Young Earth Questions

[Χά�ων]

How kind of you.

 

No. I'm done here today. I'm sure you would just disregard anything I say as pseudoscience anyway. I'm going to go play with my kids. Have an awesome day. :)

I would like to point out that when you were asked to provide links, you are saying you are done and leaving. This response to a request to share information gives the appearance that you are not knowledgeable and you lose all credibility.  

[BrookValley.]

I would like to point out that when you were asked to provide links, you are saying you are done and leaving. This response to a request to share information gives the appearance that you are not knowledgeable and you lose all credibility.  

 

See, I think that happened back when belief was conflated with science (on a forum where logic, rational thought, and education are the focal points, no less).

[Mrs Mungo]

This is a good site for researching YEC claims that have been refuted:

 

http://www.oldearth.org/youngministry.htm

 

Why do people care?

 

Many YECs believe that if you don't believe that the creation story in Genesis is literally true, including the claim that the earth was created in 7 literal 24 hour days, then you can't believe anything in The Bible.

 

Many OEC Christians believe that the above is a false dichotomy that causes many educated people to leave their faith.

 

Scientists and people who care about science care because as we see in this thread, belief and evidence are often confused. Plus, the general public *should* be educated about science because many policy decisions that people (and our representatives) vote upon. They need to be able to discern true from false.

[chocolatechip]

 

Can you provide links to support this? This is not something I have every encountered and I am interested in where this is happening.

This is kindly worded. 

 

See, I provided links, because I like to back my claims with data.

 

This comes across like jabbing. 

 

 

 

It's nicer if things can be discussed without becoming too heated or insulting. Please? With a cherry on top?  ;)

 

Interjection over. Proceed with your regularly scheduled program.  :)

[Eagle]

Is YE a mostly American belief? I am not American and had never heard of it before I came to WTM. The first time it came up I didn't realize people were serious. I've been here a couple of years now and this topic comes up fairly frequently. I now see that people are very serious about it and I am astonished at how many supporters there are here. Is it a very vocal minority, or is this a fairly widespread belief in the US (and perhaps elsewhere)?

[maize]

Is YE a mostly American belief? I am not American and had never heard of it before I came to WTM. The first time it came up I didn't realize people were serious. I've been here a couple of years now and this topic comes up fairly frequently. I now see that people are very serious about it and I am astonished at how many supporters there are here. Is it a very vocal minority, or is this a fairly widespread belief in the US (and perhaps elsewhere)?

It seems to be viewed as a doctrinal issue among certain groups of American protestants. I do not think it is common in other parts of the world (though it seems I have heard of similar teachings in some Muslim countries? I am not sure of that though, it may be a mistaken memory.)

[Guest]

I'm not going to enter into a debate or anything on this one; please don't expect that of me.  I just want to make my response to the OP's question.  I'm not sure I won't hash it.  

 

In my experience, the YE position is viewed as dogma ("that which *must* be believed") by those who take a literal view of the Bible, and for whom it is exceedingly important that the Bible be True in a completely literal reading.  To be consistent within this belief system, one cannot *choose* for oneself what parts of The Bible might be literal and what parts might not be.  The entirety is True, or it *all* can be drawn into question.

 

YE is the extreme working out of the doctrine of "sola scriptura" and to some degree, a reaction against--

-relativism in the secular world;

-theological liberalism (NOT political liberalism!);
-scientism and its encroachment into the areas which belong to religion; 

-Tradition.    

 

Note:  not all belief systems which hold to "sola scriptura" hold to YE.  

 

It is interesting to me that YE as a "dogma" is not generally an issue for Christians which adhere at least to some degree to the reading of the Scriptures through Tradition/as part of Holy Tradition (Roman Catholic/Orthodox, respectively.)  

 

 

 

[maize]

I went searching for information about creationism in Muslim countries. Haven't found anything about YE yet but thought this on evolution was interesting:

 

"A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin's theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about 25% of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species. In contrast, the 2007 study found that only 28% of Kazakhs thought that evolution is false.[21]"

 

from Wikipedia, posting from my phone so links are difficult.

