That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[creekland]

This topic was briefly started last night, but then deleted.

 

It got me curious...  enough said?

 

NOTE:  The differences in questions 1/2 and 3/4 are merely about whether you care what others believe.  If you don't, then pick between 1/2 or 5/6.  If you do, then pick between 3/4.

 

This poll is ANONYMOUS.  No one can see how you vote (except you), so being honest is helpful.

 

It's up to all of us to keep any responses worthy of the tact and intelligence we all should have, esp to keep this all from being deleted/locked.  Regardless of how one votes/feels, it's helpful to see more about the world around us IMO.

 

And of course, this is hardly a scientific poll, so no extrapolation to the population allowed.  This is just a curiosity poll of us Hive members.

[creekland]

ps  I'm getting ready for school now, so I'll both vote later and check in on it later.  I'd rather NOT come back and see it locked/deleted...

[Ipsey]

I definitely don't want to get this thread shut down, but I did want to add a little insight to my response. I put "I think no one should believe it, and it bothers me that people do."

 

But, in the same vein, I don't argue it with people face-to-face if they don't bring it up or attempt to convince me of it.  So, if I learned a new friend of mine believed it, it wouldn't be my response to say, "Gosh, I think no one should believe it, and it bothers me that you do."  I would just let it slide, unless that person tried to convince me of it or implement it in schools, etc. If it's up for discussion, I'm all in--if I feel like it.

 

I feel this way about a lot of things. I disagree with lots of people about lots of things, and they feel the same about my ideas, I'm sure.  We may even be annoyed about their ideas, but I don't have to ride that horse all the time, if you know what I mean.

 

I'm sure there are lots of things that people are "annoyed" that other people believe--and we see those hot-button issues on this board over and over again. :) 

 

So, I just don't want to people to have the impression that I would somehow be mean or aggressive to them if they believed YEC and we were just going about our normal lives. If it came up for discussion however, I would use everything in my ability to make my position, and the science, understood because I very much _would_ like to see the idea of YEC disappear through _logic and science_ not coercion or fear or societal pressure. In fact, I'd rather see YEC around than it be driven underground or out of play entirely because of fear or oppression. That never does any good. 

 

That's all I mean to say.

[Pawz4me]

I definitely don't want to get this thread shut down, but I did want to add a little insight to my response. I put "I think no one should believe it, and it bothers me that people do."

 

But, in the same vein, I don't argue it with people face-to-face if they don't bring it up or attempt to convince me of it.  So, if I learned a new friend of mine believed it, it wouldn't be my response to say, "Gosh, I think no one should believe it, and it bothers me that you do."  I would just let it slide, unless that person tried to convince me of it or implement it in schools, etc. If it's up for discussion, I'm all in--if I feel like it.

 

I feel this way about a lot of things. I disagree with lots of people about lots of things, and they feel the same about my ideas, I'm sure.  We may even be annoyed about their ideas, but I don't have to ride that horse all the time, if you know what I mean.

 

I'm sure there are lots of things that people are "annoyed" that other people believe--and we see those hot-button issues on this board over and over again. :)

 

So, I just don't want to people to have the impression that I would somehow be mean or aggressive to them if they believed YEC and we were just going about our normal lives. If it came up for discussion however, I would use everything in my ability to make my position, and the science, understood because I very much _would_ like to see the idea of YEC disappear through _logic and science_ not coercion or fear or societal pressure. In fact, I'd rather see YEC around than it be driven underground or out of play entirely because of fear or oppression. That never does any good. 

 

That's all I mean to say.

 

:iagree: :iagree:

 

It bothers me just like most things anti-science in this country bother me.  But mostly I keep my thoughts to myself.  I just mentally sigh a whole lot.

 

[flyingiguana]

:iagree: :iagree:

 

It bothers me just like most things anti-science in this country bother me.  But mostly I keep my thoughts to myself.  I just mentally sigh a whole lot.

 

 

I mostly agree, except that I don't know that it's helpful to keep the mouth shut.  A large number of people who firmly believe non-science tend to end up wanting all the rest of us to believe it, then band together to get science forced out of the schools to be replaced by the non-science, and end up voting in odd and damaging ways because they just don't understand science and can therefore be easily duped. 

 

I know YEC looks harmless on its own, but it does tend to come as part of a package deal where both evolution and climate change evidence is pooh-poohed.  Or the "belief in" evolution or climate change is used as a litmus test to see who's "too smart" to run the country.  Or "not Christian" enough.

 

If people want to believe non-science and completely force the science out of their own heads, that is their business.  But they have no business forcing it on others through "education".  Nor is helpful for any of us for their non-science beliefs to be used by large corporations to create a large voting block that supports short term profits by these same corporations.

 

I know that's political, but the problem is that a YEC belief does tend to get bound up with politics, because there are certain wealthy groups in this country who are using the belief for their own ends.  Which have nothing to do with faith or religion.

 

I'll also point out that one does not "believe in" an old earth hypothesis or evolution.  One may believe that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports that, given our current understanding, but this is not the same as believing in the word of the Bible through faith.  

 

Faith in god or religion, by definition, will always be outside the scope of science.  But there are areas of religion that look ridiculous when viewed by science.  So.... do we make world changing decisions based on a limited interpretation of what the Bible *might* be saying?  Based on what some other document written millennia ago *might* be saying?  (Keeping in mind that all this is current interpretation, not even the interpretation that might have been around back when the documents were written down and, thus, presumably a little closer to what a god actually said.)

 

So, yes, YEC does bother me, because it does affect how our government governs, what environmental policies are put into place, and what gets taught to the next generation.  Because it's not a question of individual faith when it starts creeping into public policy.

 

Is it really ok for YEC believers to say "don't question my faith" when they impose that faith on others?  It is a political topic, given how it gets used.

