen if we were to drop a hammer tomorrow, we will guess that it will still drop to the ground. We are actually making an assumption that the laws of physics that apply today will apply tomorrow. But are we unwarranted in making such an assumption? Should we consider the possibility that tomorrow, the hammer might not fall? I think most of us would say no--it is reasonable to conclude that the laws of physics won't change overnight.

Of course my reason for saying that it is reasonable to conclude that physics laws that apply today will apply tomorrow is to show that likewise it is reasonable to conclude that they should have also applied yesterday. Therefore, based on laws that are observable today, we can calculate to a high degree of accuracy how long ago events happened.

Perhaps some readers might be thinking, "okay, laws of physics probably don't change overnight, but how do we know that they don't change slowly over time--thereby causing calculations into the distant past to arrive at erroneous results?" For example, some have speculated that the age of the universe has been miscalculated due to a change in the velocity of light. And others have speculated that radiometric data may give flawed results due to decay rates of radioisotopes changing over time. There are a number of reasons for rejecting these hypotheses, which I will briefly cover. As far as the theory about the speed of light changing over time, even the YEC organization, Answers In Genesis agrees that a change in the speed of light sufficiently huge to result in the universe appearing billions of years while only being thousands of years old is farfetched to say the least. Also, accurate speed of light measurements have been available for long enough to determine that if it were changing over time to any significant degree, it would have been detected. Likewise for radioactive decay--accurate measurements have been available for long enough to determine any significant changes. For readers interested in more details, particularly on the radiometric dating issue, I recommend The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple.

Further, if there was only one single form of evidence regarding the age of the Earth and the universe, then it might well be reasonable to consider the possibility it is wrong. However, there are many different forms of evidence. There is the cosmological evidence of light from stars billions of light-years away. There is archeological evidence. There is radiometric evidence. Sometimes Young-Earth proponents argue that archeologists assume that cosmologists are correct, and cosmologists assume archeologists are correct. And so, the theory goes, the evidence for an ancient Earth and universe is nothing but a massive case of flawed circular reasoning. However, this line of argument does not hold up. Again, I would recommend Dalymple's book for more information. He does focus mainly on explaining why he feels radiometric dating is fundamentally sound, despite Young-Earth criticisms. But even so, he also discusses other completely independent methods of validating the age of the Earth. There simply is no credible scientific evidence for a young Earth.

I'd like to quote some more from Van Bebber/Taylor:

Scientific views continually change. For example, the Big Bang theory is not the first scientific theory to explain the cosmos (and it will not be the last). It was preceded by views that were, in their own day, the consensus of modern science.

The problem with this type of thinking is many-fold. For one, it implies that any scientific law is just as likely to be found in error as any other law. But clearly, some laws are better proven than others. For example, the theory that hammers will continue to fall to the ground tomorrow is pretty well proven. Technically, it could be true that tomorrow hammers will not fall. And should gravity stop working like we expect, all kinds of other bad things would likely happen. But we consider this possibility to be sufficiently small to not consider it. And again, if we were only talking about one single evidence about an ancient Earth and universe, maybe Van Bebber/Taylor's cavalier dismissal of the evidence might be understandable. But with so many different forms of evidence, their attitude towards inconvenient data is inexcusable.

Another important point is that sometimes new physical laws are discovered that contradict old laws, and yet the old laws remain useful. For example, it is true that Einsteinian physics shows that Newtonian physics is not actually correct. But, Newtonian physics is a close approximation of our reality at relatively low speeds. Therefore, Newtonian physics is still taught as elementary physics even though technically, it isn't completely correct. Similarly , there are situations where Einsteinian physics does not work, yet is still fundamental to physics today. The point I'm getting at here is that there is no doubt that new evidence will come along and refine our understandings of the universe--and we may discover things that have been thought to be true are not. But it is highly unlikely that what we understand today to be so far wrong that we could miscalculate the age of the Earth and the universe as drastically as Van Bebber/Taylor wish.

I'd like to quote some more of Van Bebber/Taylor's thoughts on this issue:

In the final analysis, none of man's scientific age estimation methods can be considered foolproof, young or old. Views that reigned for decades have often been quickly discarded upon the discovery of unexpected, new evidence or upon finding a new way of looking at an old question. We would prefer to stick with the testimony of the only eyewitnesses to those ancient events, God.

In a nutshell, Van Bebber/Taylor are saying, "nothing is ever known for certain, so we are free to ignore any evidence contrary to our beliefs." Which is rather hypocritical, considering that they accuse scientists of allowing bias to color their research. Here is Van Bebber/Taylor on scientists:

Scientists are human. Many laypeople have a dangerously vaulted view of scientists. Scientists are as human as anyone else. They are fallible, biased and sinful. This affects their theories, their decisions, their research, and their interpretation of evidence. In reality, scientists are not totally objective (especially when it comes to belief about origins). Most have a presuppositional belief in the basic tenets of evolution: a billions-of-years-old earth and the interpretation of geology as showing the appearance and progress of animals over eons. Due to this bias, it is very difficult for them to even consider the existence of evidence to the contrary.

Hmmm, on one page, Van Bebber/Taylor lambaste scientists--claiming they are often unwilling to "even consider the existence to the contrary." But then they say that when given evidence contrary to their own beliefs, they will "stick with the testimony of the only eyewitnesses to those ancient events, God." This is nothing but blatant hypocrisy.

Also, don't Van Bebber/Taylor contradict themselves when they acknowledge that "views that reigned for decades have often been quickly discarded upon discovery of unexpected, new evidence"? If scientists were so biased that they refuse to consider evidence that is contradictory to current theories, then how is it possible for views that reign for decades become quickly discarded? How can both these statements be true?

Van Bebber/Taylor make a reference to Dr. Russell Humphrey's theory and book, Starlight and Time. They say, "we are told that this alternative to the Big Bang has been well received by scientists trained in relativity." Well, that says it all, doesn't it? They heard that somebody has said it's a good theory, so its good enough for them. Just so long as it doesn't contradict their own "presuppositional beliefs" then it's a great theory.

I wonder how much Van Bebber/Taylor know about Humphries' theory? His theory is that because time progresses slower as you approach the speed of light, God made the entire rest of the universe age billions of years during the six 24-hour earth-days of Creation. God made the entire rest of the universe sprout out from around the Earth, then hurled the galaxies to their current locations. They traveled so fast that time progressed so slowly that the Earth aged six days and the rest of the universe aged billions of years. But what kind of God would go to such extreme measures to make the universe look to us to be billions of years old, but then get mad at us for actually believing it? Humphries' God seems to want to "mess with people's heads." I wonder if that is the God that Van Bebber/Taylor believe in?

As I already quoted, Bebber/Taylor say, "in the final analysis, none of man's scientific age estimation methods can be considered foolproof." Technically, true, none of man's methods of any sort are foolproof. But in the final analysis, the only reason to assume that current science must be false is to prop up religious belief at all cost. They don't assume hammers will stop falling tomorrow. But if it takes believing that hammers didn't fall yesterday to prop up their beliefs, then they'd believe hammers didn't fall yesterday. They whine about supposed bias of scientists, and then blatantly confess that they have no interest in evidence contrarian to their own views. Van Bebber/Taylor say they want to believe the only witness to the events, God. But either the Earth and universe actually are billions of years old, or God went to extraordinary effort to make it look like it is. So, do you really want to worship a god that is so desperate to mislead?