To convince a YEC

[Vance]

I think the most convincing thing for most YEC's is hearing from others they respect that there is not inherent conflict. This makes sense since almost all of them only believe what they do because people they respect have told them that only YEC could be correct, and further that it is "Scriptural", thus adding to the "authority".

While the scientific evidence alone is overwhelming, unless and until they feel "permission" to accept it, they will treat it all as a conspiracy or some spreading insidious evil. Very often it will be a speaker they respect, like Billy Graham or a great Christian figure, like C.S. Lewis, or the simple fact that it is only their little corner of Christianity that insists evolution is "atheistic", and that the majority of Christians worldwide don't find this conflict at all.

Once that door is open, then usually the evidence speaks for itself. But some will never allow that door to be open.

 

[juvenissun]

Although I haven't done exactly what you are proposing, I did teach science on wednesday night adult class. It was much fun because I did experiments!

But it was very challenging to some and others falt-out refused to attend. It lasted 2 months.

I like to think the class helped people understand what science is and what it does and how it functions.

I did powerpoint presentations each week and brought my work's projector with me and set it up each week - and setup experiments - simple things like acid/bases, titration, bread making/cooking an egg, beer-yeast and brewing (my favourite).

I also teach Sunday School. Senior (citizen) class. Whenever appropriate and possible, I try to tell them the discoveries of fossil records and evolutional explanations. However, I ALSO tell them how to argue against the explanation.

For those who are doing the same, my experience tells me that if you presented both sides of the story, you have nothing to worry about. Everyone would love you.

 

[Vance]

I also teach Sunday School. Senior (citizen) class. Whenever appropriate and possible, I try to tell them the discoveries of fossil records and evolutional explanations. However, I ALSO tell them how to argue against the explanation.

For those who are doing the same, my experience tells me that if you presented both sides of the story, you have nothing to worry about. Everyone would love you.

Well, setting aside hoping that everyone will love you, have you considered teaching them that there are millions Christians who fully accept evolution and still uphold the validity of Scripture, and that they just interpret that Scripture differently? Maybe adding that this is not a salvation issue and that devout Christians should be able to make up their own minds on this point, agreeing to disagree if necessary?

 

[juvenissun]

Well, setting aside hoping that everyone will love you, have you considered teaching them that there are millions Christians who fully accept evolution and still uphold the validity of Scripture, and that they just interpret that Scripture differently? Maybe adding that this is not a salvation issue and that devout Christians should be able to make up their own minds on this point, agreeing to disagree if necessary?

No problem on that.

Even here, I do not doubt the salvation of everyone. I only think if a saved Christian firmly believed the "truth" of evolution, there would be some bad consequence after this life.

Of course, nothing will be bad in the Heaven. The "bad" only means getting less reward. For example, you might be put under my charge in an assignment. The serious side about this is that this "rank" difference will be set permanent. Think about it ...

 

[Vance]

Well, in a "perfect" heaven, we will have perfect happiness and joy and fulfillment. So, there is no need to worry about any concept of "rank", since no matter what, we will all be perfectly happy and content.

But, regardless, we should all seek to do our best for God while in this current world. And, for many of us, that means undoing the serious damage that creationism is doing to the Gospel message. So, the question could be returned: if you are concerned about your "ranking" in heaven (which I certainly am not), you might consider whether you are going to be perpetuating the damage of creationism or working to undo that damage.

Personally, I find it a moral imperative to help alleviate, even in my own small way, the dogmatic teaching of YEC that is one of the seriously destructive attacks on the Christian faith in today's world.

 

[vossler]

What evidence would it take to convince a young earth creationist that the Earth really IS several billion years old? If there are any YEC's looking at this thread, feel free to respond too. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, but rather trying to figure out why you believe Genesis to be literal, and what it would take to convince you otherwise.

I’ve never been too concerned with how old the earth really was, if someone wishes to believe that it is more that 10,000 years I have no problem with that. At least as long as they keep too many zeros off that number. I can certainly see why a Christian might lean that way, our culture presents a lot evidence that, on the surface, supports it. I can't hold that against anyone because the Word of God doesn't clearly spell this out. Where I draw the line is when someone clearly changes the Word of God so that it can conform to their own personal interpretation of our physical environment and then go on and pass it off to everyone, specifically children, as the truth. That is absolutely unconscionable.

As far as your question; what would it take to get me to believe the earth is several billion years old? To be honest I can’t ever consider it as a viable option. All I see is a number that over the years has increased in an effort to conform to a theory which itself counters the Word of God and what it clearly presents. The bottom line is that all viable bible based hermeneutics point to a relatively young earth. No viable interpretation even remotely supports billions of years, much less evolution.

