Old Earth Creation Science Testimony
Jonathan Baker
NOTE: Jonathan Baker has an M.S. in Geology, and is the author of the blog Age of Rocks.
I was born in Glendale, CA and raised in rural Pueblo, CO.
Life was great. But just before I entered high school, my family
moved to northern Utah, where I found myself quite alienated. I
regained my stature in close-knit circles of...how would you say?
Nerds. Yes, we were nerds, but not the kind you'd expect to find on
Big Bang Theory or the like. Rather, we were simply students
that cared to pay attention in class, involve ourselves in Science
Olympiad, play 4-way chess during AP study hall, and skip out of gym
class to improve our electric guitar skills. Needless to say, high
school was not a challenge, but that didn't prevent us from
exploring academic opportunities while we had the chance.
I am sure that every high school has its cliques, but high school in
Utah was special, to say the least. I was a white, Protestant
(Reformed) Christian from a stable, financially sound family in the
western United States, but found myself in a tiny minority. A vast
majority of students were LDS (Mormon), and I was active enough in
my own faith that my social opportunities were equally limited. Many
of my (nerdy) friends were former "this or that", atheists and
agnostics, and likewise alienated and unchallenged.
So we challenged each other.
Most days were spent arguing over philosophy, politics, and
scientific controversies we had simply read about second hand. Oh
yes, we were bright, but sufficiently naïve that we didn't recognize
how unqualified we were to debate most of these issues. One of the
major topics: the age of the Earth. None of us were geologists, but
I distinctly remember exchanging points, facts, and articles we read
to convince the group there was a valid controversy. My library was
growing exponentially, and included the first book I had ever read
on geology: Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe by Dr.
Steven Austin of ICR.
Ten years later, I am thankful for the experience (foolish as we may
have been) as it has since directed my academic journey. Leaving
high school, I was certain that I would be a biologist and that it
wouldn't take long. Before my first semester of college, I was a
sophomore with a full academic scholarship. By the end of my second
semester, I had accumulated enough credits to be considered a
senior, meaning it was past due for me to declare a major. My
original plan was suspended by the fact that my university had split
the biology department into Microbiology, Zoology, and Botany —
departments comprised largely of pre-med and pre-dental students
that despised the competition. So I decided to work toward a
chemistry minor instead, hoping to transfer to a school with a
better program. At this time, I also discovered that my
middle-school physics teacher was also an adjunct geology professor
at the university and taught an introductory course in geology.
I had to sign up.
Very quickly, I realized that the very qualities that attracted me
to the biology department were also present within geological
disciplines (in fact, to a greater degree): 1) it was a fast-growing
field, with ample opportunity for new research; 2) it seemed to be
riddled with controversy, and I loved controversy. The following
semester, I added more geology courses to my schedule, and declared
a new major.
As I progressed toward the completion of my undergraduate degree, I
was not disappointed with geology as my final commitment. My initial
assessment was 'dead on' — well, except for a couple points. Looking
back, I perceive myself as better fit to study geology, having come
into the subject with the impression that there was a valid
controversy over fundamental issues like the age of the Earth,
origin of sedimentary layers, radiometric dating, or the rate of
plate tectonic motion. Thus I learned to always question the
fundamentals that guided 'conventional geology', both in the class
and in the field, until I was convinced of their validity. Likewise,
taking the advice of AiG researchers, I questioned the fundamentals
that guided 'Flood geology'. In YEC literature, the controversy is
often presented as two models 'digesting' the same facts. At the
outset, this seems fair — scientists use this approach all the time.
Elsewhere, this can be related to research guided by 'multiple
working hypotheses', where competing hypotheses about a given
phenomenon are used to make predictions. Data is then collected and
analyzed to falsify or refine each model, after which the model with
greatest amount of supporting evidence is typically accepted (please
forgive the oversimplification).
So I went to work, carefully examining the evidence. However, I
would soon discover that the analogy hardly fit the young-Earth
controversy. Each new geology course, field trip, and library
research project brought with it new challenges that were simply
overlooked by most publications coming from AiG. My growing
impression was that even the semi-technical and journal research
articles were blatantly reductionistic, depicting complex geological
problems as unequivocally inconsistent with conventional geology
while offering simple solutions from a young-Earth perspective. But
despite my conviction that the controversy was settled, had it ever
existed, I continued my study of YEC literature.
Why?
I could not help but to wonder, 'How do organizations like this gain
so much ground?' It was obvious to me that it was not grounded in
strength of scientific observation or any consistent, unifying
theory that explained the data. Furthermore, there was no predictive
power in the young-Earth model that would produce new knowledge in
the Earth sciences (e.g. the structure of sedimentary packages and,
consequently, where to find oil/gas resources). Yet more than half
of the population believed in a young Earth, and that scientific
theories concerning historical geology and biological evolution were
struggling to find good evidence, being grounded rather in the
blinding naturalism of leading scientists. I felt I was at an
advantage to answer this question, being now actively involved in
studying both sides of the argument, but could not come up with a
satisfactory answer. So I put it this way: if I ask the majority of
scientists why they think most of the populace is skeptical
about 1) the age of the Earth, and 2) biological evolution, what
would their answer be? I speculate the following (with some help
from experience):
1) They are scientifically illiterate, and simply don't know any
better.
