the future of YEC?

[timbo81]

I think we have to admit that YeC is never going to make it mainstream.

Due to the increasing secularisation of society and even the fact alot of "christians" have jumped into theistic evolution because they don't have any other answers. That leaves an incredibly small number of proponents for it and funds to do any type of meaningful research.

If you can't even get it taught in american schools where there is the highest % of protestant christians in the world then I don't hold any hope for any other country.

It's fairly obvious in future, well even today, if parents want to teach their children creationism they will have to do it and not rely on the education system.

 

[juvenissun]

I think we have to admit that YeC is never going to make it mainstream.

Due to the increasing secularisation of society and even the fact alot of "christians" have jumped into theistic evolution because they don't have any other answers. That leaves an incredibly small number of proponents for it and funds to do any type of meaningful research.

If you can't even get it taught in american schools where there is the highest % of protestant christians in the world then I don't hold any hope for any other country.

It's fairly obvious in future, well even today, if parents want to teach their children creationism they will have to do it and not rely on the education system.

Even it is unpopular, it will never die, but will get stronger and stronger.

To me, there are two types of YEC, one who promotes it, and one who works on it. The former is obvious, such as AIG, ICR etc. They are the YEC we can see. The latter, in fact, has a lot more people, much more than people ever know. Basically the population of the latter type is called: scientists.

Scientists, YEC, OEC, TE or atheist, are basically the same. They work on facts, logic and data. While theories and interpretations are changing all the time, data do not change. And more data will come through time and demand further interpretations.

The key point is your faith, which is beyond science. I have strong faith on YEC. I don't care if I were the only YEC on this world. I worked with atheists all my life. We worked on the same project, looked at the same data, but made different interpretations. So far, the only thing I can see in my scientific career is that all scientific facts pointed toward YE (be specific: every process takes much less time than we thought before). As more scientific understandings are revealed, the more obvious will the YE become.

In brief, the verse below is for Christian in general, but I would also borrow it for the situation of YEC vs. Others. Matthew 7:13,14 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I think we have to admit that YeC is never going to make it mainstream.

Due to the increasing secularisation of society and even the fact alot of "christians" have jumped into theistic evolution because they don't have any other answers. That leaves an incredibly small number of proponents for it and funds to do any type of meaningful research.

If you can't even get it taught in american schools where there is the highest % of protestant christians in the world then I don't hold any hope for any other country.

It's fairly obvious in future, well even today, if parents want to teach their children creationism they will have to do it and not rely on the education system.

I think you'd have to teach it yourself as extra to schooling. I think most parents dont care (mine didn't).. you have to get hold of a decent creationist source.. like 'Bones of Contention' by M. L. Lubenow and read it to them, if they are old enough, as a balance to the evolution indoctrination that they'll get at state school. Creationism will never be taught in schools. And just because most people believe in evolution, dosn't mean that it's true.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I believe that YEC will never be mainstream just like authentic Christianity will never be mainstream. There are some great Christian schools that do a good job of teaching science properly but that is never the excuse to not train up our children. I plan on having my sons know more about evolution then atleast 95% of atheists. They will fill comfortable when the topic comes up whether they go to a public school, Christian school or in public if they are homeschooled. By the way ICR is always doing new research. The funds though are pocket change compared to what gets dumped into evolution promoting research.

I think we have to admit that YeC is never going to make it mainstream.

Due to the increasing secularisation of society and even the fact alot of "christians" have jumped into theistic evolution because they don't have any other answers. That leaves an incredibly small number of proponents for it and funds to do any type of meaningful research.

If you can't even get it taught in american schools where there is the highest % of protestant christians in the world then I don't hold any hope for any other country.

It's fairly obvious in future, well even today, if parents want to teach their children creationism they will have to do it and not rely on the education system.

 

[juvenissun]

I believe that YEC will never be mainstream just like authentic Christianity will never be mainstream. There are some great Christian schools that do a good job of teaching science properly but that is never the excuse to not train up our children. I plan on having my sons know more about evolution then atleast 95% of atheists. They will fill comfortable when the topic comes up whether they go to a public school, Christian school or in public if they are homeschooled. By the way ICR is always doing new research. The funds though are pocket change compared to what gets dumped into evolution promoting research.

