Measurement of long times

Now we get

to the crux of the debate with a discussion of time measurement. You mark

a moment in time when you look at your watch, and you measure an interval

of time when you set your alarm clock. You mark longer periods of time

with a calendar when you write down birthdates and other notable events.

But, tell me

how old is that big tree in the backyard or in the park? There is a way

to determine its age: cut down the tree and count its tree rings; there

is 1 ring per year of growth. Now use this fact to gauge the age of the

Earth. (A tree named Methuselah in the northwest is over 5,000 years old.)

There are other

ways to measure long times: The erosion of rock by flowing water to form

riverbeds and canyons, the drift of star constellations, the decay of

radioactive elements, etc. All of the long time measurement methods yield

the fact that the Earth is extremely old. Any theory that contradicts

this fact is incorrect and some or all of its faith statements need to

be corrected or rejected.

Now, what does

long time measurement have to do with creationism and evolution? It yields

facts that all of us can verify and lets us test the correctness of both

views.

Creationism

Creationism

is based on faith statements presented in the Bible, many of which make

claims about the physical world. We can also infer from scripture other

claims about the physical world. Consider pronouncements about the Earth:

it was created in just 6 days, a statement in Genesis; the Earth is at

most 6,500 years old, an inference from the genealogy of biblical figures.

Both claims contradict the measurements of long times made in geology,

physics, anthropology, botany, cosmology, etc. The faith statements in

the Bible that yield erroneous time periods are invalid or all the time

measurements made in all the physical sciences are in error. Cobb County

citizens must place warning stickers on books in these areas of study

as well as those on biology texts if they are to maintain their belief

in creationism.

Evolution

Again, we must

separate the physical facts from the theory offered to explain them. Darwin's

great achievement is as an observer of nature. Plants and creatures were

meticulously observed, gathered, catalogued, and examined over decades.

You can go to a museum of natural history and make similar observations

yourself. These observations show unequivocally chains of variation in

plants and animals of all kinds which require long intervals of time for

their genesis. Check this out for yourself.

Darwin offered

various faith statements to account for these chains of variation in plants

and animals: Darwin proposed, for example, that we believe that "natural

selection" causes plants and animals to vary as the environment,

climate, population density, and so forth changes. The processes that

are required to produce these changes take long times. But, is the long

times measured in other sciences long enough to allow for the development,

say, of the human eye?

Consider the

question whether the human eye evolved through stages or whether it was

created as is. This raises a fundamental question: Can complex designs

come into being without a designer? The answer turns out to be yes, but

Darwin and his contemporaries could not have proved or disproved this.

Often in the history of science, questions are posed that can't be addressed

at the time because the necessary mental machinery (notation, mathematics,

etc.) and the physical machinery (measurement devices, computational devices,

etc.) don't exist as yet. It remains for later generations to settle the

questions.

The "human

eye" question is answered in 2 parts: Eyes have evolved gradually

and in different ways. Snakes use infrared light (heat) to sense your

presence so they can bite you. Electric eels use fluctuations in their

electromagnetic fields to sense you so they can shock you. Spiders spin

webs with "flower patterns" on them to attract insects who see

in the ultraviolet spectrum so they can eat them. In short, there are

lots of different kinds of "eyes out there" at different stages

of development which let their owners do better than their rivals. Now,

for the human eye. Could this organ evolve (without a designer) through

a multitude of stages and reach the complexity it now has? How could you

demonstrate this? Modern computers come to the rescue. A computer model

of the human eye, developed by Daniel Milson and Susan Pelger in 1994,

describes the evolution of the human eye and gives the number of steps

required to form a completely functional eye, and validates the principles

of Darwinism.

Mendelian principles

of genetics and the development of the gene theory in the 20th century

gives a comprehensive theory of all biological changes and, at a fundamental

level, verifies the principles of evolution. Cobb County citizens must

place warning stickers also on books that discuss genetics if they are

to maintain their faith in creationism.

Evolution and

creationism are both equally based on faith. However, evolution, as a

science, must adhere to methods of proof and refutation which creationism

ignores. Evolution, as a branch of science, must be consistent with other

branches of science -- physics, chemistry and the like. Creationism, on

the other hand, contradicts not only evolution in biology but also geology,

botany, genetics, and much more.

A scientific

theory must be internally consistent and consistent with other well-established

facts about the physical world. Creationism fails the most basic criteria

of "theoryhood." Creationism shouldn't be taught in public or

private schools because it is at best a mythology and at worse intellectual

fraud. The Earth wasn't created in 6 days nor is the Earth only 6,500

years old. Creationism is a mere attempt to dress up a long-loved myth

in scientific garb so it sounds scientific.

Peter Duran

Fayetteville

Back

to the Opinion Home Page | Back

to the top of the page