How do we feel about young earth creationism?

[Momto6inIN]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I don’t think that most of the dating of fossils comes down to evolutionary theory. I actually think those are separate issues 🙂 . 

We totally don’t need to debate, just a note. 

I'll try to get back to this too 😊

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

I'll try to come back to this later. Right now I'm on my way to teach public speaking to six 4-8 year olds 😉

Good luck! 😄. 

[Not_a_Number]

41 minutes ago, Terabith said:

“You know, if there’s only one universe, I think you would almost have to believe in a God, because it’s so entirely crazy that all the conditions of the universe are so precisely tuned to make life possible.  It’s really only if there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to live in the one that makes life possible that the idea of no creator makes sense.  Obviously, I do believe in the multiverse, but the further I get in science, the harder it is for me to really make fun of theists.  If I am really honest.”  

Of course, there's be no one to observe this if life hadn't existed 😉 . So it's a little self-defeating as an argument. 

[Moonhawk]

So, background: Catholic, parents were disparaging of evolutionary theory but didn't outright refute it other than a few swipes about how the Bible was written God who was the only one there at the beginning, so who are you going to trust more? I didn't know YEC was really a thing until after I was an adult, just that some people "didn't believe" in evolution. I still don't understand much about this movement and truthfully have not given it too much thought as I do not have internal conflict looking for resolution on the topic. 

So my sincere questions/issues with YEC are the common issues on fossils, geological data, and astronomy data. God is not the great Trickster, that is His antithesis. I don't understand why God, who loves us and wants us to be reunited with Him, would put more stumbling blocks on our road. "Testing" is a polite way of saying "tricking", and "tricking" is the polite term for lying, but God is all truth. The great Trickster is someone else entirely who would love for us to be led astray. But think of ALL of the data that would be "tricking" us, and I cannot hold that God would let the trickster mess with His creation to that extent.

Second, if all things are created by God, all creation gives glory to Him and points to His Existence. Therefore, science is how we better come to understand Him through our surroundings, it is merely how we understand the world around us and has no motive behind itself. Science was in effect created by Him. So if science is showing us something beyond reasonable doubt, it is showing us something about God or that God intends us to understand to better know Him. 

FWIW, I think that evolutionary theory does have flaws which aren't discussed or talked about much because it has almost become as God by others, which makes this all more difficult to talk about. I don't think evolution as we understand it now as the be-all and end-all of how things came to be, but it is a portion of the truth. 

I'm not saying all this in an argumentative way or trying to convince anyone, I've appreciated the YEC people on this thread explaining their reasoning and beliefs, it's enlightening for me and I sincerely want to understand more. I guess I'm wondering how others work around these issues when deciding that YEC is the closest truth we have.

[elegantlion]

6 hours ago, Hyacinth said:

But do you put your shopping carts back or leave them in the parking lot?

Though is it a shopping cart or buggy?🦄

 

 

I wasn't exposed to YEC until I started homeschooling. I tend to read the bible as literature rather than literal,  however. One book I enjoyed on this is Reading the Bible as Literature. although I can't remember what it specifically says about creation . It is also my opinion, that if you're going to truly understand a source, you should read it in the original language. Obviously, this is not something that all will have opportunity or willingness to do. 

[rebcoola]

Our church is open handed on the issue officially.  I am old earth but do think we don't have as complete a picture as we think.    

I only care when people make it a salvation issue.  I became very frustrated and disillusioned with our local christian school.  When several of the teachers made earth age their hill to die on with our exchange student.  It really turned her off any curiosity in Christianity.  

[Denise Still in Florida]

Can anyone recommend a good vacuum cleaner. 

 

😆😆😆

Edited October 5, 2020 by Denise Still in Florida

[Skippy]

I unapologetically believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I don't have anything else to add because this question was obviously posted as a joke and not a serious question.

[Terabith]

1 hour ago, Denise Still in Florida said:

Can anyone recommend a good vacuum cleaner. 

 

😆😆😆

I have laminate flooring so I know nothing about vacuums, but my husband recently bought a crock pot at Target, and his only criteria were if it was big enough and which was the cheapest.  He didn't even ask the Hive!

[Moonhawk]

1 hour ago, Denise Still in Florida said:

Can anyone recommend a good vacuum cleaner. 

 

😆😆😆

The best vacuums only work because the earth is flat, because otherwise you never get full suction.

Just sayin'. 

[theelfqueen]

4 hours ago, Terabith said:

 

 I tend to believe that YEC damages many people’s faith, because they don’t know how to throw out the baby (YEC) without throwing out the bath water of their faith as well. 

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to throw out the bathwater but KEEP the baby... LOL

Or that saying is about something very different than I've always understood it to mean. 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I have laminate flooring so I know nothing about vacuums, but my husband recently bought a crock pot at Target, and his only criteria were if it was big enough and which was the cheapest.  He didn't even ask the Hive!

