That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[fraidycat]

The numbers change how I think about it.

 

Small numbers - more inclined to live and let live.

 

Growing/larger numbers - not so inclined to do so.

I agree. Scary. My kids have to live in this "growing numbers" world. I'd like to see them inherit a progressive rather than regressive society.

[Tanaqui]

 

How would there be biological evidence for age of Earth?

 

The fossil record is evidence for how long life has existed. We have enough fossils to come up with a chain of descent for several animals. Since the existence of the Earth must perforce predate the existence of life on Earth, the fossil record is, therefore, secondary biological evidence for the age of the earth, because it puts a bound on the youngest possible age of the earth.

 

[Tanaqui]

You know, I don't like that word "random". Evolution is many things, but its main driver, natural selection, is not random. The mechanisms of evolution work with the random variation generated by mutations. 

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't make natural selection "random". Unless you go out and jump the bones of everybody you meet in the street, that is, in which case - yay?

 

You know, I've had no problem responding to your other replies.  They were responses in a respectful tone. Why the snark here at the end?

 

Because that was a response to somebody else, who seems to feel her own personal definition of science should be treated as equally valid as the rather more mainstream definition of science.

 

[Tanaqui]

Actually there are a lot of Biblical scholars who do believe this to be true.

 

Your statement doesn't contradict hers. She said that most don't believe it is true. "A lot" of scholars *could* believe it is true, and yet still be in the minority. Depending on the relative numbers here, they could even be a small minority. What percentage of Biblical scholars are each of you talking about?

 

 

And every archeological discovery around the NT seems to push the authorship date back closer to Jesus' time.

 

Do you have a citation?

 

[Liza Q]

Dicentra and Matryoshka - very helpful posts. Thanks!!

 

I struggle with all this - YE always seems a stretch to me and I can buy a scientist telling me "this is what we have discovered and what we believe it means" and take it seriously. When I took Biology in High School (I was raised a Christian and never thought about YE, only that evolution without God didn't seem plausible)- in 1981? - we were taught that it was a theory and given all sorts of information that seemed perfectly reasonable to me. I figured that I would wait a bit and see what "they" came up with. Since my oldest was in High School I have done some reading to try to catch up a bit - Jay Wile, Biologos, library books.

 

But. When the attitude behind the science I read is like a poster upthread said - "of course (whatever belief) is hooey, like all supernatural claims", then I start to wonder. How does a completely - naturalistic, for lack of a better word - pov affect scientific inquiry? As strongly as a supernatural belief would? I don't see it as religion vs. science, but as people starting from a certain framework and then fitting their observations into that framework. Therefore, I am fairly skeptical of both AIG and our new Bio text (Holt - Nowicki). I don't see how it all could have just happened, I don't see Genesis 1 as literal, and I am not smart enough to really understand everything I read, so I am staying with my current belief that there is no way we can know for sure.

 

 

[zoobie]

Not all biologists are publishing papers. I thought Zoobie was asking about biologists' personal opinions, not whether or not they had published papers on the topic. I apologize if I was mistaken about that.

 

I have no particular interest in YEC, so I have never looked for any publications about it, so I couldn't answer a question about the research being done on that topic. I was simply suggesting that I'm sure many of us have no clue about our friends' and acquaintances' views are about YEC because it probably isn't something that pops up in our everyday conversations -- or at least it isn't a common topic where I live. Maybe it's different in other places.

Not just biologists, but geologists, archaeologists, whomever! To get a PhD in an X-related field, you'd have to "publish" at least a dissertation.

 

I don't think I know anyone who personally who works in that arena. The idea of YEC has come up in discussing politics, homeschooling, (the politics of homeschooling, lol) etc. with friends. It may come up more because I do live in the Bible Belt and a non-religious homeschooler is fairly unusual. It just came up with moms whose names I can't remember from my DS's baseball team re: homeschooling (the lack of oversight in our state, their surprise that I could teach the kids anything/nothing, choosing curricula, etc.). I've had discussions with friends in non-related fields even before we homeschooled about the spreading of misinformation and why it was gaining popularity. Discussed with university professor friends...even in completely unrelated fields it has come up. One woman teaches in a very conservative, religious area and had a student stand up and go bonkers screaming about it (and her being a woman) in her poly sci class! Ecologist friend discussed it in the context of her being worried about YEC believers affecting the climate debate. I'm also a former/future Montessori parent, and they have shown parents at my kids' school the Long Black Strip (I think that's the name?), which has brought up YEC. Perhaps I have super nerdy friends. ;)

[Wheres Toto]

I'm in NJ so not exactly the Bible Belt.  :)    I ran a homeschool 4-H group until I returned to work.   Of the 12 families that were in the club when I started it, at least 5 of them were strongly YE, at least 1 other was considering it.  The rest were adamantly NOT YE.    Those 5 strongly YE families were all members of the same church and a couple were related (SIL's) who decided to join together so it may not have been a great "random" sampling.   Since then I have run into other YE homeschoolers and it does seem like some of them homeschool to avoid what is being taught in schools - with evolution and OE stuff topping the list of things to avoid (but definitely not being the only things).

 

It came up in my 4-H group when we went to a bug museum (cockroaches have been around for a really really LOOOOOONG time), when we went to a rock & mineral museum, and a couple times hanging out at the library where we held our meetings.  One mom had a kid very into dinosaurs and would skip anything talking about x years ago in those books.  Now, they were okay with the tour guides doing their usual spiel - they didn't expect things to be modified to accommodate them.  But, it did lead me to avoiding the fossil activity I was planning.

