Are Young Earth Creationists Generally Stupid?

[Tom Cohoe]

I think the Biblical picture of divine supernatural action is a bit different from what you are proposing.

[...]

This pattern of openly visible divine action is seen throughout the Bible; why should it be any different in Genesis 1-11?

Shernren, I answered this already in a message to lucaspa, so I will be brief.

God chooses to reveal himself in the biblical miracles. Those who witnessed the miracles did not do the choosing. Without revelation to human witnesses, we could know nothing about the Word. Indeed, the Jews are known as the Chosen People, which we can take to mean the people to whom God first chose to reveal himself.

No human, OTOH, can do the choosing when it comes to witnessing evidence of the supernatural God. This would amount to an ability to put God to the test. Only God does the choosing, and that choosing is done for his purpose, not ours.

So ... all but the witnesses chosen by God must rely on faith to support their belief in the biblical miracles - including creation. We will never be able to scientifically demonstrate the truth of a miracle.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

How should I modify my profile so you won't misunderstand?

juvenissun, I apologize for not answering you sooner.

Having read some other threads which included your participation, I am aware that you have made the journey from communist atheist to Christian believer. That is, to me, an impressive journey. You have shown far more ability than most people have demonstrated ... to change and move toward the truth in a way that must involve painful realization that you had been committed to something false. For me to suggest that you need to continue this journey, not for your salvation, but to find a better and more useful understanding of the fit between science and religion seems almost disrespectful.

And yet that is what I would advise you.

I don't want to be indiscreet here. I don't want to take steps where it could feel like I am trying to corner you in public. So if you want to talk about it, would you contact me privately?

 

[gluadys]

Good morning, gluadys (and all other readers)



The Venerable Bede, for one example from many, in the 8th century, calculated the date of creation as 3952. Literal interpretation of the Bible coexisted with metaphorical interpretation all the way back.

Sure, but he was not a young-earth creationist. He was just a Christian of his time. He did not have mounds of geological evidence staring him in the face telling him the earth was much older. He wouldn't even use the word "fossil" with the same meaning we do today. And he probably thought the stars were fairly small lights in a solid firmament not too far away. He almost certainly thought the earth was large and motionless, stationed at the centre of the universe. And even though he had not reason to think the earth was more than a few thousand years old, he may not have thought the six days of Genesis were literal. I'd have to see if he mentioned that anywhere. But it certainly was not a given of the time that the six days of Genesis had to be literal calendrical days.

A young-earth creationist insists the six days were literal days and that we must ignore what we learn from geological strata, fossils, radiometric dating, and even basic triangulation (used, in many cases, to determine the distance of the stars from us.) This amounts to a blatant denial of the testimony of the senses and an affirmation that what we observe is not what God created, but an illusory mask.

And what is the basis for this? A hermeneutical principle unknown to the Venerable Bede or any ancient or medieval theologian, because it is an offspring of Enlightenment rationalism: that the default reading of scripture is the literal reading and where it makes sense no other sense is to be sought. That is a principle that would have astounded the Venerable Bede, for if his thinking was similar to that of his contemporaries, he would seek out senses beyond the literal, even if he accepted the literal sense as factually correct.

If you insist on conflating sensual awareness and mind (there's a lot more to mind than awareness),

Of course there is. I was just pointing out that where there is no mind or consciousness there is no sensation either. At least no awareness of sensation and hence no observation.

I see a sophisticated YECism as a step that would bring relief from the paranoid attacks on science, could enable YECers to participate fully in real science that could even be a middle ground as a step to a more sensible, metaphorical interpretation of Genesis as science is seen as something benign rather than as something hostile to Christianity. YECers talking about the creation of an "aged universe" are taking the first steps toward a non hostile attitude about science.

I am sorry that you cannot see this as something positive.

I am reminded of the soldier who testified at an inquiry that "we had to destroy the village to save it." Choosing between hostility to science and Omphalos makes Christianity the loser either way.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

gluadys,

In article I linked on The Venerable Bede, if you read the section entitled Works on chronology and the dating of Easter, you will read this quotation

"His [Bede's] works [on chronology] were so influential that late in the 9th century Notker the Stammerer, a monk of the Monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland, wrote that "God, the orderer of natures, who raised the Sun from the East on the fourth day of Creation, in the sixth day of the world has made Bede rise from the West as a new Sun to illuminate the whole Earth"
​

Here we have a highly admiring follower of Bede expressing his admiration in terms of the six day creation. It seems likely, then, that Bede himself was also a six day creationist.

I don't find it credible that belief in the literal Genesis was not widespread through most of the history of Christianity. That is to say, what Young Earth creationists believe is exactly what was widely believed in traditional, orthodox Christianity. This belief is not gnosticism, it is certainly not the gnosticism fought by the early church. It has not become gnosticism today.

I didn't bring up traditional Christianity in the first place (I don't remember who did), but if you want to argue traditional Christianity the Young Earth Christians of today are traditional Christians who believe the Bible in a simple, straightforward way.

Science has nothing to do with it. Science is not religion. Neither does a metaphysical understanding that it is possible to believe Genesis literally without conflict with science. That's metaphysics, not religion.