Crockpots leech lead into your food. Just FYI! 

😉 

[cintinative]

8 hours ago, sassenach said:

I once heard someone teach that when Jesus created the wine out of water, he didn’t create new wine, he created fine, aged wine. So therefore, the creation of the earth, even if young earth, does not eliminate the idea of creating an aged earth. That was a novel thought to me. 
 

Personally, I am utterly convinced that the earth and everyone and everything on it was created and designed. I believe Adam and Eve were real people, and the garden of Eden was a real place. I am unattached to a timeline as it translates into my perception of time. 

I have heard of this too.

This one (below) is a theory I had not heard about until last year. Taken from:  https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.cfm

ETA: So apparently I am undercaffeinated and didn't realize this thread was in jest. Oh well. Enjoy anyway!

"Framework Interpretation

Brief Summary:
Provoked by exegetical considerations, the Framework Interpretation sees the Creation Week as a topical guide unconcerned with a real chronology. Dividing the works of Creation into two triads, Moses presents his audience with a literary device to demonstrate theological truths of covenant promises and the role of the Sabbath.

Argument:
Although the fiat creative events ("Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light") refer to actual historical events that actually occurred, and the Creation Week is presented in normal, solar days, the Creation Account really functions as a literary structure presenting the acts in a nonsequential, topical order. The purpose for this is theological.

The Framework Interpretation sees the six creative days dividing easily into two parallel sets of three (that is, two triads). The first triad — Days One, Two, and Three — deals with the creation kingdoms (or realms), while the second — Days Four, Five, and Six — deals with the creature kings (or rulers). A visual representation of this framework follows: 

The rulers in the second triad are given rule over their realms (the first triad) at the time of their creations: the luminaries are established to "rule over" the day and night; the birds and fish receive a blessing of dominion over their respective realms ("Be fruitful, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth"); and even man is given this dominion over his realm specifically (cf. Genesis 2:5) and all the created realms generally (Genesis 1:26, 28). These realms and rulers are in turn subordinated as a whole under the divine King of Creation in His Sabbath rest on the seventh day. Just as man works six days and consecrates that work to God's glory on the seventh day, so did God create a model for this by bringing the work of His six creative days under divine consecration to His own glory on the Seventh Day.

Not only does this interpretation see a theological frame in the Creation Week, but it sees no need for chronologization inherent in the text. In fact, the interpretation argues fairly sharply against making the Creation Account into a literal 168-hour sequence. Beside literary support (in the form of parallelism between Days One and Four, the chiastic nature of Days Two and Five, and dischronologization throughout), the Framework Interpretation applies God's seeming use of ordinary providence in Genesis 2:5-6 to demonstrate that such providence is likely active throughout God's creation of the universe.

This is a brief sketch of a multi-faceted interpretation and the sources below are recommended to garner a more accurate understanding of the view.

Supposed Problems:

The Fourth Commandment seems to demand a regular 168-hour Creation Week to base its command upon.

The difficulty of relating the view is seen as a distinct disadvantage.

Though there is evidence for dischronologization in related passages, this does not necessitate a nonsequential view of the Creation Account.

Just because the Days arrange themselves into theologically relevant triads doesn't mean they can't behave literally as well.

Bibliography:

Mark Futato, "Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3," Westminster Theological Journal. 60.1 (Spring 1998) 1-21 (Part One/Part Two).

Irons, Lee. "The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary." Ordained Servant. Vol. 9, no. 1 (January 2000), pp. 7-11

Irons, Lee, with Meredith Kline. "The Framework View." The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation. Ed. David Hagopian. Mission Viejo, California: Crux Press, Inc., 2001.

Kline, Meredith. "Because It Had Not Rained." Westminster Theological Journal. 20.2 (May 1958) 146-57.

--- "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 48.1 (April 1996) 2-15."

Edited October 5, 2020 by cintinative

[MercyA]

2 hours ago, Skippy said:

I unapologetically believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I don't have anything else to add because this question was obviously posted as a joke and not a serious question.

Me, too. 👍

[Janeway]

18 hours ago, Terabith said:

Just to continue my stirring the pot and old times sake theme.  

I'm voting for utterly ridiculous hokum.  

Discuss.

I am going with..while it is not really my personal conclusion on how Earth began, I cannot say I am the expert on it. None of us were there so we do not really know. I am sure in 1000 years from now, people will laugh about anything we believe now and talk about how shocking it was that we believed things or that our medicine was not really medicine, etc etc etc. I also think that it is not good to make fun of someone else's beliefs. 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Janeway

[J-rap]

2 hours ago, Skippy said:

I unapologetically believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I don't have anything else to add because this question was obviously posted as a joke and not a serious question.

