Young Earth Questions

[Aelwydd]

Okay, that's fine. But your experience doesn't invalidate my experience in this. They're just different. I had a church growing up where it wasn't discussed, then three different fellowships of varying sizes in two different states, where a young earth in line with the biblical account was the standard belief, because we couldn't reconcile evolution with either the plain text as written in Genesis nor the New Testament assertion of no death before sin. With any theistic evolution or old earth theory, things would have had to die before sin. And that doesn't square with our basic hermeneutic.

 

Then there's the kicker - at which point is the bible true, if the very basic premeses of scripture are false? Where do you start believing? At Abraham? At the Flood? With Babylon? Only the New Testament? It's a very tricky thing indeed to pick and choose what things in the Bible are to be taken at their basic word and what things are plainly written out but we're going to decide seem too fantastical to believe. And what is more difficult to understand - an all powerful and holy God creating the world as he says he did, or changing the very nature of a living, breathing man? I'd say salvation is a far greater stretch than anything in the creation account, to square to the logic of fallen, sinful man.

I don't know. Has it occurred to YE Christians that maybe someone added up the generations incorrectly? Or perhaps misinterpreted a time period or two between kingdoms? Or just plain misinterpreted?

 

Back in the days of my Christianity, when I was a Bible believing, evangelical, Spirit filled, Assemblies of God type believer, I attended an AoG college for a few years. Took Survey of the OT, learned how the Western sense of time was very different from that of eastern, ancient Semitic peoples. That is one reason why different accounts of the same event might be attributed several years apart.

 

In that mindset, the actual number mattered much less than the ideals that numbers represented. Thus, the repetition of certain prominent numbers like 7, 70, 3, 40, 100, etc. The point of these numbers was less about conveying precise measurements of time, resources, etc., and much more about describing the spiritual completion of something, the perfection of an ideal whose time has come.

 

Furthermore, even if one rejects even the original use of time periods, for the sake of more modern understanding, and to protect a Westernized, user-friendly interface for deriving a relevant viewpoint, why do Christians accept the YE timeline without seeing the math? Especially since the 6000 to 10000 age span is a modern idea?

 

I would like to have the math in front of me, complete with Scriptural references for how each generation was calculated, and exactly when the longer life spans of early generations ceased. Especially, I would like to know how they understand and intrepret, literally, the wildly non- literal time spans covered in Isaiah and Daniel's visions, since these are not even linear to start with.

 

I would like them to explain how a collection of books written in another time, in another culture, in another language, and interpreted by the actual descendents of the original authors as saying something completely different with regards to the age of the earth, needs modern day American Protestant evangelical Christians to correctly gauge the numbers and come to a novel sum of 10000 years or less.

 

Frankly, I think it's damning in and of itself that this YEC thing is basically something only Americans know about. If the Bible is full of self revealing truth, it's strange it would be limited to such a discrete group.

 

Math is a universal language after all; and if the Bible so literal, then literally everyone else in Christiandom should be adding up to the same conclusion.

[Laura Corin]

My understanding is that schools in the UK offer actual Religious Education classes at all grade levels, that would be something different than brief coverage in a social studies class.

 

Yes.  Looking at Hobbes' school report, he studied Islam and Judaism last year and will be studying Christianity next year.

 

It's only 45 minutes a week.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

I think multiple religions are covered, with an emphasis on Christianity as culturally important. I don't know how it is actually presented, but it would at least provide an appropriate forum for discussion of things like religious perspectives on the origins of life.

 

From my reading of the Galore Park RE text, Christianity is presented in the UK through stories from the Bible, which are then related to every day moral issues.  Issues such as sola scriptura, transubstantiation, salvation by faith/works are not touched on.

 

It's not intended to be any form of catechism - rather it's giving a general basis for life in a country that has a Christian tradition/literature/art, but where many people have little actual knowledge of the bible.

 

ETA: I asked Hobbes what would happen if a pupil asked about something like transubstantiation in RE class. He said that the teacher would reply in terms of 'some groups believe.... some groups believe.... other groups believe...' with no prescription.

 

L

[kiana]

nm 

 

Edited July 6, 2014 by Moderator
The poster already explained her intent. Move on.

[[email protected]]

Please stay on topic. Thank you.

 

Moderator

[Renaissance Mom]

Are you speaking as a home educator, or on behalf of education provided free of charge for the public? As a dedicated home educator, your points are understandable. I don't think they are relevant for public education, however, because these goals can be met without formal religious education classes. . The fact that you relate science and worldview suggests to me a significant lack of understanding about the scientific methodology, what it is, and how it works. It speaks to the importance of OP's question, Why is teaching YEC a big deal? I think it's a big deal because it is necessary if one is to consider this particular religious belief to be a legitimate explanation when one takes into consideration the knowledge we have about the natural world today.

But they do teach religious material in public schools all the time. They teach the Greek and Roman myths you previously mentioned. K12, the curriculum provider to a significant number of public charter schools, uses Bible stories, stories about Muhammed, stories about Confucious, and others in their elementary history studies. Religion is interwoven into everything we "know,". We just don't always label it religion. I'm not taking a side for or against formal religion classes in public schools, but but there is no way to be an informed, educated adult without understanding the religious context out of which people's actions come. A quick glimpse into the newspaper will yield a myriad of examples of actions which were based on religious beliefs or understanding. So, if we say we deny public school students the basic knowledge they could use to understand the world around them, we do them a disservice. I think that should include YE material.

 

Also, I do have a solid understanding of scientific methodology. I understand very clearly the steps all scientists take to isolate variables and create reproducible results. My point is that their interpretation of the data has to be somewhat influenced by their personal experience, training, abilities, and worldview. That's why research is repeated, and that s why many studies are peer reviewed. None of us can isolate ourselves and be totally impartial. That's why learning about a variety of worldviews makes sense. So, yes, we all ought to have a basic understanding of multiple sides of an issue -- including YE or OE or evolution or whatever.

[poppy]

 

 

It is far less 'religious' and far more delightfully technical than I think most people realize.

 

I am not surprised.  Psuedoscience always is.