[Lavandula]

I of course could be missing something but I've never heard of YE in Islam. There's a lot about Islam/the Quran being very compatible with science. 

[fraidycat]

Cannot believe this furphy is up for debate again.

 

"Believing' in evolution/science.

It truly must be that a very few religious people simply are unable to comprehend anything outside a faith schema.

 

That, or they're stirring the pot.

 

I'm sorry chocolatechip, I'm predisposed to listen to your requests because of your name :) but baiting and/or scientific ignorance, as per the quote above, don't require gentle handling.

Interesting article that touches on this.

 

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/02/cultural-shifts-and-brain-scans-is-searching-for-spirituality-the-new-american-dream/?hpt=hp_t5

[Caroline]

Serious question...Do people who believe in a young earth also tend to believe in transubstantiation? Would a literal interpretation of the Bible mean you have that belief? Why or why not?

 

I know Catholics and Orthodox believe in transubstantiation, but not young earth.

[maize]

I of course could be missing something but I've never heard of YE in Islam. There's a lot about Islam/the Quran being very compatible with science.

There are a lot of Christians who feel the same way. I know some (not all, probably not a majority) of Muslims do not think evolution, specifically human evolution is compatible with Islam. I am not sure though whether young vs. old Earth is an issue though, I was going off a vague memory that may have actually been limited to the evolution issue.

[maize]

OK, this article indicates there is a creationist but not YE movement in Islam: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Lavandula]

OK, this article indicates there is a creationist but not YE movement in Islam: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Lol, that was what I was about to quote to you. It all seems pretty on point with the research I've done before. 

[Lady Florida.]

Is YE a mostly American belief? I am not American and had never heard of it before I came to WTM. The first time it came up I didn't realize people were serious. I've been here a couple of years now and this topic comes up fairly frequently. I now see that people are very serious about it and I am astonished at how many supporters there are here. Is it a very vocal minority, or is this a fairly widespread belief in the US (and perhaps elsewhere)?

 

I never heard of it until I started homeschooling. Then it came up in several of the last presidential election cycles, which really shocked me. This is why I think it is something to be concerned about. I really don't want scientifically illiterate people in government making decisions as my representatives. Of course for many of their decisions that won't matter, but there are many policies and laws where it will matter and I don't want those to be made by people who are so ignorant of science. 

 

As for it being mostly American, I think American YE followers are quite vocal, but if I remember correctly at least one famous creationist comes from Australia and I've heard of influential politicians in both Australia and the UK who are YE, creationist, or both. I'm unaware of these issues in non-English speaking countries simply because I'm woefully ignorant of beliefs and policies in most non-English speaking countries.

[Jane in NC]

Is YE a mostly American belief? I am not American and had never heard of it before I came to WTM. The first time it came up I didn't realize people were serious. I've been here a couple of years now and this topic comes up fairly frequently. I now see that people are very serious about it and I am astonished at how many supporters there are here. Is it a very vocal minority, or is this a fairly widespread belief in the US (and perhaps elsewhere)?

I attended a parochial high school and was educated in evolutionary theory.  YE is not only primarily an American belief, it is also a fairly new concept in its most recent form promulgated initially by Henry Morris around 1960 but one that grew in popularity in the '90's.

[fraidycat]

Thanks, that was really interesting.

 

My only objection to the article was that spirituality isn't a prerequisite for meditation - in other words, those who are 'inflexible' in their atheism are just as able to gain the health benefits of meditation as anyone else.

 

Neurotheology - what an interesting field of research!

Yeah, meditation for me, is separate from spirituality - as is yoga. That's not true for all, though.

 

I had just read the article last night so it was still fresh in my mind when you questioned the comprehension ability, though. It seems that it is possible some really do not possess the ability to see beyond their faith. Not that they don't want to, but are actually cognitively unable. I find that fascinating. I hope to see more on this research in the future.

[Guest]

Serious question...Do people who believe in a young earth also tend to believe in transubstantiation? Would a literal interpretation of the Bible mean you have that belief? Why or why not?

