Do YECers show a deal of disrespect to science?

[Disciplical]

I myself am a firm believer of OEC. I simply cannot dispute that the Earth is very, very old. I do, however, enjoy reading about the views of YECs but unfortunately, very little of what they say tends to sway me even in the slightest. It seems their main response is "the science could be wrong" when challenged on any topic including the age of the earth, a global flood, the arrangement of fossils and so on.

Instead of agreeing with the plethora of scientific evidence pointing to an ancient earth, a YECer will insist that "the Earth looks young" and proceed to talk about a global flood, completely disregarding 99% of the geological record in doing so.

I just feel that YEC shows a great deal of disrespect to the scientific community and, in turn, reflects poorly on Christian believers. Science should be challenged, of course, but YEC seems to take it a step further and ignore what is known in favour of a very poorly constructed alternative.

[Nessa]

How many people here believe in YEC?

[Jac3510]

Some do. Some don't. But I'm more interested in YECs not disrespecting OECs. I'm also a bit interested in OECs not disrespecting YECs. . . .

[EssentialSacrifice]

Jac give us a thumbnail (or more) of YEC. I would rather hear it from the horses mouth than read more and hope to understand their view.

[Jac3510]

YEC is really a set of five or maybe six related but distinct beliefs. All of these assume, by the way, that the Bible is to interpreted normally, according to the normal rules of language. It means what it says and it doesn't mean what it doesn't say.

1. The entire creation was created in six ordinary days. We take the word yom to mean what it normally means: an ordinary day.
2. The events described in Genesis 2-3 were real, historical events. Adam really existed.
3. All human beings alive and who have ever lived are and were direct descendants of this historical Adam.
4. While there may be gaps in the genealogies of Genesis and other parts of Scripture (some deny even that, but I think wrongly), they are at least relatively complete, such that we can trace human ancestry back to the historical Adam. Taken narrowly, this gets us back about 6000 years. Taken I think more realistically, we could possibly push that number as far back as 50 thousandish years, maybe, although that is probably too much. That's the Y in YEC. This makes the whole universe relatively "young" (in light of 1 and 2).
5. God initially created the world without death. Death was introduced through Adam's sin and spread to the entire creation from there. Thus, the statement, "no death before the Fall." As an important caveat, this lack death is reserved for animal and human life. No comment is made on insects, bacteria, plants, etc.
6. Most YECs expect the future state to be a restoration to and surpassing of the original paradise of Eden. So the picture of human history, per the Bible, is Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration.

The sixth point isn't essential. It's just pretty standard for a host of reasons I won't bore you with here. Not surprisingly, YEC tends to premillennial (and anyone who has read church history, especially the early fathers, will see the immediate connection between Eden prefall and the millennial kingdom).

As to this story's relation to science:

1. Contrary to popular belief, YEC absolutely affirms the goodness and truthfulness of science;
2. There is usually a distinction drawn between operational science and historical science;
3. Arguments about the age of the earth fall largely into the latter category;
4. YECs often admit that a firm adherence to uniformitarianism forces an interpretation of the evidence to lead to an old earth. YECs typically reject uniformitarianism, though, and accept what is commonly called catastrophism. Two specific catastrophes are thought to be important in interpreting the creation's history: the Fall itself and Noah's flood, the latter of which is held to have been global.
5. As such, YECs either expect science to discover that it has flatly misinterpreted some theories and that it will find better theories in the future and/or science is being interpreted without considering all the evidence--namely, without considering the effects of the Fall and of Noah's flood. It is held that when these two facts are taken into consideration, arguments in favor of a very old earth are no longer compelling and, in fact, evidence emerges that the earth is actually less than 50,000 years old.

I am not a scientist. I have not been trained in science. I am quick to admit that I am not equipped to discuss the scientific evidence. There are people who are (see AiG's Jason Lisle and Andrew Snelling to give two quick examples). I have enough respect for the hard sciences to acknowledge that I am not qualified to critic the arguments on either side. So, for me, scientific arguments are reduced to arguments from authority. I am, however, (fairly) competent to judge interpretation of the biblical text. As I see the above six points as biblically warranted and uniquely so, it remains for me to interpret science in light of Scripture rather than Scripture in light of science. That's less because the Bible is a divine book (although I believe it is) than it is because I take the Bible to be a historical book. If God actually told us how he created and what happened in prehistory, then that ought to be taken into consideration when considering half lives of isotopes and when measuring ice core samples. To refuse to take the biblical history into consideration isn't at all persuasive to me, because it's only part of the story. At least, that's the claim of YECs in thumbnail.

I hope that helps some!

[RickD]

And that is the proper way to explain one's own beliefs without misrepresenting someone else's beliefs at the same time.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Code: Select all

I hope that helps some!

absolutely Jac, thanks, quite a bit to take in... will be back after a little more investigation with questions.... will pm's be ok ?

[Disciplical]

Couldn't we discuss in this thread so we can all learn about young earth creationism?

[RickD]

Couldn't we discuss in this thread so we can all learn about young earth creationism?

What do you want to know about YEC?


I'd suggest you go right to the source. Look at some YEC sites, and read it straight from the horse's mouth.

[Disciplical]

I have read it from the horse's mouth. I'd like to see a debate though, how do YECs respond to criticisms to their worldview. Instead of the canned, scripted "rebuttals" on YEC websites that are rather unconvincing.

[RickD]

I have read it from the horse's mouth. I'd like to see a debate though, how do YECs respond to criticisms to their worldview. Instead of the canned, scripted "rebuttals" on YEC websites that are rather unconvincing.

Ok. In that case, you're going to have to do some research. There are pages of threads in the Creation Talk forum. Scroll down through the topics until you see one you want to read. There are plenty of OEC/YEC debates in there.

[Disciplical]

Thank you. I'll have a look round there.

[Jac3510]

We can talk about things some here, too. I'd also suggest reading through this thread as well as the discussion that spawned it, which can be found here. There's also an old discussion somewhere titled something like Carnivorous Animals before the Fall and a related discussion just called Hermeneutics (link to the Carnivorous thread in that Hermeneutics link). Fair warnings, those were all pretty long threads. You'll learn a lot, I think, from going through them. But with that said, if you have some questions you want to ask here, too, I think that's okay.

[RickD]

Here's the link to the carnivorous animals before the fall thread. That's one of my all-time favorite threads here.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=7&t=459