 

I am not a scientist but I do enjoy studying history, and I've seen many incredibly detailed and researched and documented theories that do more to obscure our past than illuminate it (extreme example: Holocaust deniers).  People have an incredible desire and deep motivation to justify their beliefs, no matter what the beliefs are.  This is where the rigors of scholarship become important.

[Free]

I think that should include YE material.

 

In what context? To understand current controversies in a current affairs discussion? Then maybe yes. Though I do not think we will be doing children a disservice by not including YE, anymore than we would be doing a disservice by not including discussions on astrology, UFOs, flat earth and so on on.

[TracyP]

ETA: I am keeping my fingers crossed that you come back to answer, Arctic Mama (or anyone), but I will be offline for the next couple days.

 

 

Hi Arctic Mama,

 

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss your viewpoint. I know it can be a time stealer. I have a few questions about YE that I hope you can answer.

 

Do you think it is possible that Gen 1:1 could be read to mean that God created the Earth at some distant time - before the 7 days?

 

Why do you view the first 3 days of creation as 24 hours when there was not yet a sun?

 

Do you believe that God originally created plants differently considering that they did not need the sun to grow?

 

A YE view of the Earth means you have to believe the flood happened in 2348 BC. How do you make that jive with all the archeological evidence to the contrary? For example, there are 59 structures in the world that date earlier than that. How were they not buried in the sediment that was laid down during the flood?

 

I have some more questions, but I'll stop there. Just as a reference, I seriously considered the YE view at one point. These were a few of the questions that didn't add up for me, so I'm wondering how you answer these. Thanks.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Do I want it taught in school? Ideally I'd like all unverifiable creation theory to be given the same theoretical weight. Is that going to happen in secular public education? Unlikely. So that's one of many reasons we homeschool and lobby hard for school choice - so that parents have options if the composition of the curriculum or the scope of education isn't what they want to see their children taught.

 

I wanted to answer your question thoughtfully, I hope I didn't miss the mark and somehow randomly offend a bunch of people again. If I offend I want it to be because of truth hurting, not my really cruddy delivery of it :lol:

 

Creationism is not a scientific theory.  It simply isn't.  It should not be given the same weight (or any really) as an actual scientific theory.  If an alternate *scientific* theory about how life developed appears, it will likely be given some consideration.

[albeto.]

But they do teach religious material in public schools all the time. They teach the Greek and Roman myths you previously mentioned. K12, the curriculum provider to a significant number of public charter schools, uses Bible stories, stories about Muhammed, stories about Confucious, and others in their elementary history studies. Religion is interwoven into everything we "know,". We just don't always label it religion. I'm not taking a side for or against formal religion classes in public schools, but but there is no way to be an informed, educated adult without understanding the religious context out of which people's actions come. A quick glimpse into the newspaper will yield a myriad of examples of actions which were based on religious beliefs or understanding. So, if we say we deny public school students the basic knowledge they could use to understand the world around them, we do them a disservice.

Then it appears you and I agree.

 

I think that should include YE material.

I understand you do.

[Renaissance Mom]

In what context? To understand current controversies in a current affairs discussion? Then maybe yes. Though I do not think we will be doing children a disservice by not including YE, anymore than we would be doing a disservice by not including discussions on astrology, UFOs, flat earth and so on on.

It's clear you put a YE in the same category as quackery. I wholeheartedly disagree, as you've no doubt noticed. :)

 

However, I also think we ought to know how and why we decide what is truth and what isn't. Some people, not necessarily the above quoted poster, take as truth what they hear most frequently or what the status quo is in their peer group without looking into it themselves. I am a product of the public school system and hold a double BS/BA degree from a state land grant university. I had never really questioned the mainstream belief in long term evolution since that is all I had ever been taught and had heard. I came to a point a number of years ago when I wanted to find out what this YE stuff was all about. I asked a lot of questions of knowledgable people, both scientists and non-scientists, read well beyond my college textbooks or coffee table science books, and purposely wanted to either confirm my passive acceptance of OE evolution or make an informed decision elsewhere. Isn't that what education, including self ed, all about? I don't marginalize the viewpoint of anyone who has deliberately looked sincerely at various "sides" of an issue...even when I don't agree with them.

 

Two people with two different worldviews can look at the exact same scientifically-derived data and then interpret it quite differently-- because they have different filters, experiences, education, etc. Many, many well-regarded and competent scientists frequently disagree on the interpretation of data, even when they are all OE scientists, for example. This is what drives science forward, not what holds it back.

 

The people I know who adhere to YE include instruction on long term evolution as well as young earth dating to their children with the intent to help their children learn to parse, analyze, and synthesize information. I have met few OE people, homeschoolers or otherwise, who have made any attempt to see where YE adherents are coming from. I'm sure they are there, but it is more frequent to hear that they don't need to look into YE because they just know it's nonsense as it disagrees with everything they've been told. Well, how do you know whether something is nonsense or not unless you look into it yourself? (For the record, I've looked into some of the flat earth, UFO, and astrology quackery, too, just out of curiosity. I, um, rejected making them part of my worldview.).

 

Having said all this, I will gladly admit that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If after careful study I believe that something is contrary to Scripture, it is not part of God's plan for us. But determining that still requires me to personally invest in examining what the Bible has to say. It's not a passive belief. Nor is my YE conviction.

 

Anyone interested in a beginning level of investigation into a YE, I would recommend a short book by Dr. Jay Wile called Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity. He recounts his own journey of looking into matters himself and ends with a charge to everyone to actually go out there and do the same.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's clear you put a YE in the same category as quackery. I wholeheartedly disagree, as you've no doubt noticed. :)

 

However, I also think we ought to know how and why we decide what is truth and what isn't. Some people, not necessarily the above quoted poster, take as truth what they hear most frequently or what the status quo is in their peer group without looking into it themselves. I am a product of the public school system and hold a double BS/BA degree from a state land grant university. I had never really questioned the mainstream belief in long term evolution since that is all I had ever been taught and had heard. I came to a point a number of years ago when I wanted to find out what this YE stuff was all about. I asked a lot of questions of knowledgable people, both scientists and non-scientists, read well beyond my college textbooks or coffee table science books, and purposely wanted to either confirm my passive acceptance of OE evolution or make an informed decision elsewhere. Isn't that what education, including self ed, all about? I don't marginalize the viewpoint of anyone who has deliberately looked sincerely at various "sides" of an issue...even when I don't agree with them.