When you insist that they have to believe that science tells us the true past rather than an appearance, you are dictating metaphysics to them, not Christianity. It has nothing to do with Christianity. If you insist that they must follow your metaphysics to be good Christians, well that's just good old fashioned intolerance of one sect for another.

I am reminded of the soldier who testified at an inquiry that "we had to destroy the village to save it."

Let me try this kind of 'over the top' comparison. In intolerance of Young Earth Christianity, I am reminded of the intolerance of Christians for each other that led to such wholesale slaughter in the religious wars of a few centuries ago that whole regions of Europe were essentially depopulated.

I don't think this kind of hyperbole is useful, whether it is you who engages in it or me.

Choosing between hostility to science and Omphalos makes Christianity the loser either way.

How so? You yourself said you didn't give "two figs" what they believed, that it was their inteference in trying to force their teachings in schools, etc. Now, suddenly, what they think would be a disaster for Christianity even though they would leave science and schools alone.

Just as Mormons are real Christians, so are young earth Christians. The only harm they do to Christianity is through their attacks of various forms on science. Removing that through metaphysical considerations leaves them 100% good Christians who have ceased to do harm through anti science activity.

All you have to do is tolerate.

 

[Assyrian]

In article I linked on The Venerable Bede, if you read the section entitled Works on chronology and the dating of Easter, you will read this quotation

"His [Bede's] works [on chronology] were so influential that late in the 9th century Notker the Stammerer, a monk of the Monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland, wrote that "God, the orderer of natures, who raised the Sun from the East on the fourth day of Creation, in the sixth day of the world has made Bede rise from the West as a new Sun to illuminate the whole Earth"
​

Here we have a highly admiring follower of Bede expressing his admiration in terms of the six day creation. It seems likely, then, that Bede himself was also a six day creationist.

Umm... suggesting that Bede lived in the sixth day of creation is hardly a literal interpretation.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys,
I don't find it credible that belief in the literal Genesis was not widespread through most of the history of Christianity. That is to say, what Young Earth creationists believe is exactly what was widely believed in traditional, orthodox Christianity. This belief is not gnosticism, it is certainly not the gnosticism fought by the early church. It has not become gnosticism today.

The difference is that prior to the 17th century no one had to deny well-substantiated observations to believe that the earth (and universe) was approximately 6,000 years old or that it had been created in six days. YECs do have to deny the testimony of the senses. They do have to hold that what we taste, see, handle, measure is not actually there, but only appears to be there. That requires a considerable shift away from Bede's theology. Bede looked at the heaven and the earth and could say "This is what God created". The YEC has to tell himself "What I observe is not really what God created."

I didn't bring up traditional Christianity in the first place (I don't remember who did), but if you want to argue traditional Christianity the Young Earth Christians of today are traditional Christians who believe the Bible in a simple, straightforward way.

Anyone who thinks the traditional teachers of the past believed the bible "in a simple, straightforward way" hasn't studied them much. YECs are far from traditional in their approach to scripture.

When you insist that they have to believe that science tells us the true past rather than an appearance, you are dictating metaphysics to them,

Yes, Christian metaphysics.

How so? You yourself said you didn't give "two figs" what they believed, that it was their inteference in trying to force their teachings in schools, etc. Now, suddenly, what they think would be a disaster for Christianity even though they would leave science and schools alone.

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want. I do have a problem when claims are made to orthodoxy by those who have opted for what is not orthodoxy. I don't care that they believe what they do. You won't find me witch-hunting Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh-Day Adventists or whatever. But I do consider them sectarian and unrepresentative of Christianity.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

G'day Assyrian,

Umm... suggesting that Bede lived in the sixth day of creation is hardly a literal interpretation.

I have to admit it makes a rather weak substantiation of the orthodoxy of six day creation in the eighth century. However, you can read most of Kendall's translation of Bede's Commentary on Genesis at this link. Reading Bede's words from about page 68, it becomes obvious that Bede interpreted the six day creation literally (and rather beautifully, which explains his fame).

Since Bede was celebrated in his day and later, we can take his stand here to indicate that belief in the literal truth of six day creation did not originate with the modern, post dawn of science, young earth creation movement.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Well, obviously YECism is older than the current movement. However, it has experienced a rather odd resurgence in modern society for some reason.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Hi gluadys,

Bede looked at the heaven and the earth and could say "This is what God created". The YEC has to tell himself "What I observe is not really what God created."

As long as you insist that a YEC does not see what God created, you have a great big non sequitur in the middle of your thought. The reasoning of science is not the same thing as observation. Quibbles about having to have a mind to be aware of ones senses notwithstanding, the YEC observes the universe God created and believes that he observes it.

Anyone who thinks the traditional teachers of the past believed the bible "in a simple, straightforward way" hasn't studied them much.

"Traditional" bible teaching is not some uniform, codified, universally received block of wisdom. My whole point is that we could call much of traditional bible teaching a mass of sophistical hypocrasy which has led to lots of strife and little understanding. By contrast, a "simple, straightforward way" suggests Christ's statement that we cannot enter heaven unless we become like a child. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that YEC's have the innocence of children, but I am saying that their interpretation of the Bible is innocent (and their opposition to science is not diabolical, but paranoid).