Well I think it was posted somewhat light-heartedly, but obviously many posters (including the OP) have responded thoughtfully, and I think that's okay too!  I don't think there was any implied path it was supposed to take.  (But I agree with your first sentence!)

[kbutton]

6 hours ago, Terabith said:

I do think there’s a certain arrogance that I have seen among evolutionary biologists that I have known.  My husband did high performance scientific computing for a group of them, and they were constantly mocking his faith.  And we’re Episcopalians!  My husband says there’s a lot of hand waving that they do and that scientific culture has a huge element of faith; people just won’t acknowledge the assumptions that they make.  That’s a lot to say that I think there’s room for both.  I definitely taught my kids astronomy and paleontology and evolution, but I also wasn’t afraid of telling them (especially when they were very little) that some things are the way they are because God likes them that way.  
 

When my husband was getting his masters in astronomy, I had an interesting conversation with his advisor, who was incredibly entertained by the idea that I was getting my M.Div.  He was a very vocal atheist and a cool guy, but one day he told me, in a sort of musing way:  “You know, if there’s only one universe, I think you would almost have to believe in a God, because it’s so entirely crazy that all the conditions of the universe are so precisely tuned to make life possible.  It’s really only if there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to live in the one that makes life possible that the idea of no creator makes sense.  Obviously, I do believe in the multiverse, but the further I get in science, the harder it is for me to really make fun of theists.  If I am really honest.”   Clearly, his was a minority opinion, but it was interesting.  

I appreciate both of these stories. The first one makes me think "Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb" about my own YEC leanings, lol! 

I know the topic was brought up tongue-in-cheek, but I figured people would still bite.

I truly appreciate the thoughtfulness of people all the way around in this particular thread. 

4 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

So my sincere questions/issues with YEC are the common issues on fossils, geological data, and astronomy data. God is not the great Trickster, that is His antithesis. I don't understand why God, who loves us and wants us to be reunited with Him, would put more stumbling blocks on our road. "Testing" is a polite way of saying "tricking", and "tricking" is the polite term for lying, but God is all truth. The great Trickster is someone else entirely who would love for us to be led astray. But think of ALL of the data that would be "tricking" us, and I cannot hold that God would let the trickster mess with His creation to that extent.

Second, if all things are created by God, all creation gives glory to Him and points to His Existence. Therefore, science is how we better come to understand Him through our surroundings, it is merely how we understand the world around us and has no motive behind itself. Science was in effect created by Him. So if science is showing us something beyond reasonable doubt, it is showing us something about God or that God intends us to understand to better know Him. 

FWIW, I think that evolutionary theory does have flaws which aren't discussed or talked about much because it has almost become as God by others, which makes this all more difficult to talk about. I don't think evolution as we understand it now as the be-all and end-all of how things came to be, but it is a portion of the truth. 

I'm not saying all this in an argumentative way or trying to convince anyone, I've appreciated the YEC people on this thread explaining their reasoning and beliefs, it's enlightening for me and I sincerely want to understand more. I guess I'm wondering how others work around these issues when deciding that YEC is the closest truth we have.

I like this whole line of thought, but I bolded this part. I think someone else also said something similar, and I appreciate hearing people say that they don't think their points of view necessarily have every single kink worked out either. In discussions IRL, I rarely hear anyone say this. I appreciate the humility and honesty of that statement. I was just googling the Neanderthals a bit after an article about "Neanderthal DNA" came up in a discussion about the current plague, and so many schools of thought have come and gone on just that bit of scientific history. I am sure there is a lot more that all viewpoints have floated, worked through, and discarded.

[annandatje]

I was born atheist and have remained atheist, so that obviously colors my response.   The big bang theory or similar theories seem far more credible to me than an invisible all knowing deity creating universe.  Young earth creationism is, well, let's just leave it at prior to homeschooling, I assumed young earth believers were on fringe similar to flat earthers.

[Scarlett]

15 minutes ago, J-rap said:

Well I think it was posted somewhat light-heartedly, but obviously many posters (including the OP) have responded thoughtfully, and I think that's okay too!  I don't think there was any implied path it was supposed to take.  (But I agree with your first sentence!)

Yes she was lightheartedly pot stirring in nostalgia.  But we have had many many threads about this topic over the years.  

[Scarlett]

Another thing I was taught is that the Bible is not a scientific account or textbook.  I think that really stuck with me because I just can’t get too worked up by when the earth was created. 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Scarlett

[Terabith]

I truly wasn't attempting to make fun of anyone.  I did start it somewhat in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner, but I do genuinely think it's interesting, and I really do like hearing what people have to say about the topic.  I just wanted to include a nod to "the old days."  

[Scarlett]

22 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I truly wasn't attempting to make fun of anyone.  I did start it somewhat in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner, but I do genuinely think it's interesting, and I really do like hearing what people have to say about the topic.  I just wanted to include a nod to "the old days."  