Others hold that scientists allow pre-suppositions to influence the interpretation of scientific evidence, so creationists are simply interpreting the evidence with bible-friendly pre-suppositions and these interpretations are just as valid as those of mainstream science.

I see things very much like this.

Yeah, I've noticed that trend. Most (if not all) of the YEC's I've seen on this site have seemed unwilling to even entertain the theory of evolution or an old earth.

Especially the theory of evolution, that one is clearly unbiblical.

 

[anonymous1515]

As far as your question; what would it take to get me to believe the earth is several billion years old? To be honest I can’t ever consider it as a viable option. All I see is a number that over the years has increased in an effort to conform to a theory which itself counters the Word of God and what it clearly presents. The bottom line is that all viable bible based hermeneutics point to a relatively young earth. No viable interpretation even remotely supports billions of years, much less evolution.

So there would be no way to convince you that you may be misinterpreting the Bible? Even if presented with logically consistent evidence for evolution, you would refuse to believe it simply because it contradicted the Bible? (By the way, if you answer "No, if I was provided with solid evidence for evolution I would accept the theory to be true" I am not going to bombard you with evidence. Haha. It is more of a hypothetical question. I'm not sitting here waiting to throw evidence at you. )

 

[theFijian]

So there would be no way to convince you that you may be misinterpreting the Bible? Even if presented with logically consistent evidence for evolution, you would refuse to believe it simply because it contradicted the Bible? (By the way, if you answer "No, if I was provided with solid evidence for evolution I would accept the theory to be true" I am not going to bombard you with evidence. Haha. It is more of a hypothetical question. I'm not sitting here waiting to throw evidence at you. )

Many YECs who pass through here not only believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they also believe in the inerrancy of their own hermeneutical method.

 

[Mick116]

I was more-or-less an evolutionist as a kid, though I didn't really understand the theory. I was attracted to YECism in my high school and early uni days, and even tried to argue the case with a few of my fellow students... come second year of an ecology major, I was presented with too much evidence for evolution, and I changed my mind. In the process, I had to reconsider the way I interpreted the Bible.

For those YECists: IF the universe is billions of years old, would you really expect to find it clearly spelled out in the bible? Would Moses or his original audience have even understood the concept of a billion? Was God really trying to inspire a scientifically accurate natural history of the universe? For what purpose?

 

[Vance]

I think that Vossler's statement that there is nothing that could EVER change his mind is very telling. At that point, it is not about the evidence from God's Creation, but an absolute and impenetrable equating of a given INTERPRETATION of Scripture with God's Words to us.

We ALL would agree that we would not believe anything if it contradicts what God says. I think creationists too often forget that point. They seem to assume that those who do not agree with them are somehow choosing to disbelieve something we know God said in favor of something "Man" has said. This, of course, makes no sense at all. If there was no doubt God said something, then there would be no issue there.

What we have is fallible humans interpreting the evidence from God's Creation (science) and fallible humans interpreting Scripture. If they seem to conflict, then either one of those very fallible sources is wrong. Where creationists get it entirely wrong is that they forget what they are claiming "Scripture says" is merely their interpretation of what Scripture says, which is as likely to be fallible as anything else we humans get involved in.

Anyone who assigns absolute infallibility to their interpretation of Scripture has some serious pride issues.

 

[anonymous1515]

I think that Vossler's statement that there is nothing that could EVER change his mind is very telling. At that point, it is not about the evidence from God's Creation, but an absolute and impenetrable equating of a given INTERPRETATION of Scripture with God's Words to us.

We ALL would agree that we would not believe anything if it contradicts what God says. I think creationists too often forget that point. They seem to assume that those who do not agree with them are somehow choosing to disbelieve something we know God said in favor of something "Man" has said. This, of course, makes not sense at all. If there was not doubt God said something, then there would be no issue there.

What we have is fallible humans interpreting the evidence from God's Creation (science) and fallible humans interpreting Scripture. If they seem to conflict, then either one of those very fallible sources is wrong. Where creationists get it entirely wrong is that they forget what they are claiming "Scripture says" is merely their interpretation of what Scripture says, which is as likely to be fallible as anything else we humans get involved in.

Anyone who assigns absolute infallibility to their interpretation of Scripture has some serious pride issues.

Vance, I think that your post is excellent. You've touched on something that I think is necessary for understanding the nature of faith. While we can believe that the Bible is inerrant, we cannot know if we are interpreting it correctly or not. If we come across seeming contradictions, we must assume that we are not interpreting it correctly. I think that this is the same with any faith system.

