That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[Seeking Squirrels]

Are there any YEC folks who have changed their mind? Not really expecting a reply but I'm curious.

 

 

Yes. I was YEC for many years, up to about 3 years ago. Thankfully I moved away from that just before ordering all the AIG materials I had my eye on for DD. I moved first to old earth creationist for a couple of years but I am now an atheist.

[Katy]

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.

 

No, I think I heard that at a church conference about 15 years ago.  I don't even recall the name of the speaker.

[CAMom]

 

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.

 

 

OK. I'll take you at your word on that. You simply said "Christians whitewash slavery" in your original post. There was no qualification. Somehow I think if I made a comment such as "Muslims are terrorists" there would be quite an uproar. It would be more correct to say, "a minority of extreme Muslim support terrorist activities." When you just said, "Christians," it sure sounded like you were lumping them all together.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

And I will look at them.

 

 

 

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

 

 

No problem. No way you could have known.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

OK. I've been intellectually and educationally swindled. See, that would invalidate anything else I have to say on this subject since that's already been decided. And, of course, I'm subjecting my kids to that as well. I should turn in my mothering badge right now. ;)

 

 

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.

 

 

Why would you consider my claims or anything I may have to support them when you already presuppose that I've been swindled and lack intellectual integrity?

 

 

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.

 

 

Not sure how it's a distraction? How can there be an open discussion when you've already decided that I'm self-deceived, swindled, find facts relative, etc? And using phrases like, "homeschoolers just like you" that doesn't seem at all insulting? 

 

I'm not personally offended. So you think I can't think for myself (either gullible, self-deceived, duped, etc), that doesn't impact me personally.

 

 

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).

 

 

Again, you've already decided that my arguments are erroneous. So, why would I spend my time and energy sharing them? So, it can be discussed how ridiculous they are, how scientifically illiterate I am, and how I am doing a disservice as educator of my kids, and so other posters can agree with you?

 

 

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).

 

 

So, facts may not change but we may not have discovered them yet or we might not understand them yet. It was once considered fact that the earth was flat. It was once considered fact that everything revolved around the earth. People learn more and adjust their understanding. 

[albeto.]

OK. I've been intellectually and educationally swindled. See, that would invalidate anything else I have to say on this subject since that's already been decided. And, of course, I'm subjecting my kids to that as well. I should turn in my mothering badge right now. ;)

 

Humans have evolved cognitive biases that screw up our thinking. That's not a character statement of any individual, but a matter of human development. In the development of our species, our brains developed complex thought patterns, complex enough to see patterns and make predictions. These patterns and predictions don't need to be perfect, only good enough to guarantee the survival and reproduction of the individual. As the brain requires a great measure of energy to process, doing this "well enough" was, well, good enough. Some of these short cuts are problematic, many are not, but there are many identifiable, predictable such biases. So when I talk of deception, and self-deception, I'm not making a statement about you as opposed to me, but us, you and I, all of us, humanity. I'm not talking about every thought you have or every opinion you develop. I'm not talking about everything you think or believe or teach your children. 

 

The scientific method developed to expose and weed out these biases, leaving objective facts for consideration. We may find some better way to understand our world, but right now, this is the best method we have. All we can do is observe, collect and analyze data, test hypotheses, and systematically pay attention to the details until we can be confident we have an accurate representation of reality. Subjective beliefs cannot be a part of that, and so insofar as they are written into the equation as data, they will inspire subjective, inconsistent, and therefore unreliable conclusions. Pointing that out isn't an insult, it's more data to consider. Or ignore. 

[creekland]

Why would it occur to you to care now?

 

It's not something I care about now either.  I only conceived of the idea when reading posts about how it could cause some to distrust expertise (esp with doctors) if they knew.  It wouldn't cause me distrust at all if I knew, but maybe that's because I'm ok with either side?

 

As mentioned in another thread, I consider the origin and older development of living flora/fauna to be history and not science since it isn't reproducible - an important aspect of the Scientific Method.

 

Anything modern that is reproducible and or actively seen today (like mutations with viruses) is science, but neither side - with thoughts based upon science - disagrees with any of this.

 

Did we all come from a single ancestor that somehow came to life?  Perhaps, if that's the way the creator wanted it.  I can see it being worked into the design.

 

Did we all come from several created kinds that were created with enough genetics to give us the variety of life we see now?  This seems to fit more with what we see in modern evolution (the reproducible stuff), but who knows?  None of us will ever know.

 

And when?  That's just not reproducible so it all depends upon how one looks at the evidence left behind - mysteries of history - much like the tale of Atlantis or the Nazca lines or...

 

And as mentioned in the other thread too, if one doesn't believe in a Creator, then one HAS to go with long ages and evolution from a single specimen as the odds are too long for it to have happened otherwise.  I'm not limited by that.

 

It's very freeing to not really care about the issue.  I see enough (limited, but enough) science folks - people working in science fields - who believe in YEC to know they aren't hurting advancements at all.  Where it matters - all modern stuff - there is no disagreement within the science.

[AMJ]

I tend to identify as either anthropologist or having been raised Catholic, if and when I do ascribe a religious identity to myself at all.  If someone wants to label me as something (and labels are not always necessary or wise) they can call me a religion-friendly scientific-process-teaching agnostic with an interest in humanity and cultures.  I hope that is how I come across in my posts throughout the forums!

[linders]

On many subjects I vote live-and-let-live. However, when someone believes YEC, it creates a problem for them understanding and weighing in on many scientific issues of today.

 

I once struggled more with this - literal Bible versus my own scientific background - until a wise pastor led a discussion of "Why Genesis." I came to realize that Genesis is more about why God created the universe and what he wants from us than a how-to manual for creating a universe. The details on how-to are obscure in Genesis. For example, "Let there be light" doesn't really say whether that was an instantaneous switch on, or the coalescing of hydrogen gas that eventually developed enough mass and density to initiate nuclear fusion. I no longer see a contradiction between the Bible and old Earth or even evolution.

 

My apologies to those who believe otherwise.

