A critic of Reasons To Believe recently sent this response to another post, but perhaps it’s worthwhile to highlight the comment here and see if we can generate some discussion. The skeptic’s concern centers on RTB’s creation model. Here’s the comment.
I still have yet to see what specifically this model is and how it is different from just a collection of the scientific models we have today (e.g., the origin of the diversity of species, the origin of the universe, the origin of the planets, etc.) with “The Bible.” RTB is quick to say “here is evidence that supports the Big Bang, and thus this supports our model!” I can make my own testable model of the universe by combining the Big Bang with the statement “The moon is made of cheese.” Then I can say, “Hey, background radiation. That supports the Big Bang, which is in my model. This lends further proof to the moon being made of cheese.” Is this how RTB’s model is built? That is how I see it.
Is the critic correct? How would you respond?