For example, in studying Buddhism I have come across many seeming "contradictions." However, upon closer examination and discussion with Buddhists, it became clear that it was not Buddhist philosophy that was contradictory, but rather my interpretation of it. I have had similar experiences with every other faith that I have been exploring.

 

[vossler]

So there would be no way to convince you that you may be misinterpreting the Bible? Even if presented with logically consistent evidence for evolution, you would refuse to believe it simply because it contradicted the Bible? (By the way, if you answer "No, if I was provided with solid evidence for evolution I would accept the theory to be true" I am not going to bombard you with evidence. Haha. It is more of a hypothetical question. I'm not sitting here waiting to throw evidence at you. )

Trust me, I've heard all the arguments and there hasn't been one presented yet that can hermaneutically be applied to the Bible and what it says.

I think that Vossler's statement that there is nothing that could EVER change his mind is very telling. At that point, it is not about the evidence from God's Creation, but an absolute and impenetrable equating of a given INTERPRETATION of Scripture with God's Words to us.

I don't think that's quite what I said.

We ALL would agree that we would not believe anything if it contradicts what God says. I think creationists too often forget that point. They seem to assume that those who do not agree with them are somehow choosing to disbelieve something we know God said in favor of something "Man" has said. This, of course, makes no sense at all. If there was no doubt God said something, then there would be no issue there.

This is quite interesting because it it man that stated we evolved and not God. There is no doubt what God said, the problem is that what man says has superceded it.

Anyone who assigns absolute infallibility to their interpretation of Scripture has some serious pride issues.

I agree!

While we can believe that the Bible is inerrant, we cannot know if we are interpreting it correctly or not. If we come across seeming contradictions, we must assume that we are not interpreting it correctly. I think that this is the same with any faith system.

Except for the statement "we cannot know" I couldn't agree more! If we took that attitude then nothing in the Bible is absolute Truth and everything is open to personal interpretation.

 

[Vance]

"There is no doubt about what God says"

Vossler, you say this, and then you agree that anyone who assigns infallibility to their interpretation has serious pride issues? Do you really not see the contradiction in your own position here?

Your belief about what Scripture says IS your interpretation. You interpret Scripture in Genesis 1 and 2 to be read as strict literal historical narrative. That is your belief about what it says. Now, to say that there is "no doubt" that your interpretation is correct (which IS what you are saying) is doing exactly what you agree is a very prideful thing to do.

 

[vossler]

"There is no doubt about what God says"

Vossler, you say this, and then you agree that anyone who assigns infallibility to their interpretation has serious pride issues? Do you really not see the contradiction in your own position here?

The quote is in reference to the actual words that are in the Bible, not in their interpretation.

Your belief about what Scripture says IS your interpretation. You interpret Scripture in Genesis 1 and 2 to be read as strict literal historical narrative. That is your belief about what it says. Now, to say that there is "no doubt" that your interpretation is correct (which IS what you are saying) is doing exactly what you agree is a very prideful thing to do.

You seem to think you have an accurate interpretation as to how I read Scripture. It's quite fascinating how you have concluded this based on so little data.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous1515
I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion about a year ago, and I found it pretty interesting. He presented one story in particular, of a geologist (i think?) that went through the Bible (I'm guessing the OT) page by page, and cut out every phrase that he thought contradicted modern science. Apparently, by the end of his exercise the man was left with the front and back cover, and almost nothing in between.


quote=juvenissun;43757071]He must be an idiot.

You are not better by using this example.[/quote]

This sort of confirms for me that we should reject modern science where it conflicts. The square peg/round hole problem is the opposite of what Dawkins assumes it to be.

 

[busterdog]

Many YECs who pass through here not only believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, they also believe in the inerrancy of their own hermeneutical method.

You also invariably believe that the sun is yellow and the sky is blue, despite the Grateful Dead song to the contrary. Is that believing too much in your own eyes and your own method of interpreting what you see?

The "inerrancy of the hermeneutical method" is again offer as some bulwark of strength in the modern critical method. But, the modern critical method requires a believe in the inerrancy of consensus of human observation. You may wish to argue that one is inherently inferior to the other. That is just begging the question of which assumption you choose to begin with.

 

[theFijian]

You also invariably believe that the sun is yellow and the sky is blue, despite the Grateful Dead song to the contrary. Is that believing too much in your own eyes and your own method of interpreting what you see?

The "inerrancy of the hermeneutical method" is again offer as some bulwark of strength in the modern critical method. But, the modern critical method requires a believe in the inerrancy of consensus of human observation. You may wish to argue that one is inherently inferior to the other. That is just begging the question of which assumption you choose to begin with.

