That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[albeto.]

:confused1: I don't get it. I really don't. I came into the discussion and did express what I genuinely thought. You responded to me and I responded back to you. Then you responded with the post that included Christians whitewashing slavery and homeschoolers like me being educationally gullible.

 

I'm confused at what you are frustrated with? What direction is the thread taking? Do you mean you feel like you are being ambushed?  :confused1:

 

I have to run out the door now, so please don't interpret my radio silence as ignoring you or expressing any emotional upset. As far as I'm concerned, we're simply discussing this, each one taking our turn to reply. 

 

Be back later?

[Guest]

I meant people who stopped believing in YEC. Sorry was unclear ;)

 

wasn't sure people would want to talk about it since it seems to me that it is by definition a matter of faith so it seems to require a profound shift in faith & I didn't necessarily expect people to talk about that.

 

hey, another question I've been wondering about - are there any YEC people who are not religious?

Yes, I stopped believing in YEC when I was trying to gather information about why this was a rational belief and worth teaching kids. The arguments supporting a young earth were very weak and I could not get past the observation that AiG and similar groups seemed to always be trying to make things fit the scripture and YE view, rather than going with what was apparent.

 

I doubt there are any YEC who are not starting from the Bible as literal at base. That is exactly why it kept feeling like yec was a defensive view, not a view based on what the evidence indicates. IOW, I don't think there is anyone who non-religiously looks at the earth, the heavens, life, and concludes, "Well obviously all this is a few milenia old."

 

I remember thinking there were things that did not support YE even when I was young and not much aware that this was a minority, Christian belief. Hawaii springs to mind. I knew it was said to be formed from volcanic activity and then over time animals, plants and people came to populate it. Even to my young mind, I remember thinking, "that would have to take a VERY long time." It simply did not seem logical to say God made the islands the way they appear now, even though it appears they are volcanic and are still being created over time.

[hornblower]

What you have to understand about physics is that there are quite a few models that could, theoretically, explain the origins of the universe.

 

& not just the origins, but its actual current state.

 

Leslie Winkle & Sheldon - loop quantum gravity v. string

 

"how will we raise the children?!" :D

 

 

[PineFarmMom]

All that being said, this thread seems to be an excuse to call people names who believe in YEC (see: cotton candy for brains, whackadoodle and others), whether the OP intended it or not.

Haha! So true!!! I am actually finding it humorous to watch all the open-mindedness. It is interesting to watch people who think everyone should be "tolerant of other views" and find ways around those requirements when it involves "certain" topics like this one. Makes me want to grab a bag of popcorn and make my own bets as to who will prove me right!!

[marbel]

I identify as a Christian and I tend to disagree with the idea of a young earth. When my kids were little it bothered me that I did not have a strong opinion on the topic, and I did a fair bit of reading on it to form one, either way. I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter to me. As some folks say, it's not a salvation issue. My strong opinion is thst God created everything, but when and how he did it doesn't really matter. I do tend to stsy away from young earth science resources because in my experience they have not been belpful and are often lacking in humility with regard to other opinions/theories.

 

ETA: this is something we discuss with our kids they understand that there are various opinions on this topic.

[Tanaqui]

Haha! So true!!! I am actually finding it humorous to watch all the open-mindedness. It is interesting to watch people who think everyone should be "tolerant of other views" and find ways around those requirements when it involves "certain" topics like this one. Makes me want to grab a bag of popcorn and make my own bets as to who will prove me right!!

 

I don't think anybody believes you should be equally tolerant of views that are a. harmful or b. contrary to fact as you should be of views that are neither.

 

[Katy]

I wasn't taking part in any witchhunt, I simply responded to the person who stated I knew nothing about science, which was both personal and incorrect.  If anyone makes personal assertions about someone they don't know that seem condecending, rude, and judgmental to multiple people, then perhaps it is because their writing is condescending, rude, and judgmental and they should take a large step back and reread what they've written before they hit post.

[Tanaqui]

Nope, but I do disagree with you.  :)

 

About what? Do you disagree that there is an objective reality, the nature of which we can establish with facts? Do you disagree that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the correct one? Or do you disagree that a correct theory can be used to make accurate predictions and models?

[Katy]

What you have to understand about physics is that there are quite a few models that could, theoretically, explain the origins of the universe.  We don't have enough data yet to say which one is correct, however.  Someone coming up with a new model doesn't disprove the others.  It's just one more idea that will possibly be ruled out at some point when we know more.