 

 

 

[Daria]

Is anyone else surprised at the poll results ? It looks like 1 out of every 5 WTM'ers who voted is YEC. i would have assumed a much smaller percentage, maybe 1 out of 15 or so...

 

I'm very new here at WTM, having only been homeschooling since December, and live I in an area where I don't interact much with people who hold a YEC view.  I also have very few interactions with other homeschoolers.

 

So, when I came here to WTM, I was surprised by how often I see statements that indicate that someone holds a YEC view.  Sometimes people will state outright that they believe in a YE, for example, in the context of a college search thread, and other times someone will suggest a curriculum, so I'll do some research, and realize pretty quickly that the curriculum (Apologia, AIG, BJU science etc . . . ) is specifically designed to teach from a YEC perspective.  Given how often I see those things, I had assumed that the YEC belief was pretty common here, and would have predicted an even higher percentage.  

[Liza Q]

There are plenty of Christians in NYC who believe in YEC.

[Daria]

There are plenty of Christians in NYC who believe in YEC.

 

Liza, are you directing that to me specifically?  Because I don't happen to live in NYC  

 

There are also, I am sure, many Christians who believe in YEC and live in my greater metropolitan area too.  However, there are none in my particular social network, or at least none that are close enough to me that it has come up in conversation.   

[Liza Q]

Nope, not towards you. I was being brief! What I meant was that it is not something restricted to Bible Belt Christians, kwim? Someone upthread mentioned that they had not seen it in the major cities...I think that she mentioned LA and NYC.

 

Most of my family is YEC yet I am the only homeschooler. Since everyone IRL that I am in close contact with are either in my family, from current or past churches, or in my homeschool group, YEC is the default. I know plenty of non-Christians, but I don't have a close enough relationship with them for something like this to come up!

[Matryoshka]

 

But. When the attitude behind the science I read is like a poster upthread said - "of course (whatever belief) is hooey, like all supernatural claims", then I start to wonder. How does a completely - naturalistic, for lack of a better word - pov affect scientific inquiry? As strongly as a supernatural belief would? I don't see it as religion vs. science, but as people starting from a certain framework and then fitting their observations into that framework. Therefore, I am fairly skeptical of both AIG and our new Bio text (Holt - Nowicki). I don't see how it all could have just happened, I don't see Genesis 1 as literal, and I am not smart enough to really understand everything I read, so I am staying with my current belief that there is no way we can know for sure.

 

Okay, here's some further help.

 

Science follows the scientific method.  It uses observation, hypotheses based on these observations, which are then tested over and over and over and over again.  Once it is shown that the hypothesis can show us consistent results, and that it's so reliable we can make predictions based on it that will be true (for example - I'm exposed to Germ X, and it gives me X disease.  If I launch a satellite into the sky at X speed and Y angle, then it will orbit the earth and instead of falling back down)

 

Science does not and can not include the supernatural.  If you're using a framework that includes the supernatural, well, that's a framework all right - but it is not science. 

 

But here's the good news.  Like I said - science says nothing about the supernatural.- positive or negative  If you want to believe that God created everything billions of years ago and that God is nudging evolution along - well, science has nothing to say on that.  Science cannot say it's true, but it also can't say it's not true.  It's untestable.  It's completely outside science.  The two don't have to be incompatible, until you start changing the science to fit your framework. 

 

I am not an atheist.  But science is science and I don't try to limit what we can see of the natural world into a framework it was never intended to fit.  I don't know whether God created the universe, or whether he's helping evolution along.  But it's not incompatible with science (and answering the question lies completely outside the purview of science).  Whether you believe that or not rests on faith.  I'm perfectly happy with leaving that a mystery of faith. 

 

[Liza Q]

double post

[Liza Q]

 

But here's the good news.  Like I said - science says nothing about the supernatural.- positive or negative  If you want to believe that God created everything billions of years ago and that God is nudging evolution along - well, science has nothing to say on that.  Science cannot say it's true, but it also can't say it's not true.  It's untestable.  It's completely outside science.  The two don't have to be incompatible, until you start changing the science to fit your framework. 

 

 

 

I get this. But I do react when I read this in a bio of Sam Harris - "Harris is a cofounder and the CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society." I would prefer to know that my scientific information is coming from someone not devoted to secular values - or Christian ones. I doubt that I can find anything truly objective. Galileo wasn't trying to disprove the existence of the supernatural, only making observations. As far as I know, Darwin was the same. I don't know this about what I read today.

[IsabelC]

But we should remember that secular doesn't actually mean anti-religion; it just means separate from, or independent of, any particular religion. So secular values would be values that transcend any one religious perspective. No good scientist should be trying to prove any particular thing. Of course, scientists being fallible humans and research funding working the way it sometimes does, it would be pollyanna-ish to believe that every scientist is 100% objective 100% of the time. But that is why research has to be repeatable and theories are only accepted once a substantial body of peer-reviewed work has been done.

[Matryoshka]

I get this. But I do react when I read this in a bio of Sam Harris - "Harris is a cofounder and the CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society." I would prefer to know that my scientific information is coming from someone not devoted to secular values - or Christian ones. I doubt that I can find anything truly objective. Galileo wasn't trying to disprove the existence of the supernatural, only making observations. As far as I know, Darwin was the same. I don't know this about what I read today.

No scientist is trying to disprove the existence of the supernatural.  Science doesn't care about the supernatural.  It is always, always, always, and still now - only making observations.

 

When they came up with Germ Theory, they were not trying to disprove the supernatural belief that swamp air was bad for you or that illness wasn't caused by demon possession.  They noticed a natural phenomenon, made a hypothesis, and tested it.  That ended up disproving the supernatural ideas, but it wasn't the intent of the science. Science observes and tests.