The problem (the one which I was addressing) is that many Creationists do not believe that a literal interpretation is in fact an interpretaion (which, of course, it is). Their failure to do so is a grave error which elevates man's understading of scripture to the same level scripture as itself.

I am well aware of the issues and problems posed by a non-literal interpretation of parts of scripture, if only Creationists would acknowledge the issues with the literal reading and we might actually make some progress.

 

[Vance]

The quote is in reference to the actual words that are in the Bible, not in their interpretation.
You seem to think you have an accurate interpretation as to how I read Scripture. It's quite fascinating how you have concluded this based on so little data.

I am simply addressing what you, yourself, say about your interpretation. You seem to think that if you just take the "plain reading", you are not interpreting. This, of course, is ridiculous, since the "plain reading" depends on your culture, education, point in history, etc. Do you mean YOUR plain reading in 2008, or the plain reading in 1000 BC? I have already shown elsewhere that the ancient near east cultures would have read the early Genesis texts incredibly different than you do, and would think your "plain reading" was not "plain" at all.

 

[busterdog]

The problem (the one which I was addressing) is that many Creationists do not believe that a literal interpretation is in fact an interpretaion (which, of course, it is). Their failure to do so is a grave error which elevates man's understading of scripture to the same level scripture as itself.

I am well aware of the issues and problems posed by a non-literal interpretation of parts of scripture, if only Creationists would acknowledge the issues with the literal reading and we might actually make some progress.

I certainly believe that the hermeneutics of YEC is choosing to accept one witness over another. That is certainly a choice. It is certainly an assumption.

As for elevating man's understanding, as I said, what doesn't have that potential? I don't see how this distinguishes the various approaches.

Now, we can certainly argue that there is a difference between Freudian interpretation of scripture and other methods, say a Marxist/Liberatoin approach. All such involve choices. The YEC will say that the a surface text is not the same kind of choice, though it is a choice. But, we can argue that there is a qualitative difference cogently. In fact, I think it is quite fair to concede that the surface text is approach is a qualitatively different type of choice than a Freudian or most any other modern critical method. We can argue cogently and consistently that a literal voice has numerous hallmarks of authenticity.

But, the surface text approach cannot of necessity by logic alone overcome the position that by many measures, the earth looks very old and we need to interpret accordingly. I concede that. But, I assert that there is no "of necessity" process of reason that requires me to reject the surface text as a preferred witness.

And there are occasions where we admit that we have not completely digested or reconciled the surface text, though we think there is enough left there for us to go on.

 

[Vance]

Busterdog, I think the problem arises with the assumption that the "surface" reading is somehow "safer" or less "interpretive". Going with the whole "plain meaning" of the text is an exercise in question-begging from the beginning, since it assumes that the surface, or plain reading to our modern minds is at all similar to plain reading of the original authors, listeners and readers.

We come from a culture that values writing about the past using a particular literary genre: the literal historic narrative. This began as early as Herodotus (still many hundreds, if not a thousand, years before the early Genesis accounts were first composed) and really became entrenched in the Enlightenment. We have become so "scientific" that we only value accounts about the past to the extent that they can be deemed literally accurate in its factual details. If it is less so, then it is less valuable. And, since we think the Bible is valuable, it must meet this standard. This is, obviously, circular reasoning.

We have to consider how other peoples and cultures have written about their past and what style and literary genre THEY would have found valuable and impactful for different types of events. And, any ancient near east scholar, even the devoutly Christian ones, will readily point out that the genre we use, literal historical narrative, is the LAST thing they would consider using for the telling of the creation accounts. First, they did not use that genre for anything at all for a long time after the composing of those accounts (there is a reason Herodotus is called the "Father of History"), and even if it was a genre that was alive and well, it would not be used to tell of those types of historical events.

Instead, the language the ANE cultures used to tell of past events of that type were highly symbolic, typological and figurative. This did not mean that the events were not actual, historical events, simply that they were much less interested in the exact factual details, and were dramatically more interested in the BIG picture messages from those events. They used literary devices to convey the important TRUTHS of what actually happened, rather than bother with the mere mechanics, which would not only be almost sacrilegiously "missing the point", but entirely mundane and unable to do justice to the grandeur of what happened.

So, it is not as if they really believed it happened in six literal days, but got it wrong. They would never consider that it happened in six literal days to begin with, but that this was an incredibly powerful and useful way of conveying the important truths about what did happen. And, in some ways, even the most literalistic fundamentalist would find themselves recognizing this, as with the "breathing" example that I have written about elsewhere.