[Reefgazer]

I voted "To each their own and I fully disagree".  I think it is important to respect other POVs, and in this case, I am using the older definition of "respect" here - to mean "not cross boundaries".  I don't think respecting an opposing POV means that I can't correct scientifically false information, though.  I just feel the correction should be done in a respectful (using the more common definition) manner. It also doesn't bother me that someone believes in YEC because the scientists who are going to be making the real progress in the evolutionary biology and related fields are not YE, and in most other science or allied-science fields (i.e., medicine), it doesn't matter on a daily basis if one is YE or not.

[Maela]

I voted "to each his/her own, but I disagree."  I don't care much what others believe.  The only thing that does bother me is what kids are being taught.   

[Hikin' Mama]

None of the choices fit my belief, so I'll write out the long version. :)

 

I am a Christian who believes 100% that the God of the Bible created the universe. However, I don't really know how long it took Him to do it. I'm not highly read on this subject, but I have read some, mostly from a non-creationist viewpoint. I think a big bang absolutely makes sense if God was the one who caused it. I think God could have put evolutionary processes into His creation. I think the Bible could be talking about figurative days in the creation account as there are other places in the Bible that use figurative language.

 

One thing my studies of science in college, our homeschool, and my independent reading have confirmed for me is that life and the natural world is too complex to have come about by random chance. At a time (in college) when I wasn't walking with God, it was my science classes at a secular, liberal university that absolutely confirmed my belief in His existance.

 

I DO NOT think this is a salvation issue. I would never shun others because they disagree with me, nor would I make it an issue. In fact, I don't share my views with most people, because of the carp (from both sides) that goes on on this board is the same stuff that goes on in real life. Thankfully, I have a few close friends that I can talk to about anything and they love me whether they agree with me or not, and I feel the same about them.

 

I am totally comfortable using secular texts/resources in our homeschool and we have. We have also used a couple Apologia texts. We discuss the difference in ideas without making one set of people out to be idiots. It's not that hard to do, people! I use what I think is going to be the best resource at the time and for the individual student. I didn't know who Ken Ham was until the Kerfuffle, and I now would never even look at his resources based on how he handled himself in that. My respect for SWB, while already high, went up 1000% after that, not because I agree or disagree with the books in question (never read them), but because of the class act she was during that whole thing.

[BrookValley.]

I'm having a hard time finding an answer that fits for me in the poll.

 

It does bother me that some believe it, because of the alarming anti-science trend in this country, because it is being taught to kids, because it is being held up as a valid alternative to scientific theory in schools. But I'm not much into being thought police, and so "I really think no one should believe it" doesn't really work for me. I think it's unfortunate if you believe it, and I don't understand why you would believe it, but there are few things about which I would say "you should not believe that" to someone. Kinda ineffective tactic to furthering dialog, that.

[Spy Car]

The poll choices are strange.

 

Would these be the options if you were asking if people accepted that the Earth is a spheroid? Or that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Or whether Gravity is real?

 

Bill

[MomtoCandJ]

Don't care and don't believe. The only way I care is if it's being pushed onto me and mine and then I get all mama bear :)

[Amira]

I'm Christian (well, LDS/Mormon, so you can classify me however you want) and I fully disagree with YEC although there are many YEC Mormons.  I also had trouble picking one of the choices.  I am concerned that YEC is taught instead of science to some children because I believe a religious education should never replace a scientific education.  A solid understanding of science is important.

 

But generally I'm okay with people believing what they want to even if I think they're crazy for thinking it.

[Halcyon]

I was the OP of the original poll, and my intent with that poll was actually to reveal some of our more "harsh" inner statements when we encounter someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old. Not stuff we would ever say out loud to them, but stuff we say in our heads. I think the poll posted above does not reflect what some of us REALLY think. I actually have never thought: "I think no one should believe it, and it bothers me that people do."...In fact, that's so darn polite I might actually say it out loud!!  :laugh: 

 

In fact....

 

to be perfectly honest, when someone tells me the Earth is 6000 years old, I think "There's no frickin' way that an intelligent person can believe that in the face of the science of evolution." It seriously, and negatively, colors my opinion of that person. It is seriously anti-science, and I think it is this very "anti-science" that contributes to our societal blindness towards global warming, species extinction, environmental destruction and anti-vaccine hysteria. To me, it's indicative of a much larger problem, in addition to just being silly. I think it also give Christians a bad rap. I am Christian, but I am also pro-science and understand evolution as FACT, not theory.

 

And that's the God's honest truth. 

 

 

[Halcyon]

The poll choices are strange.

 

Would these be the options if you were asking if people accepted that the Earth is a spheroid? Or that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Or whether Gravity is real?

 

Bill

 

 

My point exactly. If someone told me the Earth was 6000 years old, I wouldn't say "That's nice, but I politely disagree." No more than I would if someone said brains are made of cotton candy.

[TracyP]

I voted that it bothers me that some do believe. I agree with everything Ipsey wrote, and wanted to clarify my "it bothers me" with one more point.

 

The YE movement is so dogmatic in my local homeschool community that I am 99% sure that my kids have lost friends over it. We may have to leave our church over it. This is very hard for me. Well actually *I* wouldn't care except that it is hurting my kids. So yes, it bothers me, but maybe not for the reasons most would think.

 

[livetoread]

I think it might help to remember that for many YECs, a literal Genesis is foundational for the Christian narrative. It might not be salvational, but it is foundational. A world created without sin and death shows God's character and intent for us. If suffering and death came into the world through human choice, then theodicy is easier to do. The reason for the death of Jesus is more clear as well.