2) They are blinded by religious convictions, and thus are
delusional regarding the evidence.
This perception of YEC is rampant throughout academia, and it's
simple to test. How? Try entering a university geology class and ask
whether the professor is ignoring the Flood geology model while
interpreting the sedimentary rocks he/she brought to class (or maybe
you've seen it happen?). You could also take the next step, though.
Take a few technical papers from AiG's archives and turn it into a
testable research project. Collect the data and interpret it in
light of the global flood. Then submit the paper to a journal such
as Geology, Nature Geoscience, or even GSA Bulletin.
If you get a response other than (1) or (2), please let me know.
So what's the problem? Shouldn't I just take a note and ignore
organizations like AiG?
Well, no, and that's the problem. Not only is it the problem, it's
the answer to my question (or so I will endeavor to show). It is
true, academia tends to dismiss any claims of YEC at the outset and
couldn't care to take it seriously. Are they fearful of the outcome;
that the evidence will overturn their worldview? I don't think so.
The reason is that any successful researcher in the Earth sciences
has no time to take it seriously, and often assumes that it will
become obvious in the end (particularly if we increase standards and
funding for education). In the meantime, they respond with "Well, if
you actually knew something about geology, etc., then you would
realize the absurdity of your claim. So read a book, take my class,
and stop promoting pseudoscience." However, this neither results in
better education nor in diminished extent of YEC.
Why?
Enter Answers in Genesis. This is an organization comprised of
graduate-degree holding educators, researchers, and more, that are
willing to spend a lot of time and money providing a bridge to the
general public, so that the 90% of the population who chose a
non-scientific career path can be actively involved in the
controversy. In a nutshell, academia treats the general public as
ignorant laity that can't be trusted with the evidence outside of a
classroom (tuition paid up); AiG researchers treat the general
public as their peers, not only sharing the evidence for free but
giving it a purpose. As a theological son of the Reformation, I
don't feel it necessary to explain which approach I perceive as
superior.
Now, a minor caveat — I know I am being overly categorical here, in
which case I would be guilty of great hypocrisy. So let me be clear
that my simplistic overview is intentional. I am setting forth a
basic observation and hypothesis that I hope to unfold in this blog.
The reason is that I have many friends (past and present) that
adhere to YEC and many friends (past and present) that despise it.
Understanding that by definition there are exceptions to the rule, I
would yet propose that a vast majority of YEC's are not
simply illiterate when it comes to science (1) or
unreasonably dogmatic (2) in assessing the evidence. On the
contrary, many of them are bright individuals that excel in their
own fields. Often, they are widely read in philosophical and
religious topics and willing to adjust to evidence and experience in
search of the truth (i.e. not blinded by religious convictions).
They are high school and college graduates who are familiar with the
principles of Earth science. Just familiar enough, in fact, to
understand models of Earth history set forth by AiG and others and
deem them plausible.
And that's it. That is all that's needed to sustain the life and
growth of YEC. Imagine for a moment that you are called as a juror
in case that involves two expert witnesses, discussing a field with
which you are only familiar on a basic level. Both witnesses are
working hard to convince you that the evidence supports their
respective attorney's case. However, in the course of the trial, you
realize that one of the witnesses has never studied the opposing
point of view. He merely dismisses the interpretation as absurd,
using technical jargon in a demeaning fashion, and accuses the other
witness of being biased by a view (political, philosophical,
religious) that you also hold. On the other hand, the second
witness speaks calmly and reasonably, conveying a sincere, lovable
personality, while using terms that make you feel like a colleague
in his discipline. He does this by making the evidence sensible in
light of your basic understanding of the subject. At this point, it
doesn't matter so much whether he is right. The point is, his case
is solid as far as you are able to judge, and the truth will not
affect the way you approach your own profession once the trial is
over.
As a scientist, I am fascinated by the world and the research that
elucidates it for us. As a Christian, I believe that truth matters
and it is meant to be shared. These are my motivations in writing
this blog, and I pray I can remain committed to both. Thank you for
taking the time to read my thoughts, and I do hope you are blessed
by them, whatever your point of view may be.
Articles by Jonathan Baker
Why does Andrew Snelling use RATE team funding to falsify his own claims?
Copper Remnants from Ancient Feathers
Book Review, Already Compromised
How to put the 'Paleo' in Paleoclimatology: Isotopic Records from Speleothems (Caves, Part 1)
How Old is Carlsbad Cavern? (Caves, Part 2)
Methods to Dr. John K. Reed's Madness: Deconstruction and the Geologic Timescale, Part 1
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.