[Halcyon]

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

 

 

 You truly wouldn't mind your children growing up to be highly successful and well-loved (*very arguably on that last point*) while spouting untruths, propaganda and fear-mongering to the general public? That would be a positive outcome for you?

 

I ask because, while I love Elizabeth Warren (;)) I know that every politician says not-so-bright things, and I would cringe if I brought up my child to actually believe those not-so-bright things were TRUTH. A mistake is one thing--you said something to the effect of "all politicians make erroneous statements". That is true. But these politicians don't think their statements are erroneous. That's what's scary.

[flyingiguana]

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.

 

Except that predictions can be made on the basis of the evolution paradigm.  And these predictions can be tested, for example using fossil  and DNA evidence.

 

Predictions could also be made using scripture as the paradigm.  They could be tested.  I do not recall, however, seeing a prediction from scripture that survived its scientific test.  I do recall a number of ideas that had scientific evidence somehow squeezed around them so as to make it look like they had been tested.  Requiring a lot more leaps and contortions.

 

You do have to remember, as well, that scripture itself does not stand up to scientific methods of inquiry.  It is not independent proof of anything.  At best, it can suggest predictions to test.

 

I am sorry if you believe that insults your intelligence, but I am only pointing out that you are not looking at this through the lens of the scientific method.  Most of the rest of our technological world works because of this lens.  Someone who is trained to think through the lens of prediction testing through available evidence would find a dependence on scripture to answer any question that was not of a spiritual or religious nature to be fairly questionable.  

 

You have figured out a way to keep these opposing ideas together in your head at the same time.  Because I assume you do use technology and science or you would not be in this discussion.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

A reminder...please don't veer into politics. I'm going to hold the ban on that particular field of discussion.

 

YEC threads tend to not go well, but I'll see how this one develops.  Political threads, on the other hand, NEVER go well. NEVER. NEVER.

 

So just don't.

 

SWB

[flyingiguana]

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.

 

Although this sub thread of posts skims into political territory, I do have to point out that making the occasional mistake is a lot different from continually and purposefully putting forth ideas that are not within the scientific mainstream.

 

There are certain politicians who are constantly putting forth ideas that are unsupported by most scientific work.  They are doing it for a reason.  That reason is that there is a sizable number of people in this country who use scientific illiteracy as a test to decide if they should vote for that person.

 

And there are politicians and large donors who have recognized this fact and styled themselves this way so as to attract that vote.

[flyingiguana]

On many subjects I vote live-and-let-live. However, when someone believes YEC, it creates a problem for them understanding and weighing in on many scientific issues of today.

 

I once struggled more with this - literal Bible versus my own scientific background - until a wise pastor led a discussion of "Why Genesis." I came to realize that Genesis is more about why God created the universe and what he wants from us than a how-to manual for creating a universe. The details on how-to are obscure in Genesis. For example, "Let there be light" doesn't really say whether that was an instantaneous switch on, or the coalescing of hydrogen gas that eventually developed enough mass and density to initiate nuclear fusion. I no longer see a contradiction between the Bible and old Earth or even evolution.

 

My apologies to those who believe otherwise.

 

This strikes me as a wise approach.

 

I have never understood the need to prove religion or a god.  Once proved, it really isn{t either anymore.

 

I went to a church with a pastor who took a more metaphorical approach to the matter, and that worked for me.  Until I realized there were still a number of people at that church who believed in their hearts that science and scientists were evil.  This was a fairly liberal leaning church, politically speaking, so I don{t see the  inability to accept the scientific approach as strictly on the more conservative end of things {although there does seem to be a larger majority of that combination than the other direction in the country as a whole{

[flyingiguana]

...

 

It's very freeing to not really care about the issue.  I see enough (limited, but enough) science folks - people working in science fields - who believe in YEC to know they aren't hurting advancements at all.  Where it matters - all modern stuff - there is no disagreement within the science.

 

But this is where this discussion has to veer into the political.  If the question remained an individual choice that doesn{t affect anyone else or the world we live in, if a YEC belief and all the concomitant scientific illiteracy end up in societal decisions it will influence outcomes for everyone.

 

It{s not a live and let live issue in that sense.  If a YEC believe drives people to vote for politicians who will make decisions based on YEC, then it would have to be discussed as a political issue.  Otherwise we{re just skirting around the real issue.

 

So maybe this isn't the forum for this (as the moderators would prefer to avoid politics), but I think that would be a real shame to avoid the issue.  This forum is the only place I EVER run in to people with a YEC viewpoint.  If our society values political discussion between groups who view the world completely differently then this would be a valuable discussion on both sides.  If threads that veer in this direction keep getting deleted, though, on all forums of this type, then this just pushes people further into their little enclaves.

[flyingiguana]

I still haven't voted, btw.  I don't fit in those categories.

 

But I did fix my keyboard so it's no longer giving me { for '  and various other things from the Spanish keyboard set.  (I see my daughter must have been up late at night chatting in Spanish again)

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Your points about the political implications are well-taken. Let me rephrase my warning above. Can this thread please avoid partisan politics? No blanket statements about parties?

 

Not sure this will work, but I do see your point.

 

 

[creekland]

 This forum is the only place I EVER run in to people with a YEC viewpoint. 

 

And this, I believe, is the difference between us.  I have seen many outside of this forum (met via churches I've gone to, families I've known via school, and even once an airplane seat-mate who had a medical science research job at a top place).  Some of these have science jobs from general active jobs to research jobs.  None are crazy or uninformed.  It's because of a few of these folks that I even started contemplating the issue myself eons ago.

 

On this board - with those who don't believe - I hear about the uninformed YEC folks who are messing up society as we know it.  I don't know any of those IRL.  They might be out there.  They probably don't choose public schools or attend churches I attend.  I just don't know any.

 

Politicians?  I've yet to see one I've agreed with in entirety. I always have to choose which topics mean the most to me.  I end up disagreeing with many I vote for on various topics.  Such is life.  It's not all a YEC thing.