 

The fact that science doesn't actually support a young earth and/or young life that suddenly and recently appeared close to its original form is dealt with in various ways, but for many the bottom line is that it is an important faith component. It has nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with their understanding of the Christian narrative.

 

I know plenty of intelligent YEC/YLCists because I grew up in a faith tradition that supported it. I am opposed to those who insist science actually can support it, but quite sympathetic to those who see it as a foundational faith statement. Personally I agree - I think Christianity makes more sense under a literal Genesis and the farther away from that you get, the more mental gymnastics and guessing are needed to square that circle. (For the record I am now a non-believer.)

 

So when I encounter a YECist, my mental response tends to be curiosity about how scientifically literate they are, but I don't automatically make assumptions. I know the power that more coherent theology holds for some.

[zoobie]

I was the OP of the original poll, and my intent with that poll was actually to reveal some of our more "harsh" inner statements when we encounter someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old. Not stuff we would ever say out loud to them, but stuff we say in our heads. I think the poll posted above does not reflect what some of us REALLY think. I actually have never thought: "I think no one should believe it, and it bothers me that people do."...In fact, that's so darn polite I might actually say it out loud!! :laugh:

 

In fact....

 

to be perfectly honest, when someone tells me the Earth is 6000 years old, I think "There's no frickin' way that an intelligent person can believe that in the face of the science of evolution." It seriously, and negatively, colors my opinion of that person. It is seriously anti-science, and I think it is this very "anti-science" that contributes to our societal blindness towards global warming, species extinction, environmental destruction and anti-vaccine hysteria. To me, it's indicative of a much larger societal problem,

 

And that's the God's honest truth.

Yes. This. It terrifies me, saddens me, worries me. "Bother" just doesn't cut it.

[momto10blessings]

I don't believe in YEC, but I also don't give a crap how old other people think it is. I would never judge someone by how old they think the earth is.

[fruitofthewomb]

I don't care what anyone else believes or teaches their kids. I am pretty non-confrontational though-I don't understand why anyone would want to argue IRL or on a message board.

[Ellie]

The problem with the "young earth" question is that the Creator is being left out.

 

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, by His own word, from nothing. I don't know for sure how old the earth is, although I tend to think that it is "young," because it did not take millions of years for it to become what it is, because God created it.

[BrookValley.]

I was the OP of the original poll, and my intent with that poll was actually to reveal some of our more "harsh" inner statements when we encounter someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old. Not stuff we would ever say out loud to them, but stuff we say in our heads. I think the poll posted above does not reflect what some of us REALLY think. I actually have never thought: "I think no one should believe it, and it bothers me that people do."...In fact, that's so darn polite I might actually say it out loud!!  :laugh: 

 

In fact....

 

to be perfectly honest, when someone tells me the Earth is 6000 years old, I think "There's no frickin' way that an intelligent person can believe that in the face of the science of evolution." It seriously, and negatively, colors my opinion of that person. It is seriously anti-science, and I think it is this very "anti-science" that contributes to our societal blindness towards global warming, species extinction, environmental destruction and anti-vaccine hysteria. To me, it's indicative of a much larger societal problem, 

 

And that's the God's honest truth. 

 

 

Yes. This. It terrifies me, saddens me, worries me. "Bother" just doesn't cut it.

 

 

Agreed. I see a lot of this "societal blindness" of which Halcyon speaks, and it's not cool. It's dangerous.

 

I still don't like the wording of the poll because "you should not believe that" just doesn't work. I do believe ideas can be challenged respectfully by respecting the person holding on to them, even if we don't respect the belief itself.

 

I know some very lovely, kind, generous people with some beliefs that most would consider, uh, "out there," to put it mildly (alien hybrid babies, anyone? Yes, it has been suggested to me more than once that my children are Indigo children). Should we give  just as much credence to the idea that my intense, sometimes frighteningly perceptive children are some type of "new" child created by human-alien hybridization?  If that idea causes me to forgo proper diagnosis and therapy for a child that may be ADD/ASD/have a learning disability/etc.? No, we should not, but I love the people offering this idea as an explanation all the same.

 

ETA: and don't anyone tell me you're not judging people who believe in Indigo children and a new alien-hybrid race. You are. You are full of the BS if you tell me otherwise.  :laugh:

[Saddlemomma]

I'd never heard of it until just a few years ago. I started believing, but now I'm in the camp of "I could go either way and I really don't care". I also don't think it's a salvation issue, so maybe that's why I'm not committed to one "side". For me, it just doesn't matter. God made it all-- whether He did it billions of years ago, 6000 years ago, or yesterday (kidding).

 

:iagree:  What bothers me is when science is treated as the ultimate "religion".  In other words, science trumps all or the "science is settled" mantra.  Science in many things is far from settled.  That's the nature of science -- we are constantly discovering more and new aspects about things.  Science, just by definition, is in a constant flux of change.

 

For instance:  Climate Change (which used to be called Global Warming but was changed to make it more convincing) - Everyone knows that the earth operates on natural cyclical climate changes.  That can be documented through the ages.  However, this notion that humans are the primary instigators of dramatically speeding up the changes is unsubstantiated.  Here's where the philosophy of science (not real science) creeps in:

• 40 years ago scientists were in a panic about the upcoming ice age.  It never happened.  So now they're in an uproar about catastrophic global warming.
• 1970s: Science experts claimed the world was overpopulated and running out of food, water, and minerals the results of which were the imminent danger of global famine and poverty.  It's been 45 years and we're still here.  Are there areas of famine, poverty, and water shortages?  Yes, but then there always have been.
• 1980s: The Global 2000 Report to the President - A document where a group of scientists warned the president that by the year 2000, the world will have exhausted all oil, gas, farmland, etc. resources.  Well, it's 2015 and we still have gas, oil, and farmland.
• Recently: Climategate Scandal - Climate change researchers manufactured evidence and suppressed data to bolster their claims.
• As of 2010, there were 1,000 international scientists who doubted global warming science.  Are they all wrong?