I got it. You pot stirrer you.  

[Excelsior! Academy]

14 hours ago, Megs said:

I am a young earth creationist. To me, it’s just taking every piece and part of the Bible at face value. If I start picking apart one section, what would stop me from picking apart other sections? It’s totally a faith thing for me. I know that’s not the popular belief, but I’ve never cared about being popular anyway. 😀

 

9 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

I am a YEC.I didn't read very many other responses.

I minored in anthropology and took several evolutionary theory courses, one of them a graduate level course, so I am somewhat more informed than your average Joe. I was not a born again Christian at the time and thought YEC was only for stupid uneducated people and said so publicly more than once. Even after I became a Christian I still cringed inwardly whenever people talked about it. How could they he so backward and uninformed?

But the more I read and the more I examined what I'd been taught in my college courses, the more questions I had about the accuracy of the science. I won't bore you with the details and I will not get into one of those "show me your sources" debates, because in my experience those never go well and they don't convince anyone. Suffice it to say that the conclusion I came to was that there are a lot of significant holes in evolutionary theory and for it to be accepted as fact is stretching the data.

In addition to the science, it also came down to a faith issue for me. I could not simultaneously believe in millions and millions of years of death before Adam and also believe that Jesus Christ brought me new life. The idea that Adam brought death and Jesus brought life in response are inextricably linked in Scripture. There was a significant amount of cognitive dissonance there that I couldn't handle.

I very much dislike Apologia's and AiG's stance that YEC is a salvation issue because I know I was saved even as a believer in evolution. But I equally dislike and resent the stance that I'm stupid and uninformed because I am now YEC.

 

6 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

I agree with you. The more science education and knowledge I have, the less sense macroevolution makes to me (age of the earth is is a different story). I read through the books in BYL's evolution lineup, and wow did they do the opposite to me of what they were supposed to! Like you, I also won't even step a toe into those "debates", though, because we all know that they will go absolutely nowhere.

I agree with you all.

 

I am a young earth creationist, but I am okay with everyone who isn't.  It's not really something I dwell on or spend a lot of time thinking about.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Excelsior! Academy

[Momto6inIN]

7 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Mom to 6...

I am completely fascinated by this.  I grew up Catholic but am no longer a believer.  I would *LOVE* to discuss with you how you came to your conclusions.  I am not trying to get into a "show me your sources" debate, and I won't try to convince you.  I am genuinely wondering how your thought processes have gone for you.  And if you have any questions for me I have no problem sharing my thoughts but generally don't because, like you said....."show your sources" debates.....that's not something I am interested in here.  

I realize some very intelligent and reasonable and faith-filled people will not come to the same conclusions as me and I’m not trying to convince anybody. I also am not interested in debating any of my points, although questions and discussion are welcome. I’m just answering happysmiley’s question about my own personal journey.

I guess I began with the premise that the universe and all that’s in it can’t be an accident. I realize that not all people begin with that premise and it’s somewhat debatable. But it’s really not to me, as I can’t envision the possibility that the incredible intricacy of how a plant turns sunshine into sugar or how a child grows in the womb all happened without some kind of purposeful design. So evolution without some kind of creating force at the beginning was never an option for me.

As a new Christian, someone who hadn’t been raised particularly religious, my world was being turned upside down. Dearly held beliefs and thoughts and feelings and arguments were being challenged daily by my new faith and I was unusually conscious of the idea that something you’ve thought your whole life was weird and wrong might actually be true and good. Scientists like Einstein admit to the possibility that at any point the principles they have worked so hard to support with their experiments and life’s work might be proven wrong, and it made sense to apply that same humility to my own thoughts and theories.

Some sticking points for me:

I had a hard time believing that mutations, which we almost universally know to be harmful, could give some kind of advantage to an organism.

When you really think about the plentiful number of fossils in the world, it’s kind of incredible to try to figure out how they got there. I mean, we all know what happens when things die. They lie on the ground and they either decompose or are eaten by scavengers and they are eventually turned into dirt. They can only become a fossil if they are almost immediately covered by silt after death. So why are there so many of them? That seemed to lend credence to the idea of a worldwide flood to me.

The history of evolutionary theory and the development of the geologic time column that I learned about in college. It seemed to me from my reading that the theory of uniformitarianism came about solely because the current geological thinking didn’t allow for the millions of years necessary for evolution to have occurred, not because of any new evidence about the earth’s age or how it behaves.

If evolution is true, at some point in time there had to have been a sea dwelling mother that gave birth to an offspring that was not of her same species and could not breathe in the water but somehow still survived to get to land and then reproduce with ??? something. So often we think of evolution happening on this grand scale of millenia, and I guess in one sense it does. But if it’s true, it also is a mechanism that works on individual organisms at particular places in time and so this type of seemingly ridiculous occurrence would not only happen once but have to happen countless numbers of times in countless different situations to countless different organisms. That stretches my imagination.