 

And believe me, if the day comes that physicists know for absolute certain that there was no Big Bang, it will be at the top of every news website out there. ;)

 

Also, the universe being eternal and the Big Bang theory aren't mutually exclusive.  Some models show that there could be an eternal universe with endless Big Bangs happening over and over.

 

Fascinating stuff. :)

 

I know, and I agree that it's fascinating.  That's why I posted it.

 

[albeto.]

While we are discussing "white washing history"

 

http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB1380&Tab=0

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-unflattering-history-lesson/2015/02/19/3be9cb0c-b878-11e4-a200-c008a01a6692_story.html

 

 

 

The Bill was written by a member of

 

http://www.blackrobereg.org/

 

Don't forget about Moses being one of the Founding Fathers.

 

 

[redsquirrel]

Haha! So true!!! I am actually finding it humorous to watch all the open-mindedness. It is interesting to watch people who think everyone should be "tolerant of other views" and find ways around those requirements when it involves "certain" topics like this one. Makes me want to grab a bag of popcorn and make my own bets as to who will prove me right!!

 

Not all ideas are good ones.

 

If someone is racist should I 'tolerate' their jokes? If my kid is convinced he can fly if he jumps off the roof with an umbrella should I allow it in the name of 'tolerating' different opinions of physics?  If a person with typhoid wants to make me a sandwich should I go along with it because he just got back from a faith healer?  If someone offers to cure my child of strep throat by casting out the demons should I let them, in the name of respecting different opinions?

 

If someone want to be a science denier they are fee to do so, as long as they are not in a position of power over me or my family. If someone wants to proudly proclaim their denial of science I am under no obligation to keep quiet about it, any more than they are. But, if you are going to insist on denying reality, you really should expect some pushback from the rest of the world about it. 

[Xahm]

I used to be strongly YEC as a child and now believes that God uses evolution to create and sustain life just as he uses the laws of physics to create day and night among other things. Just speaking about the "Christians must decide what to believe" idea that is really difficult to understand from an outside perspective; when I say this, I don't mean that everyone must decide what is science. I mean that each Christian person is responsible for deciding how to interpret Genesis and other Scriptures. On person may feel a strong conviction that no matter what science says, we must believe Genesis literally. I will disagree with that person on a theological level, but I really do respect that belief. Others find a way to reconcile faith and science, as I hope I've done well. Still others don't find it important enough to research whether they should change long held beliefs. I don't quite understand those folks, but I know and respect many like them. Then there two more groups: those who actively twist science to try to support YEC and many, many more who believe and actively promote these ideas. I don't respect the POV of the first group and would have trouble relating well to those involved. I used to be part of the second group, so when I meet them I wish they would step back and think about why this is important to them and whether they really believe there is a huge active conspiracy. Most of them in my experience have simply been working from a limited and very skewed set of information.

[AFwife Claire]

And just because I jumped in here, I'll say I'm a Christian, probably considered very conservative by most people, I believe in a literal 6 day creation as written about in the Bible, original sin and all that "whackadoodle" "cotton candy brain" stuff.  But I don't think the exact age of the earth is really that important, I don't think biblical genealogies can give us an exact age of the earth, I find the various creation science organizations to be more than just a little annoying and at best irrelevant, but I don't I think it's impossible for God to have created a vast universe with stars that are 13 billion light years away.  I don't often discuss all of this with people other than those I'm really close to (like DH, for instance) because I think my views are probably a minority among just about everyone.  So I have trouble answering the poll.

 

All that being said, this thread seems to be an excuse to call people names who believe in YEC (see: cotton candy for brains, whackadoodle and others), whether the OP intended it or not.

This post describes me perfectly as well.  I have a degree in biology, and I teach a well-respected AP biology class where my students, including my own children, do very well on the exam.  Obviously I can and do teach "both sides", giving them a solid basis in evolutionary theory so they can do well on the exam and decide what to believe.  But thank you all for assuming my intellect is lacking!

 

For what it's worth, I often monitor College Confidential threads on AP biology, and when the PS students are covering the chapters of Campbells on the beginning of the earth, the posts are often about how exasperating the chapter is, and how they can't wait to get through all the crazy stuff because it sounds made-up.  These are public school students who I don't think have ever remotely thought about anything other than evolution, but you know what?  That chapter in Campbells (sorry, book is not right here and I'm nursing) is sort of hooey-sounding.  I personally find astronomy and physics arguments much more potentially convincing.  But what do I know--I'm obviously crazy!

[albeto.]