 

I know Catholics and Orthodox believe in transubstantiation, but not young earth.

 

Just a quick correction:  The Orthodox do not believe in transubstantiation.  It's a nit but it's ... real.  

 

And OE/YE is not an issue because the Orthodoxy does not read the Scriptures literally (eg. as a science book).  The  Scriptures, the lives of the saints, the sacraments, worship of God, prayer, the hymnography--all of these parts of Holy Tradition--take us to our goal:  union with Christ. 

 

Science doesn't do that.  Therefore, science can be science and not a threat but a joy.  

[poppy]

Hold up. YE is taught in schools?
I am hoping these are private / parochial schools.

[Caroline]

Thanks for correcting me. I obviously did not know that about Orthodox and transubstantiation.

 

Just a quick correction: The Orthodox do not believe in transubstantiation. It's a nit but it's ... real.

 

And OE/YE is not an issue because the Orthodoxy does not read the Scriptures literally (eg. as a science book). The Scriptures, the lives of the saints, the sacraments, worship of God, prayer, the hymnography--all of these parts of Holy Tradition--take us to our goal: union with Christ.

 

Science doesn't do that. Therefore, science can be science and not a threat but a joy.

[Guest]

Thanks for correcting me. I obviously did not know that about Orthodox and transubstantiation.

 

 

It's a technical difference.  We both believe that the gifts *are* the body and blood of Christ.  It's a difference in the way that this occurs--and this is a reflection on the person of God.  That's why it matters.  :0)

 

But here I am nitting again.  I don't mean to needle you with this thread. BWHAHAHA.  I kill me.  :0)

[Lady Florida.]

Hold up. YE is taught in schools?

I am hoping these are private / parochial schools.

 

 

I don't know about YE, but creationism is taught in public schools in some states. In other states there are religious private schools that accept public funds and teach creationism. I know not all creationists are YE so I guess this doesn't really answer your question. 

 

Here's a map of where creationism is taught in public schools, charter schools, or private schools that take public money.

[Wheres Toto]

Is YE a mostly American belief? I am not American and had never heard of it before I came to WTM. The first time it came up I didn't realize people were serious. I've been here a couple of years now and this topic comes up fairly frequently. I now see that people are very serious about it and I am astonished at how many supporters there are here. Is it a very vocal minority, or is this a fairly widespread belief in the US (and perhaps elsewhere)?

 

I"m another one who never heard of it until I started homeschooling, and couldn't believe people were serious when I first heard it (I remember a question reply about using Danny & The Dinosaur as a reading for their science program, obviously for a young child but still surprised me).  But, I also grew up in a very diverse and liberal area of the country (NJ).

 

Didn't the UK just pass a law that creationism/YE couldn't be taught in schools?  Evidently there are some who were pushing for it if they bothered to pass a law, right?

[justasque]

Hold up. YE is taught in schools?

I am hoping these are private / parochial schools.

 

Yes, it is taught in schools.  Obviously the Protestant Christian schools that use YE curricula, such as ABeka or Bob Jones, teach it.

Catholic Christian schools do not generally take a YE approach.

There is a long history of battles over the teaching of YE in US public schools.

 

This article might be of interest:

Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism

 

There was a lawsuit recently when California found certain YE texts to be inadequate prep for University students; their position was upheld by the courts.

 

And of course there was the Dover case in Pennsylvania a few years back, which was the "intelligent design" case.

 

 

 

 

[Lavandula]

Is teaching creationism always teaching YE though?

[kiana]

Many OEC Christians believe that the above is a false dichotomy that causes many educated people to leave their faith.

 

This is a real issue. One of my friends is a (Christian, old-earth) biologist in the Bible Belt. He has had multiple students having a crisis of faith in his office during or after the evolution unit. FWIW, he is *not* presenting evolution in an anti-religious manner, and he tells his students that they do not have to believe it, but they do have to be able to repeat it on tests.

[Guest]

Some private schools teach YE and OE creationism AND secular evolution.  They teach them ALL agnostically (as in "without taking a position") and have the students defend which position they take.  