 

Two people with two different worldviews can look at the exact same scientifically-derived data and then interpret it quite differently-- because they have different filters, experiences, education, etc. Many, many well-regarded and competent scientists frequently disagree on the interpretation of data, even when they are all OE scientists, for example. This is what drives science forward, not what holds it back.

 

The people I know who adhere to YE include instruction on long term evolution as well as young earth dating to their children with the intent to help their children learn to parse, analyze, and synthesize information. I have met few OE people, homeschoolers or otherwise, who have made any attempt to see where YE adherents are coming from. I'm sure they are there, but it is more frequent to hear that they don't need to look into YE because they just know it's nonsense as it disagrees with everything they've been told. Well, how do you know whether something is nonsense or not unless you look into it yourself? (For the record, I've looked into some of the flat earth, UFO, and astrology quackery, too, just out of curiosity. I, um, rejected making them part of my worldview.).

 

Having said all this, I will gladly admit that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If after careful study I believe that something is contrary to Scripture, it is not part of God's plan for us. But determining that still requires me to personally invest in examining what the Bible has to say. It's not a passive belief. Nor is my YE conviction.

 

Anyone interested in a beginning level of investigation into a YE, I would recommend a short book by Dr. Jay Wile called Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity. He recounts his own journey of looking into matters himself and ends with a charge to everyone to actually go out there and do the same.

 

The problem in your thinking is that there is no evidence for the YE beliefs to examine.  Most of the YE "science" is simply trying to pick apart the theory of evolution, which would be fine if they were arguing for a scientific theory in its place.  However, when the YE reasoning always comes back to faith and the Bible, there is simply no way to have a scientific discussion.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

It's clear you put a YE in the same category as quackery. I wholeheartedly disagree, as you've no doubt noticed. :)

 

However, I also think we ought to know how and why we decide what is truth and what isn't. Some people, not necessarily the above quoted poster, take as truth what they hear most frequently or what the status quo is in their peer group without looking into it themselves.

So, an example? Just yesterday a homeschooled high school student I know was telling me that his Apologia Biology book (I haven't read it, so I am taking his word for it) claims that the teeth on a t-rex didn't have deep enough roots for it to be a carnivore. This isn't true at all. The Creation Museum also claims that the roots of the teeth are only 2" deep and therefore couldn't tear meat. This is just completely wrong. The teeth of a t-rex had teeth that were at least 6" deep, MUCH deeper proportionately than a human or a cat, both of which eat meat. They are even deeper than a shark. And like sharks, it is believed that t-rex continually grew new teeth. They have even found t-rex teeth embedded into bones of other, smaller dinosaurs. It also claims that t-rex's small arms aren't shaped properly for a carnivore, completely ignoring the fact that many prey animals (like birds of prey) only have 2 legs.

 

 

Two people with two different worldviews can look at the exact same scientifically-derived data and then interpret it quite differently-- because they have different filters, experiences, education, etc. Many, many well-regarded and competent scientists frequently disagree on the interpretation of data, even when they are all OE scientists, for example. This is what drives science forward, not what holds it back.

I really disagree with you here when it comes to the "interpretation" of data pointing to a YE. I think a lot of the "interpretation" is being done by people with little scientific knowledge and/or people who are knowingly lying.

[Reefgazer]

Once again, the problem is not with creationism; the bolded, below, is not a problem at all.  The problem comes along when one tries to pass off creationism in any form as science.  It is simply not science because it cannot be disproven and it cannot be verified independently; anything that fails those two tests can not be legitimately taught in a science classroom.  If you want it taught in a science classroom, you've got to come up with some way to disprove the existence and work of a creator.  Some way that is verifiable. This has nothing to do with the validity of creationism or teaching of creationism in schools.  There may very well be some good reasons for teaching religion in schools, but there is absolutely no validity and no good reason for teaching it as science. 

 

ETA:  If evolution was disproven tomorrow (that is, it was shot down), there *still* would be no other scientific theory as to how we came to be in existence.  Shooting down evolution still does not raise creationism in any form to the level of a valid scientific theory.  It is pointless to discuss the alleged "holes' in the theory of evolution with the intent of elevating creationism to a valid science because if you shoot down evolution, you are not left with creationism as a valid scientific theory; you are left with nothing as a valid scientific theory.

 

ETAA:  Jay Wile's book you recommended, below, demonstrates his utter lack of understanding of how science works because its title indicates he cannot see the difference between scientific evidence and faith.. 

 

 

 

It's clear you put a YE in the same category as quackery. I wholeheartedly disagree, as you've no doubt noticed. :)

However, I also think we ought to know how and why we decide what is truth and what isn't. Some people, not necessarily the above quoted poster, take as truth what they hear most frequently or what the status quo is in their peer group without looking into it themselves. I am a product of the public school system and hold a double BS/BA degree from a state land grant university. I had never really questioned the mainstream belief in long term evolution since that is all I had ever been taught and had heard. I came to a point a number of years ago when I wanted to find out what this YE stuff was all about. I asked a lot of questions of knowledgable people, both scientists and non-scientists, read well beyond my college textbooks or coffee table science books, and purposely wanted to either confirm my passive acceptance of OE evolution or make an informed decision elsewhere. Isn't that what education, including self ed, all about? I don't marginalize the viewpoint of anyone who has deliberately looked sincerely at various "sides" of an issue...even when I don't agree with them.

Two people with two different worldviews can look at the exact same scientifically-derived data and then interpret it quite differently-- because they have different filters, experiences, education, etc. Many, many well-regarded and competent scientists frequently disagree on the interpretation of data, even when they are all OE scientists, for example. This is what drives science forward, not what holds it back.

