Tom Might Have Some Issues, Part 1

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2 comments

by Steve Risner

This week, I'm going to talk about a writing by another Christian. His name is Tom. Tom seems very passionate about Christ and spreading the Gospel and I think that's awesome. I pray his ministry, which I believe is primarily media based, reaches many. He has a great deal of resources on his page, but one of them was shared in a group I'm in that concerned me. He left something online about the age of the earth and Christianity that I initially was going to simply respond to on Facebook where I found it. However, due to the amount of content that I felt needed correction, it turned into this blog post. You can find Tom's writing that I am responding to here. I would encourage you to view the rest of his page as well as it has some good content.

As you can see if you read his post, I believe Tom has some issues. Here are my first impressions.

He begins his defense/explanation for old earth creationism by saying that we can determine the age of the universe. Of course, that's not really possible. He conveniently omits any of the alleged methods he claims have been used for a long time to determine the ages of things we can't possibly know the ages of. And a method's longevity has absolutely no bearing on its usefulness or accuracy. Many try to claim that we can date the age of the universe or earth, but it's all based on a great many assumptions and extrapolating back in time when we have no idea if that's the right thing to do or not.

He then goes on to explain how presuppositions should be tested against the Word of God... er, no, wait. He says we must weigh our presuppositions using the scientific method. What? Actually, that in and of itself is a presupposition, but that's beside the point. If science determines if our presuppositions are correct and not the Bible, he's lost already and that's too bad. This is especially true if his “science” is being used to uphold a philosophy or even a faith that is contradictory to the Bible. That “science” is not science but a worldview masquerading as science. It is a religion, simply put. It's been falsely labeled “science” for long enough. It's not observable, repeatable, even testable really, and no experiments can be done on the age of the universe or the earth. At best, these are historical concepts and should be treated as such. Far too many—whether laypersons or scientists—don't understand this.

He further states that if we're open minded to the evidence, we will allow it to change our presuppositions. His thinking is rather backwards, and he misunderstands how evidence works. Evidence is really another word for facts, right? The facts are what they are. How one interprets the facts is what makes it evidence for or against something. The evidence doesn't have a voice. It cannot make a determination on its own. The person looking at the evidence must make it say something. Your presuppositions will determine how you make that evidence speak or what it will say. This debate is not and has never been about “evidence.” That's absurd to me because if the Word of God can be trusted (and I think it absolutely can be), then “evidence” that suggests it's wrong has likely been misinterpreted.

It's like this: if you find evidence that I am not an American citizen or that I'm not 41 years old, that evidence has been interpreted incorrectly because I am a 41-year-old American citizen. There can be no legitimate evidence otherwise. The same is true for the Bible, in my opinion. Alleged evidence that contradicts the Bible is likely false evidence or partial evidence and therefore has revealed an incorrect conclusion or has been simply misinterpreted. This idea has been spoken of by creationists for a very long time. Answers in Genesis has repeatedly made the point that there is no such thing as “evidence for creation” or “evidence for evolution.” There is simply evidence. How one interprets it is based on their worldview or their presuppositions. Tom seems to not get this at all and has a large number of people in the same boat.

He makes some mistakes in explaining the scientific method. He actually states that, rather than do experiments to confirm or reject or otherwise alter your hypothesis, you “do research.” That is bizarre and only makes sense that a deep time advocate thinks such things. We must do research, sure. But we must also conduct experiments to confirm, alter, or otherwise reject our hypothesis. Tom has left this out completely which, again, makes sense if he's trying to make an unscientific topic appear to be scientific. Evolutionists and other types of deep time advocates have done this for a very long time. He's trying to support the idea that the age of the universe can be determined by science. You can't do any experiments to confirm, reject, or otherwise alter that hypothesis, so he's taken the foundation of the scientific method and changed it to fit his non-scientific topic. That's not a good start if he wants to be taken seriously about deep time, especially when from a Biblical standpoint, it's DOA. And science cannot under any circumstances (unless we perfect time travel) determine the age of the universe or earth. We don't know when it really happened or what conditions were there for it to happen (aside from what we read in Scripture).

He also claims that we're making an observation about the age of the universe. I'm not sure how that works, I guess. How can you look into space and see its age? How can you observe the age of the earth? Looking at the earth, I would guess it's been ravaged by a global catastrophe, wouldn't you? The evidence for this is literally all around us. And wouldn't you think that would nullify any attempts or proposed clocks that would help us assign an age to the earth? He's either not explaining himself well or he's just wrong or both.

Next week, we'll finish this up. I tried to make this fairly light and short. Next week's will be equally light and short, to clarify some less-than-founded points by Tom. Stay tuned.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.


Unknown said...

Excellent! Clear and precise. Thanks!

Greg Thurston said...

Great commentary, Steve. I'd say that even if we perfected time travel, it wouldn't really help much. When we arrived at whenever, how would we even know when that when was? It's not like we could turn to a calendar or flip on the tv or something! The sky would still be blue, or stormy, the clothing styles might give us a hint, but the birds chirping and the breeze are pretty timeless!