That is good. But, be careful that children are smart. They won't be convinced at all if they are not totally "satisfied" with your interpretation. And as they grew up, the content of your interpretation also has to keep up. It is not easy. God bless your children.

 

[keyarch]

I think we have to admit that YeC is never going to make it mainstream.

The reason that YEC doesn't have more support, is because of the dogmatic misinterpretation of Exodus 20:11 and a few others. Rather than using the original Hebrew, the big YEC proponents point to an English interpretation that adds words and uses the wrong meaning of others. To get more support, they will need to separate the meanings of words like:

Heaven - Upper Heaven (above the clouds, THE Heaven); Lower Heaven (up to the clouds); and the Heaven of Heavens (third heaven or more).
Earth - THE earth (planet as a whole); land, dirt, geographic area.
Made - fashioned, worked on, did.
Beginning - first fruits, start of an actual event, or absolute.

Let's use the literal interpretation first and see how it all fits together, rather than bending the English translations to support a doctrine.

YEC = the earth (whole planet with atmosphere) was created first and then the universe, and all within 6,000 to 10,000 years.

YBC (young biological creation) = Upper Heaven (with stars) and the planet earth (covered with water) were created in an unknowable past, the "Creation Week" events were subsequent to the beginning of the universe and happened within 6-10,000 years ago.

The YEC camp leaves the YBC model off the table in discussions of other models and basically categorizes any type of "old earth" creationist the same. The problem is when discussing an "old earth" is what "earth" are we talking about, the planet or the events of the creation week? The same thing with "heaven" (upper or lower), and the same with "made" (created or fashioned from existing materials or worked on).

I truely believe that organizations such as AiG, ICR have entrenched themselves so deep into the YEC model, that they can no longer consider any alternative without damaging their reputation. They have have no interest in changing, even if Scripture allows for an adjustment without compromise of any of their tenants of faith.

 

[timbo81]

I still don't see the YBC as any more popular since it still gives far shorter time frames than what is believed.

Plus unless you state man evolved from animals then that is a core element of evolution.

No evolutionist will accept man was created by God as we are now.

 

[keyarch]

I still don't see the YBC as any more popular since it still gives far shorter time frames than what is believed.

Plus unless you state man evolved from animals then that is a core element of evolution.

No evolutionist will accept man was created by God as we are now.

I took the topic to be related to those who already believe in God. I don't expect an athiest to accept ANY creation model until God has lifted the vail from their eyes and mind.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I think it will come down to young earth’ers getting a few suitably qualified scientists, to do an in-depth study, and publish a decent book.
That goes for human origins as well.
I am grinding through a hefty book at the moment, written by two PHD scientists, who happen to be Roman Catholic, and are part of the catholic apologetic society. The book they have written is truly excellent. It is broken into two sections, one readable for the general layman, and notes in the details, for those interested and qualified to investigate further.
The book is about Geocentrism, a subject which is not even touched at all by the protestants.. as I believe they fear that people will call them flat-earther’s and scientific heretics.. But the book that they have written is so amazing, it is such a hard-core challenge to the eulogisers of Einstein and Hawkins of late.
The only way that young earth’ers will get anywhere, is to actually prove that the earth is young, and make an estimate as to how old it is. To do this they would need to bring in astrophysicists, who happen to be Christian, as the whole thing is holistic, in that it is related. The creation of the universe, as re. Genesis, has been ‘disproved’ by nearly every scientist since Copernicus, so you need to go back to Copernicus, and find out if he was telling the truth to begin with, about the earth.
You then need to trace to scientist thinking through the later centuries, which have been based on Copernicus.
If you can unravel Copernicus, and take on the scientists who were in error in various ways, you can then go for it, and make a case, that will stand up to the wrath of the scientific establishment.
I note that there are about 1000 books for sale on human evolution, and about 6 for sale from the creationist perspective. The books for sale from the creationist perspective need to be of the same quality as ‘Galileo was wrong’.
Until they do that, the secularists will win.

 

[keyarch]

The only way that young earth’ers will get anywhere, is to actually prove that the earth is young, and make an estimate as to how old it is.