The idea that "early humans" were primitive and we modern day humans are more advanved evolutionarily speaking has some troubling implications. After all, if evolution is true, then we're still evolving and will continue to evolve. The implication is that, genetically speaking, some of us are more advanced and some of us are more primitive than others. Eugenics, anyone?

I finally came to the conclusion that the answers I had been seeking were philosophical answers, not really scientific ones. Where did we come from and how did we get here? No scientist or theologian, regardless of what he/she tells you, can answer definitively what happened when the universe began. No human was there; it can’t have been observed; and science is all about what we can observe. So I was left with a philosophical question and after looking at all the scientific evidence as well as the verses from Scripture I mentioned in my first post, I discovered that the YEC argument made more logical and consistent sense to me.

Once I was able to get over my pride and look at the YEC research with an open mind instead of one determined to think they were all stupid quacks, I was able to find some articles and books that answered some of my more detailed questions and gave me even more confidence in the science as well as the theology behind YEC. Some of these books were from AiG and while I very much dislike and disagree with their stance that people who aren’t YEC aren’t “real” Christians, their Answers books were very helpful to me (after weeding through all their over the top rhetoric).

@Quill – It’s my understanding that most YEC scientists would say that dinosaurs were created at the same time as all the other animals that we now consider to be predators and that they lived at the same time as humans and were wiped out in the Ice Age that occurred as a result of the major weather disturbances after the flood.

@Not_a_Number – I’ve listened to entire lectures devoted to the known issues and problems with various dating techniques. And that’s just the problems that most scientists will own up to 😉

@Moonhawk - I don't know what to say about the idea that Satan put fossils in the ground to trick us. I've heard that idea, but it's mostly from people who don't really have a scientific basis for their beliefs and believe in YEC soley because of their faith without doing any research. Most YEC scientists think most fossils were deposited in layers as a result of the flood. I don't think God tries to trick us but I do think that people have been confused about God's motives and character and about how He works from the beginning of time and that is still going on now despite how smart and technologically advanced we are.

@Terabith - I knew it was tongue in cheeck and I didn't think you were causing trouble (well, not much anyway lol) but I still figured people might be interested in my kind of unique perspective so I decided to answer it seriously anyway. Hope you don't mind me making a light hearted thread more serious!

[Terabith]

2 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

@Terabith - I knew it was tongue in cheeck and I didn't think you were causing trouble (well, not much anyway lol) but I still figured people might be interested in my kind of unique perspective so I decided to answer it seriously anyway. Hope you don't mind me making a light hearted thread more serious!

I'm so glad you did!!!  It's fascinating, and honestly rather similar to how I think about it all.  I'm definitely not a young earther, but I have a hard time with the mutations thing, in particular.  I've often thought that if evolution is guided only by chance, in most circumstances it would take a lot longer than we know it did.  

[Momto6inIN]

8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Mom to 6, thank you for your answers.  It seems that ulimately, your thinking has to begin with a basis of belief in divine design in the first place, is that correct?

Yes, for me, for sure. I read the book Signature in the Cell and it was fascinating to read their argument that information (specifically DNA) has to come from somewhere. Cells are literally following directions and directions can't come from nowhere or from accident.

[Not_a_Number]

Thanks, @Momto6inIN! I will keep my promise and will not debate, however hard it is for me 😉. I appreciate the explanation! 

[Guest]

Thank you, @Momto6inIN, for that intelligent explanation. I do actually agree with several points you raise, I just don’t feel like the Biblical account answers them well, either. 

[Momto6inIN]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

Interesting thought process...

I hope you don't mind my asking but I am going to anyway.  And I won't be offended if you don't want to answer...

Why can't directions from from nowhere/accident?

I am thinking of things like deer paths in the woods.  Unless we presume that something told the deer where to go....those paths literally start out as one deer goes that way, another follows his tracks and then another...and before you know it....it's a deer path.  And then, later.....less deer follow and it eventually disappears.  

 

Not offended 🙂

I'm not a biologist or an apologist, so I may get this wrong. But to me the fact that the deer notice the tracks and follow is a form of giving directions. It's not random.

[Momto6inIN]

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

Thank you, @Momto6inIN, for that intelligent explanation. I do actually agree with several points you raise, I just don’t feel like the Biblical account answers them well, either. 

Like I said, intelligent reasonable faithful people will probably disagree with me, and I consider you all 3 🙂

[Momto6inIN]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

Huh...interesting!

What about river paths.....is there divine intervention in the direction the water flows?  (I hope that doesn't come across wrong.)

I don't know that I'd call it divine intervention exactly, but water does flow over the path of least resistance. It twists because of elevation and erosion and a zillion other reasons all combined, but not randomly.