Again, I'm so confused. Are these posts directed at me since I had interaction with her in this thread?  :confused1:

 

What witch hunt? :confused1:

 

Did albeto not say that "Christians whitewash slavery?" Did she say that I "believe facts are relative" and that I am teaching my son the same? Did she say that YEC capitalize on educational gullibility and then add that they are able to encourage homeschoolers just like me of their position? 

 

All I did was respond to those things.

 

I would really love to be enlightened as I try not to bring my own emotion into the debate and I would never want to give the impression that I am on a witch hunt. :confused1:

 

Fwiw, I don't think there's any witch hunt, but I do suspect I might be the recipient of some frustration recently the topic of vague, cryptic comments.

 

I interpret this from such comments as,

"I remind myself it's only a small handful of posters who are insistent on not being tolerant."

"It would be nice to be able to discuss serious issues without someone throwing it off because they can't seem to discuss serious issues without being a jerk."

"there are certain topics, the same people make the same remarks. it seems like every. single. time."

 

Granted, I have no idea if I'm included in any of these sentiments or not because these comments are intentionally evasive and cryptic. I'm just showing you that the "witch hunt" idea isn't related to the conversation you and I are having. It's just an unfortunate coincidence of timing.

[albeto.]

Haha! So true!!! I am actually finding it humorous to watch all the open-mindedness. It is interesting to watch people who think everyone should be "tolerant of other views" and find ways around those requirements when it involves "certain" topics like this one. Makes me want to grab a bag of popcorn and make my own bets as to who will prove me right!!

 

Who are these people who are advocating "everyone should be 'tolerant of other views'"?

 

Can you link to those posts?

[albeto.]

I wasn't taking part in any witchhunt, I simply responded to the person who stated I knew nothing about science, which was both personal and incorrect.  If anyone makes personal assertions about someone they don't know that seem condecending, rude, and judgmental to multiple people, then perhaps it is because their writing is condescending, rude, and judgmental and they should take a large step back and reread what they've written before they hit post.

 

Can you link to the post in which someone stated you know nothing about science? I know it can't be mine because I said, "Models that offer explanations of the observations we make are changed and modified to incorporate new information all the time. That's how science works." This is not a statement about you or what you do or don't know. 

[Guest]

If there are any people here who want to understand more about old earth and Christianity harmoniously living together, check out this resource:

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

 

I don't necessarily buy everything there, but this is a resource I wish I had had twenty years ago.

[flyingiguana]

 

 

For what it's worth, I often monitor College Confidential threads on AP biology, and when the PS students are covering the chapters of Campbells on the beginning of the earth, the posts are often about how exasperating the chapter is, and how they can't wait to get through all the crazy stuff because it sounds made-up.  These are public school students who I don't think have ever remotely thought about anything other than evolution, but you know what?  That chapter in Campbells (sorry, book is not right here and I'm nursing) is sort of hooey-sounding.  I personally find astronomy and physics arguments much more potentially convincing.  But what do I know--I'm obviously crazy!

 

fwiw, I tend not to use random anonymous high school students whining about a text as a means of supporting a hypothesis about evolution.

[Scrub Jay]

fwiw, I tend not to use random anonymous high school students whining about a text as a means of supporting a hypothesis about evolution.

 

I may have to make this into a bumper sticker for my car.  Hopefully I can get it to fit...

 

[Audrey]

 

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.

 

 

:hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray: What I snipped and quoted above... that's how I feel exactly.  :iagree:  :iagree: :iagree:  

[Guest]

It also gives homeschoolers a bad rap.

And Christians.

[PineFarmMom]

Walking away...

[Joker]

I voted I'm Christian, I disagree with YEC, but to each their own. I truly feel those that push it do themselves and other Christians the most harm. When we moved here, the churches we were trying the first few years really push YE. It nearly made my oldest dd a complete non-believer. Thankfully, we found our Catholic parish where it is a non-issue. It's not discussed at church or amongst the people at all. When we brought it up in RCIA, most were OE and said the church doesn't believe science and religion have to be at odds on this.

[CAMom]

No. It's OK to say 'I think YE is a wacky, non-scientific, potentially harmful idea.' It's not OK to call YOU wacky. I can't say 'Wow, you are a wacko who is harming your kids by teaching them YE 'science'.'

 

Here is an example using your abortion example. OK - "i am anti-choice because I believe abortion is killing a baby." Not OK - 'women like you who have abortions are baby murderers.'

 

There are always exceptions. Someone who is consistently expressing bigoted views can probably reasonably expect to be called a bigot after a while.

 

But in the main, what we all find hard to do, is separate the idea being criticised from a criticism of our self. Because we get emotional about things which are part of our self-identity.

Ok, but it was specifically said of me in this thread that I find facts relative and am teaching my son the same.