The people I know who adhere to YE include instruction on long term evolution as well as young earth dating to their children with the intent to help their children learn to parse, analyze, and synthesize information. I have met few OE people, homeschoolers or otherwise, who have made any attempt to see where YE adherents are coming from. I'm sure they are there, but it is more frequent to hear that they don't need to look into YE because they just know it's nonsense as it disagrees with everything they've been told. Well, how do you know whether something is nonsense or not unless you look into it yourself? (For the record, I've looked into some of the flat earth, UFO, and astrology quackery, too, just out of curiosity. I, um, rejected making them part of my worldview.).

Having said all this, I will gladly admit that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If after careful study I believe that something is contrary to Scripture, it is not part of God's plan for us. But determining that still requires me to personally invest in examining what the Bible has to say. It's not a passive belief. Nor is my YE conviction.

Anyone interested in a beginning level of investigation into a YE, I would recommend a short book by Dr. Jay Wile called Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity. He recounts his own journey of looking into matters himself and ends with a charge to everyone to actually go out there and do the same.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

I really disagree with you here when it comes to the "interpretation" of data pointing to a YE. I think a lot of the "interpretation" is being done by people with little scientific knowledge and/or people who are knowingly lying.

 

Regarding the bolded, not only do the lack scientific knowledge, they apply a non-scientific test to determine whether a theory is valid, namely whether or not it agrees with their interpretation of the Bible.

[Moxie]

Have any secular scientists written anything in favor of a young earth?

[albeto.]

Have any secular scientists written anything in favor of a young earth?

 

No. There's no evidence that supports it, and all evidence supports the theory of evolution.

[Ipsey]

 

Anyone interested in a beginning level of investigation into a YE, I would recommend a short book by Dr. Jay Wile called Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity. He recounts his own journey of looking into matters himself and ends with a charge to everyone to actually go out there and do the same.

 

 

My husband did, while he was a Ph.D. candidate in ecology/wildlife biology. It was the first domino to fall that led him out of Christianity.

If the Bible claims to be science, it makes it all the more easy for an actual scientist to reject it.

 

There is no creation science evidence. It's merely lies and ignorant rebuttals of the theory of evolution.

[justasque]

...And as I said before, I wouldn't say this is a salvific issue, but certainly one of great importance to discuss as the implications for the validity of the rest of scripture is quite deep. That's why I'm passionate about it.

 

Do I want it taught in school? Ideally I'd like all unverifiable creation theory to be given the same theoretical weight. Is that going to happen in secular public education? Unlikely. So that's one of many reasons we homeschool and lobby hard for school choice - so that parents have options if the composition of the curriculum or the scope of education isn't what they want to see their children taught.

 

I wanted to answer your question thoughtfully, I hope I didn't miss the mark and somehow randomly offend a bunch of people again. If I offend I want it to be because of truth hurting, not my really cruddy delivery of it :lol:

 

I think it is because Christian creation theory is an issue with important implications for the validity of the rest of scripture that I don't want it taught in public schools.  Let me explain a few reasons why:

 

~ I don't want it taught by someone who has little education about it.  Theology is a deep and important subject; few public school teachers, perhaps especially science teachers, have enough relevant education to teach it accurately and well.  

 

~ I don't want it taught by someone who does not believe it.  Many of us teach Greek mythology from a viewpoint of "this is what the Ancient Greeks believed; we needn't take it as Truth as we know better".  Do we really want to risk religion being taught this way, or are we better off having it taught by educated believers, even if that means it is done outside of public school?

 

~ I don't think we'll make anyone happy if we give, as you would like, all un-scientifically-verifiable creation theories the same theoretical weight.  In many areas of this country there are public school students from a very wide range of religious traditions, each of which has its own creation beliefs.  If the teacher has to lump them all in together, and treat them the same, I think that can undermine an individual family's belief that one - the one that goes with their religion - is Truth, and the others are Myth.  Why would we want to treat our sacred belief as just another myth, no more true than any of the others?

 

I think we've got a good approach in the US - the public schools teach the basics but do their best to remain neutral on matters of religion, our churches run various programs to teach religious beliefs to church members' children, and parents who want religion to permeate their children's education have the choice of private faith-based school or faith-based homeschooling.  The division of education between public school and churches does have its tricky areas, YE being one of them, but if we have science teachers teach the scientific perspective, and religion teachers teach the religious perspective, each perspective is taught by an expert in the field, which is best, in the big picture, for the student.

 

 

 

 

[Renaissance Mom]

Have any secular scientists written anything in favor of a young earth?

I don't know the answer to that question. However, there are scientists who were previously atheist or at least secular who changed their minds upon their own investigation and review of the body of data. Dr. Jay Wile is one of them. Those who dismiss him because of the title of the book I'd mentioned should read the book before criticizing him.

 

I realize that many will throw rotten tomatoes at me for mentioning Anwsers in Genesis, but here is a link to a list of self-proclaimed YE scientists.

https://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

 

In my personal acquaintance, there are quite a few PhD scientists who are YE. They are highly regarded in their disciplines and work shoulder to shoulder with scientists of differing views without devolving to dismissing one and another's science creds.

 

This article is also interesting. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm#footnote1

 

And this article from the University of California - Berkeley affirms that the same scientific data is often interpreted differently by different scientists. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_09

[Reefgazer]

You're right; I took the title at face value without reading the actual book.  But if the book is indeed a true investigation of the body of scientific data, then Jay Wile is guilty of the charge I leveled upthread of many creationists I have interacted with, which is intentionally misleading those who do not know any better on the nature of science.  Faith and science can co-exist, but in no way are faith and science qualified to evaluate the other's discipline.

I don't know the answer to that question. However, there are scientists who were previously atheist or at least secular who changed their minds upon their own investigation and review of the body of data. Dr. Jay Wile is one of them. Those who dismiss him because of the title of the book I'd mentioned should read the book before criticizing him.

I realize that many will throw rotten tomatoes at me for mentioning Anwsers in Genesis, but here is a link to a list of self-proclaimed YE scientists.
https://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

In my personal acquaintance, there are quite a few PhD scientists who are YE. They are highly regarded in their disciplines and work shoulder to shoulder with scientists of differing views without devolving to dismissing one and another's science creds.