[Momto6inIN]

31 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Thanks, @Momto6inIN! I will keep my promise and will not debate, however hard it is for me 😉. I appreciate the explanation! 

I don't mind discussing and answering questions. I just don't want to argue/debate or defend myself, that's all. Plus I'm old and I'm going to bed soon 😁 so I might not respond right away.

[Danae]

38 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

I had a hard time believing that mutations, which we almost universally know to be harmful, could give some kind of advantage to an organism.

I’m not engaging your larger point, since you’ve said you don’t want to, but the bolded is just not true.  The vast majority of mutations are neither helpful nor harmful nor even noticed. 
 

 Here’s an Atlantic article about it.  https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/your-body-acquires-trillions-of-new-mutations-every-day/559472/

[Jaybee]

I'm pretty much a YEC. However, it isn't something I spend much time thinking on. We didn't use only YE curriculum, and my kids also watched shows/documentaries with other viewpoints without my picking it apart. Interestingly, I went to ps in the Bible belt, and was taught evolution. In fact, back in those days (I'm old) where I lived, people didn't talk about it a lot (even in Christian circles), and it was all kind of compartmentalized in my mind. As a child, though, I had questions that evolution didn't answer. Those who disagree, please don't take offense, but as a second-grader, when I first heard of the big bang theory, it sounded crazy to me. I was a little surprised when I realized the teacher was serious. Didn't make sense to me at all--and that wasn't because I was from a Christian family, because I was never taught any other explanation for how it was done. For an explosion to cause what later became a world of great beauty and complexity, even within the smallest organisms alive in it, was not credible to me. Macroevolution never made sense to me either. But I basically just didn't worry about it much, thinking that like in many areas, we don't have full knowledge of things we often assume we do. I did see the hand of a Master Designer behind it all.

However, as an adult, in a philosophy of religion class, I was exposed for the first time to a variety of theories and approaches that I'd never heard. We weren't told what to believe, by the way, just given the support that the followers of the various theories used to back their beliefs. I was thrilled to find that there were actually those who were intelligent who could back up YEC with reasonable and sensible sounding scientific support. (I'm tired and not in the mood to go look up all that now, because it's been a long time since I have even thought about it all, in case someone starts asking for sources, lol.) Now as a homeschooling parent, I will have to say that not all YEC materials are created equal, and some that passed through our shelves were not of excellent quality. (A pet peeve of mine; if you are a Christian and going to produce materials, in my opinion, they should be of the highest quality in both scholarship and otherwise.)

Whenever this topic comes up, though, I can't help but think of my dad's response: "I believe God created it. He's God, so he could do it however he wanted to."

I know this was started a bit lightheartedly, but I can't let my fellow YECers take all the brunt of the opposition without throwing in my support, lol.

[Katy]

I can't remember where I read this.  I think it was on some blog about homeschooling before I found the Well Trained Mind.  The gist of the blog was that you should make your children major in engineering or the sciences because the liberal arts were a hotbed of liberal morass.  I was raised by a VERY feminist mother whose heroine was Gloria Steinem, so this reactionary stuff was fascinating to me. Apparently he was a science professor of some kind.  In a Q&A post the blogger was asked how he could reconcile YEC with science, and he went on to say that an coworker of his was a Christian astrophysicist. His coworker's theory was that both YEC and creation through evolution were literally true.  Because our solar system is at the edge of the universe, not the center, and because time expands in space, the earth could be 6,000 years old if you count by the time at the center of the universe and billions of years old out here at the edge.

I've never spent time researching this to see if it could be true.  I posted it here once and whoever answered quickly dismissed it as ridiculous.  But it's still my favorite theory.

[Loowit]

The church I grew up in (non-denominational) had no stance on it.  I don't really remember it being discussed much except by one Sunday school teacher whose comment was basically, he didn't know how God did it, but He did and the details don't matter.

Evolution was taught in school from elementary up. I pretty much believed evolution until high school when I went to hear a speaker with my dad about YEC.  I had never really thought about it much at all before that.  It was very interesting and I spent a lot of time looking into it.  I later became a YEC.  I do not like to talk about it with others because I don't like getting looked at like I am stupid.

My kids use mainly apologia and some of the new stuff put out by Dr. Wile after he left apologia.  We never hid the idea of evolution from the kids.  They watched plenty of shows and documentaries that obviously would have an evolutionary stance.  I let them make up their own minds on it.

I do not see YEC as a salvation issue, and no one else I know does either.  Almost every church I have attended has been very open to believing what you believe on the topic.  Even my bible college I attended years ago which was very conservative, had no official stance.  I even remember attending a debate between two of our professors on the topic.