[Tanaqui]

As mentioned in another thread, I consider the origin and older development of living flora/fauna to be history and not science since it isn't reproducible - an important aspect of the Scientific Method.

 

Reproducibility is not actually considered essential when Doing Science. There are many fields where that would be very difficult to achieve, at best.

[Guest]

What I wonder, though, is why more specific issues in the YE/OE argument are rarely discussed. I never feel competant to talk about such things in a point-by-point manner; as I said, I was not given much scientific info growing up, so I am frequently out of my depth on the matter. But I have wish before that someone very knowledgeable would post, say, ten easy-to-understand reasons they believe the earth is old. And then, ideally, someone very knowledgeable could respond to those ten points in an easy-to-understand way, rebutting those points.

 

My own mind began to change principally on a very simple question: how do we see the light from stars that are billions of light-years away if the earth is only a few thousand years old? There are other very basic questions like this: if one believes the Flood was world-wide, how did salt water and fresh water combine without destroying both habitats irrepairably? What did animals eat when they exited the ark? Why would God even "need" to drown the world, but keep a breeding pair of everything alive; why not just say, "Let there be Nothing. I'm starting over." If the earth is only six thousand years old, how did dinosaurs all go extinct before recorded history?

[redsquirrel]

Quill if you can stream Netflix, you might want to watch the new Cosmos series with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. It is really well done. It is made to appeal to all ages, so there is a little bit of animation and sometimes things are explained in a very simple fashion, or seem a little hokey, but it did keep the whole family engaged.

 

I think all of them together make a nice package but one, "The Clean Room" specifically deal with the age of the earth. But, "Sky full of ghosts", and "The Lost Worlds of Planet Earth" also deal with it.

 

But all in all I found it well done. It mostly left me wanting to learn more about any given subject, but I think that was the goal. So, it isn't the last word on any one topic, but an introduction.

 

Also the book 'Science Matters', prob available at your library, has a couple chapters you might find helpful. Specifically Chapter 1 "Knowing: the Universe is regular and predictable" and Chapter 11 "The Cosmos: The Universe was born at a specific point in the past and has been expanding every since"

 

There is also the "Big History Project" https://www.bighistoryproject.com/homeIt is free and available online. I was going to say that chapter 1 looks particularly relevant but then I see Chapter 2 and 3 also come into play. The Big History Project would be a much bigger commitment than, for example "Cosmos" though...

 

But I am now thinking it might make a good project for myself.... hmmm...

[Free]

As mentioned in another thread, I consider the origin and older development of living flora/fauna to be history and not science since it isn't reproducible - an important aspect of the Scientific Method.

 

This happens to be Ken Ham's favourite claim, but this misunderstands and misrepresents what reproducibility means.  In observational sciences, a study or observation is reproducible if we can predict the conditions under which the data or observation is repeatable. That is it.

 

What I suspect creationist leaders like Ken Ham really mean to do when they use the term "reproducible" is to try and mislead their followers into believing that all fields of study that do not rely on direct experimentation are not reliable. But they cannot come right out and say so, because such an outright claim would apply to almost all branches of science (especially astronomy, geology, archaeology, meteorology, theoretical physics, forensic science and so on).

[Onceuponatime]

The Wikipedia articles " Age of the Earth" and " Age of the Universe" contain some useful information.

[Professormom]

Quill, another good resource is anything by Francis Collins, director of NIH. IIRC, he was one of the key players on the human genome project, etc. "Origins" is one of his books. "The Language of Science and Faith" is another. If you lived near me, I would loan you my library:-)

 

I am out now. I hardly ever pop into these yec/oec threads because I find that when they devolve, they just get exhausting instead of intellectually stimulating. If you want to pm me, I might be able to come up with more good reads:-) Have a beautiful weekend, all!

[Guest]

Well, I can't stream Netflix because my internet access is stuck in 1998 or something. But in any case, I'm not that interested in parsing out the earth-age arguments; it doesn't matter much to me, I'm convinced the earth is old anyway, I'm basically a Deist, so the bible isn't a crucial issue for me. What I was thinking with my post above is that, back when I *did* care, there always seemed to be so much "crazy wackadoodle/deceived Heathen" jousting, that little transpired that held any promise of changing one's mind. If someone did post evidence-based info, it was so erudite that I couldn't process it. I don't know what chemical signatures are or what thermodynamics has to do with it.

 

I guess I'm just saying why isn't there more rational discussion of evidence?

 

caveat: it is also possible that discussions like that have been posted, but I wasn't involved in them.

[Free]

I guess I'm just saying why isn't there more rational discussion of evidence?

 

caveat: it is also possible that discussions like that have been posted, but I wasn't involved in them.

 

Because there are none based on actual evidence? I have seen time and again YECists get upset for being called anti-science and yet when it actually comes to discussing evolution the majority will admit that they don't really understand "all of the science" of evolution,  but they "just know" it could not have happened without a creator. Some will say how all of it sounds so incredible and made up.And the minority who do start debating the science will pretty quickly reveal their lack of understanding of standard scientific terms. 

[creekland]

This happens to be Ken Ham's favourite claim, but this misunderstands and misrepresents what reproducibility means.  In observational sciences, a study or observation is reproducible if we can predict the conditions under which the data or observation it is repeatable. That is it.

 

What I suspect creationist leaders like Ken Ham really mean to do when they use the term "reproducible" is to try and mislead their followers into believing that all fields of study that do not rely on direct experimentation are not reliable. But they cannot come right out and say so, because such an outright claim would apply to almost all branches of science (especially astronomy, geology, archaeology, meteorology, theoretical physics, forensic science and so on).

 

It may be his.  I wouldn't know.  I haven't actually looked at much on the topic myself in a few years now as it's not a super high interest.

 

I know I have a bit of knowledge in fields where science is reproducible from science labs in our high school to those my middle son works in in college.  I follow nutrition and ongoing "product" studies.  I even look at studies that are ongoing about whether 0 Kelvin is absolute 0 or not.  So perhaps I am a bit narrow minded in what I consider science vs what some others might lump into it.  Such is life.

