- May 19, 2006
- 2,219
- 189
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Unapologetically Christian
YEC is an unapologetically Christian position. It accepts as axiomatic:
** the existence of God who is active in our world and in our history
** there are things which go beyond the natural the supernatural
** Scripture is inspired by God and represents much more than human knowledge and opinion it is a valuable resource for understanding our world
The scientific method is useful if you understand its limitations
The scientific method is a great way to investigate and understand normal, natural processes and interactions.
However, by design the scientific method excludes the supernatural. If you insist on limiting your understanding to that which can be demonstrated using the scientific method then by definition you are deciding in advance that either God does not exist, or that He does not work in history. There is no natural explanation for miracles, the resurrection, or future-revealing prophecy for example, but they come from direct actions of a loving God.
This is not to say that the scientific method is not useful, just that we need to understand its limitations.
God did it is not an unreasonable position but should be used carefully
The truth is that God is alive, He loves us, and He has directly acted in real ways. Such actions are SUPERnatural i.e. beyond that which is normal, natural, expected.
This does not mean that we should use this as an excuse for intellectual laziness. We should always try to learn more. God has put together wonderful complex systems and their beauty, complexity, and engineering is a tribute to His design.
Where our understanding of scripture differs with our interpretation of the evidence, we should examine BOTH carefully. If there are two competing explanations of the physical evidence, and one agrees more with scripture, the agreeing explanation is to be preferred.
Respect
I may be wrong, but I am not a liar. I may be mistaken, or even fooling myself on some particular point, but I am not deliberately deceiving anyone. I love the Lord, and seek to follow Him daily.
I can believe that you are wrong. I can believe you are mistaken. You can disagree with me, and still be intelligent and honest. You can be wrong in various beliefs, and still love the same Lord, and seek to follow Him daily.
I can be deeply concerned about the theological and even the practical implications of particular beliefs, and yet still respect the intelligence, honesty, and faith of those who disagree with me.
Scientific consensus
It is normal and natural for there to be differing views. It is normal and natural for there to be a majority view and different minority views. It is normal for the holders of the majority view to hold the minority view in disregard and vice-versa.
It is common for holders of the majority view to make fun of people who hold minority views, but it is not appropriate behavior for Christians. This is especially true of items which touch theology and science both such as origins theology, where certain principles such as scriptural interpretation become issues of faith.
However, truth is not determined by a popular vote. There have been many times throughout history where the majority view is proved wrong later. The evidence is more important than the number of people who hold to a particular opinion.
Objections versus accepted proof
It is important to understand the difference between stating an objection to something and having someone else accept your objection as true. For example, lets say that person A says that they cannot accept that feature B came about through evolution. Person C describes a highly implausible method in which they feel that feature B could have arisen but gives no evidence, just conjecture. While this has some modest weight, it is reasonable both that person A has not been convinced and that person C has been convinced. Person A is under no obligation to accept the explanation or to represent the opposing opinion. Certainly most evolutionists do not note YEC interpretations of the data in their discussions. Both people are honest, intelligent, and rational. Person A is able to continue to use feature B as evidence of the implausible nature of evolution without intellectual dishonesty.
Scripture consists of more than just human knowledge
It is important to understand that Scripture consists of more than just the human knowledge and worldview of those people used to write it. These God-breathed documents contain knowledge and wisdom beyond any person. As a stamp of authenticity, God includes prophecies of the future which go beyond human knowledge.
This does not mean that there are not a variety of literary styles used in the Scriptures, including allegory, stories, parables, poetry, etc.
Being provided by God through inspired people, the Scriptures speak not just to the people at the time, but to us as well.
This also does not eliminate the possibility of transmissive errors through copying and recopying although discoveries of items such as the dead sea scrolls reveal how small such errors have been.