This article is also interesting. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm#footnote1

And this article from the University of California - Berkeley affirms that the same scientific data is often interpreted differently by different scientists. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_09

 

[Ipsey]

 

In my personal acquaintance, there are quite a few PhD scientists who are YE. They are highly regarded in their disciplines and work shoulder to shoulder with scientists of differing views without devolving to dismissing one and another's science creds.

 

 

 

I know a few YE Ph.D. scientists as well, though none in actual biological research science. 

 

Even the Southern Baptists and Evangelicals I know in biology and ecology and microbiology are O.E. evolutionists (they believe their god created by means of evolution).  However, they don't talk about it among their religious peers. One friend of mine, whose husband was a professor in my husband's department, and a professional in her own right, was leading a Bible study at church, but when it was found out that her family was OE and accepted evolutionary science, her Bible study was dissolved, and she and her husband were practically run out of the church.

 

There's an enormous list "out there" (Google it) you can find of Ph.D.s who signed the "I'm an YE creationist" list.  But very few are actually in a field directly relevant to evolutionary research.

[Wheres Toto]

 

In my personal acquaintance, there are quite a few PhD scientists who are YE. They are highly regarded in their disciplines and work shoulder to shoulder with scientists of differing views without devolving to dismissing one and another's science creds.

 

 

 

More relevant would be how many PhD's in geology, paleontology, astronomy, meteorology, or similar fields are YE?  

[Renaissance Mom]

My husband did, while he was a Ph.D. candidate in ecology/wildlife biology. It was the first domino to fall that led him out of Christianity.

If the Bible claims to be science, it makes it all the more easy for an actual scientist to reject it.

 

 

Your husband at least looked into it instead of passively going with the flow. I may not agree with where he landed, but I do applaud his willingness to figure it out for himself.

 

The Bible doesn't claim to be science. As a Christian, I believe it is God-inspired and inerrant. Of the books in the Old Testament, the first 17 books are the history of the Hebrew people (which includes Genesis), the next five are poetic books, the last 17 are prophetic. Likewise, the first five books of the New Testament are history while the balance contains instruction to churches and individuals. There are multiple literary genres within each category, but peer-reviewed science journal isn't one of them. :).

 

As another poster pointed out, the language usage can seem archaic especially in light of the cultural and historical contexts in which the books were written. However, once one studies Scripture, does Hebrew and Greek word study, and has a reliable source of grammar help from experts on Hebrew and Greek grammar, you can reasonably discern what is figurative language, what is literal narrative, what is instructional, what is poetic, etc. (Of course, there are lots of commentaries to tell you those things if you don't want to investigate for yourself.) While none of this mentions science, Christians acknowledge that a perfect God created an orderly universe. The laws of science were created by God. If one chooses not to believe that, they aren't likely to see God in science at all.

[justasque]

I realize that many will throw rotten tomatoes at me for mentioning Anwsers in Genesis, but here is a link to a list of self-proclaimed YE scientists.

https://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

 

No tomato throwing here, they are too tasty this time of year!

 

However, as a point of contrast, I think readers may be interested in the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve, which is a tongue-in-cheek response to AIG's list, designed to show that YE scientists are a very small minority.  NCSE has compiled a list of 1342 scientists  named Steve (or a variation thereof) who believe there is "no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred" (thus, an old earth).  Steves make up about 1% of the population in the US.

 

Note that NCSE points out that scientific issues are not decided by who has the longer list of scientists (though that honor clearly goes to the NCSE in this case).

 

 

 

[Caroline]

That is awesome!

 

No tomato throwing here, they are too tasty this time of year!

 

However, as a point of contrast, I think readers may be interested in the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve, which is a tongue-in-cheek response to AIG's list, designed to show that YE scientists are a very small minority. NCSE has compiled a list of 1342 scientists named Steve (or a variation thereof) who believe there is "no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred" (thus, an old earth). Steves make up about 1% of the population in the US.

 

Note that NCSE points out that scientific issues are not decided by who has the longer list of scientists (though that honor clearly goes to the NCSE in this case).

 

 

 

[Renaissance Mom]

More relevant would be how many PhD's in geology, paleontology, astronomy, meteorology, or similar fields are YE?

Good question. I personally know several PhD chemists, a PhD geologist, and a PhD meteorologist. A mom in our coop is a nuclear physicist and clearly YE. I don't personally know any PhD paleontologists or astronomers. I also used to work with PhDs in specialties of animal nutrition, veterinarians, lab researchers involved with the federal Food & Drug Administration, quality control technicians (talk about precision as a priority!), and so on. But these are simply my personal acquaintance. I don't expect that list to affirm or deny anyone else's convictions.

[Renaissance Mom]

No tomato throwing here, they are too tasty this time of year!

 

However, as a point of contrast, I think readers may be interested in the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve, which is a tongue-in-cheek response to AIG's list, designed to show that YE scientists are a very small minority. NCSE has compiled a list of 1342 scientists named Steve (or a variation thereof) who believe there is "no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred" (thus, an old earth). Steves make up about 1% of the population in the US.

 

Note that NCSE points out that scientific issues are not decided by who has the longer list of scientists (though that honor clearly goes to the NCSE in this case).

 

 

 

That's kind of cute!

 

However, I don't think that my personal beliefs should be formed by who has the most popular opinions.

 

ETA: I linked the AiG list not because of the length or brevity of the list, but to point out that there are scientists who proclaim themselves YE. It's not as if there are only 3 in the world...as much as we hear from those 3!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's kind of cute!

 

However, I don't think that my personal beliefs should be formed by who has the most popular opinions.

 

ETA: I linked the AiG list not because of the length or brevity of the list, but to point out that there are scientists who proclaim themselves YE. It's not as if there are only 3 in the world...as much as we hear from those 3!

 

It's more than 3, but likely somewhere around 1-5%, and even more rare based in the fields most directly related to evolution. Also, several of those on the AIG list are not what would usually be considered "scientists" - physicians, surgeons, and dentists.  When a belief is in that much of a minority among an educated subgroup, we have a pretty solid indicator of its validity.