Yet despite all the above, global climate change perpetuated by humans is still a driving agenda in science and touted as "settled science".  Just take a look at the scathing article in National Geographic's latest cover story and how they ridicule anyone who doesn't subscribe to their "settled" science.

 

Then there's the medical field chock full of scientists who have repeatedly told us how bad fats and eggs are for us.  That changes almost yearly.  They're good; they're bad; they're good; they're bad.  My conclusion from all this is they really don't know and anything in moderation is fine. The science is far from settled.

 

So, facts are facts in science, but in certain things for which we can never directly observe or test--such as the age of the earth, or how life began, or whether all organisms evolved from a single common ancestor or were created--the worldview of the scientist colors their interpretation of how those facts manifested, resulting in philosophical science.  This goes for secular scientists as well as religious scientists.  Again, we cannot observe when or how these things really happened, whether they happened 14 trillion years ago or 10,000 years ago.  Up to a certain point it's all speculative, thereby subject to the interpretation of each individual scientist, and far from settled.

 

And science should never be settled or suppressed .  It should always be questioned and investigated. Otherwise, how will we ever learn anything new?

 

Anyway, that's how I feel about things. I don't expect everyone to share my views; that's fine with me.  It makes the world a much more interesting, yet sometimes hostile, place.

 

 

[BrookValley.]

I don't care what anyone else believes or teaches their kids. I am pretty non-confrontational though-I don't understand why anyone would want to argue IRL or on a message board.

 

I don't see it as arguing (most of the time) when we discuss stuff here. It's a discussion, and it's a way to learn about others' POV from a pretty diverse crowd--I don't have this kind of diversity in my every day. I mean, I have a pretty diverse group of friends, family, and people in my life, but day-to-day I'm hanging out at home, homeschooling and working, and I don't get to have discussions with many different adults at one time, KWIM?

 

I mean, what else are we gonna talk about if we don't disagree? Crockpots and shopping carts? Cupcakes? Oh, wait... :huh:

[Halcyon]

I don't care what anyone else believes or teaches their kids. I am pretty non-confrontational though-I don't understand why anyone would want to argue IRL or on a message board.

 

But that gets to the very heart of this thread--I am non-confrontational too. This thread is about what we THINK, not what we say aloud to someone. 

 

I am quite sure that many of us are non-confrontational in our actions, but our minds are saying something quite different.... ;)

[.Michelle.]

Other than online, I've never had a conversation with anyone over whether the Earth is young or old.  Never.  I wound up, as a child and by invitation, at a neighbor's church's Christmas pageant that inexplicably included a skit on YEC.  I was completely mystified by it, but the topic itself had never been brought up by those neighbors and never would be for the time we lived by them.  I don't believe in YEC, but I don't care if people do.  It hasn't seemed to make one iota of difference in my life.  Seeing as all of my energy is taken up by people, things, and ideas that do greatly affect me, I don't feel the need to go on the offensive against people, things, or ideas that don't.

[BrookValley.]

:iagree:  What bothers me is when science is treated as the ultimate "religion".  In other words, science trumps all or the "science is settled" mantra.  Science in many things is far from settled.  That's the nature of science -- we are constantly discovering more and new aspects about things.  Science, just by definition, is in a constant flux of change.

 

For instance:  Climate Change (which used to be called Global Warming but was changed to make it more convincing) - Everyone knows that the earth operates on natural cyclical climate changes.  That can be documented through the ages.  However, this notion that humans are the primary instigators of dramatically speeding up the changes is unsubstantiated.  Here's where the philosophy of science (not real science) creeps in:

• 40 years ago scientists were in a panic about the upcoming ice age.  It never happened.  So now they're in an uproar about catastrophic global warming.
• 1970s: Science experts claimed the world was overpopulated and running out of food, water, and minerals the results of which were the imminent danger of global famine and poverty.  It's been 45 years and we're still here.  Are there areas of famine, poverty, and water shortages?  Yes, but then there always have been.
• 1980s: The Global 2000 Report to the President - A document where a group of scientists warned the president that by the year 2000, the world will have exhausted all oil, gas, farmland, etc. resources.  Well, it's 2015 and we still have gas, oil, and farmland.
• Recently: Climategate Scandal - Climate change researchers manufactured evidence and suppressed data to bolster their claims.
• As of 2010, there were 1,000 international scientists who doubted global warming science.  Are they all wrong?

Yet despite all the above, global climate change perpetuated by humans is still a driving agenda in science and touted as "settled science".  Just take a look at the scathing article in National Geographic's latest cover story and how they ridicule anyone who doesn't subscribe to their "settled" science.

 

Then there's the medical field chock full of scientists who have repeatedly told us how bad fats and eggs are for us.  That changes almost yearly.  They're good; they're bad; they're good; they're bad.  My conclusion from all this is they really don't know and anything in moderation is fine. The science is far from settled.

 

So, facts are facts in science, but in certain things for which we can never directly observe or test--such as the age of the earth, or how life began, or whether all organisms evolved from a single common ancestor or were created--the worldview of the scientist colors their interpretation of how those facts manifested, resulting in philosophical science.  This goes for secular scientists as well as religious scientists.  Again, we cannot observe when or how these things really happened, whether they happened 14 trillion years ago or 10,000 years ago.  Up to a certain point it's all speculative, thereby subject to the interpretation of each individual scientist, and far from settled.

 

And science should never be settled or suppressed .  It should always be questioned and investigated. Otherwise, how will we ever learn anything new?

 

Anyway, that's how I feel about things. I don't expect everyone to share my views; that's fine with me.  It makes the world a much more interesting, yet sometimes hostile, place.