 

I think you're getting hung up on the word 'secular'.  Secular does not mean anti-god - just without God, not taking God (or the supernatural) into account.  Here's a definition:

 

adjective

1.

of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:

secular interests.

2.

not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ):

secular music.

3.

(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

 

Since science is "not pertaining to or connected with religion", it is by definition secular.  It can't be anything else. 

 

Is science sometimes twisted to individuals' purposes for reasons other than religion?  Heck yeah.  Don't trust any funded by a big company that has a vested interest in the results, like smoking and sugar are really good for you (funded by Big Tobacco and Soda Companies).  But then it's usually still easy to figure out if you look behind the curtain.  Usually the sample size of the study is too small, or they didn't use a control, or they went in with assumptions, or they didn't continue the study for a very long time.  Skepticism is always good for science.  This is why it's important for science to be peer-reviewed, and for tests to be done over and over, and then also the gold standard - if it can be used to make predictions.  That's when it grows up to become a Theory. 

[Liza Q]

Well, I have a lot to think about before we start Biology in the fall! With my oldest girls, I just let them know that I thought Apologia was unusable and that BJU was too...emotional on the subject and to concentrate on the science. My son wants to read something clear from both the YEC (all the kids in our hs group use Apologia or BJU) and secular (there's that word! I feel like Inigo Montoya is shaking his finger at me in my head!), regular high school textbook.

 

I am glad that this thread has not become too nasty.

[KarenC]

 

 

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

 

And that's the God's honest truth. 

This is what I would THINK, but not what I would say.  In person, I would just smile and nod.

[Laura Corin]

Wow. Yes, it is different here. 

 

And here.  Most home educators in the UK are crunchy anti-authoritarians or people whose children don't fit in at school for one reason or another.  Home educating for religious reasons is pretty rare.

[wendyroo]

I get this. But I do react when I read this in a bio of Sam Harris - "Harris is a cofounder and the CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society." I would prefer to know that my scientific information is coming from someone not devoted to secular values - or Christian ones. I doubt that I can find anything truly objective. Galileo wasn't trying to disprove the existence of the supernatural, only making observations. As far as I know, Darwin was the same. I don't know this about what I read today.

 

 

I think this really depends on how you interpret "secular values".  Secular really just means "without religion" (not anti-religion as it is often used).  So, really, all values can be secular if you come to them by non-religious means.  

 

I am against the death penalty, but that is my secular value because religion does not play any part in my views on the subject.  Someone else could have the same view, but come to it religiously.  Someone else could argue the same position from both secular and religious perspectives.

 

I do not think secular values and religious values are mutually exclusive.  In fact, I assume (as best I can as a non-religious person) that everyone has some secular values...iow, everyone has some views on some issues that are based on science or economics or personal morality, etc.

 

I read Sam Harris' bio as saying that his goal is encouraging people to focus on evaluating society's issues through the lens of their secular values.  Even if a person has a religious perspective on a issue (ie. anti-death penalty based on reading of scripture), his or her secular view (ie. anti-death penalty based on economics and the possibility of killing innocents) is the one that should be put on the table during public policy discussions.

 

Wendy

[KarenC]

There is an article in this month's issue of National Geographic titled "The Age of Disbelief"  concerning doubt and scientific proof.  I haven't had time to read it yet, it's still in my pile.

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

[wendyroo]

There is an article in this month's issue of National Geographic titled "The Age of Disbelief"  concerning doubt and scientific proof.  I haven't had time to read it yet, it's still in my pile.

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

 

Great article.  Thanks for sharing.

 

Wendy

[Professormom]

Okay, here's some further help.

 

Science follows the scientific method. It uses observation, hypotheses based on these observations, which are then tested over and over and over and over again. Once it is shown that the hypothesis can show us consistent results, and that it's so reliable we can make predictions based on it that will be true (for example - I'm exposed to Germ X, and it gives me X disease. If I launch a satellite into the sky at X speed and Y angle, then it will orbit the earth and instead of falling back down)

 

Science does not and can not include the supernatural. If you're using a framework that includes the supernatural, well, that's a framework all right - but it is not science.

 

But here's the good news. Like I said - science says nothing about the supernatural.- positive or negative If you want to believe that God created everything billions of years ago and that God is nudging evolution along - well, science has nothing to say on that. Science cannot say it's true, but it also can't say it's not true. It's untestable. It's completely outside science. The two don't have to be incompatible, until you start changing the science to fit your framework.

 

I am not an atheist. But science is science and I don't try to limit what we can see of the natural world into a framework it was never intended to fit. I don't know whether God created the universe, or whether he's helping evolution along. But it's not incompatible with science (and answering the question lies completely outside the purview of science). Whether you believe that or not rests on faith. I'm perfectly happy with leaving that a mystery of faith.

:Iagree:

[Spryte]

 

 

And every archeological discovery around the NT seems to push the authorship date back closer to Jesus' time.

I am an archaeologist. Obviously homeschooling now but I spent many years in the field before having children later in life.

 

I would be interested in reading your links about this, if you'll share them.

[Liza Q]

From that Nat'l Geographic Article -

 

“Science is not a body of facts,†says geophysicist Marcia McNutt, who once headed the U.S. Geological Survey and is now editor of Science, the prestigious journal. “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.â€

 

If understanding everything from the age of the earth to vaccinations requires me to subject my belief in God to the laws of nature, then I will just not understand. She has her preconceived notions and I have mine.

 

The article was fascinating but I think it was really saying that scientists are some special breed of people who are able to put aside conformation bias but the average American is not. I can't buy that.