[albeto.]

In my personal acquaintance, there are quite a few PhD scientists who are YE. They are highly regarded in their disciplines and work shoulder to shoulder with scientists of differing views without devolving to dismissing one and another's science creds.

This doesn't surprise me, as scientists specialize in specific details. Ph.D. research is very specific, and these details are taken together to support the theory of evolution, but there's not like a science field called, "Evolution: Including Everything," or anything like that, you know? There's chemistry, and in that, dozens of specialized fields of chemistry, and in each specialized field, researchers isolate minute details. One can study the correlation between two molecules and still belief the earth is very young. That doesn't speak to the credibility of the claim, however. Evidence is the only thing that can offer credibility with a scientific claim, and creationists simply have not produced any evidence. 

 

And this article from the University of California - Berkeley affirms that the same scientific data is often interpreted differently by different scientists. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_09

This happens all the time. It happens around the world, and in every generation. The scientific method is a method of exploring and understanding the natural world whereby these details just spoken about reveal trends. It's not at all unusual to have competing explanations about details, but there exists no evidence-based alternative to the theory of evolution.

 

Which repeats the OP's question, why is it so important to teach then? If the bible isn't to be taken as a scientific source, then why promote the idea that its claims are scientific? 

 

However, I don't think that my personal beliefs should be formed by who has the most popular opinions.

 

Scientific facts are different from personal beliefs, though. They may inspire personal beliefs, they may compel certain behavior, but they are not a matter of belief any more than mathematical facts are personal beliefs.

[Free]

It's clear you put a YE in the same category as quackery. I wholeheartedly disagree, as you've no doubt noticed. :)

 

I don't think YE is quackery. I know it is :-)

 

And no, I did not come to this conclusion without looking into YEC claims. When I did examine YEC, though, I was shocked by the gross misrepresentation of current science, the falsehoods that are taught, the errors in logic and the misunderstanding of what science is and how it is done. It was embarrassing really.

 

Mrs. Mungo gave just one example earlier of the errors in YEC claims. There are so many more that it seems that the entire YEC structure has been built on a foundation of scientific ignorance.

 

Two people with two different worldviews can look at the exact same scientifically-derived data and then interpret it quite differently-- because they have different filters, experiences, education, etc. Many, many well-regarded and competent scientists frequently disagree on the interpretation of data, even when they are all OE scientists, for example. This is what drives science forward, not what holds it back.

 

If a scientist brings his personal bias or worldview into his scientific practice, then it is not science. Period. Science should be blind to personal views of scientists. Science should be objective, which means that if a hypothesis is tested by another scientist he should arrive at the same result for the hypothesis to be valid.

 

If YEC is a scientific hypothesis, then it needs to make some testable claims which can be independently verified. Where are those?

 

And yes scientists do frequently disagree on hypotheses (explanations for observable data), but we do not have to take any scientist on her word until she can produce a testable framework through which other scientists can verify her ideas.

 

The people I know who adhere to YE include instruction on long term evolution as well as young earth dating to their children with the intent to help their children learn to parse, analyze, and synthesize information. 

 

With all due respect, if curriculum discussions on these boards are to be taken as a representation, then most YEC families use Apologia or AIG or similar YEC materials to teach OE & evolution. Needless to say these materials grossly represent the current science and the children learning from these will not have any understanding of TOE or OE theories.

 

Having said all this, I will gladly admit that I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. If after careful study I believe that something is contrary to Scripture, it is not part of God's plan for us. But determining that still requires me to personally invest in examining what the Bible has to say. It's not a passive belief. Nor is my YE conviction.

 

Your claim that Bible is the inerrant word of God and the only right way to interpret the Bible is "plainly and literally" is itself not an uncontested claim even among Christians. If that tenet that you hold on to turns out to be incorrect, then the entire basis for YEC "science" crumbles. That itself should point to the fact that YEC is not science because it is not independently based on data and evidence.

[maize]

It does seem to me that those who base their claims to understanding of truth on the inerrancy of the Bible are also relying on the inerrancy of human interpretation, and yet these same people generally readily acknowledge that human beings are fallen and imperfect. How then can anyone be certain their interpretation of scripture is accurate?

[fraidycat]

It does seem to me that those who base their claims to understanding of truth on the inerrancy of the Bible are also relying on the inerrancy of human interpretation, and yet these same people generally readily acknowledge that human beings are fallen and imperfect. How then can anyone be certain their interpretation of scripture is accurate?

This needs to be repeated, repeatedly.

[Mrs Mungo]

And no, I did not come to this conclusion without looking into YEC claims. When I did examine YEC, though, I was shocked by the gross misrepresentation of current science, the falsehoods that are taught, the errors in logic and the misunderstanding of what science is and how it is done. It was embarrassing really.

Honestly, it is getting extremely old to have people on the YEC side assume that all those who believe in an old earth are not Christians or haven't studied or don't understand the claims. I majored in Literature, which included Bible as Literature classes and classics classes. I attended church my entire life, a conservative denomination. My family is full of educated Bible believers, most of whom believe in an old earth. My uncle has a theology degree, reads Greek and Latin and is a Gideon. My cousin attended seminary. It isn't at all the case that we don't believe in YEC because we haven't studied the matter, *quite the contrary*.

 

Mrs. Mungo gave just one example earlier of the errors in YEC claims. There are so many more that it seems that the entire YEC structure has been built on a foundation of scientific ignorance.

Exactly. Nowhere in this thread has anyone on the YEC side managed to explain this.

[Renaissance Mom]

It does seem to me that those who base their claims to understanding of truth on the inerrancy of the Bible are also relying on the inerrancy of human interpretation, and yet these same people generally readily acknowledge that human beings are fallen and imperfect. How then can anyone be certain their interpretation of scripture is accurate?