 

I kinda like not being normal and mainstream.

 

Astronomy is interesting. (Astrophysics was my sub concentration in college - Physics being the major itself.)  Geology can be interesting and some of this is reproducible as we watch our planet and see what happens.  Hubby's Civil Engineering job partially depends upon this reproducibility as he needs to count on soil types acting the same way over and over again.   Meteorology is the same.  "We" can't reproduce it but we can watch it reproduce itself.  

 

Science is fascinating IMO - my favorite subject in school, teaching, and keeping up on.  But that doesn't mean I consider all that some put in it to be "science" as the rest of it is.  Some is purely history.  Evolution we see?  Science.  That of history that we don't see still going on, but have theories as to how it could have happened?  History.

 

YMMV  It's ok.

[Guest]

Because there are none based on actual evidence? I have seen time and again YECists get upset for being called anti-science and yet when it actually comes to discussing evolution the majority will admit that they don't really understand "all of the science" of evolution, but they "just know" it could not have happened without a creator. Some will say how all of it sounds so incredible and made up.And the minority who do start debating the science will pretty quickly reveal their lack of understanding of standard scientific terms.

Ok, but why not let that reveal itself? That is what happened to me, and other posters have shared similar turning points.

[Tanaqui]

I guess I'm just saying why isn't there more rational discussion of evidence?

 

Because an honest look at the evidence shows that it only points in one direction.

 

Science is fascinating IMO - my favorite subject in school, teaching, and keeping up on.  But that doesn't mean I consider all that some put in it to be "science" as the rest of it is.  Some is purely history.  Evolution we see?  Science.  That of history that we don't see still going on, but have theories as to how it could have happened?  History.

 

 

That's completely arbitrary.

[aprilleigh]

I'm in the camp of not believing it and it bothers me that others do. Mostly it's a combination of frustrating conversations with YEC believers who neither have nor want a clue about the science (I am a biologist myself) and the fact that my MIL (a wonderful woman otherwise) is convinced this means I've turned my back on God and have lost my salvation. It's a little difficult to be meh about what others believe when I run into this in the classroom constantly and so many are indignant that they are expected to study the material regardless. I even had one student, given a choice of questions on a take-home essay exam, deliberately choose a question that asked how a particular phenomenon supported the theory of evolution so that could write, essentially, that it didn't because he didn't believe in evolution. He even threatened to take it to my department chair when he got a zero for that question (not even a Christian college, so I'm not sure what he thought she would do). I'm sympathetic to students who are in the midst of having their world views challenged, but I'm an academic and that sympathy only goes so far when you're a student in my classroom.

 

Oddly, in high school I had a very different outlook. I'm not sure I could say I was YEC, but I was probably pretty close. I learned to think for myself at a Christian college, and as a biology major, that meant thinking critically about evolution as well.

[creekland]

 

That's completely arbitrary.

 

That was kinda my point.  ;)

 

It's how I see it and why the whole thing doesn't bug me one way or another.  I would be bothered if I saw anyone deny the science that exists that we use that is reproducible, etc, but IRL, I just haven't seen that.  It could exist out there somewhere, but it isn't in my circles.

 

I can't say I've seen it on here either, but I don't read all the threads.

 

We've had all of ONE student at school claim he didn't believe dino bones were real, and quite honestly, he tends to be the type that I could see him making up that thought just to get attention rather than truly believing it.  I've only heard OF him (and I know him), but I haven't had the opportunity to really ask him about his beliefs myself to have a personal assessment.

 

We have quite a few who are YEC and go on to YEC schools by choice or their parent's choice.  All have been fairly intelligent and all have a good instruction of science from our school (including what little we do with evolution).  None I've talked with have refuted any of the reproducible science we see based upon their beliefs.  The closest that might come is believing isotopic dating is unreliable for various reasons.  That's not a big deal to me and falls far more into the history field IMO.  They still have a good understanding of how that dating works.

 

There are none who believe the world is flat or that the sun goes around the earth.  There are none who dispute viruses mutate or that new species (of the same genus) can happen from natural selection/evolution.

 

The only places I see those arguments are on here from those trying to criticize the belief.

[Free]

I kinda like not being normal and mainstream.

 

.....

 

Geology can be interesting and some of this is reproducible as we watch our planet and see what happens.

 

........

 

Meteorology is the same.  "We" can't reproduce it but we can watch it reproduce itself.  

 

....

But that doesn't mean I consider all that some put in it to be "science" as the rest of it is.  Some is purely history.  Evolution we see?  Science.  That of history that we don't see still going on, but have theories as to how it could have happened?  History.

 

YMMV  It's ok.

 

 

That's completely arbitrary.

 

Yes. Yes it is completely arbitrary. We all can have our own personal pet views and opinions but that is not science.

[Tanaqui]

 

 

There are none who believe the world is flat or that the sun goes around the earth.  There are none who dispute viruses mutate or that new species (of the same genus) can happen from natural selection/evolution.

 

The only places I see those arguments are on here from those trying to criticize the belief.

 

Because, again, those people are compartmentalizing. They're choosing to say that the Bible MUST be taken literally (despite all the evidence) in one area, but ignoring it in others. It's hypocritical.

[Guest]

Because, again, those people are compartmentalizing. They're choosing to say that the Bible MUST be taken literally (despite all the evidence) in one area, but ignoring it in others. It's hypocritical.

I disagree.

[Tanaqui]

I disagree.

 

Care to elucidate?

[Halcyon]

One thing I am curious about (and please pardon if this is too off topic, or too controversial) is that if one believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, then are ALL parts of the Bible interpreted literally? That is to say, if the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and one believes that literally happened, then does one believe ALL things describe in the Bible occurred literally and exactly as stated? There are no metaphors? 

[Jean in Newcastle]

One thing I am curious about (and please pardon if this is too off topic, or too controversial) is that if one believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, then are ALL parts of the Bible interpreted literally? That is to say, if the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and one believes that literally happened, then does one believe ALL things describe in the Bible occurred literally and exactly as stated? There are no metaphors? 