 

The phrase "homeschoolers like you" was also used direcry to me connected with intellectual gullibility.

 

Were those OK in your above stated post?

[Halcyon]

 

 

I'm sure if you saw it as problematic, you'd modify your approach. We all do this, regardless of the issue. But consider this, one can enjoy a subject while misunderstanding it. Just because someone enjoys science doesn't mean they understand or are applying the scientific method correctly. The fact that these things don't interfere in your every day goings on are the biggest reason this false dilemma is so easily replicated from person to person. You aren't an open heart surgeon (assuming!), and so you don't worry about the physiology of the heart too much. If you or someone you loved needed open heart surgery, no doubt you'd find the most trustworthy person you could find. You'd likely consider education and practice to be elements of what makes them trustworthy. In other words, you'd defer to their expertise.

 

YEC advocates that profit from convincing you science works the same way are profiting from educational gullibility. They're encouraging homeschoolers just like you around the country and around the world to defer to their expertise. It's understandable, and not hard to do. AiG has all kinds of really approachable articles that simplify complex processes into seemingly understandable points. They make us feel smart for understanding how radiometric dating works, and they reinforce a faith that brings great comfort and hope. The problem is, their information is misleading and ultimately mistaken. They omit important details and misrepresent others. They do this in order to be true to their goal - to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture. This is all easily confirmed online, and I recall a thread not too long ago by Ruth in NZ asking for creationism info, if you've got questions about this. AiG is hardly alone in this, but I'm most familiar with them and so I refer to them. 

 

So it's no big deal to you in your immediate experience, but what if your son, who is being taught to believe facts are relative (biology in general, thus evolution being "debatable"), grows up to support public policy based on such "facts" as stomachs are connected to vaginae, or that cancer is a fungus that can be washed away? Or women shouldn't have affordable access to emergency reproductive health care because a "legitimate rape" inspires the body to "shut the whole thing down"? Do we want as a society to be moving closer to or farther away from higher education that supports research such as homosexuality can be proven wrong by magnets? Or do we as a society want to be moving closer to or farther away from finding alternative energy sources? These things require a sufficient understanding of how nature works, and that requires a sufficient understanding of the scientific method. Enjoying science isn't indicative of understanding how the method works, and why not enjoy it and understand it for what it really is?

 

 

You don't believe some facts are relative (like the physiology of the heart), but others are (like the age of the earth)? How do you know which facts are relative and which are not? If you don't know which facts are immutable, how do you know whether or not this "debate" is justified?

 

And why wouldn't we be spending "forever" studying the subject? Will we ever get to the point where we know everything, do you think? Is there at point at which we should consider we know enough, that we should put our resources into other things? 

 

 

I think I'm in love. ;)

[EmseB]

Is that the only thing in my post that you feel is worth arguing?

 

I did actually post other content regarding the issue, you only want to talk about the Senate?

 

I was trying to make a lighthearted remark. Clearly it fell flat, and I'll excuse myself as things have gotten way too serious and west-side-story-snapping-at-each-other-in-the-street-ish.

 

Did you post to have an actual discussion or just make Senate jokes? I agree that our Legislative branch is usually pretty funny but I don't think it is germane to the topic.

Yeah...I don't have the fortitude to not joke around some.

 

I didn't realize I'd get berated for not discussing up to standards. Eep.

[Aelwydd]

Also, the witch hunt for albeto is really getting tiresome. Seriously. Of course everyone won't agree with her. I don't always agree with her, either. But I can't believe the lengths to which some will go to attribute meaning to her posts that isn't there. Argue with her on details; it's really not personal. She's seriously one of the most caring and respectful people I know. Stop it.

I agree. But so much easier to say snarky things about her than to address her arguments.

[Halcyon]

For those who are curious about where the idea of a Young Earth came from, I found this enlightening article. http://godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html

 

It also clearly explains the young earth and old earth perspectives. 

[Aelwydd]

 

 

I interpret this from such comments as,

"I remind myself it's only a small handful of posters who are insistent on not being tolerant."

"It would be nice to be able to discuss serious issues without someone throwing it off because they can't seem to discuss serious issues without being a jerk."

"there are certain topics, the same people make the same remarks. it seems like every. single. time."

 

 

It's passive aggressive B.S.

[Aelwydd]

FTR, OP, I voted "don't agree with YEC and don't care if others do."

 

 

The moment I care is when one attempts to use faulty scientific processes to treat issues that affect my family's health and well being.

[albeto.]