 

No one who understands science will disagree with the bolded. Never seen anyone disagree with that.

 

The reason people disagree with the rest, though, isn't because "science is being treated as the ultimate 'religion.'" It's because the overwhelming body of evidence suggests the contrary, and to continue on ignoring it is, simply put, dangerous to us and future generations.

 

Global warming was changed to climate change because it is more accurate and because people have a hard time understanding the science of how a warming planet creates extreme weather patterns/events, both hot and cold. It wasn't to convince, it was to educate all those people who can't be bothered to educate themselves and so go "So much for global warming!" every time there's a freak snow storm. :001_rolleyes:

 

edited for typo.

 

[shinyhappypeople]

I voted "To each their own and I tend to or fully disagree."

 

I lean towards "Old Earth Creationism" - an intelligent force (God) put this process in motion a very, very, very long time ago.  I think Genesis 1 uses figurative language to communicate overarching truth (God created the universe with intention and for a purpose, and it was good) but not literal fact. 

 

I also tend to chafe at science being adhered to like a religion.  I reject the idea that the scientific method is the only way to discern any truth.  Science is incredibly valuable, but I don't believe it's the end-all, be-all.  

 

I weep to think of a world only populated by Mr. Spocks and no Mother Theresas.   I believe that to be fully human we need beauty and virtue.  We need love that is inconvenient and illogical.  We need hope and dreams.  We need all sorts of things that are untestable, that defy a scientist's best attempts to quantify and control it.

 

So, no I'm not YEC.  And yes, I live and let live.  Because the most important things (to me) aren't things that science can come close to touching.

[wendyroo]

I don't care what anyone else believes or teaches their kids. I am pretty non-confrontational though-I don't understand why anyone would want to argue IRL or on a message board.

 

Social progress.  Continuing the great conversation.  Clarifying one's own views.  Seeking truth.  Fighting for one's rights.

 

That's just off the top of my head.

 

I view arguing as a fundamental part of the human condition.  We start defending our point of view when we are wee babes.  Ideally as we grow we hone our debate skills and develop a more mature, nuanced point of view, but never become apathetic enough to stop arguing.

 

Wendy

[Excelsior! Academy]

It is known on this board that I am a yec. I do think it is a salvation issue. To paraphrase, "If they don't believe Moses and the prophets then they won't believe one coming back from the dead.". I get that I am in the minority. I do honestly look at all sides of the evidence and encourage my children to do the same. I would change my beliefs if the evidence swayed me. Would it rock my faith? Surely! I don't like being called an idiot or ignoring science due to my beliefs. Science plays a very big part in our lives. My uncle and aunt are archeologists and professors of science. They believe in evolution. My father is an oec. Our family has very lively, academic even, conversations. Please, don't call me a moron just because my belief system is different than yours. I will do you the same kindness.

[albeto.]

I don't care what anyone else believes or teaches their kids. I am pretty non-confrontational though-I don't understand why anyone would want to argue IRL or on a message board.

 

I never argue offline. Offline conversations are for me non confrontational to the best of my ability (unless they are friendly debates, which I enjoy, but not as much as online because I find I need time to collect my thoughts, find information, let my ADD brain wander, etc). Online conversations are a different thing for me because it follows a totally different social connotation. In the same way I wouldn't talk to the POTUS in the formal dining room of the White House the same way I talk to my husband in bed at night, social situations have particular social expectations, and I respond accordingly. I figure when someone is making a public claim online in a community of educators, that claim is open for discussion. When that claim is factually wrong, it's worthwhile to point it out. Because this is a community of educators, I feel that contributions in the scope of education are not only acceptable, but beneficial. I never go into these things with an emotional agenda, however. Opinions are a bit trickier, but still open to replies if offered in a public setting, imo. 

 

I participate in arguments against anti-science claims on a message board for various reasons (and I mean argue in a debate kind of way, not personal confrontation let out anger kind of way). Many of them have been articulated already upthread, and are organized online in places like here, and here. Also, I find the challenge to articulate my thoughts and defend them against unpredictable challenges not only enjoyable, but good practice for me as an educator. I consider my position as a home educator a serious responsibility, and as we don't follow formal curricula, these skills come naturally throughout any potential conversation (logical fallacies, cognitive biases, appeals to faulty arguments, etc). On a personal note, I started getting involved in these questions specifically back when I was a Catholic defending my faith from Protestant challenges on another Christian homeschooling forum. They were interesting conversations to me, and so a new "hobby" was born, I guess you could say. 

[LucyStoner]

I think a mix of 2 and 4.

 

I don't care what you think, that's your prerogative. But yes, it baffles and saddens me that such a degree of misinformation holds sway with so many. There is a scientific consensus on this for a reason and none of the YEC science makes any gosh darned sense. Honestly, it sounds really out there and preposterous. I get that others feel the reverse and that's just how it is. I can't pretend though that I think either position is reasonable. I don't argue with people's specific beliefs but I also don't pretend to agree with them either. My friend started dating a man who believed the world was young and didn't believe in evolution. Truthfully, I was somewhat relieved for her that he changed his mind to see the science as it is before they got married.

[Tanaqui]

It wasn't to convince, it was to educate all those people who can't be bothered to educate themselves and so go "So much for global warming!" every time there's a freak snow storm. :001_rolleyes:

 

Obligatory link to XKCD.

 

[Halcyon]

Please, don't call me a moron just because my belief system is different than yours.

 

Again, this thread is not about what people would say aloud.

[foxbridgeacademy]

I'm so NOT YEC, pretty much the opposite.  It does bother me when someone believes in it .  It's unlikely that I would ever say anything but like Halcyon it would seriously color my opinion of them.  If the particular YEC began pushing their beliefs on something that affected me then I would probably get involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

I weep to think of a world only populated by Mr. Spocks and no Mother Theresas.