[Not_a_Number]

34 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

I don't mind discussing and answering questions. I just don't want to argue/debate or defend myself, that's all. Plus I'm old and I'm going to bed soon 😁 so I might not respond right away.

I don't think my attempts to ask questions will avoid debate 😉 . But thank you again for answering. 

[kiwik]

11 hours ago, Reefgazer said:

I have no problem with it as a personal belief system, but it isn't science, doesn't meet any of the definitions of science, and shouldn't be taught as science.

 That is how I feel.  It just doesn't belong in a science class.  I suspect many people at church are YEC but it is not a topic I feel the need to discuss with them.

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Jaybee said:

I know this was started a bit lightheartedly, but I can't let my fellow YECers take all the brunt of the opposition without throwing in my support, lol.

I admire that. 🙂 

[Momto6inIN]

9 hours ago, Katy said:

I can't remember where I read this.  I think it was on some blog about homeschooling before I found the Well Trained Mind.  The gist of the blog was that you should make your children major in engineering or the sciences because the liberal arts were a hotbed of liberal morass.  I was raised by a VERY feminist mother whose heroine was Gloria Steinem, so this reactionary stuff was fascinating to me. Apparently he was a science professor of some kind.  In a Q&A post the blogger was asked how he could reconcile YEC with science, and he went on to say that an coworker of his was a Christian astrophysicist. His coworker's theory was that both YEC and creation through evolution were literally true.  Because our solar system is at the edge of the universe, not the center, and because time expands in space, the earth could be 6,000 years old if you count by the time at the center of the universe and billions of years old out here at the edge.

I've never spent time researching this to see if it could be true.  I posted it here once and whoever answered quickly dismissed it as ridiculous.  But it's still my favorite theory.

I have no idea if this is true either, but it's fascinating to think about!

[NewIma]

My dh and I purposely asked our rabbi to have our dd's Torah portion for her bat mitzvah be the beginning of Genesis.  We do not take the Bible/Torah literally and also believe in the science of evolution. My dh is microbiologist and has seen evolution first-hand. During his phd work the lab nextdoor had been raising thousands of generations of fruitflies and could track their evolution, as one example. Anyway, the point is we still think the Torah/Bible is incredibly important even if we don't take it literally. We wanted dd to struggle with that and what does the creation story mean if it isn't literal truth, but points to truth. For her, she came away from her study with the ideas/truths that G-d made the world (with evolution), it is very very good, and we have a responsibility to take care of the earth.

[Momto6inIN]

9 hours ago, Danae said:

I’m not engaging your larger point, since you’ve said you don’t want to, but the bolded is just not true.  The vast majority of mutations are neither helpful nor harmful nor even noticed. 
 

 Here’s an Atlantic article about it.  https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/your-body-acquires-trillions-of-new-mutations-every-day/559472/

That was interesting! It wasn't clear to me though whether those were mutations that are passed along to offspring or just random cell mutations that occur solely in your own body.

[aaplank]

I am proudly a believer in YEC, yet it is a non issue for me in matters of "salvation".

I find it interesting that most people consider YEC to completely eschew science in favor of faith, as if YEC has no scientific basis or evidence.  To me there is enough scientific evidence to support a YEC viewpoint.  The science supports my faith. 

[Danae]

42 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

That was interesting! It wasn't clear to me though whether those were mutations that are passed along to offspring or just random cell mutations that occur solely in your own body.

Both.  All cells are subject to mutations, but only the ones that effect cells that become eggs and sperm are passed on.  That reduces the significant ones from trillions to hundreds.  And even then, mostly unnoticeable.  I mean, if you passed a mutation to one of your kids that caused their toenails to grow slightly slower than they otherwise would have would anyone ever notice? 

 

[Ausmumof3]

I grew up with a kind of version of the gap theory.  I think my faith was more open to discussion in early years but has become sadly more dogmatic in recent times which has pushed some people away and make others stay quiet.  I have to say the rules, sometimes incredibly simple rules that produce very complex seeming patterns in nature etc seem designed to me.  And also I have those moments when some kind of natural beauty just make me feel so totally amazed and in awe that it feels like it can only somehow be a kind of innate worship response to something.  
 

I did have a decent go at working through and wrestling with the science when Albeto was here forever ago.  At a certain point I realised that it wasn’t a sticking point for me with regards to faith.  Before that it seemed so important to figure it out properly.  After that it became something that I’d think occasionally but not something I was willing to invest too much time in anymore.

[J-rap]

20 hours ago, elegantlion said:

Though is it a shopping cart or buggy?🦄

 

 

I wasn't exposed to YEC until I started homeschooling. I tend to read the bible as literature rather than literal,  however. One book I enjoyed on this is Reading the Bible as Literature. although I can't remember what it specifically says about creation . It is also my opinion, that if you're going to truly understand a source, you should read it in the original language. Obviously, this is not something that all will have opportunity or willingness to do. 