 

[Lavandula]

Some private schools teach YE and OE creationism AND secular evolution.  They teach them ALL agnostically (as in "without taking a position") and have the students defend which position they take.  

Hmm, I never knew this. I never really thought about it and assumed teaching creationism most often meant teaching OE creationism.

[Guest]

Is teaching creationism always teaching YE though?

 

No.  The position I have heard taken by an Orthodox seminary professor is that it is dogma that we are created in God's image and likeness, but that HOW this happened is open for discussion.  He also has been adamant that we need not fear science because science does not seek to answer the questions we learn from the Church, and v.v.  

 

One INFORMS the other, but neither is a replacement for the other.

[poppy]

Some private schools teach YE and OE creationism AND secular evolution.  They teach them ALL agnostically (as in "without taking a position") and have the students defend which position they take.  

 

99% of scientists believe in "secular evolution".  Unless a similar percentage of kids in those schools  reach the same conclusion, I'd say those schools are doing a poor job at science education.

 

I'll also add that from an education perspecdtive I don't see any difference between "secular evolution" and "thesitic evolution."  Which is the term used by Roman Catholics, who accept evolutionary science as legitimate.

[Lavandula]

No.  The position I have heard taken by an Orthodox seminary professor is that it is dogma that we are created in God's image and likeness, but that HOW this happened is open for discussion.  He also has been adamant that we need not fear science because science does not seek to answer the questions we learn from the Church, and v.v.  

 

One INFORMS the other, but neither is a replacement for the other.

Yes, this is what I thought. But people are linking to graphics of where creationism is taught as if it's the same. I've never actually heard of there being a big battle about YE being taught in public schools. 

[kiana]

Heh, a bunch of my students (in the Bible belt) have stated that although their biology textbook taught evolution, the high school teacher refused to teach it.

[Jane in NC]

This is a real issue. One of my friends is a (Christian, old-earth) biologist in the Bible Belt. He has had multiple students having a crisis of faith in his office during or after the evolution unit. FWIW, he is *not* presenting evolution in an anti-religious manner, and he tells his students that they do not have to believe it, but they do have to be able to repeat it on tests.

 

Herein lies my problem. Science is not about belief.  Does one choose to believe in gravity? Are students told that they may choose to subscribe to the theory of miasma vs. the theory of microbes?

 

When I taught geometry, I did not offer the option of not believing in Euclid's 5th postulate. Rather I taught how Euclid's 5th postulate makes sense within the Euclidean system but not in the greater world where we use hyperbolic geometry.  We don't throw all of Euclid's Elements out the window because of the 5th postulate (and the subsequent creation of non-Euclidean geometries in the 19th century).  We study Euclid in context and glean a great deal of good out of it.

 

Similarly, Newton did not have every detail of his Calculus defined and proved.  Fortunately Euler cleaned up the messes.

 

Yet recent critics feel that if Darwin had a detail or two wrong, his body of work must be tossed--despite whatever science has been constructed on this foundation.  This makes no sense to me.

[kiana]

Herein lies my problem. Science is not about belief.  Does one choose to believe in gravity? Are students told that they may choose to subscribe to the theory of miasma vs. the theory of microbes?

 

When I taught geometry, I did not offer the option of not believing in Euclid's 5th postulate. Rather I taught how Euclid's 5th postulate makes sense within the Euclidean system but not in the greater world where we use hyperbolic geometry.  We don't throw all of Euclid's Elements out the window because of the 5th postulate (and the subsequent creation of non-Euclidean geometries in the 19th century).  We study Euclid in context and glean a great deal of good out of it.

 

Similarly, Newton did not have every detail of his Calculus defined and proved.  Fortunately Euler cleaned up the messes.

 

Yet recent critics feel that if Darwin had a detail or two wrong, his body of work must be tossed--despite whatever science has been constructed on this foundation.  This makes no sense to me.

 

While I agree with your post, my friend is simply tired of having students attempt to claim that he is violating their religious rights by forcing them to answer questions on evolution in order to pass the class.