OK...JodiSue expressed my thoughts on this. This broadbrushing is not at all profitable. All Christians, most Christians do not whitewash slavery.  Would you like to modify this to "some Christians of some persuasions?"

 

 I didn't say anything about how many or which Christians whitewash slavery. I did not equate the practice of teaching YEC with the practice of slavery itself. My point refers to the same tactic of denying any link between this particular practice and [one's subjective understanding of] Christianity. Thank you but no, I do not wish to modify this comment. Whether or not it is an accurate analogy may be up for debate, but I meant what I said and would not care to amend it unless there's sufficient reason to do so. My words show I am not broad brushing the Christian community, so this assumption is incorrect. 

 

I'll look later.

 

They're just blog posts, opinion pieces really. I linked them because I consider them to be good sources of well-thought out ideas in one place. 

 

No. I'm not an open heart surgeon. I probably have a better than average understanding of heart physiology since I had a daughter who died from a congenital heart defect and I spent every waking hour studying during her short life but I'm not an expert. When dealing with our heart surgeon, it didn't even cross my mind to consider what he believed the age of the earth to be. That would not affect his ability to operate on my daughter's tiny little heart.

 

I am so sorry. I had no idea. If I did, I would not have used such an insensitive example. 

 

Homeschoolers just like me? I'm pretty sure you just called me educationally gullible. I don't know how to go on with a conversation when that's the label I've been assigned. Anything I would say from here on out could just be chalked up to my educational gullibility. For the record. I am not an AiG fan at all. I don't own or use any of their materials and don't agree with their approach.

 

AiG is beside the point. The point is anyone who has been taught to believe there is a debate in science about the age of the earth has been swindled intellectually and educationally. They've been taken advantage of for the sake of someone else's gain (profit and emotions). I don't know how to say that in such a way that sounds positive, but I think there is ample reason to support that. Of course I can't prove intent, but there's more than enough reason to come to this conclusion with confidence. 

 

Again, my son is "being taught that facts are relative" leaves no room for discussion. You've already decided that. It's a straw man you've built and then easily knocked over with the ridiculous notion that my poor scientifically illiterate son might grow up to support outrageous claims. Where do I go from there?

 

You suggest he's not been taught that some facts are relative, and yet he's been taught there is a debate in the scientific community regarding the age of the earth. This debate is predicated on the idea that facts are interpreted against other facts, and that these other facts include the bible, a text that is interpreted subjectively and understood to be true relative to each individual or circumstance. If there's something I'm missing, you should feel free to share that with me. I'll consider it, I'll consider the reasons that support your claim, I'll consider the evidence that supports these reasons, and generally look at the details to see if the claim is credible. I may not agree with it after all is said and done, but I haven't closed off the conversation just because I used terms that inspire a feeling of frustration.

 

Again, I don't know how else to say this, and maybe my diplomacy needs work, but the information I'm sharing shouldn't be dependent on, or relative to how anyone feels when receiving the information. As educators, all we can do is try and communicate our points as effectively as I can, compartmentalizing how any particular point might make us feel, and then explore the merits for or against those points. Assuming intent on my behalf such as trying to shut down the conversation or hurling insults is a distraction from the points we're talking about, and usually people are mistaken.

 

I don't believe the age of the earth is a fact so I don't believe that fact is relative. I come to my conclusions of "which facts are relative and which are not" the same way you do-by study and critical thinking. I'm sure you don't just read something or hear something that someone declares "fact" and just accept it at face value, right? You engage  the subject and verify the "fact" to the best of your ability.

 

Whether or not one believes a scientific claim isn't relative to the credibility of the claim. Or as they say, science doesn't care about our opinions. If you've come to the conclusion that the earth is some 6000 - 100,000 years old give or take, then you've come to this conclusion by incorporating erroneous arguments (like you can't date something older than 30,000 years), or incorporating faith-based beliefs qua factual data (like the bible). At this point, I still don't think you're crazy, loony, or anything like that, but I do think you're being duped or you're deceiving yourself for some other gain (usually, to maintain a faith, or community revolving around that faith). I think this because people who do not have these belief requirements do not come to the same conclusions. The evidence simply isn't enough. Furthermore, the speeches I've heard, and the arguments I've read advocating a belief in YEC, include a component of faith that is absent from the scientific method in general. Science values evidence, not faith-based beliefs, as these beliefs are subjective and untestable, and therefore impossible to include in the scientific method. This is accepted in virtually every other subject in science except for the theory of evolution. This also implies facts are understood to be relative (like the scientific method can be trusted with regard to subjects A, B, and C, but not D, or E).

