One of
the staple objections to young-earth creationism is the allegation that God
would be guilty of deception if he made a world that appeared to be younger
than it really is. I’ve responded to this objection before, but now I’d like to
consider the issue from another angle.
Medical science may well be
nearing the point where it can clone replacement organs. Suppose you’re going
blind due to glaucoma or macular degeneration. Or suppose you’re congenitally
blind. In 10-20 years, science may be able to clone you a brand new pair of
eyes. An eye transplant based on your own DNA.
Of course, normally, adult
eyes take years to develop, from conception through gestation and maturation.
Yet your “instant” eyes might only take a few weeks to clone in the laboratory.
Would the medical profession be guilty of deception under those circumstances?
Should we discourage the development of cloned replacement organs on ethical
grounds because the cloned organs appear to be fully mature organs which only
took a tiny fraction of the normal time to cultivate?
I was thinking of writing something on this topic myself recently. Could we get the links to where you've addressed this before? Maybe I can just link to your material and save myself time.
ReplyDeleteSteve the popular argument, similar to yours, often goes that an observer meeting Adam two minutes after his creation would assume he'd been around for 30 years. By the same token, the universe created just then might seem to be billions of years old, but only because it too was created fully mature.
ReplyDeleteFirst let me say, YEC ministries like CMI and Answers In Genesis have abandoned this argument.. and for good reason. It confuses 'appearance of maturity' with 'appearance of age'.
If Adam was studied it would become apparent that he was only 2 minutes old, since he wouldn't have a history of age. No wrinkles, sun-spotting, wear-and-tear, chromosome shrinkage, callouses etc. A parallel situation, from the appearance of age we see in the universe to Adam, would be if God made Adam with those aforementioned physical markers, and threw in a video-tape of Adam's boyhood as well. Now that would be deceptive.
The starlight we observe reveal an active history of the universe (in the form of exploded stars etc.) which could not have happened outside of billions of years; at least not if the speed of light has been constant.
Perhaps the speed of light has changed. There are problems with that hypothesis, but that is irrelevant to the current discussion. Either way, the idea you put forward doesn't hold water.
So with those lab-organs. If a scientist tried to sell me a heart, claiming that is was freshly made yesterday, but the thing was glogged with cholestrol and had thickened mitral valves, I would have good reason to believe it was old.
Steve, here is an article from Answers in Genesis making the same point:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
Regards.
The Janitor said:
ReplyDelete"I was thinking of writing something on this topic myself recently. Could we get the links to where you've addressed this before? Maybe I can just link to your material and save myself time."
Hey, I'm not Steve, but if you type "site:triablogue.blogspot.com" followed by a relevant string like "YEC deception" or whatever, then you should find what you're looking for. I just did this and found a bunch of posts. Hope that helps.
Trevor Moss said:
ReplyDelete"If Adam was studied it would become apparent that he was only 2 minutes old, since he wouldn't have a history of age. No wrinkles, sun-spotting, wear-and-tear, chromosome shrinkage, callouses etc."
Among other things, this assumes Adam was created without wrinkles, sun-spotting, wear-and-tear, and so forth. Perhaps this is a warranted assumption. But if so I would think you'd first have to give the warrant.
Also, what do you have in mind when you say "chromosome shrinkage"? For example, telomere shortening, the Y-chromosome shrinking theory, something else? Sorry, it's a bit vague at this point.
Anyway, I don't see how any of this undercuts Steve's point about deception. Maybe you can elaborate.
"A parallel situation, from the appearance of age we see in the universe to Adam, would be if God made Adam with those aforementioned physical markers, and threw in a video-tape of Adam's boyhood as well. Now that would be deceptive."
Well, since God didn't do this, this is besides the point.
"The starlight we observe reveal an active history of the universe (in the form of exploded stars etc.) which could not have happened outside of billions of years; at least not if the speed of light has been constant. Perhaps the speed of light has changed. There are problems with that hypothesis, but that is irrelevant to the current discussion. Either way, the idea you put forward doesn't hold water."
If this point is "irrelevant to the current discussion," then how can you conclude Steve's "idea...doesn't hold water"?
"So with those lab-organs. If a scientist tried to sell me a heart, claiming that is was freshly made yesterday, but the thing was glogged with cholestrol and had thickened mitral valves, I would have good reason to believe it was old."
Just because there's a new mature organ doesn't necessarily mean the organ is flawless. The new mature organ just needs to function better than the failing organ we're replacing.
By the way, a normal human heart (singular) only has one mitral valve (singular), not mitral valves (plural). However the mitral valve is bicuspid indicating it has two flaps. Maybe you meant the latter.