[Jane in NC]

While I agree with your post, my friend is simply tired of having students attempt to claim that he is violating their religious rights by forcing them to answer questions on evolution in order to pass the class.

 

:banghead:

 

Perhaps some students will eventually claim that diagramming sentences is violation of their religious rights.  I'm surprised my son never tried that line on me!

 

[Ipsey]

Thanks, that was really interesting.

 

My only objection to the article was that spirituality isn't a prerequisite for meditation - in other words, those who are 'inflexible' in their atheism are just as able to gain the health benefits of meditation as anyone else.

 

Neurotheology - what an interesting field of research!

 

Yes, neurotheology! I've never even heard of this, but I'm glad someone's looking into it. I can't tell you the number of times I've wished I had been some part of some longitudinal brain experiment so we could follow how (and if) my brain functioned differently between my religious years and my non-religious years.

[maize]

:banghead:

 

Perhaps some students will eventually claim that diagramming sentences is violation of their religious rights. I'm surprised my son never tried that line on me!

 

just have to find the right Bible verse to back it up...

[brehon]

Herein lies my problem. Science is not about belief.  Does one choose to believe in gravity? Are students told that they may choose to subscribe to the theory of miasma vs. the theory of microbes?

 

When I taught geometry, I did not offer the option of not believing in Euclid's 5th postulate. Rather I taught how Euclid's 5th postulate makes sense within the Euclidean system but not in the greater world where we use hyperbolic geometry.  We don't throw all of Euclid's Elements out the window because of the 5th postulate (and the subsequent creation of non-Euclidean geometries in the 19th century).  We study Euclid in context and glean a great deal of good out of it.

 

Similarly, Newton did not have every detail of his Calculus defined and proved.  Fortunately Euler cleaned up the messes.

 

Yet recent critics feel that if Darwin had a detail or two wrong, his body of work must be tossed--despite whatever science has been constructed on this foundation.  This makes no sense to me.

 

:iagree:  I've noticed that it's only with Darwin and his â€‹On the Origin of Species that a work published some 155 years ago is continually held up a proof that the entire modern TOE is incorrect. I've never noticed this with other scientists. We don't throw out all of genetics because Mendel was incorrect on some details. Color me baffled. 

[kiana]

:iagree:  I've noticed that it's only with Darwin and his â€‹On the Origin of Species that a work published some 155 years ago is continually held up a proof that the entire modern TOE is incorrect. I've never noticed this with other scientists. We don't throw out all of genetics because Mendel was incorrect on some details. Color me baffled. 

 

 

It seems sort of like using the Crusades to state "Christians believe ..."

[TracyP]

Serious question...Do people who believe in a young earth also tend to believe in transubstantiation? Would a literal interpretation of the Bible mean you have that belief? Why or why not?

 

I know Catholics and Orthodox believe in transubstantiation, but not young earth.

 

With one exception, the YE'ers I know do not believe in transubstantiation (or the Real Presence in any form). It seems very contradictory to me, so I'm not sure how they come to this conclusion.

[Caroline]

With one exception, the YE'ers I know do not believe in transubstantiation (or the Real Presence in any form). It seems very contradictory to me, so I'm not sure how they come to this conclusion.

That's been my experience, too. Thanks for answering.

[Audrey]

I don't know about YE, but creationism is taught in public schools in some states. In other states there are religious private schools that accept public funds and teach creationism. I know not all creationists are YE so I guess this doesn't really answer your question. 

 

Here's a map of where creationism is taught in public schools, charter schools, or private schools that take public money.

 

 

Why am I not one little bit surprised by that map?  :lol:

[NicAnn]

Is teaching creationism always teaching YE though?

No. I believe in creationism, but firmly believe in old earth evolution. I've recently been studying more on the Big Bang theory and believe that it actually really supports the Bible account of man. Fascinating discussions around our house lately!

[Lavandula]

Why am I not one little bit surprised by that map?  :lol:

I'm pretty surprised that there aren't any dots in the carolinas. 

[Reefgazer]

No.  There is exactly zero scientific evidence in reputable scientific journals to support YE.  Period.  Any other stand on that is not even worthy of discussion in the scientific community.  