 

 

[redsquirrel]

Dicentra and Matryoshka - very helpful posts. Thanks!!

 

I struggle with all this - YE always seems a stretch to me and I can buy a scientist telling me "this is what we have discovered and what we believe it means" and take it seriously. When I took Biology in High School (I was raised a Christian and never thought about YE, only that evolution without God didn't seem plausible)- in 1981? - we were taught that it was a theory and given all sorts of information that seemed perfectly reasonable to me. I figured that I would wait a bit and see what "they" came up with. Since my oldest was in High School I have done some reading to try to catch up a bit - Jay Wile, Biologos, library books.

 

But. When the attitude behind the science I read is like a poster upthread said - "of course (whatever belief) is hooey, like all supernatural claims", then I start to wonder. How does a completely - naturalistic, for lack of a better word - pov affect scientific inquiry? As strongly as a supernatural belief would? I don't see it as religion vs. science, but as people starting from a certain framework and then fitting their observations into that framework. Therefore, I am fairly skeptical of both AIG and our new Bio text (Holt - Nowicki). I don't see how it all could have just happened, I don't see Genesis 1 as literal, and I am not smart enough to really understand everything I read, so I am staying with my current belief that there is no way we can know for sure.

 

Well, that is fine, but I would like to address one thing. You say 'there is now way WE can know for sure."  But...there is more than enough evidence for us to know with a reasonable amount of certainty and 'we' do know. No reputable scientist is going to argue that the earth is 6,000 years old, unless she or he is arguing to prove a religious point. Again, this is a one sided argument. It is young earthers attempting to engage with science and trying to get validation. 

 

So, you can say that you don't have the time or inclination to suss it all out, but when you say 'we don't know for sure' that isn't correct. If you are teaching your kids that... it's not true.

 

[Liza Q]

Well, that is fine, but I would like to address one thing. You say 'there is now way WE can know for sure."  But...there is more than enough evidence for us to know with a reasonable amount of certainty and 'we' do know. No reputable scientist is going to argue that the earth is 6,000 years old, unless she or he is arguing to prove a religious point. Again, this is a one sided argument. It is young earthers attempting to engage with science and trying to get validation. 

 

So, you can say that you don't have the time or inclination to suss it all out, but when you say 'we don't know for sure' that isn't correct. If you are teaching your kids that... it's not true.

 

I don't believe in YEC.

 

My conformation bias makes me unable to just trust that "reputable scientists" are free of bias.

 

ETA: Not trying to be snarky. I know I have my preconceived notions and I just don't believe that others don't!

 

[Professormom]

There is an article in this month's issue of National Geographic titled "The Age of Disbelief" concerning doubt and scientific proof. I haven't had time to read it yet, it's still in my pile.

 

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

I have this issue too. The article is ok. It wasn't as in depth as I had hoped, and has those little language shifts which indicate political bias. Their assessment of why people take issue with science is pretty simplistic, but it makes a couple of good points and was worth reading.

 

On another note, I think the post was by Pen, but I can't find it now. One thing that has happened to me over the course of this discussion is to agree with what Pen said. I am moving more towards the "it matters to me" what people believe. I think the science is pretty clear, and the lack of peer-reviewed published scientific work on the part of YEC supporters/scientists is a concern, especially when public policy is involved.

 

I live in the Midwest, and many homeschoolers here believe in YEC. They are very outspoken about their views, so my perspective has always been someone is MORE inclined to talk about it if they are YEC. I think because Ham and others give the impression that it is part of "defending the faith". They can't let it go or they are doing the equivalent of letting someone gossip about your best friend in front of you.

 

It puts me in an awkward position because I fall somewhere in the middle of practically everything. Old-earth, but Christian. Homeschool, but I have lots of friends who are doing just fine with public and are raising great kids. I have a pretty diverse "posse" lol, which is unusual for a homeschooler in our area (not sure why). And as much as I would like to share what I know/have learned about the science, it would take weeks of talking this through to get from point a to point b. And I just don't have the time:-) I have to also add that these are people who are not stupid... Engineers, doctors, successful entrepreneurs. This really is more of a faith issue than a science issue... The parameters they have been given is, "if you believe in x (old-earth, Big Bang, evolution, then your faith falls apart and you cannot really be a Christian"... Everything topples. But, it really doesn't. I really wish more of the clergy would do the work and frame our scientific knowledge within the context of the Bible better... It can be done without compromising either the science or the faith.

 

And there *are* scientists who try to discredit the supernatural... They have their world view too. Dawkins is the most vocal that comes to mind. And in all fairness, this is definitely not the majority. But the minority is very vocal and because they cause a sensation, they get picked up by the media. This makes them more visible to the public than Joe-Schmoe Scientist quietly doing his secular science and doing it well. And that is why, I think, YEC folk are so quick to defend. I am just thinking that if we have the right framework for the conversation, it doesn't have to devolve into a "science" vs. "religion" debate... Because that isn't entirely accurate. So there is my brain dump... I really need a cup of coffee.

[Saddlemomma]

It wouldn't be his or her beliefs, it would be his or her peer reviewed papers that would let us know they had 'evidence' for a YE. I can imagine someone fudging their religious status to make the 'science' seem more sciencey - but the nature of being an scientist is that you do research and people read it.

 

I will eat my hat if there is a mainstream peer-reviewed, mainstream published scientist who has come up with YE evidence  and who has zero religious affinities.

 

I don't believe there is any such person.