 

Of course we will spend forever-or as long as humankind exists-studying the subject. There are some things that are so vast that it seems impossible to know everything about them. Some facts are simple and won't change-2+2=4. Some things are modified over time as humans develop their knowledge about them. For example, Pluto being downgraded from a planet. That was a fact when I was a kid. No so anymore. Does that mean that when I believed Pluto was a planet that facts were relative to me? I don't think so.

 

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, we will never know everything about anything, and yes, some facts are simple and won't change. But even facts that aren't simple don't change. Pluto was downgraded not because facts change, but because classifications changed. It was a planet when it fit the classifications for planet for many decades, and the astronomic community decided after much consideration to modify these classifications. I know you're not arguing against this, but there are variables at play that aren't being taken into consideration by those who promote a YEC belief, and that misunderstanding is passed on in curricula and homeschool communities. Sorry about using the word "gullible." I didn't mean that to reflect you as a person, but about the condition of believing non scientists and entrepreneurs with complex scientific information because they have a heartwarming message, more heartwarming than any scientific message (which is non existent). 

[Halcyon]

Not all ideas are good ones.

 

If someone is racist should I 'tolerate' their jokes? If my kid is convinced he can fly if he jumps off the roof with an umbrella should I allow it in the name of 'tolerating' different opinions of physics?  If a person with typhoid wants to make me a sandwich should I go along with it because he just got back from a faith healer?  If someone offers to cure my child of strep throat by casting out the demons should I let them, in the name of respecting different opinions?

 

If someone want to be a science denier they are fee to do so, as long as they are not in a position of power over me or my family. If someone wants to proudly proclaim their denial of science I am under no obligation to keep quiet about it, any more than they are. But, if you are going to insist on denying reality, you really should expect some pushback from the rest of the world about it. 

 

 

I agree heartily. "Tolerance" has its limits, particularly when dealing with something which clearly impacts other people. Those who believe in a young earth, as well as those who are anti-science (note I am not lumping them into one category, necessarily) will raise children who may believe these ideas (or at least believe they are worth considering). Children, as we know, often incorporate both the right and wrong ideas of their parents.

 

Those children may grow up to be the Rick Perrys, the Ted Cruzs and the Rick Scotts of the future. (Rick Scott on global warming: â€œThe science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans’ economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet to me is just nonsense. Just because you have a group of scientists who stood up and said here is the fact.†Another winner? Michelle Bachmann (who publicly linked the HPV vaccine to mental retardation) Glenn Beck anyone? (" I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? Did we all of sudden — there’s no other species that’s developing into half-human?â€")

 

You might think I am trying to be obnoxious here. I am not. These people, whether you like it or not, help shape the political discourse, and hence the political outcomes, in our country. Call me an intellectual snob, but science is all in. You can't pull out certain pieces and call them "a matter of debate" simply because your religion, or your particular variant of religion, says it's not true. You can't turn to a heart surgeon to fix your clogged arteries and then say "But I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old." You can't get your children vaccinated against childhood diseases, but then say "I don't really "believe" in evolution. I mean, monkeys? Really?"

 

Science is SCIENCE. It's ALL SCIENCE. 

[albeto.]

You might think I am trying to be obnoxious here. I am not. These people, whether you like it or not, help shape the political discourse, and hence the political outcomes, in our country. Call me an intellectual snob, but science is all in. You can't pull out certain pieces and call them "a matter of debate" simply because your religion, or your particular variant of religion, says it's not true. You can't turn to a heart surgeon to fix your clogged arteries and then say "But I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old." You can't get your children vaccinated against childhood diseases, but then say "I don't really "believe" in evolution. I mean, monkeys? Really?"

 

And if you do decide to compartmentalize science as it fits your religious needs, then you can't be surprised when those who don't share those religious needs find those rationalizations bizarre. Satan whispering lies into the ears of scientists all over the world? For centuries? The same lies? The ones that just so happen to coincidentally explain the natural world consistently, reliably, and elegantly? This is an unreasonable approach to science when taking into consideration the information we actually have. 

 

To support public policy that is in some measure predicated on this kind of idea is terrible for society for all the reasons you give, and more, I think. To encourage children to adopt this is to set them up to defend an argument whose only defense rests on personal belief. Leaving aside the fact that it can feel awful for a kid to be ridiculed by peers or even knowing your friends think you're odd, but to feel betrayed and set up by the very people you trust most with the very things you value most? Man, that has got to be an awful experience. Loss of sense of self, loss of sense of community, loss of sense of security, these are all things that are unnecessarily thrust on young people who are more likely than not to find the truth about science and religion anyway. Most parents can only sequester them from the truth so long. Kids are leaving the church in record numbers. This doesn't bother me, because I have no reason to believe the church is beneficial to society, but I do have a problem with generations of kids conditioned to suppress truth, ignore information, offer misinformation, lie, and appeal to emotions as a matter of intellectual and social course. 

