The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

for the mega-sequences in the Phanerozoic sediments. COSMOS had a goal of testing the computational consistency of young universe cosmological models. EPIPHANY was a 40-processor Linux cluster obtained by ICR to support computational work in many disciplines of creation research. Building on the concept of baramin and discontinuity systematics (Remine, 1993), the discipline of Baraminology was introduced by Wise (1990). Initially using hybridization data to determine the boundaries between created kinds, Robinson (1997) used mitochondria DNA to look at phylogenetic discontinuity in the context of Testudine (turtles). Using a combination of “ecological, morphological, chromosomal, and molecular data,” Robinson and Cavanaugh (1998) looked for “statistically significant gaps” among the cats. A technique called Analysis of Patterns (ANOPA) was used by Cavanaugh and Sternberg (2004) to identify statistical similarities/dissimilarities between organisms using phylogenetic traits. Wood (2005) describes a program BDIST (Baraminic Distance) that is commonly used for baraminological studies. Many examples of this analysis exist in the Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group and its successor Journal of Creation: Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences produced by the Creation Biology Society (CBS). This review is limited to young earth organizations in the United States with which the author is familiar. Casting the net wider for examples of creationists using statistical methods, modeling and computation is beyond the scope of this work. However, one notable source would be the Geoscience Research Institute’s publication Origins . In Germany the organization Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen publishes a technical journal called Studium Integrale . Although the intelligent design (ID) community is a broad umbrella, there are a number of individuals in the movement addressing issues of design and exploring the fitness of the earth and the universe for life. Two prominent ID sources are The Discovery Institute and the Access Research Network. It should not go without saying that the Creation Science Fellowship (CSF) has provided many examples of computationally-based creation articles through the years. Many of the authors and published works cited previously are well represented in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism (ICC). Horstemeyer (2013) summarized the use of computational methods in creation science with his talk “Simulating Genesis.” This vision not only documented what has been done, but proposed how additional work could be done to model the creation from cosmology to biology ranging from the beginning of creation through the Flood to the present. One facet of this vision, addressed by this paper, is the increased use of computers not only to run simulations, but to synthesize data and validate models. PRESUPPOSITIONS AND ACCEPTABLE SCIENCE The introduction of this paper presented a rational for doing science from a Christian and creationist perspective. This rational is not unique to young earth creationists, but establishes a worldview from which to pursue science. Because the world is lawful, it makes sense that a codified observation of the creation would prove useful for developing best practices and making predictions of the future. However, underlying all of this “common sense” are unproven beliefs. 1. Presuppositions For the Christian, beliefs or presuppositions are acted on by faith in who God is and how He has worked in the world. Stating that beliefs are unproven is not the same as saying irrational. God has revealed Himself and we accept by faith that “He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:3). When we do science we believe God is lawful, but at the same time know He is omnipotent and sovereign, thus making room for miracles. One critique of miracles in the pursuit of science comes from Lewontin (1984, p. xxvi) who states “We cannot live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit.” However, we do not believe God is capricious in His use of miracles, since He is not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33). Therefore, we do not feel that miracles undermine the validity of science. Uniformitarianism has become a dirty word in creation circles because it hails back to Lyell’s statement “the present is the key to the past” (Lyell, 1833). However, without a belief in a uniformity or lawfulness of God’s creation, science becomes impossible. As a result, in our development of models, we hold them tentatively recognizing our finiteness in properly interpreting the past and extrapolating to the future. Allowance is made for miracles as God unfolds human history. To what extent and in what manner miracles occur is important to consider. As to the extent, most creation scientists take a conservative view towards supernatural miracles, those that suspend the lawfulness of God’s physical creation. We have examples of time changing for Joshua (Joshua 10:12-14) and Hezekiah (II Kings 20:8-11). Christ’s demonstration of power over the physical world (Mark 4:35-41) and His healing miracles could not be explained through natural causes. They were not performed arbitrarily, but to validate His message and His claim as the promised Messiah (Matthew 11:2-6). As a result, most creationists would expect the non-miraculous to be the norm when studying science. When miracles do occur, they are to promote God’s purpose and bring glory to Himself. Miracles of a supernatural nature are one thing, but what about the miracle of God’s providence? We know God is sovereign and events do not happen by accident. Therefore, we look for purpose in the trials and blessings of life, though from an earthly perspective they may look random and vain (Ecclesiastes 9:11). The question that follows is “when should we look for a scientific explanation of God’s work through providence rather than expect supernatural divine intervention?” A paper by Nof and Paldof (1992) illustrates this question by describing the weather conditions that may have contributed to the parting of the Red Sea during the Exodus. Using the biblical description of a strong wind and identifying a specific geographic location for the crossing, a computation was performed to determine the wind speed necessary to expose an underwater shelf. The authors conclude that this scenario is a reasonable possibility for explaining the events of Exodus 14. Whether God used naturalistic means or not, the crossing of the Red Sea is miraculous due merely to the unique timing of the event. The tension of letting “miracles be miracles” or explaining them Gollmer ◀ Man, machine and creation science ▶ 2018 ICC 106