 

I, myself, was interested in the status of peer-reviewed papers by Creationists. I'm not sure you will have to eat your hat or not....lol...because I have no idea whether or not the following scientists are YEC or OEC, but I did find the following references of Creation scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers.  I was pleasantly surprised. They are as follows:

 

• German creationist and microbiologist Siegfried Scherer: Basic Functional States in the Evolution of Light-driven Cyclic Electron Transport, Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 289–299, 1983
• Creationist biochemist Grant Lambert: ‘Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107:387–403, 1984
• Creationist Physicist, Dr. D. Russel Humpreys, Ph.D:  He has a plethora of secular, peer-reviewed articles and awards.  They are listed here if you wish to view them.  Although his biography is on a Creationist website, the secular articles and awards are listed toward the bottom of the page.  Quite impressive actually.
• Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
• Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
• Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
• Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
• Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
• Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
• Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

Okay, hold on to you hats ladies, I actually found a YEC scientist who has published peer-reviewed articles:

 

Dr. Robert V. Gentry, nuclear physicist and YEC.  Articles published are as follows (taken from Wikipedia)

1. Gentry, Robert V. (14 June 1968). "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos". Science 160 (3833): 1228–1230. Bibcode:1968Sci...160.1228G. doi:10.1126/science.160.3833.1228. PMID 17818744.
2. Gentry, Robert V. (14 August 1970). "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Radioactivity?". Science 169 (3946): 670–673. Bibcode:1970Sci...169..670G. doi:10.1126/science.169.3946.670. PMID 17791843.
3. Gentry, Robert V. (5 April 1974). "Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective". Science 184 (4132): 62–66. Bibcode:1974Sci...184...62G. doi:10.1126/science.184.4132.62. PMID 17734632.
4. Gentry, Robert V.; T. A. Cahill; R. G. Flocchini; N. R. Fletcher; H. C. Kaufmann; L. R. Medsker; J. W. Nelson (1976). "Evidence for Primordial Superheavy Elements". Physical Review Letters 37 (1): 11–15. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37...11G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.11.
5. Robert V. Gentry, (1986). Creation's Tiny Mystery. (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Associates) Page 66 ISBN 0-9616753-1-4

Creationist, Dr. Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. in biochemistry and BS in Biology, had a published, peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology in 24 JAN 2011. "Using Creation Science to Demonstrate Evolution?", The paper can be viewed here  Not sure of his views - YEC or OEC.

 

Anyway, there you have it.  Some peer-reviewed papers by Creationists.  As far as I can tell, the only one of these papers which espouse or mention Creationism is Dr. Todd C. Wood's paper.  The others are standard science articles which don't espouse Creationism, but are written by Creationist scientists.  HTH :001_smile:

 

 

 

[Professormom]

Wow, Saddlemomma, has had her coffee:-)

[Saddlemomma]

Wow, Saddlemomma, has had her coffee:-)

 

Actually, yes.  Yes I have, and I'm about to have another! :thumbup1:

 

[Azalea]

More info. about Robert Gentry, hth: 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_V._Gentry

 

 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

 

[redsquirrel]

I don't believe in YEC.

 

My conformation bias makes me unable to just trust that "reputable scientists" are free of bias.

 

ETA: Not trying to be snarky. I know I have my preconceived notions and I just don't believe that others don't!

 

 

That is what the communal process of science is for. Peer review is to suss out bias and error.

 

So you are of the opinion that the entire process of scientific inquiry and peer review is biased and cannot be trusted to eventually hash out flaw, biases, errors and differences of opinion?

[Matryoshka]

 

My conformation bias makes me unable to just trust that "reputable scientists" are free of bias.

 

 

One scientist and one study?  Sure, you're completely right, see my previous note about Tobacco Companies funding research to prove smoking is healthy (those are out there!)

 

But are peer-reviewed, and if they're fishy they get  repeated by other scientists to see if they can repeat the results, and that's how you weed out 'bad science' and bias.

 

Evolutionary theory is not based on one scientist or one study with a bias.  Or even a few.  My guess is that there are not hundreds, but thousands, and probably thousands upon thousands of studies that confirm Evolutionary Theory.  Not that each one sets out to prove or disprove it, but again, a Theory can be used to predict an outcome.  Over and over, studies that use Evolutionary Theory to predict an outcome are successful.  When they are not, things are tweaked.  Anything that would disprove or radically the whole Theory at this point?  Does not exist.

 

(And again, Evolutionary Theory says nothnig about the age of the earth.  For that, you have to start arguing with Geologists, and for the age of the universe, Astrophysicists.  The fact that all these different areas of study pretty much agree on the timeline - billions, not thousands of years - should be telling).

 

[Liza Q]

One scientist and one study?  Sure, you're completely right, see my previous note about Tobacco Companies funding research to prove smoking is healthy (those are out there!)

 

But are peer-reviewed, and if they're fishy they get  repeated by other scientists to see if they can repeat the results, and that's how you weed out 'bad science' and bias.

 

Evolutionary theory is not based on one scientist or one study with a bias.  Or even a few.  My guess is that there are not hundreds, but thousands, and probably thousands upon thousands of studies that confirm Evolutionary Theory.  Not that each one sets out to prove or disprove it, but again, a Theory can be used to predict an outcome.  Over and over, studies that use Evolutionary Theory to predict an outcome are successful.  When they are not, things are tweaked.  Anything that would disprove or radically the whole Theory at this point?  Does not exist.

 

(And again, Evolutionary Theory says nothnig about the age of the earth.  For that, you have to start arguing with Geologists, and for the age of the universe, Astrophysicists.  The fact that all these different areas of study pretty much agree on the timeline - billions, not thousands of years - should be telling).