The biggest difference between YEC and evolution is a global flood
One of the key issues between YEC and evolution is how the geologic strata and fossils are interpreted. A YEC viewpoint would contend that the majority of the strata was formed during the flood period (including a couple of hundred years after the flood), with some formations representing the pre-flood world, and other formations coming after the flood. An evolutionary viewpoint would contend that the majority of the strata has been formed over millions of years using basically uniformitarian processes.
Proponents of each viewpoint will tend to interpret the fossils and formations in light of their viewpoint. The viewpoints quickly become data filters, and outlying data points are often discarded or discredited.
To someone holding the YEC viewpoint, uniformitarian geologic interpretation and denial of a global flood is a direct fulfillment of the prophecy in II Peter 3:
2Pe 3:3-6 KJV Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (5) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Competing evidentiary models
YEC and TE can be seen as competing ways of accounting for the actual evidence that we have, such as fossils and the geologic formations.
These frameworks, or models, can drastically affect the way one approaches a given piece of actual data. As new data is presented, it is typically interpreted in light of the model which is chosen.
Argumentum Ad Hominem
It is possible to find people who have faked evidence or acted poorly who hold either the YEC or TE viewpoint. This does not mean anything about the viewpoints themselves. The fact that some missing link fossils were faked does not discredit the theory, just the person doing the fakery.
At the same time, we must exercise extreme care before we call someone a liar or fraud. Just because they hold a viewpoint we feel has been discredited is not enough of a proof.
It is much more productive to discuss the evidence rather than descend into name calling. In viewing the evidence, it is important to consider mature developed expressions of the viewpoints instead of popularizations or novice views. In each case, more developed expressions, such as peer-reviewed research papers, are to be preferred over popularizations. Because of the difference in the number of adherents, there are only a handful of peer-reviewed journals and conferences available for publishing YEC related material.
Being able to knock down a straw man does not prove anything. For example, the global flood is often viewed simplistically. The more mature YEC viewpoints have demonstrated that such a flood would have extreme and wide variations both spatially and temporally. Computer modeling of flood conditions by ICR has shown that there would likely be moving hypercanes, as well as moving areas of relative calm.
YEC is an unapologetically Christian position. It accepts as axiomatic:
** the existence of God who is active in our world and in our history
** there are things which go beyond the natural the supernatural
** Scripture is inspired by God and represents much more than human knowledge and opinion it is a valuable resource for understanding our world
The scientific method is useful if you understand its limitations
The scientific method is a great way to investigate and understand normal, natural processes and interactions.
However, by design the scientific method excludes the supernatural. If you insist on limiting your understanding to that which can be demonstrated using the scientific method then by definition you are deciding in advance that either God does not exist, or that He does not work in history. There is no natural explanation for miracles, the resurrection, or future-revealing prophecy for example, but they come from direct actions of a loving God.
This is not to say that the scientific method is not useful, just that we need to understand its limitations.
God did it is not an unreasonable position but should be used carefully
The truth is that God is alive, He loves us, and He has directly acted in real ways. Such actions are SUPERnatural i.e. beyond that which is normal, natural, expected.
This does not mean that we should use this as an excuse for intellectual laziness. We should always try to learn more. God has put together wonderful complex systems and their beauty, complexity, and engineering is a tribute to His design.
Where our understanding of scripture differs with our interpretation of the evidence, we should examine BOTH carefully. If there are two competing explanations of the physical evidence, and one agrees more with scripture, the agreeing explanation is to be preferred.
Respect
I may be wrong, but I am not a liar. I may be mistaken, or even fooling myself on some particular point, but I am not deliberately deceiving anyone. I love the Lord, and seek to follow Him daily.
I can believe that you are wrong. I can believe you are mistaken. You can disagree with me, and still be intelligent and honest. You can be wrong in various beliefs, and still love the same Lord, and seek to follow Him daily.
I can be deeply concerned about the theological and even the practical implications of particular beliefs, and yet still respect the intelligence, honesty, and faith of those who disagree with me.
