CPT Q. 060: Are shotgun attacks on anything scientific a valid approach for defending Biblical truth?

Q. 60. You have said: “In his second contribution to this forum, Michael Oard asserts I am profoundly misinterpreting several prominent features of the Earth. But in making this accusation, Oard is placing himself under serious obligation to provide the correct explanations” (Baumgardner, 2002b, p. 78). Why is this statement not an example of the “best-in-field” fallacy?

Response: I believe my statement was legitimate. This quote corresponds to the initial two sentences of the abstract of an article entitled “A Constructive Quest for Truth,” Journal of Creation 16(1), 78–81, April 2002, which was part of a forum on plate tectonics and available here. For context let me quote more of that abstract:

In his second contribution to this forum, Michael Oard asserts I am profoundly misinterpreting several prominent features of the Earth. But in making this accusation, Oard is placing himself under serious obligation to provide the correct explanations. Since I have already addressed most of his technical objections in my earlier contributions, I think it proper to focus a bit more attention on Oard’s own explanations. Indeed, if the plate tectonics paradigm is as defective as he would have us believe, then it should not be that difficult for him to provide a positive alternative. And if he had such an alternative, he would surely be focusing more of his attention on its superior explanatory power. But Oard does not have any serious alternative. He offers no coherent explanatory model for the primary tectonics features of the Earth. He has no answers for the structure, location, or origin of the mid-ocean ridge system, or of the continental mountain chains, or of the ocean basins themselves. He provides no explanation for the distribution of sediment on the ocean floor or its fossil content or the correlated orientation of its magnetic mineral grains. He has no credible energy source or mechanism that could have produced the young tectonic features we observe on our planet today within the Biblical time constraints of the Genesis Flood. In short, Oard gives little indication he is engaged in a constructive quest for truth. I firmly believe it is time for creationists to move beyond such negative tactics, especially when God in our day has given us a compelling outline of how a global tectonic cataclysm can occur.

I continue to be strong in my conviction that, as Christians concerned about the assaults against the authority of Scripture in the guise of science, we need to be providing our generation positive answers to the genuine issues that are being raised. For example, in the context of the Flood model review process, the broader issue before us is how does one square what the Bible says concerning earth history with what we know about the geological record?

I am convinced that the tactic, practiced by many Christians during much of the 20th century, of across-the-board attacks on anything considered valid by the scientific establishment is no longer effective or appropriate or acceptable. Bible believing Christians played a key role in the rise of modern science. It was a Biblical worldview, which included the understanding that the God of the Bible had created the world around us that operates in a law-like manner, which led to the elucidation of these laws that God Himself had ordained. Just as the Spirit of God enabled believing men and women in earlier generations to unravel what previously had been mysteries as to why things worked the way they did, so I believe God continues to enable whom He desires today to shed new light on things not previously understood. I earnestly believe He is calling us His servants to provide positive answers to the issues relevant to our day.