 

Mr. Spock never said it was better for poor people to suffer than to help them so they wouldn't. Mr. Spock didn't support dictators. Mr. Spock did not sneak-convert people into Surak-ism. Mr. Spock believed that the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few.

 

I certainly know which I prefer.

 

(All links provide all allegations, I'm simply showing that this isn't just a few fringe sites.)

 

[Tanaqui]

No arguing is dangerous!!!  I am not apathetic.  Arguing and conflict to me, means a lack of love.  I avoid it at all costs, so yes, I will stick to cupcakes.

 

Argument is not synonymous with conflict. Or at least, it certainly doesn't have to be. As Monty Python so eloquently points out, "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." Okay, that's not entirely germane to my point, but who can resist Monty Python?

 

Point is, debating isn't dangerous, and people who do it don't "lack love", whatever you think on the subject. You're not a mind-reader. Some of us just find echo chambers boring.

 

[albeto.]

:iagree:  What bothers me is when science is treated as the ultimate "religion".  In other words, science trumps all or the "science is settled" mantra.  

 

In what way is science treated like a religion? I understand religion to refer to a perceived relationship between a person and a divine or supernatural being of some kind. Science makes no such claims of supernatural ability or revelation from supernatural sources, nor does it appeal to authority. 

 

We don't consider plumbers to follow an ultimate pipe religion when they know more about plumbing than we. We don't consider electricians to follow an ultimate electron religion when they know more about electricity than we. We don't consider botanists to follow an ultimate plant religion because they know more about plants than we. But when referred to collectively as "science," they now subscribe to some kind of religion? This doesn't make sense to me.

 

Science, just by definition, is in a constant flux of change.

 

For instance:  Climate Change (which used to be called Global Warming but was changed to make it more convincing) - Everyone knows that the earth operates on natural cyclical climate changes.  That can be documented through the ages.  However, this notion that humans are the primary instigators of dramatically speeding up the changes is unsubstantiated.  Here's where the philosophy of science (not real science) creeps in:

• 40 years ago scientists were in a panic about the upcoming ice age.  It never happened.  So now they're in an uproar about catastrophic global warming.
• 1970s: Science experts claimed the world was overpopulated and running out of food, water, and minerals the results of which were the imminent danger of global famine and poverty.  It's been 45 years and we're still here.  Are there areas of famine, poverty, and water shortages?  Yes, but then there always have been.
• 1980s: The Global 2000 Report to the President - A document where a group of scientists warned the president that by the year 2000, the world will have exhausted all oil, gas, farmland, etc. resources.  Well, it's 2015 and we still have gas, oil, and farmland.
• Recently: Climategate Scandal - Climate change researchers manufactured evidence and suppressed data to bolster their claims.
• As of 2010, there were 1,000 international scientists who doubted global warming science.  Are they all wrong?

Yet despite all the above, global climate change perpetuated by humans is still a driving agenda in science and touted as "settled science".  Just take a look at the scathing article in National Geographic's latest cover story and how they ridicule anyone who doesn't subscribe to their "settled" science.

 

Then there's the medical field chock full of scientists who have repeatedly told us how bad fats and eggs are for us.  That changes almost yearly.  They're good; they're bad; they're good; they're bad.  My conclusion from all this is they really don't know and anything in moderation is fine. The science is far from settled.

 

So, facts are facts in science, but in certain things for which we can never directly observe or test--such as the age of the earth, or how life began, or whether all organisms evolved from a single common ancestor or were created--the worldview of the scientist colors their interpretation of how those facts manifested, resulting in philosophical science.  This goes for secular scientists as well as religious scientists.  Again, we cannot observe when or how these things really happened, whether they happened 14 trillion years ago or 10,000 years ago.  Up to a certain point it's all speculative, thereby subject to the interpretation of each individual scientist, and far from settled.

 

This is the kind of thing that illustrates my interest in getting involved, as I explained in my last post. These comments are factually faulty and misleading. The are problematic insofar as they are used to inspire behavior, such as teaching children faulty information, or voting for particular public policy that creates avoidable problems. 

 

And science should never be settled or suppressed .  It should always be questioned and investigated. Otherwise, how will we ever learn anything new?

 

One of the inconsistent trends that I see within the YEC community is the insistence that scientific assumptions be questioned, that hypotheses be offered and tested, that new ideas be allowed to emerge.  These things are all good and noble and an integral part of the scientific method. But then when certain hypotheses are offered and tested and subsequently found to be not credible, it's explained as a conspiracy to silence them. This is paranoid thinking by definition. There is ample evidence that many claims made to support YEC beliefs are (or were) considered seriously and put through the scientific method, only to be found without merit. They are, very simply put, wrong. The entire trend in the last few centuries shows this process happening time and again, and yet the explanation given is that of a grand conspiracy either on the part of all scientists to deny information (which has been shown to be factually incorrect), or on the part of Satan (whispering lies). In any other context, these arguments would be readily seen as based on paranoid thinking. 

 

The human brain is such a complex organ, integrated with so many sensory perception organs, internal and external, memories, emotions, responses to environmental cues, vulnerable to stress, trauma, cognitive bias, and so many other variables we're really only beginning to identify. There is no amount of education that can protect someone from deception. Add to that the component of self-deception (which is another natural characteristic of the human brain), and none of us are immune to biases and mistakes and irrational thoughts. For this reason, I don't think of people who believe in YEC as being crazy or irrational. I feel bad that this impression has been made, and I feel that many vague, accusatory comments are lobbied in my direction for this reason. I find that to be a rather immature response to conflict, and I suspect it suggests certain trends in the way people confront unpleasant information (including the near whole scale rejection of YEC). 