Most people who believe in a literal translation believes that to mean that it literally means what the author intended it to mean.  Ie.  If the author means to describe an actual miracle then you don't change it to say that the miracle is actually just a metaphor.  And if the author meant to use a metaphor then  you don't change it to say that it is non-metaphorical.  The debate then becomes what did the author intend?  In the case of the first 3 chapters of Genesis, is the author describing it as it happened literally?  That's where the "how long is a day" debates come into play too.  

[Guest]

Care to elucidate?

With you? No. Jean clarified what I meant, anyway, and she is more eloquent than me.

[creekland]

Because, again, those people are compartmentalizing. They're choosing to say that the Bible MUST be taken literally (despite all the evidence) in one area, but ignoring it in others. It's hypocritical.

 

So?  I can't say I've ever gotten into a religious talk with kids at school beyond some of them telling me where they go to church.  It'd likely be frowned upon if I did.

 

How people interpret their faith - and how I interpret mine - is 100% between them (or me) and God.  I don't need to change anything, though I always encourage tolerance.  I will "preach" the fact that if anyone wants to believe as they do they should respect that right for others.

 

I do that on this board too.   :D

[Halcyon]

Most people who believe in a literal translation believes that to mean that it literally means what the author intended it to mean.  Ie.  If the author means to describe an actual miracle then you don't change it to say that the miracle is actually just a metaphor.  And if the author meant to use a metaphor then  you don't change it to say that it is non-metaphorical.  The debate then becomes what did the author intend?  In the case of the first 3 chapters of Genesis, is the author describing it as it happened literally?  That's where the "how long is a day" debates come into play too.  

 

 

Thank you!

So, if it isn't clear whether the author intended something to be read as metaphor, or conversely, literally, then we are left with just ourselves making that determination, correct?

[Guest]

Thank you!

So, if it isn't clear whether the author intended something to be read as metaphor, or conversely, literally, then we are left with just ourselves making that determination, correct?

That is called textual criticism and it is a deep, highly pedantic, and well explored field. It involves pouring over original language sources (in the case of Genesis and Gospel/Epistle references to it, the Septuagint and the Torah are considered primary), in context, and inferring meaning from the supporting sources within the same text, additional manuscripts if the error is scribal, parallel passages if applicable, the type of writing being used (Hebrew, in particular, has well defined types for narrative, poetic form, legal/penal/contractual, genealogical, etc), and finally what makes the most sense on a plain reading of the original language.

 

This isn't easily determined, but there are dozens of competent scholars involved actively in this field, and hundreds more from centuries past. It's not foolproof, especially in prophetic passages, however many of the things brought up as quandaries or gotchas actually do have answers and explanations, however they tend to be extensive and what takes five seconds to drop in conversation takes ten or twenty minutes to carefully and thoroughly refute. In my limited experience, this is where wisdom on the side of refutation comes in - it is rarely worth the mental energy, as most don't actually want to understand the answer.

 

Textual criticism is wonderful. Someone like myself has to use secondary and tertiary sources as I am not fluent in Hebrew or Koine Greek, but thankfully there are a plethora electronic and paper works available to assist. I also have access to two scholars with sufficient expertise in this area to answer any of my own stumpers when I get stuck :D

[Jean in Newcastle]

Thank you!

So, if it isn't clear whether the author intended something to be read as metaphor, or conversely, literally, then we are left with just ourselves making that determination, correct?

Sort of.  The Bible is intended to mesh together so you look at a whole bunch of other passages to see how the same subject is treated there and how words are used.  You look at the context.  Is it in a poem?  Much higher chance of a metaphor!  Is it a narrative passage of history?  Then a higher chance of a non-metaphorical use.  There is much more agreement among Bible scholars on passages as a whole than there is disagreement.  But then certain passages, and the first 3 chapters of Genesis is one of them, will elicit whole books from different viewpoints as well as books comparing all the different viewpoints ad nauseum. . . 

[albeto.]

As mentioned in another thread, I consider the origin and older development of living flora/fauna to be history and not science since it isn't reproducible - an important aspect of the Scientific Method.

 

Anything modern that is reproducible and or actively seen today (like mutations with viruses) is science, but neither side - with thoughts based upon science - disagrees with any of this.

 

This is interesting, and something I'd never heard. As you explain it, science is a tool to be used only upon observations made today, observations that are reproducible. I imagine this would include other's eyewitness observations, so research in Finland would be acceptable even if you haven't seen the object in question, right? Would this also work for information gathered 100 years ago? 500? 1000? Is the necessary criteria the written record of an eyewitnesses observation?

 

I find it interesting because if this argument (popularized by Ray Comfort and Ken Ham, neither one scientists) were carried to its logical conclusion, it would cripple not only the study of science, but every line of historical inquiry. We would be limited to only that which can be brought into a controlled environment and recreated under observation. It would effect things like knowing the age of the redwood tree, whose trunk shows some 2000 rings. After all, no one has recorded the lifespan of such a tree from the beginning, and we've yet to reproduce a tree of that age under any scientific criteria (we'd have to wait 2000 years for the results). As extrapolating evidence gained from one thing to another is off limits, this does reduce the boundaries of "science" as a field of study quiet considerably.

 

Did we all come from a single ancestor that somehow came to life?  Perhaps, if that's the way the creator wanted it.  I can see it being worked into the design.

 

But this creator is not observable, not reproducible. Why is it included in the parameters of the scientific method when otherwise only observable, reproducible things are? How is the creation account in Genesis acceptable as scientific data when the very eyewitness is himself unavailable for questioning and goes against other eyewitness reports of the same time? For that matter, why is every other creation account from every other religious tradition dismissed?

 

Did we all come from several created kinds that were created with enough genetics to give us the variety of life we see now?  This seems to fit more with what we see in modern evolution (the reproducible stuff), but who knows?  None of us will ever know.

 

And when?  That's just not reproducible so it all depends upon how one looks at the evidence left behind - mysteries of history - much like the tale of Atlantis or the Nazca lines or...