Scientific consensus
It is normal and natural for there to be differing views. It is normal and natural for there to be a majority view and different minority views. It is normal for the holders of the majority view to hold the minority view in disregard and vice-versa.
It is common for holders of the majority view to make fun of people who hold minority views, but it is not appropriate behavior for Christians. This is especially true of items which touch theology and science both such as origins theology, where certain principles such as scriptural interpretation become issues of faith.
However, truth is not determined by a popular vote. There have been many times throughout history where the majority view is proved wrong later. The evidence is more important than the number of people who hold to a particular opinion.
Objections versus accepted proof
It is important to understand the difference between stating an objection to something and having someone else accept your objection as true. For example, lets say that person A says that they cannot accept that feature B came about through evolution. Person C describes a highly implausible method in which they feel that feature B could have arisen but gives no evidence, just conjecture. While this has some modest weight, it is reasonable both that person A has not been convinced and that person C has been convinced. Person A is under no obligation to accept the explanation or to represent the opposing opinion. Certainly most evolutionists do not note YEC interpretations of the data in their discussions. Both people are honest, intelligent, and rational. Person A is able to continue to use feature B as evidence of the implausible nature of evolution without intellectual dishonesty.
Scripture consists of more than just human knowledge
It is important to understand that Scripture consists of more than just the human knowledge and worldview of those people used to write it. These God-breathed documents contain knowledge and wisdom beyond any person. As a stamp of authenticity, God includes prophecies of the future which go beyond human knowledge.
This does not mean that there are not a variety of literary styles used in the Scriptures, including allegory, stories, parables, poetry, etc.
Being provided by God through inspired people, the Scriptures speak not just to the people at the time, but to us as well.
This also does not eliminate the possibility of transmissive errors through copying and recopying although discoveries of items such as the dead sea scrolls reveal how small such errors have been.
The biggest difference between YEC and evolution is a global flood
One of the key issues between YEC and evolution is how the geologic strata and fossils are interpreted. A YEC viewpoint would contend that the majority of the strata was formed during the flood period (including a couple of hundred years after the flood), with some formations representing the pre-flood world, and other formations coming after the flood. An evolutionary viewpoint would contend that the majority of the strata has been formed over millions of years using basically uniformitarian processes.
Proponents of each viewpoint will tend to interpret the fossils and formations in light of their viewpoint. The viewpoints quickly become data filters, and outlying data points are often discarded or discredited.
To someone holding the YEC viewpoint, uniformitarian geologic interpretation and denial of a global flood is a direct fulfillment of the prophecy in II Peter 3:
2Pe 3:3-6 KJV Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (5) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Competing evidentiary models
YEC and TE can be seen as competing ways of accounting for the actual evidence that we have, such as fossils and the geologic formations.
These frameworks, or models, can drastically affect the way one approaches a given piece of actual data. As new data is presented, it is typically interpreted in light of the model which is chosen.
Argumentum Ad Hominem
It is possible to find people who have faked evidence or acted poorly who hold either the YEC or TE viewpoint. This does not mean anything about the viewpoints themselves. The fact that some missing link fossils were faked does not discredit the theory, just the person doing the fakery.
At the same time, we must exercise extreme care before we call someone a liar or fraud. Just because they hold a viewpoint we feel has been discredited is not enough of a proof.
It is much more productive to discuss the evidence rather than descend into name calling. In viewing the evidence, it is important to consider mature developed expressions of the viewpoints instead of popularizations or novice views. In each case, more developed expressions, such as peer-reviewed research papers, are to be preferred over popularizations. Because of the difference in the number of adherents, there are only a handful of peer-reviewed journals and conferences available for publishing YEC related material.
Being able to knock down a straw man does not prove anything. For example, the global flood is often viewed simplistically. The more mature YEC viewpoints have demonstrated that such a flood would have extreme and wide variations both spatially and temporally. Computer modeling of flood conditions by ICR has shown that there would likely be moving hypercanes, as well as moving areas of relative calm.