This is the problem. All the camps seem to group the age of the earth as a whole, and point to evidence before and after the creation week to make their case. I'm saying you can't do that.
There is evidence that the universe and minerals of the earth are very old, and there's evidence that the formation of a habitable planet and the life it contains are young. If you try and make a case that the universe is young you'll be wrong. On the other hand, if you try to prove ANY biology (including fossils) is greater than 10,000 years old, you'll be wrong. Also, if you try and prove that there wasn't a "global flood" some 4400 years ago, you'll be wrong.

Consider that if the minerals of the earth are very old, and any sediments that contain fossils are contaminated with that old material, then no dating method is going to give an accurate date for that fossil. Then what happens is they rely on a layering system based on the geologic column which is based on faith rather than science, and don't take into account the catostophic affects of the global flood.

If you strip away all the assumptions and presuppositions from any analysis, all you're really left with a faith in the result.

I say all this, not because I'm an expert, but because I believe that Scripture (not translations) has never been wrong and that's the conclusion of what it says.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I do not know enough about geology to comment really. I have read some evidence for zircons in granite, that go against the grain of present thinking about the age of the earth. The subject needs to be taken on by experts. I believe in creation of man, about 6000 years ago. The flood was about 4000 years ago. I also do not accept a lot of astro-cosmology conclusions, i dont accept the 'big bang' or expanding universe, or relativity. People on the evolutionist forums would jump in and call me a fool, because they are not aware of the research material that i have available to me. On the current affairs they call creationists ignorant and foolish. It's hard not to get wound up by that continuous attitude from them.

 

[laptoppop]

In general, YEC science is on a path getting more and more rigourous, which I applaud. While we need evangelists and popularizers, it is important to have solid research -- to every man an answer.

I don't expect it to become mainstream, or even accepted. Yes, the attitude at times from our own brothers and sisters in Christ gets more than a little hard to take -- sheesh! How DARE we believe the Bible over the musings of men! How DARE we consider alternative explanations for the physical evidence!

There is a lot of solid evidence that would indicate a young age for the earth overall, although I have a lot less problem with old geological age and young biological age than I do with evolution. I don't agree with it, but I can live with it.

The age of the universe is an interesting one. There are competing explanations, for example: 1) its very old, 2) its young and the expanding nature of the universe causes the effect in time and changes in constants such as the speed of light, 3) it was created like Adam as a full-grown thing with apparent age. I lean toward 2 myself, but could easily live with 3.

 

[timbo81]

I don't expect it to become mainstream, or even accepted. Yes, the attitude at times from our own brothers and sisters in Christ gets more than a little hard to take -- sheesh! How DARE we believe the Bible over the musings of men! How DARE we consider alternative explanations for the physical evidence!

yes that has crossed my mind.

apparently the Genesis account doesn't seem adequate from a number of christians anymore.

acceptance of mans account of creation over Gods account starts to undermine the validity of the Bible. Because if Genesis is wrong then so must other parts of the Bible. Or if it's not literal then what is, is satan not literal, is sin not literal.

Science as it is would also declare it is impossible for a man to rise from the dead or for 5000 people to be fed from a few loaves and fishes. So I am puzzled why christians go to a system for answers that at best is just the ponderings of men.

I personally believe in proverbs 3 as a kind of life message where we are called to lean not unto our own understanding but to trust in the Lord with all our heart and not be wise in our own eyes.

Now accepting Genesis as literal nowdays would get you labelled as brain washed, a sheep, ignorant and other less flattering terms. And even you might be accused of somehow discrediting christianity.

But I disagree, I believe we are to be dogmatic about certain Biblical truths regardless of what "evidence" is thrown at us. Paul even says we preach foolishness for Christ, because people can't understand it.

 

[peace4ever]

I think we have to admit that YeC is never going to make it mainstream.

Due to the increasing secularisation of society and even the fact alot of "christians" have jumped into theistic evolution because they don't have any other answers. That leaves an incredibly small number of proponents for it and funds to do any type of meaningful research.

If you can't even get it taught in american schools where there is the highest % of protestant christians in the world then I don't hold any hope for any other country.

It's fairly obvious in future, well even today, if parents want to teach their children creationism they will have to do it and not rely on the education system.