 

What I'm understanding is that for the YEC believer, science is really a matter of understanding the natural world in terms of a historical record of the creation event as recorded in Genesis. I understand this because the answers to your questions are readily available, but they don't conform to the creation story and so they are systematically dismissed by the YEC believer. 

 

And as mentioned in the other thread too, if one doesn't believe in a Creator, then one HAS to go with long ages and evolution from a single specimen as the odds are too long for it to have happened otherwise.  I'm not limited by that.

 

Which is interesting to me because belief in a creator happens outside the scope of what is observable and reproducible, but is nevertheless crucial to the belief in YEC. So in the case of a creator (specifically the one found in the Christian bible), observation and reproducible data is not necessary, but for everything else it is. What is particularly interesting about this to me is that so many of the scientists and naturalists who compiled the evidence and contributed to the theory of evolution were themselves Christians who believed in the biblical creator.  Even today there are scientists who believe in the biblical creator and Christians who understand the theory of evolution and the scientific method in general but do not share your particular theology. 

 

It seems the element of personal testimony is very important in what you understand to be the field of science. It is acceptable to attribute interpretation of events and feelings as the effects of this creator for example, and while these effects are impossible to reproduce, they are considered admissible data nevertheless. Curiously, this same process wouldn't be accepted with regard to any other belief, regardless of how genuinely or seriously it may be believed, regardless of how effects may be interpreted as applying to that belief. For example, directed pansperma is a theory that explains life on earth began through the means of conscious "planting" of organic substances by intelligent beings from other solar systems. If one believed very genuinely that the effects they observe in their life reflect this event, it would be dismissed because there's still no eyewitness and it's not reproducible. If one was very very clever and even won the Nobel Prize by helping to discover DNA, we'd know they are very very clever, very well educated, were celebrated for their contribution to the general database of knowledge, but still their opinion would be dismissed as merely opinion and not admissible data because a genuine feeling and interpretation of the world around a person consistent with their belief isn't proof. Except for the YEC Christian.

 

It's very freeing to not really care about the issue.  I see enough (limited, but enough) science folks - people working in science fields - who believe in YEC to know they aren't hurting advancements at all.  Where it matters - all modern stuff - there is no disagreement within the science.

 

I can see how it's very freeing to not care. I disagree about the effects of teaching theology-as-science, but agree that most practitioners of various fields aren't doing any harm. Except when they are, but we find danger of witch doctor practices and pseudoscience regardless of religion. In any case, scientific literacy is something that does affect us as a society, and knowing what you understand the field of science to be, what you understand about how it works is enlightening. It's also poses a difficult problem because we don't even have a common understanding of what science is. YEC promotes the idea that science and theology are intertwined. The element of a creator is integral regardless of the lack of observation or reproducible tests, criteria that must be met in everything else. In short, the very understanding of science as developed interdependently around the globe, without regard to religion, economic class, political beliefs, and developed over centuries as a consistent, predictable, reliable method, is dismissed because of its lack of shared theology. 

 

I think scientific illiteracy in general hurts advancements in many observable ways (the links I've shared give some specifics). Societies that lack scientific knowledge adopt unreliable, illogical, and ineffective solutions. Societies that lack scientific knowledge are unprepared for potential (or imminent) problems in the future. Societies that lack scientific knowledge tend to find scapegoats for punishment, resulting in the torture and death of innocent people. These are things that were systematically identified and explored and found to be unreliable over time. They were found to be unreliable by virtue of the very scientific method you dismiss because as it does not incorporate a creator (specifically the creator of the bible) and instead incorporates objective observation, collection of data, and application of that data outside the scope of written history, or rather, outside the scope of 6000 years of written history. So while you say you are familiar with what science is and how it works, you offer an explanation that is decidedly not shared by the scientific community at large, as it has developed over the centuries. You offer an explanation that has been developed by theologians in the last few generations.

 

To use this as a foundation of understanding the natural world and solving problems as they arise, is concerning to me. It affects me and will affect my children, members of my community, my country, and ultimately all living things on the planet. It's of little comfort to think my doctor may believe in YEC but can treat my thyroid, because the issue isn't one person's application of medicine as they've been taught to administer it. The issue is accurately and reliably being able to understand how the natural world works by virtue of recognizing pertinent data, and knowing how to analyze it. Thankfully, most scientists do research in specific fields, and researchers focus on minute details and these minute details when compiled contribute to the greater body of knowledge that is used (or ignored). 

 

My kids and I have been enjoying Carl Sagan's Cosmos. In the last episode we saw,

 [episode 13], Sagan concludes with the following appeal to science.

 

Since this series' maiden voyage, the impossible has come to pass: Mighty walls that maintained insuperable ideological differences have come tumbling down; deadly enemies have embraced and begun to work together. The imperative to cherish the Earth and protect the global environment that sustains all of us has become widely accepted, and we've begun, finally, the process of reducing the obscene number of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps we have, after all, decided to choose life. But we still have light years to go to ensure that choice. Even after the summits and the ceremonies and the treaties, there are still some 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world — and it would require the detonation of only a tiny fraction of them to produce a nuclear winter, the predicted global climatic catastrophe that would result from the smoke and the dust lifted into the atmosphere by burning cities and petroleum facilities.

 

The world scientific community has begun to sound the alarm about the grave dangers posed by depleting the protective ozone shield and by greenhouse warming, and again we're taking some mitigating steps, but again those steps are too small and too slow. The discovery that such a thing as nuclear winter was really possible evolved out of the studies of Martian dust storms. The surface of Mars, fried by ultraviolet light, is also a reminder of why it's important to keep our ozone layer intact. The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is a valuable reminder that we must take the increasing greenhouse effect on Earth seriously.

 

Important lessons about our environment have come from spacecraft missions to the planets. By exploring other worlds we safeguard this one. By itself, I think this fact more than justifies the money our species has spent in sending ships to other worlds. It is our fate to live during one of the most perilous and, at the same time, one of the most hopeful chapters in human history.