[albeto.]

Haha! So true!!! I am actually finding it humorous to watch all the open-mindedness. It is interesting to watch people who think everyone should be "tolerant of other views" and find ways around those requirements when it involves "certain" topics like this one. Makes me want to grab a bag of popcorn and make my own bets as to who will prove me right!!

 

 

Who are these people who are advocating "everyone should be 'tolerant of other views'"?

 

Can you link to those posts?

 

Walking away...

 

Perhaps one of the nine (at the time of this post) people who "liked" your comment could offer the links instead. 

[Slartibartfast]

NVM 

 

[Guest]

I agree heartily. "Tolerance" has its limits, particularly when dealing with something which clearly impacts other people. Those who believe in a young earth, as well as those who are anti-science (note I am not lumping them into one category, necessarily) will raise children who may believe these ideas (or at least believe they are worth considering). Children, as we know, often incorporate both the right and wrong ideas of their parents.

 

Those children may grow up to be the Rick Perrys, the Ted Cruzs and the Rick Scotts of the future. (Rick Scott on global warming: “The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans’ economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet to me is just nonsense. Just because you have a group of scientists who stood up and said here is the fact.†Another winner? Michelle Bachmann (who publicly linked the HPV vaccine to mental retardation) Glenn Beck anyone? (" I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop? Did we all of sudden — there’s no other species that’s developing into half-human?â€")

 

You might think I am trying to be obnoxious here. I am not. These people, whether you like it or not, help shape the political discourse, and hence the political outcomes, in our country. Call me an intellectual snob, but science is all in. You can't pull out certain pieces and call them "a matter of debate" simply because your religion, or your particular variant of religion, says it's not true. You can't turn to a heart surgeon to fix your clogged arteries and then say "But I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old." You can't get your children vaccinated against childhood diseases, but then say "I don't really "believe" in evolution. I mean, monkeys? Really?"

 

Science is SCIENCE. It's ALL SCIENCE.

Oh no! My children could grow up to be highly successful and well loved political figures! And some people might DISAGREE with them!

 

 

*faints dead away*

 

PS: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren have never said anything stupid, ever, right? Or even.... *dun dun duuuuun!* erroneous? Right.

[Guest]

On a more serious note, I was undecided/old earth/theistic evolution before I looked at the evidence, looked at scripture, and decided a younger earth in line with a plain reading of scripture and genealogies made much more sense. This was after multiple years of high school and college level science (almost entirely biology related fields).

 

I reasoned my way to this position through careful evaluation. I have nothing to prove regarding my logic, intellect, faith, or how I raise my kids, thanks.

 

This thread is something else. Sheesh.

[Seasider]

I heard a theory once that because of the way time expands in space, the universe could be 6,000 years old at the center, and billions of years old out at the edge of the universe where our solar system is. So in that sense, I think it could be that both are correct. And in another sense, I think this whole issue is a huge distraction from the salvation issues that actually do matter.

That's fascinating. Do you have a link? I'd love to read more on this.

 

Oh, I also share the sentiment of your last sentence.

[Χά�ων]

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:

Alien hybrid babies? That is rather unique.

[Guest]

That's fascinating. Do you have a link? I'd love to read more on this.

 

Oh, I also share the sentiment of your last sentence.

Distraction. I agree completely. It matters, but so, so little compared to other cornerstone doctrinal issues.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

On a more serious note, I was undecided/old earth/theistic evolution before I looked at the evidence, looked at scripture, and decided a younger earth in line with a plain reading of scripture and genealogies made much more sense. This was after multiple years of high school and college level science (almost entirely biology related fields).

 

I reasoned my way to this position through careful evaluation. I have nothing to prove regarding my logic, intellect, faith, or how I raise my kids, thanks.

 

This thread is something else. Sheesh.

It sounds like you decided to ignore the evidence and go on religious faith. Which is fine as long as you don't think it is science.

[Spryte]

On a more serious note, I was undecided/old earth/theistic evolution before I looked at the evidence, looked at scripture, and decided a younger earth in line with a plain reading of scripture and genealogies made much more sense. This was after multiple years of high school and college level science (almost entirely biology related fields).

 

I reasoned my way to this position through careful evaluation. I have nothing to prove regarding my logic, intellect, faith, or how I raise my kids, thanks.