Although this deviates from the topic the op presented, I'd like to respond. Of course human interpretation can vary widely...as you stated, humans are fallen and imperfect. However, all Scripture is inspired by God. So while translators, commentators, teachers, pastors may make mistakes of interpretation, Scripture is inerrant. That's why we go back to Greek and/or Hebrew word study to help make sense of some things. I'll also say if you don't believe that God is who He says He is, you don't have a reason to believe Scripture is inerrant.

 

One last comment, I do not believe that in order to be Christian, one has to be YE. Salvation is not contingent on your stance on YE or OE, but on faith, repentance, and personal trust in Christ as Lord. My adherence to YE grew out of that, but was not responsible for it. So in no way am I insinuating that one has to be YE to be Christian. It is one of this stumbling blocks that the apostle Paul warns us of when he wrote that we shouldn't let things that are not part of the gospel divide us.

 

Now I won't hijack the original intention of this thread any more. :)

[Renaissance Mom]

If a scientist brings his personal bias or worldview into his scientific practice, then it is not science. Period. Science should be blind to personal views of scientists. Science should be objective, which means that if a hypothesis is tested by another scientist he should arrive at the same result for the hypothesis to be valid.

 

If YEC is a scientific hypothesis, then it needs to make some testable claims which can be independently verified. Where are those?

 

And yes scientists do frequently disagree on hypotheses (explanations for observable data), but we do not have to take any scientist on her word until she can produce a testable framework through which other scientists can verify her ideas.

 

With all due respect, if curriculum discussions on these boards are to be taken as a representation, then most YEC families use Apologia or AIG or similar YEC materials to teach OE & evolution. Needless to say these materials grossly represent the current science and the children learning from these will not have any understanding of TOE or OE theories.

 

Your claim that Bible is the inerrant word of God and the only right way to interpret the Bible is "plainly and literally" is itself not an uncontested claim even among Christians. If that tenet that you hold on to turns out to be incorrect, then the entire basis for YEC "science" crumbles. That itself should point to the fact that YEC is not science because it is not independently based on data and evidence.

1. While I agree that scientists endeavor to remove personal bias and provide repeatable results, it is impossible to be completely objective in interpreting those results. They cannot remove their individual body of knowledge, past experiences, and everything else that makes them who and what they are. I am not saying that they look at a set of raw data and declare that they can only interpret it according to their personal belief system--that's ludicrous. But the established fact that various scientists can look at the identical raw data and interpret it very differently indicates that the human mind is not a constant.

 

2. Who said that YE is a testable hypothesis? Who said that long term evolution is a testable hypothesis? There is no way to scientifically recreate conditions for either and set it up against a control. We can make observations on current conditions, and we can extract observations recorded in human history, but we can't test and prove either YE or long term evolution.

 

3. As far as curriculum goes, I can't speak for others. But in our home, we supplement and teach where needed in order that our children learn how to discern truth. We read extensively in history, literature, and science. There are many, many ideas in classic literature which do not agree with Scriptural teachings. But if we don't encounter those ideas, discuss them, and evaluate them in our homeschool, we'd be sending our children out into the world unprepared to evaluate anything. While we may use Apologia materials, we also use other materials when needed.

 

4. When did I say that all Scripture should be interpreted plainly and literally? I firmly claim that it is inerrant, but it contains a huge variety of genres and literary styles. Yes, some sections are intended to be plainly and literally read. Other sections are filled with symbolism and imagery. Some parts are just stories used to teach (parables). That's where diligent Bible study comes in to know the difference. Educators routinely teach the importance of understanding genre, form, and literary devices in order to approach pulling out meaning of all nonfiction and fiction writing.

 

I've been clear in saying I believe the Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. I've also said in a pp that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue. So discussing these things with an overwhelming number of posters who disagree with me doesn't change either of those things. I fully realize that those who disagree with me think that I am just another naive quack. That's OK. :) My hope is found elsewhere.

[Renaissance Mom]

This discussion has been lovely, everyone. I have to bow out now to get on with a busy week. I apologize to any other YE adherents that I have not done a better job of explaining my views. I do appreciate being able to discuss controversial issues without worrying about being cyber bombed. :)

[Free]

1. But the established fact that various scientists can look at the identical raw data and interpret it very differently indicates that the human mind is not a constant.

 

Yes of course scientists can come up with varying explanations for the same data. But just coming up with a hypothesis is not science.

 

2. Who said that YE is a testable hypothesis? Who said that long term evolution is a testable hypothesis? There is no way to scientifically recreate conditions for either and set it up against a control. We can make observations on current conditions, and we can extract observations recorded in human history, but we can't test and prove either YE or long term evolution.

 

You are showing your misunderstanding of how science works. ALL scientific ideas have to be testable. The TOE is most definitely testable. Not only that, it has been so thoroughly tested in the past 150 years that it is considered one of the strongest scientific theories prevalent today.

 

On the other hand YEC has not made even one testable claim at least that I am aware of.

 

Also please note that testability is not the same as experimentation.

[Rosie_0801]

2. Who said that YE is a testable hypothesis? Who said that long term evolution is a testable hypothesis? There is no way to scientifically recreate conditions for either and set it up against a control. We can make observations on current conditions, and we can extract observations recorded in human history, but we can't test and prove either YE or long term evolution.

 

The Theory of Evolution allows scientists to make predictions and those predictions keep being verified by new findings. 

[Reefgazer]

We all bring personal biases to our work and most of us do our best to keep those biases in check.  In science, when we fail to do that, there are other scientists standing by to examine our methodologies in peer-reviewed journals and  disprove our conclusions based on verifiable and testable evidence.  Sometimes, the reason they do this is completely selfish - they are looking to promote their own conclusion.  But the reason doesn't matter; the net result is that science is self-correcting.  One scientist who is able to disprove another scientist's false or erroneous conclusion keeps the profession and the discipline moving forward and honest.
 
YE is a testable hypothesis and has been disproven in peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Creationism is not testable or verifiable.  But again, you are using the word "prove" to discuss science, and that is not how science progresses or works.  You don't prove anything in science; you only disprove it, and YE has been disproven through so many methods that I am not going to repeat them here. They are out there in peer-reviewed scientific journals if you really chose to learn about them.