 

 

Obviously, I need to spend less time reading what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have written and more time reading up on the science. Starting with the new textbook I bought!

[Matryoshka]

Obviously, I need to spend less time reading what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have written and more time reading up on the science. Starting with the new textbook I bought!

 

I've never read any Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, but from what I gather they seem like the Ken Hams of the other side - I'm right, you're wrong, don't be stupid.

 

That would annoy me even if I agreed on the science.

 

Read some Stephen Jay Gould, or The Beak of the Finch or Your Inner Fish  instead (caveat - I haven't read those either, but I hear they're good - maybe others can give more personal recommendations for books with good science but without opinionated blowhards). :)

 

[Guest]

One scientist and one study? Sure, you're completely right, see my previous note about Tobacco Companies funding research to prove smoking is healthy (those are out there!)

 

But are peer-reviewed, and if they're fishy they get repeated by other scientists to see if they can repeat the results, and that's how you weed out 'bad science' and bias.

 

Evolutionary theory is not based on one scientist or one study with a bias. Or even a few. My guess is that there are not hundreds, but thousands, and probably thousands upon thousands of studies that confirm Evolutionary Theory. Not that each one sets out to prove or disprove it, but again, a Theory can be used to predict an outcome. Over and over, studies that use Evolutionary Theory to predict an outcome are successful. When they are not, things are tweaked. Anything that would disprove or radically the whole Theory at this point? Does not exist.

 

(And again, Evolutionary Theory says nothnig about the age of the earth. For that, you have to start arguing with Geologists, and for the age of the universe, Astrophysicists. The fact that all these different areas of study pretty much agree on the timeline - billions, not thousands of years - should be telling).

 

Well, I might be misunderstanding *you*, but you do realize no one, including the most ardent Christian, contends with natural selection, hybridization, and selection of types within a population, yes? It is extrapolating that data out to phylogeny as a whole and using it as an explanation for extratypical selection that we have major issues with. Love or hate it, the distinction of natural selection vs molecules-to-man evolution is apt. Nobody argues the former, it is the latter (which is argued hand in hand with the age of the universe and developments of life) that is speculation on a grand scale with precious little to substantiate it - it is an interpretive motif imposed on a set of evidence, with no way of proving veracity. In that way, taking the biblical creation account as plainly stated truth is the exact same thing - having a lens through which the view the currents body of evidence to philosophically discuss origin theories.

 

Both are articles of faith because neither can be verified. They're worldview philosophies, not science. Husbandry and population changes are science. Astrophysics is science, but one must be cogent of the boundary between theoretical applications and concrete applications and not give the weight to the former that is due the latter when it comes to validity of evidence. Positing the start of it all and the development of our universe, solar system, planet, and features of that planet? It's all just narrative and yarn spinning based on what we do know and see. Some are more or less plausible based on how they fit the data. But none of it is science.

 

In this way, it may be worth making the thoughtful distinction that many of us, myself included, view parsing out theistic evolution or an old earth theory as religious and theological issues, not science. Because it's an unprovable, untestable point, it comes down to the interpretation of scripture in part (Genesis) and as a whole systematic theology. Those believing in six day creation are Christans first and foremost, just as those who adhere to a gap theory, God-set-it-in-motion-and-let-it-play-out, or old-earth-was-then-given-life-divinely are Christians first and foremost, with those presuppositions just being part of their worldview. As Christians, if we look to the bible as a science text or look to science to provide the evidence for our faith held views of the beginning (instead of our worldview being established as the foundation through which we regard these philosophies) I think we can get into very dangerous territory.

 

In the unknowable, arguing specific details is all worldview nuance, not provable, hard fact. And as Christians, while these things tend to contribute to the larger theology and are outworkings of specific hermeneutic approaches, I think it is really important to understand what we, as Christians, must be primarily doing - we are to be about the business of loving and knowing God through his revealed word, and conforming our thoughts to it, not about trying to contort it to every scientific claim made for or against it. The topic of creation can be a wonderful and affirming gospel outreach, but it is not *the* gospel and should never replace the gospel.

 

And anyone claiming to have scientific high ground on the philosophical presuppositions of creation, beyond just positing their evidence as it fits their theory, is being quite presumptuous. The best we can do is say something is more or less likely based on x, y, and z. Arguing beyond that is to get into truly religious territory, where we make it absolute truth and taken to on faith. That goes for the most ardent atheist as well, should he suppose he knows the answer to the beginning of it all with unshakeable certainty.

 

 

Ugh, I can't believe I responded to this thread again. Moving on now!

[TracyP]

Your Inner Fish is *very* good, but it does have a couple comments like, "Why would God design [body part] this way when it leads to [medical issue]." This is a fair point, but it still can be annoying. If you can ignore these 3-4 comments in a couple hundred page book, I highly recommend it. Why Evolution is True is also very good. I don't recall any comment about God at all in this book, but it isn't quite as engaging as the first. I couldn't get into The Beak of the Finch.

[Liza Q]

That is what the communal process of science is for. Peer review is to suss out bias and error.

 

So you are of the opinion that the entire process of scientific inquiry and peer review is biased and cannot be trusted to eventually hash out flaw, biases, errors and differences of opinion?

 

No. I am of the opinion that most of what I have read on both sides seems to written by an arrogant blowhard. Not just on the age of the earth, but on climate and vaccines and fossil fuels. All that is beyond the scope of this thread..I am just trying to explain my distaste for popular writing on these topics.

 

And I know am not well-educated and I definitely struggle with anything technical, so I read popular explanations while frustrated that I am not able to understand anything more detailed. But I am going to try!

