Help me respond to this guest columnist

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

I live in a county outside of Cincinnati where this group will be opening the Creation Museum on Memorial Day. The museum will highlight their belief, presented as fact, that the Bible is literal and the earth was created circa 6000 years ago.

My local newspaper ran a column from a guest columnist (an astrophysicist!) supporting the museum and their credo. Although there was an opposing viewpoint also printed on the same day, it didn’t address the specific issues of Dr. Lisle’s column.

I would like to write a letter to the editor that responds to Dr. Lisle’s column. He seems to have a lot of “A, therefore C” leaps in logic, but I’m not sure of how to respond. Would anyone like to help?

2

You’re almost guaranteed to find all of his arguments (along with explanations of their flaws) in the Index to Creationist Claims.

BTW, I’m not sure what you’re hoping to achieve, long-term, but if you weren’t already aware, arguing with creationists is very often as productive and enjoyable as smacking your head against a concrete block.

3

I’d say that index covers it. Damn, that’s a pretty good list, there.

4

Sure, but I’ll be writing to the newspaper audience; they deserve a rebuttal that is not just a strident letter that says “Creationists are idiots” like the counterpoint already published.

And, thanks for the link!

5

Actually, a lot of newspaper readers need and deserve to know that creationists are idiots, or at least that creationism is idiotic. People tend to estimate your adversaries by the size and type of weaponry you deploy against them. Use facts to establish your authority and good faith to the undecided; then, just make fun of your opponents.

In this case, Dr. Lisle is vulnerable on lots of fronts. His idea that any physical law is dependent upon God either ignores the fact that dropped objects fall for believers and unbelievers alike, or suggests that even if some God plays a part, belief in it isn’t essential. Apparently what Lisle worships will make science work whether we take the trouble or not. Maybe we only have him and his pew-mates to thank for the continued prevalence of thermodynamics. His invocation of the “Law of Biogenesis” demonstrates either an astrophysicist’s or a chipmunk’s idea of the term: Pasteur never explored the idea that simple molecules could combine to become more complex, and that at some point in the process the combinations began to exhibit characteristics that we now define as “life.” He did manage to debunk the widespread and Church-approved doctrine that fully formed organisms could spring on an observable timescale from dead tissue or even inorganic matter. Lisle apparently hasn’t enough history to know that the discredited theory of spontaneous generation was regarded as perfectly consistent with theism also. Far from being supported by science, Lisle’s religion is apparently flexible enough to be true no matter what the facts are. Which is the way Dr. Lisle would like it.

A museum dedicated to the ways in which creationists twist the facts of both science and religion to conform to a world-view which honors neither probably is necessary, and that’s what a Creation Museum might be good for – too bad the one planned is designed for mere denial.

By the way – why does Dr. Lisle insist on denying God’s omnipotence? Why does he think God could not have designed a world in which life evolved to its present state? What other weaknesses and fallabilities does his God have?

And he’s an astrophysicist? What kind of God does an astrophysicist believe in that has unlimited space and energy and time and creates exactly one world on which a tiny minority of creatures are capable of knowing Him?

6

I TAed intro bio classes for several years. Here’s part of an e-mail I sent to a creationist student of mine last spring. The student had asked me if I really believed that rocks are billions of years old, instead of the thousands of years old that the Bible (or his interpretation of it, anyway) would have us believe.

I forwarded my student’s question on to some of my friends, one of whom wrote most of the text below as a suggested reply. When I sent it off to my student, I asked my friend if he’d mind my sharing it with others. He was happy to have it publicized far and wide, he told me, so I’m posting it here. Maybe you could adapt it as a reply to the Dr. Lisle.

Dear [student’s name deleted],

You asked why biologists think that the earth
> is billions of years
> old. Geologists, and scientists in general
> believe that the earth is
> so old because they believe that the universe
> is governed by
> consistent, testable rules. Specifically,
> certain radioactive
> elements decay into other isotopes or elements
> in a measurable and
> statistically predictable way (although there
> is no way to know when
> a specific atom will decay!) Since not all
> isotopes and elements
> decay at the same rate, we can use the ratio of
> elements found in
> rocks to date the age of the earth. There are
> many other scientific
> observations that place the age of the earth at
> many billions of
> years. You can look them up on the internet.
> Science does not rule
> out the presence of a creator, but it does not
> require His actions to
> explain natural phenomena.
>
> The bible doesn’t state that the earth is
> 1000’s of years old - that
> is one interpretation that treats the events in
> Genesis as a literal
> 7 day week, with some 4000 years of various
> genealogical lists and
> historical events following. But is the
> description in Genesis meant
> to be taken literally? Remember that 2nd Peter,
> chapter 3, verse 8
> says that 1000 years is like a day to the Lord.
>
> Some would have you believe that God made the
> rocks look like they
> were billions of years old, when they were in
> fact thousands. I do
> not presume to know the mind of God, but why is
> it easy to believe
> that God would try to trick man, but not to
> believe that he might
> revel in our discovery?
>
> You asked if biologists do not believe in God.
> Many biologists
> believe in God, and believe that the bible
> contains an accurate
> spiritual description of the world, if not a
> literal one. The bible
> is important for what it teaches us about how
> to appreciate God’s
> gifts, and how to treat each other, but not for
> its use as a geology
> lesson.
>
> Believing in something which can neither be
> proved nor disproved,
> such as the existence of God, is faith. Faith
> can be a great source
> of personal strength, and inspire one to great
> works. Believing in
> something which can be readily disproved is
> foolishness, and an
> insult to the gift of intellect bestowed on you
> by your creator.

Also, you might be interested in mentioning this website: www.konkyo.org | The Age of the Earth in Light of the Bible browse

in your reply. The site is run by a minister working in Tsukuba, a city whose main industry is research, if I’ve got that right.

7

What the hell is an astrophysicist doing running a museum seeking to refute evolution theory. Seems to be a bit out of his field.

As an aside: **It’s not Rocket Surgery ** I think the Community Press has gone down hill since they were bought by Ganett.