I think reading through the Bible as one whole story, like a piece of literature, can be so valuable.  (And btw, the book you mentioned sounds really interesting! Just added it to my Amazon list. 🙂)  And I agree that having an understanding of the original language, culture of the times, etc., can have a huge impact on how things are interpreted.   I've learned so much from theologians who have that kind of education and background.   Learning more about the history and reliability of of the oral-tradition, the use of poetry and prose, etc., in those early cultures has been super interesting (and helpful) to me.  

[Guest]

When DD was a preschooler, we went to the Field Museum, where she was entranced by the "Evolving World" exhibit. When she went back to her sweet little LCMS preschool, she explained creation in terms of geological periods/epochs, mapping each to a day. Both made perfect sense to her-the Children's bible explanation, and the science, and she saw, in that repeated cycle of growth, development, and death, with each period gradually development a separate set of animals, plants, and, through this development, also preparing natural resources for the future, a plan in place just as clearly in the evolutionary explanation as in the biblical one. 

 

Now, of course, she's a cynical teenager. 

[kbutton]

17 hours ago, Katy said:

Because our solar system is at the edge of the universe, not the center, and because time expands in space, the earth could be 6,000 years old if you count by the time at the center of the universe and billions of years old out here at the edge.

Whether this specific idea pans out or not, I think that any reconciliation between creation and other views of origins that emerges will involve a willingness to entertain ideas like this.

[kbutton]

7 hours ago, Danae said:

Both.  All cells are subject to mutations, but only the ones that effect cells that become eggs and sperm are passed on.  That reduces the significant ones from trillions to hundreds.  And even then, mostly unnoticeable.  I mean, if you passed a mutation to one of your kids that caused their toenails to grow slightly slower than they otherwise would have would anyone ever notice? 

My son has at least two potential pathogenic mutations (each on a different gene), which then had to be analyzed in the light of population data and other characteristics (which protein(?) was changed, etc.). One was ultimately determined to be likely pathogenic because of his symptoms and a lack of other explanations for his pathology. The other is, so far, determined to be a VUS--variant of uncertain significance. Interestingly though, both genes that changed could have been the cause of his pathology and a flip of the same scenario would've led to a different, but similar, diagnosis. Even more interesting is that since both genes have common biochemical pathways, there is still potential for these genes to interact, and no one knows if those interactions will occur, and if they will be harmful or helpful! 

In his case, we know the pathological variation is de novo--a spontaneous mutation. We don't know about the VUS because no one else in the family was tested for the VUS gene when the other was determine to be pathogenic (my son had a very broad genetic panel done for aortic disease, then that panel was narrowed to only one gene for DH and I). There is also a very small chance that his mutation is a result of mosaicism, but our other child has no signs of symptoms of having the disease.

Going through the process of getting a genetic diagnosis for a family member really expanded on my understanding of high school biology (and college too--both were excellent foundations for understanding this). When you learn about inheritance, you generally learn that if you have a mutation on thus and such a gene, you have a such and such a disease. Interestingly, it's just not that straightforward. Even within a disease category, one family's genetic change can be different from another family's genetic change but have characteristics in common that make it disease-causing, a VUS, or a change that doesn't lead to pathology. It's so interesting!!!

In my son's case, he has Marfan Syndrome, but his VUS is for one of the genes that can cause Loeys's-Dietz Syndrome. It is not uncommon for people in the community of genetic aortic diseases to have multiple genetic changes all related to aortic disease and have some of those changes be considered benign. Very, very fascinating and strange.

About 25% of people with Marfan have spontaneous mutations, and I don't know if that is consistent with other autosomal dominant conditions or not. 

Anyway, just a concrete example of how genetic testing that most people don't need or have access to can shine a light on just how common genetic mutations are.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I grew up with a kind of version of the gap theory.  I think my faith was more open to discussion in early years but has become sadly more dogmatic in recent times which has pushed some people away and make others stay quiet.  I have to say the rules, sometimes incredibly simple rules that produce very complex seeming patterns in nature etc seem designed to me.  And also I have those moments when some kind of natural beauty just make me feel so totally amazed and in awe that it feels like it can only somehow be a kind of innate worship response to something.  
 

I did have a decent go at working through and wrestling with the science when Albeto was here forever ago.  At a certain point I realised that it wasn’t a sticking point for me with regards to faith.  Before that it seemed so important to figure it out properly.  After that it became something that I’d think occasionally but not something I was willing to invest too much time in anymore.

Ah, Albeto...I did always enjoy the way Albeto’s posts made me think. I love to think about things in a fresh way and I usually did get that. I only had a problem with Albeto when the juxtaposition of a thread questioning prayer was happening right at the time a mom here was begging prayers for her critically ill child. That crossed a line for me and I just couldn’t accept that.