RE: Apparent Age: Rethinking Creatio ex Nihilo

Believe me, I have asked myself what kind of evidence you would expect! This
is exactly the line of argument I deal with in the essay. Check it out if
you're interested: http://www.hlfallout.net/~josh/apparent_age.pdf

I'll try to answer briefly here, but there's a fuller explanation in the
essay (see especially pp.8-13). The analysis you've posed is certainly
intuitive, but I think it fails on closer inspection. I think there are
really two issues here.

First, the concept of "showing past events". Here, the distinction is often
drawn between "age" and "maturity" (or in your words "evidence of history"
and "just fully formed things") -- in that only "age" is said to show
specific past events. But the distinction is a false one. In terms of
implying a causal physical history, the two are indistinguishable. The very
presence of teeth is no less evidence of "past events" than are cavities.
Teeth do not simply appear without a specific physical formation any more
than cavities. Any physiologist can tell you that teeth require a
meticulously specific process of formation.

Second, the question of essential vs. non-essential apparent age. Indeed,
God could have created a functioning universe without non-essential apparent
age (e.g. without belly buttons, radioisotope decay, fossils etc). How can
we tell whether non-essential apparent age should be expected? Usually, this
question is resolved by appealing to "maximal honesty". If every implication
of apparent age is deceptive, then for God to be maximally honest he would
have included only the bare minimum of deception in creation (i.e. only
essential apparent age). My argument is that the entire notion of apparent
age as deceit is mistaken. Apparent age is not deceptive at all if one
counts the possibility of miraculous creation. For if we have reason to
believe that creation has just occurred, it doesn't matter what the specific
content of the apparent age is -- no combination more strongly implies the
reality of the implied past than any other. If God miraculously created a
bike, would it be more deceptive if it had a little rust than if it were
polished? It makes no difference -- neither suggests the reality of the
implied history if one counts the possibility of creation.

"When Adam saw the world at the moment of creation, he did not think it
suggested the physical reality of its implied past. The biologist may
mistakenly infer the past of the first hawkmoth, but only in ignorance of
the possibility of creation. For Adam, the moth's apparent age did not in
the least suggest the reality of the hawkmoth pupa, for '[t]he law of
creation supersedes the law of nature'." (see p.10 for the fuller argument
there)

On this basis, I argue that the deception criterion must be abandoned. In
its place is a presumption of general causal consistency -- for this is the
only precedent we have in observed history. Under this presumption, creation
with essential apparent age implies a causal past which would have produced
non-essential age. As creation is the product of this apparent causal chain,
it would have possessed such non-essential features as well.

If this sounds incomplete, that's because it is! See the essay for details
and the rest of the argument.

-Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Paul Greaves
Sent: Monday, 22 May 2006 3:12 AM
To: Josh Klose; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Apparent Age: Rethinking Creatio ex Nihilo

Hi,
I think you have to ask yourself what kind of apparent age evidence you
would expect. An illustration might be in order...

Let's take the newly created Adam as an example. I would expect a fully
formed recently created full grown man to have a certain "appearance of
age". But I would not expect to find evidence of a broken arm that had
healed. Nor would I expect to find a missing appendix, with a nicely healed

incision to match. What about cavities in teeth? That would be odd also...

you get the idea. One might refer to these kinds of things as "evidence of
history". Likewise, if the trees in the garden were created instantly out
of nothing, they too would have a certain "appearance of age". But they
should not show evidence of past events that would be unrelated to their
basic nature or function. For example, I would not expect evidence of past
fire scars along with healed over growth. Or, for example, a broken crown
with re-grown leader at the top.

It is very important to point out that this kind of "evidence of history" is

exactly what is seen in the world and universe... evidences of past events,
not just fully formed things. So no, what is actually seen is not "the
reasonable expectation of creation ex nihilo of the YEC order". Such stuff
would indeed be deceptive if the past events didn't actually happen.
-Paul Greaves

----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Klose" <mrbond@hlfallout.net>

>
> I merely ask "if one extrapolates the YEC Genesis reading on its own
> terms,
> what should be expected?" My conclusion: complete apparent age is neither
> a
> compromise nor a deception; it is the reasonable expectation of creatio ex
> nihilo of the YEC order.
>
> I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts/feedback if you have some time.
>
> -Josh
Received on Mon May 22 12:45:07 2006