 

Anyway, that's how I feel about things. I don't expect everyone to share my views; that's fine with me.  It makes the world a much more interesting, yet sometimes hostile, place.

 

I do hope you come back to respond to the replies to your posts. I tend to recall you don't do this often, and that's too bad. I think we could learn a lot from each other, and I think those reading and not speaking could learn a lot, too. [ETA: nevermind this. I see your other post]

[fraidycat]

No arguing is dangerous!!! I am not apathetic. Arguing and conflict to me, means a lack of love. I avoid it at all costs, so yes, I will stick to cupcakes.

 

Which is why this is probably not the board for me right now. Seriously, even a thread like this makes my heart beat widly and out of control... It feels very threatening to me. I don't believe in YEC but the tone a lot of you are taking with each other makes me so sad and gets me very upset...

Perhaps you do need a board break. :grouphug:

 

Debate is healthy and required part of human life.

 

I don't "feel" any tone in 99.9% of this thread. All I see is Neutral discussion/debate aside from one person taking it personally.

[hornblower]

What you believe privately is your own biz.
If you say it in public or try to have it part of education or politics - it starts being my biz & then yeah, it bothers me. 
 

[albeto.]

No arguing is dangerous!!!  I am not apathetic.  Arguing and conflict to me, means a lack of love.  I avoid it at all costs, so yes, I will stick to cupcakes.  

 

Which is why this is probably not the board for me right now.  Seriously, even a thread like this makes my heart beat widly and out of control...  It feels very threatening to me.  I don't believe in YEC but the tone a lot of you are taking with each other makes me so sad and gets me very upset...

 

This is really insightful. I tend to avoid conflict offline for the same general reason - my body reacts with physical signs of fear (fight/flight response). I have never equated arguments of this kind with personal conflict, however, so while I don't feel the same way you do in this context, I can understand now why you don't come back to your threads. I'm sorry if I've contributed to your discomfort and suffering in this way. It's never my intention, truly. 

 

For what it's worth, I don't see these conversations as having angry tones or talking over each other or anything like that. I perceive them as clips of opinion, commentary, facts, ideas, insights, to be absorbed and considered as my schedule allows. I don't know if that comes as any comfort to you, if you might be able to apply that in any way. 

 

I do wish you well, though. And if I think your arguments (not you, the arguments you present), are faulty and I explain why, I want you to know it's not a reflection of what I think about you, but an explanation of how I've come to my conclusion based on the arguments/reasons offered. I mean this sincerely. 

[Professormom]

For me, this is difficult because of the way the definitions play out. So often this argument is presented as an either/or scenario. It gets couched as either you are an atheist who "believes in science" or you are a Christian who "believes in young earth". I believe that God created this earth and that science is always revealing pieces of His huge "mind" to us, in increments. I think it takes a great deal of arrogance to say someone is not a "real" Christian because they see evidence of an old earth and evolution. I find it equally disturbing when the secular world pits evolution/Big Bang "against" creation. They are not mutually exclusive. I believe that God created this universe in all of its intricacy and immensity. I also think He reveals some of the mechanisms of how He has done that through scientific discoveries, which is why I love science!

 

The more I have studied all sides to this issue (and I have done so exhaustively because I needed to reevaluate what I thought based on my faith and what science has discovered) of the controversy around this topic, is that this is such a huge distraction to the faith. Instead of focusing on the words of Jesus (love God, love your neighbor), we get into these debates that make us feel superior to one another, which is not the basis of the Christian faith at all.

 

I actually really like the way the OP started this thread. It was respectful and information-seeking, and that is what I love about being in this board. When people remember courtesy, we all get a richer insight into the world of the "other". This has definitely made me a deeper person, not just intellectually, but in my faith as well:-)

 

I am now getting off my soapbox of heavy thoughts and heading over to the lighthearted thread that "doesn't exist" :lol:

And I voted.

[albeto.]

It is known on this board that I am a yec. I do think it is a salvation issue. To paraphrase, "If they don't believe Moses and the prophets then they won't believe one coming back from the dead.". I get that I am in the minority. I do honestly look at all sides of the evidence and encourage my children to do the same. I would change my beliefs if the evidence swayed me. Would it rock my faith? Surely! I don't like being called an idiot or ignoring science due to my beliefs. Science plays a very big part in our lives. My uncle and aunt are archeologists and professors of science. They believe in evolution. My father is an oec. Our family has very lively, academic even, conversations. Please, don't call me a moron just because my belief system is different than yours. I will do you the same kindness.

 

Coming from the other side, I will say something about someone's argument, and then find people argue against my comment as if I made a personal attack. I just sit there like 0.o. 

 

But has someone actually called you a moron on this board? Holy cow! I guess you guys aren't kidding when you say it gets hostile here, lol!

[zoobie]

Perhaps you do need a board break.

 

Debate is healthy and required part of human life.

 

I don't "feel" any tone in 99.9% of this thread. All I see is Neutral discussion/debate aside from one person taking it personally.

Exactly! There would be no progress without debate and challenging the status quo. The earth would be flat (though I think there's a contingency for that too...), women wouldn't be allowed to vote or drive (um, still working on that as well...), and so on and so forth. We are a work in progress!

[Joanne]

No arguing is dangerous!!!  I am not apathetic.  Arguing and conflict to me, means a lack of love.  I avoid it at all costs, so yes, I will stick to cupcakes.  

 

Which is why this is probably not the board for me right now.  Seriously, even a thread like this makes my heart beat widly and out of control...  It feels very threatening to me.  I don't believe in YEC but the tone a lot of you are taking with each other makes me so sad and gets me very upset...

 

(I realize you likely have me on ignore).