[creekland]

Wow, that was a lot of posts to catch up on!

 

Thanks all for keeping it pleasant reading.

 

With 492 Hive members having voted, the odds are staying quite similar:

 

20% believe it or tend to

68% don't or tend to

12% don't care

 

71.75% identify as Christian

28.25% do not

 

Do we have any idea how many regulars come to this board to know what kind of participation in voting we have?  Not # of posters (any topic) - just voters (posters or lurkers).

[Luanne]

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1912.31288.78.0/religion/christianity/archeology-proves-bible-history-accurate

[Guest]

I'd guess 2/3 of the votes are from lurkers, if you look at the number of unique posters compared to votes. You can actually figure it out but it's time consuming.

[albeto.]

I'm in NJ so not exactly the Bible Belt.  :)    I ran a homeschool 4-H group until I returned to work.   Of the 12 families that were in the club when I started it, at least 5 of them were strongly YE, at least 1 other was considering it.  The rest were adamantly NOT YE.    Those 5 strongly YE families were all members of the same church and a couple were related (SIL's) who decided to join together so it may not have been a great "random" sampling.   Since then I have run into other YE homeschoolers and it does seem like some of them homeschool to avoid what is being taught in schools - with evolution and OE stuff topping the list of things to avoid (but definitely not being the only things).

 

It came up in my 4-H group when we went to a bug museum (cockroaches have been around for a really really LOOOOOONG time), when we went to a rock & mineral museum, and a couple times hanging out at the library where we held our meetings.  One mom had a kid very into dinosaurs and would skip anything talking about x years ago in those books.  Now, they were okay with the tour guides doing their usual spiel - they didn't expect things to be modified to accommodate them.  But, it did lead me to avoiding the fossil activity I was planning.

 

This is one way in which anti-science sentiments spread, and one example why I do care what people believe. It matters because it affects others in a negative way. Children shouldn't miss out on education because some participants feel strongly about their personal religious beliefs. 

[BrookValley.]

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1912.31288.78.0/religion/christianity/archeology-proves-bible-history-accurate

 

Luanne, you really should consider your sources more carefully if you want them to hold up your arguments.

[hornblower]

I've never read any Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, but from what I gather they seem like the Ken Hams of the other side - I'm right, you're wrong, don't be stupid.

 

That would annoy me even if I agreed on the science.

 

Read some Stephen Jay Gould, or The Beak of the Finch or Your Inner Fish  instead (caveat - I haven't read those either, but I hear they're good - maybe others can give more personal recommendations for books with good science but without opinionated blowhards). :)

 

 

I like Sam Harris & don't find him blowhardy (though as with everyone, he has his faults & I disagree with him about certain things.)  Dawkins picks me an awful lot but I would still wholeheartedly recommend his books God Is Not Great & The Selfish Gene. Oldies but goodies.

 

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist & while obviously he accepts evolutionary theory, his books have little to do with it specifically. His books are more about faith (The End of Faith) and ethics (lying, free will, moral landscape). Some of you guys might not know that Harris is a cultural Jew, and a pretty woo guy. Did his time in Indian ashrams etc. & he's a very serious meditator & proponent of mindfulness meditation for its brain benefits.  He's also quite iinterested in the transcendental experience & what it is from a neuroscientist pov. His book Waking Up is subtitled A Guide to Spirituality without Religion. 

 

For evolution books, I second Your Inner Fish. Also, Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

 

I'm personally not a fan of SJ Gould & Coyne has a book which is in essence a rebuttal to Gould's non-overlapping magisteria claims. Coyne's book is called Faith v. Fact, why science & religion are incompatible.

 

HHMI and their sister site biointeractive.org have a fair bit of resources on evolutionary theory & a whole unit on paleobiology .

 

 

 

FWIW when I studied biology at university in the mid 80's, yec never came up when we discussed evolution. This past school year, my dd was taking some physical anthropology (primarily hominid evolution) and paleontology (dinosaurs!) courses. Each one devoted an entire 3h lecture to evolutionary theory, discussing what 'theory' means, what evidence there is, that the controversies within the field are not about it happening but rather about specific mechanisms, etc. Dd was all :confused1:  about the time they had to spend on this topic but otoh, it was easy full marks for her on all those sections. 

 

I'm not sure whether the impetus for this emphasis is to offset YEC in schools or pop culture, or whether it's just a commitment to making sure everyone has a more solid grasp on it.

 

[BrookValley.]

I'd guess 2/3 of the votes are from lurkers, if you look at the number of unique posters compared to votes. You can actually figure it out but it's time consuming.

 

I would imagine a good number are lurkers, too, though I don't have the mental energy to figure much out right now, especially if it's time consuming. lol. 

 

The other thing I was musing about looking at the poll is only ~500 people have voted. How many members of this forum are there [ETA: I found that info. 64,180 registered members]? I'm thinking 500 is a pretty small percentage, and the poll has probably attracted quite a few people interested in YEC discussion, for or against. Also, like I think someone else already suggested (was it Lulu? I forget. That mental energy thing again), there is probably a larger overlap of YEC and homeschoolers, and this is a homeschooling board, so...I would guess the number of YEC believers suggested by the poll is probably higher than the general population.

 

But I'm just thinking out loud here, for no other reason than I find it kinda interesting.

[Pen]

The numbers change how I think about it.

 

Small numbers - more inclined to live and let live.

 

Growing/larger numbers - not so inclined to do so.

 

 

I'm thinking again about the homeschoolers in my area. Not only are there more YEC homeschool families, each with on average more children in it, but also the next generation for the YEC group has been started very early, and has been very fruitful and multiplying.

