Interesting article on the 'deconversion' of a Young-Earth creationist

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Path Across the Stars

The was linked from the Panda's Thumb a few days ago. It's a well written and fascinating account of a young-Earth creationist who eventually was confronted with astronomical phenomena that they couldn't put into a YEC framework.

A few points that stood out to me from this article included this commentary on professional creationist organizations:

In We Believe In Dinosaurs, Ken Ham is caught on film saying, “You should listen to our PhD experts talk, even though you won’t be able to understand anything they say,” and his slip keenly illustrates the underlying strategy of the movement. Creationism doesn’t have to prove anything; it only has to maintain a veneer of scientific respectability. Their goal is control, abusing science to safeguard their authority. As long as they can maintain that their pseudoscience is “just as plausible” as the mainstream alternative, their power to interpret Scripture unchallenged remains protected.
This comment on the sciences:

As the years passed, I spent more and more time reading everything I could about geology, biology, and astrophysics. My limit for inter-library loans was always full. I was looking for a pattern, a reason why astronomy and geology and evolutionary biology seemed to be so good at making predictions and lined up so well with other areas of science.
And finally this comment on the deconversion from creationism:

My deconversion from creationism was the result of years of learning new information and exposing myself to different ideas.
The aricle is a good read and I highly recommend it.
 

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,358.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I am bemused as to why YECs do not recognise that the evolution of the universe, first in a physical sense, then in a biological sense, and now - through humanity - in a cultural sense, is a much more glorious and awesome Act of Creation than a six day glitzy extravaganza.
 
Upvote 0

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In We Believe In Dinosaurs, Ken Ham is caught on film saying, “You should listen to our PhD experts talk, even though you won’t be able to understand anything they say,” and his slip keenly illustrates the underlying strategy of the movement. Creationism doesn’t have to prove anything; it only has to maintain a veneer of scientific respectability. Their goal is control, abusing science to safeguard their authority. As long as they can maintain that their pseudoscience is “just as plausible” as the mainstream alternative, their power to interpret Scripture unchallenged remains protected.
That does not mean a necessary strategy at all. He could be saying in effect,..."You should listen to our PhD experts talk, even though you won’t be able to understand anything they say, (because thy are way over my head as well)”.

Your accusation has a bit of a conspiracy element to it that's without sufficient warrant.
Try to stick with the substance instead of attacking the person.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,493
✟236,358.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Your accusation has a bit of a conspiracy element to it that's without sufficient warrant.
Try to stick with the substance instead of attacking the person.
That wasn't an attack on the person, it was an attack on the person's technique. At best it means his style is ambiguous - not a great recommendation for someone whose career relies upon his ability to communicate clearly to the public.
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Path Across the Stars

The was linked from the Panda's Thumb a few days ago. It's a well written and fascinating account of a young-Earth creationist who eventually was confronted with astronomical phenomena that they couldn't put into a YEC framework.

A few points that stood out to me from this article included this commentary on professional creationist organizations:

In We Believe In Dinosaurs, Ken Ham is caught on film saying, “You should listen to our PhD experts talk, even though you won’t be able to understand anything they say,” and his slip keenly illustrates the underlying strategy of the movement. Creationism doesn’t have to prove anything; it only has to maintain a veneer of scientific respectability. Their goal is control, abusing science to safeguard their authority. As long as they can maintain that their pseudoscience is “just as plausible” as the mainstream alternative, their power to interpret Scripture unchallenged remains protected.
This comment on the sciences:

As the years passed, I spent more and more time reading everything I could about geology, biology, and astrophysics. My limit for inter-library loans was always full. I was looking for a pattern, a reason why astronomy and geology and evolutionary biology seemed to be so good at making predictions and lined up so well with other areas of science.
And finally this comment on the deconversion from creationism:

My deconversion from creationism was the result of years of learning new information and exposing myself to different ideas.
The aricle is a good read and I highly recommend it.
Thanks Pitabread.

If it takes this much effort to convince an apparently intelligent young man that a fundamentalist view of Creation is scientifically impossible, then I see little hope for the less well informed majority of Creationists.

Reminds me of my youth when I was forced to put aside Fred Hoyle and Steady State Theory in favour of Big Bang. Now that was a deconversion from which I am still recovering.
OB
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Reminds me of my youth when I was forced to put aside Fred Hoyle and Steady State Theory in favour of Big Bang. Now that was a deconversion from which I am still recovering.
OB
Georges Lemaitre is proud of you.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Your accusation has a bit of a conspiracy element to it that's without sufficient warrant.
Try to stick with the substance instead of attacking the person.

FYI, I'm not the author of that quote. I simply quoted it from the linked article.

That said, I do agree with the sentiment expressed in that quote. My experience with creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, and so on, is that they put out a lot of material that sounds "science-y" to the layman but falls apart under rigorous scrutiny. That they put out such material in an effort to sound authoritative and compete with mainstream science seems like a fair assessment.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
If it takes this much effort to convince an apparently intelligent young man that a fundamentalist view of Creation is scientifically impossible, then I see little hope for the less well informed majority of Creationists.

I wouldn't lose hope. Trends in creationism show a decline in creationist beliefs over time.

The inverse correlation between belief in creationism versus education, and knowledge of science and evolution, are running afoul of the trend in global education and the move towards a more educated populace. Education seems to be the antithesis of creationism.

