RE: Apparent Age

I appreciate Paul's comments about Adam as an example of the difficulty
of the apparent age problem. I've written some on the apparent age
argument and have expanded on this very topic a bit with a more specific
example. I've just copied the relevant portion below which follows a
prior discussion of a dichotomy that creation scientists try to create
to distinguish valid times when an apparent age argument can be made.
Morris and a few others have tried to erect a category called
"essential" appearance versus "deceptive" appearance of age.
Joel Duff/Akron OH

**********************
How might essential and deceptive appearance of age be distinguished?
Let us take Adam for example. Most creation scientists would ascribe to
an interpretation that views Adam as created without blemish. As a new
creation, he of course would have the appearance, based on common
experience, of having had biological parents. However, it might be
argued that the characteristics of those parents and specific events
that happened to him during his childhood would not be evident. In this
way he "superficially" would have the appearance of age. Within this
context, what if Adam had been created with indentations on his arm that
identically matched the dental pattern of a coyote with a missing left
incisor? Furthermore, what if a quick search around the Garden of Eden
revealed a coyote with a missing left incisor? Might not that evidence
be interpreted as suggesting an apparent history with no conceivable
purpose? Of course the creation scientists would say that this is just
a hypothetical example and that, in fact, Adam had no such scars other
than a generic belly button. But, the example does illustrate that
defining how to apply the appearance of age as an explanatory tool
becomes somewhat hazy. In the hypothetical above, the indentations on
Adam's arm and the coyote with a missing left incisor are just
observations. It is the interpretation of that data that results in the
problem. Morris has suggested a solution as he concludes that all the
evidence, when seen in the proper light will be consistent with a young
earth. As a result, Morris could respond to the above observations (ie.
a fact or piece of evidence) by saying that the indentation did not come
from the wolf. Rather, what appears to be bite marks on his hand are
actually indentations designed for the purpose of allowing a place for
Adam to place berries that he has collected so that his hands will be
free while climbing trees. Suddenly, rather than these marks having no
conceivable purpose, these marks are given a purpose by the designer and
so become an integral part of the creation. The coyote with the missing
left incisor might then be dismissed as just a coincidence. By doing
this, Morris would be able to redefine the evidence such that it makes
sense in light of his presuppositions.

        
        The conundrum of the evidence for the antiquity of earth or even
other planets over against the fear of making God a deceptive creator
has typically been solved by creation scientists in the same manner. As
demonstrated above, many creation scientists are reluctant to insert old
light or features like the Hawaiian Islands into the original creation
for fear of making God appear deceptive. As a result, their only other
recourse is to question the interpretation of the evidence itself.
Rather than accept radiometric dates as apparent, and for the most part
accurate, ages they are compelled to question the validity of the dates
requiring those dates instead to fit within a 10,000 year window. The
claim that the data are simply being interpreted as showing great age,
but if looked at another way would yield a young earth, is one of the
most common in the scientific creationist literature. Many Christians
seeking answers to how to interpret the world from a young earth
perspective find this explanation a convenient excuse for never
confronting the data themselves. The example of the coyote and the
marks on Adam's arm illustrates how the same evidence could be
interpreted in two different manners to completely different effects.
However, while the marks on Adams' arms may be satisfactorily placed
into a more comforting context, the lack of an explanation for the
apparent coincidental data (the correlation of the marks on Adams arm
and the dental problems of the garden wolf) of Adams should be a warning
that all the evidence is not so easily dispatched. The simplicity and
volume of evidence that has resulted from studies of light, radioactive
elements, and many other studies suggests that such simple
re-interpretations of the data are unlikely to be successful or
satisfying. The coincidence of the coyote in the garden with the same
tooth pattern as the indentations on Adams' arm may be easy to ignore,
but the plethora of coincidences (correlated data) observed in numerous
studies and the earth's tectonic plates are not so easily dismissed.

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. R. Joel Duff
Associate Professor of Biology
185 ASEC, Department of Biology
University of Akron
Akron OH 44325-3908
rjduff@uakron.edu
---------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Paul Greaves
Sent: Monday, May 22, 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 12:47:26 2006