 

I am troubled now thinking about homeschooling in this area being used at least in part to avoid contact with non YEC viewpoints, thence followed by it seems Community or Christian college, or no college, such that views are likely still to remain without any contrary views given. Others whom they might meet such as myself do not say anything for fear of offending a religious sensibility and the "to each his own" feeling.  Even the large families may be a factor that comes from a different way of understanding science and environmental issues, population problems and so on, rather than sticking to scripture.  As well as that it also becomes a democratic majority politics issue within a very powerful country on the global stage, though I'll not say more on that due to board rules issues.

 

I absolutely do not want homeschooling curtailed. For us it is for sure the best way to get my son educated, and not only the best way, but really given his learning challenges and my experience having tried 2 different brick and mortar schools, the only way.  In homeschool his positive side from being 2e can shine, in brick and mortar school he was academically just vegetating and thinking he was dumb. But, the more I think about this, whole YEC issue and wider implications of that and scientific illiteracy, the more I am feeling troubled. 

 

Almost universally, I have liked these people, who also happen to be YEC homeschoolers, when I have met them. The kids are extremely nice kids by and large. That is not completely a separate matter since their being raised YEC is also an aspect of their being raised to be respectful to volunteer at a soup kitchen and so on. They are not the neighborhood troublemakers, which we certainly do have. (ETA the 3 homeschooled non YEC kids are also not the trouble makers and are as or even more amazing than the YEC group.  The troublemakers as it happens here, could be different, but happens to be, all public schoolers.)

 

Obviously, it is all very complicated. And people are complicated and multi-faceted.

 

The YEC view in my exact small area seems to go with 3 different denominations, and each group has different beliefs that go along with the YEC beliefs, each of which probably has its own implications in terms of other things that science applies to, such as environmental issues. One group seems to regard the idea that God declared Creation Good very important and also that the meek shall inherit the earth important and thus tends to seem to care more about the earth, the other two seem to have much more of a view that the present Creation and Earth are not of particular importance, sort of a throw-away planet and of little value on the way to the Eternity of Heaven. As well, I think beliefs in miracles can allow for the idea that if God wants the environment cleaned up, God can do that, or perhaps an idea that with the second coming, will do that.  I'm not sure. Anyway even the part of this YEC local homeschooling contingent that considers themselves "organic" is using a h*lluva (and the start of that word is not unintended) lot of herbicide on their farm, which drains down into a trout and salmon return home to spawn creek, which.....

 

Of course, big corporations, the logging industry around, is doing as bad or worse. But then, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

I feel. Sad. 

 

Very Sad.

[sunflowerlady]

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1912.31288.78.0/religion/christianity/archeology-proves-bible-history-accurate

Thank you for posting that. I read some of it and will read more later. For now I need to go eat some luncb.

[albeto.]

I get this. But I do react when I read this in a bio of Sam Harris - "Harris is a cofounder and the CEO of Project Reason, a nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society." I would prefer to know that my scientific information is coming from someone not devoted to secular values - or Christian ones. I doubt that I can find anything truly objective. Galileo wasn't trying to disprove the existence of the supernatural, only making observations. As far as I know, Darwin was the same. I don't know this about what I read today.

 

The entirety of the scientific database of knowledge is truly objective. That's the function of the scientific method. Objectivity over subjectivity is precisely what guided its development, as Matry explained upthread. If I were to offer an illustration to make the same point from a different angle, I'd suggest the body of science isn't meant to be read like an internet forum. We don't read the last research study as the last word, the authority in any given subject until the next last word is published. Instead, we look to the trends, the general scope of knowledge as it comes forth from the rapidly expanding body of knowledge. The age of the earth and the theory of evolution that explains the biodiversity we see on the earth are objective facts simply because hundreds of thousands of independent published researches confirm this fact, each from their own detailed point of inquiry. 

 

I think it's worth noting that biologists like Dawkins, and neurologists like Harris, speak with knowledge about their own fields of study, evolutionary biology and neurology respectively. That they've been tapped as default speakers against incorporating religious beliefs into the body of science shouldn't be a detractor from the scientific knowledge they discover and share (Dawkins anyway, I've no idea of any scientific discoveries Harris has made).

 

But here's the thing, science doesn't need a charismatic speaker to be right. Science doesn't need a likable orator to be understood and valued. There is no "message" to be trusted. It doesn't matter if each and every scientist in existence is a card-carrying pile of dirt, mean to his mother and hates kittens. These personality traits don't have any influence on the information. As they say, science doesn't care about our opinions. It doesn't care if we feel emotionally empowered or particularly vulnerable. It doesn't care if we like a more colorful or simple explanation more, or if our experiences don't seem to conform to the explanations. It is truly objective. 

 

This link is a good introduction for those who are not familiar with how the theory of evolution works, from where its information was gathered, or how it is applied in the body of knowledge today: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[wendyroo]

https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/1912.31288.78.0/religion/christianity/archeology-proves-bible-history-accurate

 

 

Most scholars lower the Bible to the level of Homer—mythology in poetic form. Unfortunately, many Bible scholars, ministers and theologians agree. Yet, there are mountains of evidence to prove otherwise.

 

Well, if Dennis Leap, author of the article, with a Bachelors in English Literature and Masters in Library Science says...

 

 

Let’s be plain: You can rely on the historical accuracy of the Bible.

 

...then I guess I can just disregard "most scholars", Bible scholars, ministers and theologians who are willfully ignoring the "mountains of evidence" that would...well, it would support many of their worldviews, so I'm not sure why they would be ignoring it, but Dennis Leap says they are.

 

Wendy