 

The reason you cannot *prove* anything in science is because you don't know what evidence will present itself tomorrow.  For example, if a piece of evidence appears tomorrow that defies the law of gravity, then gravity will be disproven.  But because we cannot see into tomorrow, there is no way to prove 100% that any scientific statement is true.  It is fairly easy to disprove evolution.  If a scientist were to find an advanced fossil in a layer of earth/geological time sediment when only simple organisms were evolved, and that fossil did not get there through movements of the earth's crust or was not put there intentionally, that would disprove evolution.  But in 150+ years, that hasn't happened.  The longer time goes on without disproof of a hypothesis, and the more evidence that is found in support of that hypothesis, then the stronger the hypothesis becomes.  This is why evolution and gravity are accepted as scientific fact; they have been around for a long time and have a plethora of evidence to support them, and they have never been disproven.  
 
 

1. While I agree that scientists endeavor to remove personal bias and provide repeatable results, it is impossible to be completely objective in interpreting those results. They cannot remove their individual body of knowledge, past experiences, and everything else that makes them who and what they are. I am not saying that they look at a set of raw data and declare that they can only interpret it according to their personal belief system--that's ludicrous. But the established fact that various scientists can look at the identical raw data and interpret it very differently indicates that the human mind is not a constant.

2. Who said that YE is a testable hypothesis? Who said that long term evolution is a testable hypothesis? There is no way to scientifically recreate conditions for either and set it up against a control. We can make observations on current conditions, and we can extract observations recorded in human history, but we can't test and prove either YE or long term evolution.

3. As far as curriculum goes, I can't speak for others. But in our home, we supplement and teach where needed in order that our children learn how to discern truth. We read extensively in history, literature, and science. There are many, many ideas in classic literature which do not agree with Scriptural teachings. But if we don't encounter those ideas, discuss them, and evaluate them in our homeschool, we'd be sending our children out into the world unprepared to evaluate anything. While we may use Apologia materials, we also use other materials when needed.

4. When did I say that all Scripture should be interpreted plainly and literally? I firmly claim that it is inerrant, but it contains a huge variety of genres and literary styles. Yes, some sections are intended to be plainly and literally read. Other sections are filled with symbolism and imagery. Some parts are just stories used to teach (parables). That's where diligent Bible study comes in to know the difference. Educators routinely teach the importance of understanding genre, form, and literary devices in order to approach pulling out meaning of all nonfiction and fiction writing.

I've been clear in saying I believe the Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. I've also said in a pp that the age of the earth is not a salvation issue. So discussing these things with an overwhelming number of posters who disagree with me doesn't change either of those things. I fully realize that those who disagree with me think that I am just another naive quack. That's OK. :) My hope is found elsewhere.

[poppy]

I wonder what happened to the OP.  I have to admit I am extremely skeptical that a non-Christian could claim to believe in Young Earth creationism.  I suppose OP might be Jewish.

[albeto.]

I wonder what happened to the OP.  I have to admit I am extremely skeptical that a non-Christian could claim to believe in Young Earth creationism.  I suppose OP might be Jewish.

 

 

The Weirdest Religious Demographic Ever: Non-Christians Who Think the Bible is Literally True

 

 

Last month, a Gallup poll showed that 75% of Americans think the Bible is the word of God, literally or otherwise....

But when Gallup broke down their numbers, there was a surprising group of people on the list: Non-Christians who said that the Bible was the literal word of God.

 

 

 

 

0.o

[Wheres Toto]

Although this deviates from the topic the op presented, I'd like to respond. Of course human interpretation can vary widely...as you stated, humans are fallen and imperfect. However, all Scripture is inspired by God. So while translators, commentators, teachers, pastors may make mistakes of interpretation, Scripture is inerrant. That's why we go back to Greek and/or Hebrew word study to help make sense of some things. I'll also say if you don't believe that God is who He says He is, you don't have a reason to believe Scripture is inerrant.

 

One last comment, I do not believe that in order to be Christian, one has to be YE. Salvation is not contingent on your stance on YE or OE, but on faith, repentance, and personal trust in Christ as Lord. My adherence to YE grew out of that, but was not responsible for it. So in no way am I insinuating that one has to be YE to be Christian. It is one of this stumbling blocks that the apostle Paul warns us of when he wrote that we shouldn't let things that are not part of the gospel divide us.

 

Now I won't hijack the original intention of this thread any more. :)

 

Doesn't this go back to Mrs. Mungo (I think?) earlier in the thread when she asks why you would not then follow the beliefs of the original writers of the Old Testament for interpretation?

[Wheres Toto]

 

The Weirdest Religious Demographic Ever: Non-Christians Who Think the Bible is Literally True

 

 

 

0.o

 

 

My guess is they didn't understand the question.

[poppy]

My guess is they didn't understand the question.

 

Or did, and didn't want to risk even a 0.000001% chance of getting hit by lightning.

[NicAnn]

I wonder what happened to the OP. I have to admit I am extremely skeptical that a non-Christian could claim to believe in Young Earth creationism. I suppose OP might be Jewish.

I know a lot of Orthodox Jews, and YE came up in conversation. They were all shocked this was even a thing. But I'm also skeptical of non Christians that believe in it...maybe I'm missing something.

[poppy]

I know a lot of Orthodox Jews, and YE came up in conversation. They were all shocked this was even a thing. But I'm also skeptical of non Christians that believe in it...maybe I'm missing something.

 

I saw that some (certainly not most) Orthodox Jews to believe in creationism and even YE creationism on the Wikipedia page on this topic. It's interesting.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

[Mom-ninja.]

It does seem to me that those who base their claims to understanding of truth on the inerrancy of the Bible are also relying on the inerrancy of human interpretation, and yet these same people generally readily acknowledge that human beings are fallen and imperfect. How then can anyone be certain their interpretation of scripture is accurate?

 

Seems I remember this point being posted before, and usually it is not tolerated well.

[NicAnn]

I saw that some (certainly not most) Orthodox Jews to believe in creationism and even YE creationism on the Wikipedia page on this topic. It's interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

That is interesting. Thanks!