 

Discussion is the nature of forums. "Conflict" happens on boards of every kind; including knitting, coupons, and goldfish. I have participated in conservative Christian boards and liberal Christian boards and seen the same level of discussion. My dd got cyber-reamed by asking if a scholarship was available for students who have Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis!

 

Many of the frequent fliers in terms of the longer, heated discussions simply enjoy discussions. The people behind the discussions are not the focus; ideas, theories, and topics are the focus. It's not personal.

 

Your reaction to the rhythm of internet discussions is consistent with being an adult child of an addict/alcoholic. There are things you can work on with your therapist regarding that issue.

 

{{hugs}}

[BrookValley.]

No arguing is dangerous!!!  I am not apathetic.  Arguing and conflict to me, means a lack of love.  I avoid it at all costs, so yes, I will stick to cupcakes.  

 

Which is why this is probably not the board for me right now.  Seriously, even a thread like this makes my heart beat widly and out of control...  It feels very threatening to me.  I don't believe in YEC but the tone a lot of you are taking with each other makes me so sad and gets me very upset...

 

I'm sincerely sorry you feel threatened. I don't really understand why this thread would make you feel those things, but I do wish you didn't feel that way.

 

 I think you are conflating argument, i.e., discussion, as argument of the upset, yelling, screaming, talking past each other type of argument. I don't think argument has to mean that. Sometimes an argument is a discussion.

 

If no one every disagreed, if discourse never happened, how would anything, ever, be moved forward? It's just not possible to live in a world without argument, and I don't think we should.

 

The reason I "argue" is *because* I love people, full stop.  I stop in these threads and "argue," i.e., discuss, things like YEC, religion in general, science/anti-science stuff, LGBTQ issues, and so on, because I give a damn and I really would like me and my kids to live in a world with more caring, compassion, and respect.

[creekland]

Phew!  I'm finally on my break time from school (teaching about saving the Chesapeake today - a really fun topic and it's encouraging to me to see 9th graders taking it all in positively, but I digress).  Anyway, I'm finally on my break and I get to read this thread and it's PLEASANT!  Thanks Hive family!  

 

I know there are some who might have nuanced things differently.  One needs to remember that:

 

A)  I'm trying to be tactful for all sides.

 

B)  I'm pretty sure I got my point across.

 

C)  I opted to combine a bit (tends to with fully) in an effort to KISS (Keep It Simple S_____).

 

D)  This was created quickly this morning between my shower and heading off to school at 6:45.  I also need to make my lunch and get a few chores done.

 

I've voted now and I don't plan to give even a hint as to which way other than it's not 3/4 as I am a Live and Let Live person.

 

I also love science - always have, always will.

 

And the results are interesting to me.  Hope they are to others too.

 

Thanks again!

[shinyhappypeople]

In what way is science treated like a religion? I understand religion to refer to a perceived relationship between a person and a divine or supernatural being of some kind. Science makes no such claims of supernatural ability or revelation from supernatural sources, nor does it appeal to authority.

 

Not directed toward me, but I agree that there is a trend of embracing science as religion, so I'll poke my nose in :) 

 

I think definition #6 (and perhaps #2, sort of) makes sense in this context.

 

Religion:  

 

6.  something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

[albeto.]

 

Not directed toward me, but I agree that there is a trend of embracing science as religion, so I'll poke my nose in :)

 

I think definition #6 (and perhaps #2, sort of) makes sense in this context.

 

Religion:  

 

6.  something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:

to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

 

 

By this understanding, is patriotism a religion? Home education? 

[CAMom]

I'm what most would consider a conservative Christian. This is a subject into which I have put some time.

 

I don't have a strong belief about the age of the earth one way or the other. I would say that I slightly tend towards a younger earth but I'm not committed to it. I'm always open to new argumentation and consideration.

 

My 9yo and I were just having a conversation about this the other day. He was asking if he should still watch scientific shows in which the hosts were atheists or non-Christians. I asked him why he wouldn't since he loves those types of shows. He said, "Well, they say the earth is billions of years old." 

 

I explained to him that lots of Christians believe that as well in addition to those who believe the earth is young. I told him that he would have to study it himself and come to his own conclusion. I also told him that his older brother, whom he thinks is the smartest person in the world ;), believes in an old earth. He asked me what I believe and I told him that I see the merit of both sides, that I don't have a strong belief, but that I tend towards a younger earth. I also explained to him that this has nothing to do with one's salvation.

 

I encouraged him to talk to me, Dad, or big brother about the subject any time and assured him that we'd provide him with our honest opinions and help him sort out his thoughts. 

 

So, even though I answered with #1 in the poll, I'm not at all dogmatic and am pretty open minded on the topic. And, I can respect whatever conviction others have on the subject. :)

[albeto.]

 I told him that he would have to study it himself and come to his own conclusion. 

 

See, I find this fascinating, and not a little alarming. Can you imagine this same dialog in relation to any other matter of facts? Aviation, electricity, open-heart surgery? 

 

"Well son, I don't know if the surgeon will be applying knowledge of physiology or cleaning his chakras while Grandpa's chest is open on the table, and it doesn't really matter. We found his name in the phone book and he believes the earth is young so we know we can trust him."

 

This sounds absurd, doesn't it (It's mean to, I'm being hyperbolic here)? But people tend to give evolution a pass with regard to critical thinking skills. It's chalked up to be a matter of opinion, something that doesn't really have any important ramifications in the long run. I find that problematic coming from an educator. I don't mean to pick on you, CAMom, but to pick on the argument that you shared (not that you made up, I've heard it before and will again, yours is just a convenient post to reply to).

 

Come to your own conclusion about facts.

Facts and opinions are interchangeable.

Facts are relative.

 

In what other context do we shrug our shoulders about this?