Over time, creationist beliefs seem doomed to the fringe. Unless creationists change tactics, I don't see how these trends will change.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
FYI, I'm not the author of that quote. I simply quoted it from the linked article.

That said, I do agree with the sentiment expressed in that quote. My experience with creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, and so on, is that they put out a lot of material that sounds "science-y" to the layman but falls apart under rigorous scrutiny. That they put out such material in an effort to sound authoritative and compete with mainstream science seems like a fair assessment.
I realized it wasn't your writing and you were quoting but it was done as if you endorsed it's content.
What I don't understand is that you, being an agnostic, would even care about the Young Earth Creation view at all unless there actually is a God. That YE/OE issue is more of an in-house debate amongst Christians.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I realized it wasn't your writing and you were quoting but it was done as if you endorsed it's content.
What I don't understand is that you, being an agnostic, would even care about the Young Earth Creation view at all unless there actually is a God. That YE/OE issue is more of an in-house debate amongst Christians.

Creationists have a history of trying to interfere with public education and spreading anti-science propaganda. That makes it a public issue not confined to Christianity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Creationists have a history of trying to interfere with public education and spreading anti-science propaganda. That makes it a public issue not confined to Christianity.
I was just asking why you were interested in the debate as an agnostic. Not why are you in it. Of course you're free to take part.
If memory serves me right, it was the evolutionists that interfered with the Creation view in the public school system back in the 1920s or so.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I was just asking why you were interested in the debate as an agnostic. Not why are you in it. Of course you're free to take part.

My interest in the debate has nothing to do with my philosophical beliefs. More than anything these days, it's because I'm interested in biology and I find these debates any easy excuse to read up on the subject.

That, plus I enjoy arguing. ;)

If memory serves me right, it was the evolutionists that interfered with the Creation view in the public school system back in the 1920s or so.

If you're thinking of the Scopes trial, that would be incorrect. The Scopes trial was a result of a Tennessee law which prohibited the teaching of evolution. During which the defendant, John Scopes, was found guilty of violating the law by teaching evolution.

This was a prime example of creationists trying to prevent the teaching of biological evolution in the classroom.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,124
Los Angeles Area
✟820,594.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
That YE/OE issue is more of an in-house debate amongst Christians.

Maybe, but the earth actually has a verifiable age agreed upon by experts in the relevant sciences. The earth is billions of years old.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,124
Los Angeles Area
✟820,594.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
If memory serves me right, it was the evolutionists that interfered with the Creation view in the public school system back in the 1920s or so.

Your memory could use some refreshing. Science readily adopted evolution in the 19th century. And science was understandably taught in science classes afterwards.

In 1925, Tennessee passed the Butler Act. "The Butler Act was a 1925 Tennessee law introduced by Tennessee House of Representatives member John Washington Butler prohibiting public schoolteachers from denying the Biblical account of mankind's origin."

Thus, the Butler Act (which led to the Scopes Trial) was politicians interfering with the scientific view in the public school system back in the 1920s or so.
 
Upvote 0

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Maybe, but the earth actually has a verifiable age agreed upon by experts in the relevant sciences. The earth is billions of years old.
The inhouse debate among Christians is for different reasons. They both believe God created creation and the natural order of things but one compromises with the evolutionary theory and the other believes God took six days as Scriptures state.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your memory could use some refreshing. Science readily adopted evolution in the 19th century. And science was understandably taught in science classes afterwards.

In 1925, Tennessee passed the Butler Act. "The Butler Act was a 1925 Tennessee law introduced by Tennessee House of Representatives member John Washington Butler prohibiting public schoolteachers from denying the Biblical account of mankind's origin."

Thus, the Butler Act (which led to the Scopes Trial) was politicians interfering with the scientific view in the public school system back in the 1920s or so.
Sciences classes? We were having the theory of evolution crammed down our throat in the third grade in the '50's. I'd call that brainwashing, not giving us an alternative view.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Sciences classes? We were having the theory of evolution crammed down our throat in the third grade in the '50's. I'd call that brainwashing, not giving us an alternative view.

With respect to science, there are no scientifically legitimate alternative views.

If you're upset that you weren't able to learn religious ideas in lieu of science, well, too bad. In science class, they should be teaching science.
 
Upvote 0

crossnote

Berean
Supporter
May 16, 2010
2,903
1,593
So. Cal.
✟250,151.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
With respect to science, there are no scientifically legitimate alternative views.

If you're upset that you weren't able to learn religious ideas in lieu of science, well, too bad. In science class, they should be teaching science.
I wasn't upset, I grew up in an atheistic home and had humanism spoon fed to me in the public school system, so I was overly joyed years later to find out the theory of evolution was an agenda driven lie. There actually is hope beyond the grave through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
so I was overly joyed years later to find out the theory of evolution was an agenda driven lie.

Well that's not true. The theory of evolution is part of the foundation of the science of biology, and it's an applied science to boot. Companies even have filed patents for practical applications of the theory.

The idea the ToE is an "agenda driven lie" is nothing more than a piece of creationist propaganda so that creationists don't have to think about conflicting information.

But don't take my word for it. See what creationist Todd Wood has to say on the subject: The truth about evolution
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
We were having the theory of evolution crammed down our throat in the third grade in the '50's. I'd call that brainwashing, not giving us an alternative view.

The thing with alternative views as opposed to reality is that there can be infinite number of them

For starters

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

How do you propose to choose which bits of fantasy are offered as alternative to current scientific knowledge ?
 
Upvote 0