 

This thread is something else. Sheesh.

 

Genealogies?  Trying to understand.  Scripture - I get.  Genealogies - I may be too tired and thus missing something.  

[creekland]

Ignoring most of the comments (esp lately), well, reading them, but not mentioning them as they are delving a bit into the same old, same old...

 

I find it interesting that as of this reading roughly:

 

20.5% tend to or fully believe in YEC 

66.5% tend to or fully disagree 

13% don't really care 

 

72% identify as Christians

28% do not

 

I'm not sure if I'd have come close in either prediction or not - didn't think of guessing ahead of time - so overall - just musing at the data.

[Pen]

I believe that the age for the Earth of 4.5 billion years +/- established by Clair "Pat" Patterson at Cal Tech is, basically, valid.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

 

The 6000-10,000 year old Earth idea is not in the right ballpark, and I believe that in general belief in that would not exist based on looking at the natural world evidence at this point without wanting to justify scripture.

 

I am not sure about the "to each their own" or "it bothers me" with regard to the way others feel about it.  

 

That part is a new thing for me to think about and I have found the thread extremely interesting on that.  I think I tended to feel "to each their own" but that some of the comments I read are making me more tend to think that it "should" bother me.  I have a feeling that some of favored elected officials from times past such as, probably, Lincoln, Jefferson, and others probably believed that the earth was young--but when they were around the knowledge of how to figure out the age of the earth was not yet available, so that is different than the issue of people who believe it nowadays.  I certainly would not be bothered by my plumber or electrician believing that the earth is only 6000 or so years old.  I never thought about it  before this thread in the case of a doctor...   I guess I would have thought of it as irrelevant and a matter of faith, not science, and it isn't something I would ask about.   But ....   well, ....   I'll have to do some more thinking about it, when it comes to current politicians and so on, and how it would affect their policy.  Put that way, I think it probably does matter.  And similarly put that way, I think it probably does matter whether people are teaching things to their children that result in scientific illiteracy, just as I think regular reading illiteracy and innumeracy matter.

 

 

[creekland]

I'll freely admit it would never occur to me to care what my doctors, airline pilots, electricians, engineers, UPS drivers, or any other occupation I deal with believe about the issue - or religious faith in general.

 

I'm still not thinking of adding it to any of the questions I ask when I'm getting to know these folks.

 

For those who I do know their general or more specific beliefs... I know them far better and on a personal level - not just in professional deals.  

[albeto.]

I'll freely admit it would never occur to me to care what my doctors, airline pilots, electricians, engineers, UPS drivers, or any other occupation I deal with believe about the issue - or religious faith in general.

 

Why would it occur to you to care now?

[Guest]

It sounds like you decided to ignore the evidence and go on religious faith. Which is fine as long as you don't think it is science.

No, not even close - don't insult my reasoning, intellectual rigor, or fastidiousness, please. I looked at the same exact data with a different premise. That different premise was more complete, logical, and took many less leaps and contortions to fit the same set of evidence.

 

Pretending anyone can have scientific high ground on an event that nobody can test, observe, or do more than guess at based on the current body of knowledge is ridiculous.

[El...]

I have been thinking a lot about this question in the last few years, and while I have read a lot, I just don't have the science background to say that I understand evolution.  I'm not done studying yet! 

 

However, I think the question does matter; I grew up very conservatively YE.  Letting go of that has been...interesting.  I'm not done working out all the implications of it. 

[albeto.]

No, not even close, don't insult me. I looked at the same exact data with a different premise. That different premise was more complete, logical, and took many less leaps and contortions to fit the same set of evidence.

 

Out of curiosity, how is that comment insulting? You stated that you "decided a younger earth in line with a plain reading of scripture and genealogies made much more sense." Do you consider the bible a scientific source? 

 

Pretending anyone can have scientific high ground on an event that nobody can test, observe, or do more than guess at based on the current body of knowledge is ridiculous.

 

Perhaps you can help me understand something else. You're suggesting that an event [presumably the evolution of life on this planet] cannot be tested or observed, and is based on guesswork goes against conventional scientific understanding. If someone points out that these statements you make are false statements, do you consider that a personal insult? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, not even close - don't insult my reasoning, intellectual rigor, or fastidiousness, please. I looked at the same exact data with a different premise. That different premise was more complete, logical, and took many less leaps and contortions to fit the same set of evidence.

 

Pretending anyone can have scientific high ground on an event that nobody can test, observe, or do more than guess at based on the current body of knowledge is ridiculous.

So what was the "data" you supposely looked at?