 

Our science and our technology have posed us a profound question. Will we learn to use these tools with wisdom and foresight before it's too late? Will we see our species safely through this difficult passage so that our children and grandchildren will continue the great journey of discovery still deeper into the mysteries of the Cosmos? That same rocket and nuclear and computer technology that sends our ships past the farthest known planet can also be used to destroy our global civilization. Exactly the same technology can be used for good and for evil. It

is as if there were a God who said to us, “I set before you two ways: You can use your technology to destroy yourselves or to carry you to the planets and the stars. It's up to you.â€

(more quotes and info can be found here)

 

Scientific literacy matters so much more than laying pipes or treating thyroids. It matters because its the only reliable way we know to understand our world, to offer some control over circumstances wholly unconcerned with our needs or desires. It matters because providing defensive measures against enemies identified by faulty or unreliable information increases our own vulnerability as we are identified as enemies in turn, through the same method. It matters because we matter, each of us, all of us, and it matters that we know that. 

[Pen]

What I wonder, though, is why more specific issues in the YE/OE argument are rarely discussed. I never feel competant to talk about such things in a point-by-point manner; as I said, I was not given much scientific info growing up, so I am frequently out of my depth on the matter. But I have wish before that someone very knowledgeable would post, say, ten easy-to-understand reasons they believe the earth is old. And then, ideally, someone very knowledgeable could respond to those ten points in an easy-to-understand way, rebutting those points.

 

My own mind began to change principally on a very simple question: how do we see the light from stars that are billions of light-years away if the earth is only a few thousand years old? There are other very basic questions like this: if one believes the Flood was world-wide, how did salt water and fresh water combine without destroying both habitats irrepairably? What did animals eat when they exited the ark? Why would God even "need" to drown the world, but keep a breeding pair of everything alive; why not just say, "Let there be Nothing. I'm starting over." If the earth is only six thousand years old, how did dinosaurs all go extinct before recorded history?

 

 

There were a number of reasons that people coming from many different parts of the world and with different religious faith backgrounds could independently look at the evidence of nature around them and begin to figure out that the age of the Earth was extremely old--many orders of magnitude older than what people using Genesis genealogy had decided.

 

Some of these factors included fossil evidence, sedimentary layering, erosion. Some of this when I have seen, for example, eroded cliff faces where layers are observable, and seen some of what fossils come out of different layers is sufficient to be personally, objectively convinced that the Earth is far older than a YEC idea of it.  I also lived for a while as a child near a dinosaur and prehistoric excavation site, and that was not a possible experience for me to have internalized and also to be able to believe in a literal understanding of Genesis.

 

In the 1950s, painstaking work by Clair Cameron "Pat" Patterson, at Cal Tech (which you can, and if you are interested in this should, look up more about), established the age of the Earth to be in the range of 4.5 billion years (it is more precise than that, with a plus or minus and more work done since, but that is the name of person who is to this area one we should better know and understand the work of, like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, etc. IMO)--I find knowing the figure as 4.5 billion +/- works fine in my life. You can look up more details, as well as the exact way that the work was done to come to this conclusion.  It is something that scientists around the world can understand despite coming from different faith backgrounds with different creation stories.

 

I find it as basic and established as gravity, and that the Earth orbits the sun, not vice versa.

 

 

ETA: I do not consider myself "very knowledgeable" in this field, but rather to have an ordinary reasonable degree of scientific literacy. Others who do consider themselves "very knowledgeable" may want to add to or modify what I posted.

[Seasider]

Here is a paper by Tim Keller that describes what Jean is, I think, speaking of when saying that we take the Biblical texts as the author intended.

 

Caveat: the biologos name is on this link; I have not investigated the overall claims of that organization and I do not mean to promote it. It is simply the host of a work by a man whose words I consider worthy of considering.

 

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

[MFG]

That is called textual criticism and it is a deep, highly pedantic, and well explored field. It involves pouring over original language sources (in the case of Genesis and Gospel/Epistle references to it, the Septuagint and the Torah are considered primary), in context, and inferring meaning from the supporting sources within the same text, additional manuscripts if the error is scribal, parallel passages if applicable, the type of writing being used (Hebrew, in particular, has well defined types for narrative, poetic form, legal/penal/contractual, genealogical, etc), and finally what makes the most sense on a plain reading of the original language.

 

This isn't easily determined, but there are dozens of competent scholars involved actively in this field, and hundreds more from centuries past. It's not foolproof, especially in prophetic passages, however many of the things brought up as quandaries or gotchas actually do have answers and explanations, however they tend to be extensive and what takes five seconds to drop in conversation takes ten or twenty minutes to carefully and thoroughly refute. In my limited experience, this is where wisdom on the side of refutation comes in - it is rarely worth the mental energy, as most don't actually want to understand the answer.

 

Textual criticism is wonderful. Someone like myself has to use secondary and tertiary sources as I am not fluent in Hebrew or Koine Greek, but thankfully there are a plethora electronic and paper works available to assist. I also have access to two scholars with sufficient expertise in this area to answer any of my own stumpers when I get stuck :D

That is not textual criticism, it is grammatico-historical exegesis.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical_method

[albeto.]

 I will "preach" the fact that if anyone wants to believe as they do they should respect that right for others.

 

This raises an interesting subsequent question for me. Perhaps it ought to be it's own thread, but I'm curious what people think about being free to believe what one wants if one has been raised in an environment in which one thought is correlated with an eternity of pain and torture and another is correlated with everlasting joy. How free are one's thoughts when they learn them in the context of punishment or reward? 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Here is a paper by Tim Keller that describes what Jean is, I think, speaking of when saying that we take the Biblical texts as the author intended.

 

Caveat: the biologos name is on this link; I have not investigated the overall claims of that organization and I do not mean to promote it. It is simply the host of a work by a man whose words I consider worthy of considering.

 

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

Where he answers the question of authorial intent is what I was referring to when I answered Halycon's first question.  His whole article is an example of one view among many which speaks to my answer to Halycon's second question.  (I argue for no one view because I don't know which one I agree with.  or not.)  