There is a lot of evidence to support the YEC theory. The belief is based in scientific evidence and scripture. Scientists who believe in evolution or an old earth use evidence to support their theory as well. I don't see any relevance to your post.

 

[Reefgazer]

The YE belief flaps along in the USA as a political tool, mostly.  No credible scientist in the field gives it any credence.  Other countries' citizens have an easier time separating their emotions from scientific fact; Ken Miller explains why this is so in his "Only A Theory" book.

Is YE a mostly American belief? I am not American and had never heard of it before I came to WTM. The first time it came up I didn't realize people were serious. I've been here a couple of years now and this topic comes up fairly frequently. I now see that people are very serious about it and I am astonished at how many supporters there are here. Is it a very vocal minority, or is this a fairly widespread belief in the US (and perhaps elsewhere)?

 

[Reefgazer]

I don't think this is a case of Young Earthers being incapable of understanding this at all.  Surely, some don't get the idea of scientific disproof and don't have the imagination to comprehend millions of years.  But there are plenty who I've debated in academia who know full well when they are misleading someone, and intentionally do so.  They are not rare, either.  When called out on their deception and backed into an intellectual corner, they privately laugh at their dishonesty.

Interesting article that touches on this.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/02/cultural-shifts-and-brain-scans-is-searching-for-spirituality-the-new-american-dream/?hpt=hp_t5

 

[Reefgazer]

Michael Behe didn't even show up to defend his Intelligent Design "theory" in the Pennsylvania case, nor did he send a representative; he could summon no response to the scientific thrashing ID got.

Yes, it is taught in schools.  Obviously the Protestant Christian schools that use YE curricula, such as ABeka or Bob Jones, teach it.
Catholic Christian schools do not generally take a YE approach.
There is a long history of battles over the teaching of YE in US public schools.

This article might be of interest:
Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism
 

There was a lawsuit recently when California found certain YE texts to be inadequate prep for University students; their position was upheld by the courts.

And of course there was the Dover case in Pennsylvania a few years back, which was the "intelligent design" case.



 

 

[matrips]

 

 

Is YE a mostly American belief? I am not American and had never heard of it before I came to WTM. The first time it came up I didn't realize people were serious. I've been here a couple of years now and this topic comes up fairly frequently. I now see that people are very serious about it and I am astonished at how many supporters there are here. Is it a very vocal minority, or is this a fairly widespread belief in the US (and perhaps elsewhere)?

I never heard about it until I started homeschooling (have been Christian all my life with mostly Christian friends). And I never met anyone in person who believed in YE until I moved down south a couple years ago. So my take is it's a vocal minority.

[Reefgazer]

They are not affronted by YEC.  They are affronted by two related things:  First, dishonest attempts by YEC who do know and understand science to intentionally mislead those who are less-knowledgeable about evolution.  Michael Behe falls into this category, as well as a few medical doctors I know.  Typical of this type are those who try to debunk evolution by saying "the second law of thermodynamics states that .....", and then intentionally leave off the last part of the second law of thermodynamics which says "in a closed system", which of course changes their story completely.  Second:  The YEC who really does not understand science and tries to tell those of us who really do that we are wrong.  This is irritating for the same reasons a plumber who showed up at your house and was told how to do their job by a surgeon would be irritated.  The best kind of YEC is one who can stand on their beliefs without denigrating science, because they recognize that science and faith occupy different realms and their faith is strong enough not to be swayed by science.  This type does not need to dig a ditch for evolutionary biologists to stand in so that their faith looks taller.

Hello!  I was reading about evidence for a young earth... and it kind of got me considering the idea that the earth could be young.  (And I'm not even Christian!!)

 

SO I was wondering-- why is it such a big deal?  Why do people care so much whether the earth is young or old?  Both mainstream science (anti YE) and YE people.  Why do YE people tend to weave it as the core theme in their curricula, is it really that significant?  (Now I get that creationism is important and somewhat central to a worldview, but why YE?)  Why do mainstream scientists feel so affronted by the idea of YE?