Catastrophic Plate Tectonics
3- CPT helps support the Bible!
This can also be said of all the discredited arguments; they are all arguments for biblical creation by God.
Ah, some may argue, but they don't actually support the biblical story, because of their problems! We need to realize something about those problems, however; CPT suffers the same problems.
The reason those discredited arguments are on the "do not use" lists, is that they fail scientifically - that is, they require miracles (beyond merely science) in order to work at all; without miracles, and leaning on science only, they fail - which is the precise, same, identical situation for CPT. That is the nature of their problems: they fail without miracles.
So if CPT supports the Bible, in spite of its scientific problems, because those problems can be explained away by miracles, ... then the same is equally true for the discredited arguments. And if discredited arguments are not supportive of the Bible, due to their problems, then neither is CPT - the same arguments, justifications, and reasons apply to both situations.
4- Miracles are Biblical
This reason also fails. If the position that miracles are Biblical is used to justify creationist theories and ideas that would otherwise be impossible scientifically (without miracles), then this justification also justifies all the arguments on all the discredited lists.
Of course, the current (seemingly inconsistent) situation is explainable, including the seeming double standard, IF we choose to NOT justify all these discredited arguments, and allow creationists to apply this justification selectively. We could then justify only those items that were selected arbitrarily by certain creation scientists.
However, that is not scientific.
(Some might say it is not particularly honest nor ethical either, but the goal here is to deal with the science, with consistency, with bias, and with the practicality of reaching our audience with information they will accept. Also, if bias is largely sub-conscious, as Gould suggests, then honesty seems not to be an issue.)
Is such selectivity religious, though? It does not seem so. Commendable? No... Spiritual? No.
Actually, however, bias is understandable, and evident throughout history (illustrated by people faking data to support their theories). This does not make it right, just understood. Even if some bias is largely sub-conscious, as Gould suggests, this also does not make actions motivated by such bias right, nor statements based on such bias correct. We understand that historically, there is evidence of many practices, including mistakes, sins of all kinds, crimes, rebellion against God, ... and we also understand that historical precedent does not justify acceptance of a flood model any more than it justifies mistakes of history such as blood-letting and use of leeches, crimes of history, or bias and resistance to truth throughout history.
Opening Quotes Revisited
Referring back to the opening quotes, we see that the line of reasoning in the opening quotes, though intended for the discredited lists, applies equally to the use of CPT; to wit, that there are good models/theories, so that there is no need to use the not-so-good-due-to-multiple-miracles theory of CPT. Some of these quotes are repeated below:
Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is ‘the truth’ (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments. 1
Using bad arguments allows evolutionists to easily “refute” creationists by sidestepping the actual case for biblical creation. Even one instance of using a faulty argument can lead someone to write off creationism as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists... 2
Per the above quote from AIG (Answers in Genesis), it would seem the use of CPT, according to the reasoning from AIG, may lead someone to "write off creationism" and to "dismiss creationists."
Which is it?
Well, using CPT is good or it's not. CPT either should be used - or, as claimed for arguments on the discredited lists, it should not be used.
I can imagine some saying, "Well, ... people need to believe," as reason for keeping the CPT model active (believing in impossible things via miracles).
Then, per this reason, we need to allow CPT to be used, ... and, since people also need to believe when they look at other items on those "discredited arguments to not use" lists, not just CPT, we need to also allow those other "discredited" arguments and therefore remove those "discredited" arguments from the "do-not-use" lists; that is, completely remove the do-not-use lists in their entirety.
The upshot of all of this is that any and all reasons to keep using CPT and to keep CPT off "discredited arguments" lists apply equally to other arguments/models that are currently on the lists - unless we want to start using a double standard.
We looked at several reasons to keep some arguments and to not use others, and we saw that some of the reasons were invalid. We also saw how tempting it can be to use those same invalid reasons to support one's favorite theory.
We also considered that some may not want to apply these criteria equally, and may say, "Well, the arguments developed by our groups, or the group we favor, or the people we favor, ummm, ...well, they are different; it's ok to use them in spite of the problems they have. Maybe those problems will get solved with more research!"
Yes - and the same can be said for all the arguments on the "do not use" lists, the other ones that those same people may advise against using: maybe one day ... the problems will be resolved. It should be remembered how many problems CPT has that are only solved with miracles, including the expansion of the universe's volume by a factor of 20, so it seems difficult to argue that CPT has more hope of eventually being "one day" made to work than any argument on those lists. It would seem likely that all those arguments to "not be used," have more hope of being resolved in the near future - without miracles - than does CPT.
And if we allow miracles, then there is no problem with any argument; they all work, and the "do not use" lists should be eliminated.
On the other hand, if we say no to miracles for the "do not use" lists, then, to be consistent (that is, free from double standards), we need to say no to CPT's miracles and likewise reject miracles for CPT. 3
- 3Questions regarding the existence of lists of arguments to not use, and the promotion of CPT by the groups that created those lists:
- is this a double standard?
- is this fair?
- is this biased, or free of bias?
- is this ethical and equitable treatment for all creation scientists?