It's going to get less and less popular as Satan becomes more desperate since his time is near. Jesus also told us that we will be hated by all nations because of him and then the end will come. So we need to stand firm since most people go along with the majority no matter how irrational, morally decadent, or illocal they have to become. Of course that's why Hitler became so popular.

 

[mark kennedy]

yes that has crossed my mind.

apparently the Genesis account doesn't seem adequate from a number of christians anymore.

acceptance of mans account of creation over Gods account starts to undermine the validity of the Bible. Because if Genesis is wrong then so must other parts of the Bible. Or if it's not literal then what is, is satan not literal, is sin not literal.

Science as it is would also declare it is impossible for a man to rise from the dead or for 5000 people to be fed from a few loaves and fishes. So I am puzzled why christians go to a system for answers that at best is just the ponderings of men.

I found it interesting that Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project affirms the New Testament miracles, in fact he is an evangelical. He is a died in the wool evolutionist and had a nice chat with Richard Dawkins on things like creationism and that mythical multiverse from String Theory. He doesn't take Genesis 1-3 literally I guess but as long as the focus is on those early chapters the Gospel can be ignored.

I personally believe in proverbs 3 as a kind of life message where we are called to lean not unto our own understanding but to trust in the Lord with all our heart and not be wise in our own eyes.

For an avid debater like myself this statement cuts kind of deep:

Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. (Proverbs 3:34)

It sounds like the first Psalm, our delight should be in the Law of the Lord as revealed in the Gospel as faith in Christ. James calls this the 'royal law' and Jesus said it was the mark of a disciple that we have love for one another.

Now accepting Genesis as literal nowdays would get you labelled as brain washed, a sheep, ignorant and other less flattering terms. And even you might be accused of somehow discrediting christianity.

But I disagree, I believe we are to be dogmatic about certain Biblical truths regardless of what "evidence" is thrown at us. Paul even says we preach foolishness for Christ, because people can't understand it.

They have accused me of all of that and more. It was puzzling for me early on that Christians were involved in these debates from a proevolution/anticreationism point of view. Creationism in it's many forms still flourishes in the US were religion is still a matter of conviction. We stand on the Gospel and Genesis 3 is inextribably linked to Romans 5. Paul was a Creationist in every way that has meaning.

At some point we have to decide how much from the Genesis narratives we can compromise. The thing is, if we never get to the New Testament theology that reveals the wonderful works of God from the beginning the unbeliever remains in darkness.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[peace4ever]

I found it interesting that Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome Project affirms the New Testament miracles, in fact he is an evangelical. He is a died in the wool evolutionist and had a nice chat with Richard Dawkins on things like creationism and that mythical multiverse from String Theory. He doesn't take Genesis 1-3 literally I guess but as long as the focus is on those early chapters the Gospel can be ignored.



For an avid debater like myself this statement cuts kind of deep:

Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly. (Proverbs 3:34)

It sounds like the first Psalm, our delight should be in the Law of the Lord as revealed in the Gospel as faith in Christ. James calls this the 'royal law' and Jesus said it was the mark of a disciple that we have love for one another.



They have accused me of all of that and more. It was puzzling for me early on that Christians were involved in these debates from a proevolution/anticreationism point of view. Creationism in it's many forms still flourishes in the US were religion is still a matter of conviction. We stand on the Gospel and Genesis 3 is inextribably linked to Romans 5. Paul was a Creationist in every way that has meaning.

At some point we have to decide how much from the Genesis narratives we can compromise. The thing is, if we never get to the New Testament theology that reveals the wonderful works of God from the beginning the unbeliever remains in darkness.

Grace and peace,
Mark

There is never any reason to compromise God's word for the teachings of men. Never. Acts 5:29, Galatians 1:10, Isaiah 2:22, Psalms 146:3-4, & 39:13-14, 1 John 4:5-6, 1 Corinthians 3:19, Matthew 23:9, John 15:19, and many, many, many more verses tell us not to follow the teachings of men, but of God alone.

But as Jesus tells us, the cost of following Christ is high and few are willing to reject the teachings of the world (which is a big place) to be one of the lonely few like he and the apostles were.