[creekland]

It would effect things like knowing the age of the redwood tree, whose trunk shows some 2000 rings. After all, no one has recorded the lifespan of such a tree from the beginning, and we've yet to reproduce a tree of that age under any scientific criteria (we'd have to wait 2000 years for the results). As extrapolating evidence gained from one thing to another is off limits, this does reduce the boundaries of "science" as a field of study quiet considerably.

 

Are you even serious with this argument?  We study - and can reproduce - tree rings and dating from them all the time.

 

 

But this creator is not observable, not reproducible. Why is it included in the parameters of the scientific method when otherwise only observable, reproducible things are? 

 

Methinks you missed the part where I personally do not consider ANY historical account of origins to be science.  It doesn't matter if it's YEC or not.

 

Which is interesting to me because belief in a creator happens outside the scope of what is observable and reproducible, but is nevertheless crucial to the belief in YEC. So in the case of a creator (specifically the one found in the Christian bible), observation and reproducible data is not necessary, but for everything else it is. What is particularly interesting about this to me is that so many of the scientists and naturalists who compiled the evidence and contributed to the theory of evolution were themselves Christians who believed in the biblical creator.  Even today there are scientists who believe in the biblical creator and Christians who understand the theory of evolution and the scientific method in general but do not share your particular theology. 

 

And you somehow have figured out my particular theology?  How?  I've said more than once that I can easily see an old earth and creator guided evolution as a possibility pretty much equal to a younger earth and creator created "old" option.  Neither affect what we see now.  The ONLY solution I (personally) can't see happening is the universe/world/evolution (big picture) happening by chance.  You're free to have your own opinions.

 

I can see how it's very freeing to not care.

 

It truly is.   :coolgleamA: 

 

I think scientific illiteracy in general hurts advancements in many observable ways ... Societies that lack scientific knowledge adopt unreliable, illogical, and ineffective solutions. Societies that lack scientific knowledge are unprepared for potential (or imminent) problems in the future. Societies that lack scientific knowledge tend to find scapegoats for punishment, resulting in the torture and death of innocent people. These are things that were systematically identified and explored and found to be unreliable over time.

 

And see?  You and I CAN agree at times!

 

They were found to be unreliable by virtue of the very scientific method you dismiss because as it does not incorporate a creator (specifically the creator of the bible)

 

But not when you attribute things to me that aren't there.  (sigh)

 

To use this as a foundation of understanding the natural world and solving problems as they arise, is concerning to me. It affects me and will affect my children, members of my community, my country, and ultimately all living things on the planet.

 

And we disagree here too based on the folks I know IRL.  You are making many false assumptions about their beliefs.  There may be SOME out there who believe as you think they do, but I haven't met them.

 

It's of little comfort to think my doctor may believe in YEC but can treat my thyroid, because the issue isn't one person's application of medicine as they've been taught to administer it. The issue is accurately and reliably being able to understand how the natural world works by virtue of recognizing pertinent data, and knowing how to analyze it.

 

Those I know working in the field have no problem understanding the natural world as we see it.

 

[albeto.]

And see?  You and I CAN agree at times!

 

I never suggested otherwise.

 

 

But not when you attribute things to me that aren't there.  (sigh)

 

I am referring to your argument, not attributing things to you as an individual. My reply relates to the historical record of incorporating information as gained through the scientific method and its influence on society. YEC rejects the scientific method insofar as it does not incorporate belief of the god of the bible as the creator of the universe, and explanations that do not conform to this belief are rejected. This is a feature of creationism and not a personal opinion. If you are not intentionally avoiding the point, and if it helps, I will amend my statement to read, "They were found to be unreliable by virtue of the very scientific method dismissed in creationism because as it does not incorporate a creator (specifically the creator of the bible)."

 

Those I know working in the field have no problem understanding the natural world as we see it.

 

The YEC argument proposes that an understanding of the world includes data that cannot be obtained following the scientific method, and rests on personal belief being accurate information. This is in defiance of the method of learning about the natural world as has been developed and accepted and applied over the centuries. I would argue that someone can have no problem performing any particular job, but a greater understanding of the world would be diminished if their understanding included erroneous information, or if they lacked pertinent information. This would apply to any understanding. 

 

Mostly I'm curious why God is included in the methodology when it fails the criterion of observation and reproducibility insisted upon otherwise.

[creekland]

 YEC rejects the scientific method insofar as it does not incorporate belief of the god of the bible as the creator of the universe, and explanations that do not conform to this belief are rejected. 

 

The YEC argument proposes that an understanding of the world includes data that cannot be obtained following the scientific method, and rests on personal belief being accurate information. This is in defiance of the method of learning about the natural world as has been developed and accepted and applied over the centuries. I would argue that someone can have no problem performing any particular job, but a greater understanding of the world would be diminished if their understanding included erroneous information, or if they lacked pertinent information. This would apply to any understanding. 

 

Mostly I'm curious why God is included in the methodology when it fails the criterion of observation and reproducibility insisted upon otherwise.

 

I think you are misinformed.

 

Both YEC and non believers (and everyone in between) agree on pretty much everything happening in the current world - the world in the past 4000 or so years anyway.  They disagree regarding the flood.

 

YEC/OEC believe God set up the framework and got it started - only the time frame differs.

 

Non-believers believe it happened by chance and need an old time frame.

[albeto.]

I think you are misinformed.

 

Apparently so too is the entire scientific community. The integral difference being the inclusion of a personal belief in the god of the bible as the creator of the universe. 

 

Interestingly, this inclusion does not fit the criterion of observation and reproducibility insisted upon otherwise. I'm curious as to why. 

 

Both YEC and non believers (and everyone in between) agree on pretty much everything happening in the current world - the world in the past 4000 or so years anyway.  They disagree regarding the flood.

 

This argument dismisses everything from the value of vaccines to LGBTQ issues to the function and value of reproduction to the danger of climate change. These issues are explored via the scientific method or the scientific-with-religion-overriding-some-aspect method. As they are understood, they are addressed. I'd say much of the political contention we experience today is directly related to how people understand the natural world to be.