Yes, Christian metaphysics.

There is no Christian metaphysics, just the metaphysics of some Christians. Your metaphysics is a very reasonable metaphysics. It is the metaphysics that I prefer. But it is based on an assumption which prejudice can't change into anything more than an assumption, so we should recognize that and help make it a more tolerant world.

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want. I do have a problem when claims are made to orthodoxy by those who have opted for what is not orthodoxy. I don't care that they believe what they do. You won't find me witch-hunting Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh-Day Adventists or whatever. But I do consider them sectarian and unrepresentative of Christianity.

I doubt that there is a single person on this Earth with whom I would agree about every aspect of the Bible or about every question that could arise about Christianity, but I have no sense that they are somehow excluded for differing from me. That is because I know that we all make mistakes, including me. The thing over which I might exclude someone could be something about which I am the one who is wrong.

We shouldn't build little forts.

Remember, Christ said, "Judge not".

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Well, obviously YECism is older than the current movement. However, it has experienced a rather odd resurgence in modern society for some reason.

Indeed it has Dark_Lite, and I think that's an interesting comment. Shall I start a thread to talk about it?

Oh, I'm not waiting for an answer. Consider it done.

 

[Assyrian]

G'day Assyrian,

I have to admit it makes a rather weak substantiation of the orthodoxy of six day creation in the eighth century. However, you can read most of Kendall's translation of Bede's Commentary on Genesis at this link. Reading Bede's words from about page 68, it becomes obvious that Bede interpreted the six day creation literally (and rather beautifully, which explains his fame).

Since Bede was celebrated in his day and later, we can take his stand here to indicate that belief in the literal truth of six day creation did not originate with the modern, post dawn of science, young earth creation movement.

First, thanks for the link it is a great find.

I do not think anyone is questioning that many people interpreted Genesis literally throughout church history. While you also had a strong stream following Augustine and Origen who interpreted the Genesis days figuratively, it is interesting how even the ones who interpreted the day literally were very happy to combine literal and allegorical meanings, they were much more at home with allegorical meanings than our modern literalists. Nor was there the conflict between the literalists and the ones who saw the Genesis days figuratively you see today. If you look at the footnotes Bede keeps quoting Augustine's 'Literal Interpretation of Genesis' (DGAL) where Augustine presents a very figurative reading of the text. Yet Bede seem quite at home quoting Augustine, very different from modern creationism which keeps claiming non literal interpretation is a deception adn denies the word of God.

 

[juvenissun]

juvenissun, I apologize for not answering you sooner.

Having read some other threads which included your participation, I am aware that you have made the journey from communist atheist to Christian believer. That is, to me, an impressive journey. You have shown far more ability than most people have demonstrated ... to change and move toward the truth in a way that must involve painful realization that you had been committed to something false. For me to suggest that you need to continue this journey, not for your salvation, but to find a better and more useful understanding of the fit between science and religion seems almost disrespectful.

And yet that is what I would advise you.

I don't want to be indiscreet here. I don't want to take steps where it could feel like I am trying to corner you in public. So if you want to talk about it, would you contact me privately?

Interesting. We may have chance to talk in other threads. I absolutely do not mind to be cornered, even in public. I am a scientist. In fact, I would really enjoy be cornered. That would be the best moment of learning.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

First, thanks for the link it is a great find.

I do not think anyone is questioning that many people interpreted Genesis literally throughout church history. While you also had a strong stream following Augustine and Origen who interpreted the Genesis days figuratively, it is interesting how even the ones who interpreted the day literally were very happy to combine literal and allegorical meanings, they were much more at home with allegorical meanings than our modern literalists. Nor was there the conflict between the literalists and the ones who saw the Genesis days figuratively you see today. If you look at the footnotes Bede keeps quoting Augustine's 'Literal Interpretation of Genesis' (DGAL) where Augustine presents a very figurative reading of the text. Yet Bede seem quite at home quoting Augustine, very different from modern creationism which keeps claiming non literal interpretation is a deception adn denies the word of God.

Assyrian, what you say here is close enough to what I think that I will not quibble about it.

Modern YECs, I think, differ because of the feeling of being threatened, especially by science and by modern aggressive, even triumphal, atheism (atheism is, of course, ancient, but the aggressive form of it, I think, began only in 17th or 18th century Europe with the rise of deterministic scientific models of reality). YECs attacks on science engender counter attacks, many from atheists who have done little to discourage the false belief that the theory of evolution leaves no room for God.

The paranoid feeling of beseigement has become institutionalized in creation "science", an ersatz imposter possible only among those who have no understanding of what science actually is. Not only is it institutionalized in creation "science", it is also a self regenerating social and cultural phenomenon, and it does tremendous harm to Christianity's prospects among the unconverted.

This is why the metaphysics of sophisticated YECism can be useful. It achieves the complete seperation of science and YEC faith. A sophisticated YEC is no longer impeded by the belief that he is confronting something diabolical from learning what science actually is. He can learn that science is not out to "get" Christianity, that the theory of evolution is not something that was designed for the purpose of destroying Christian faith. With the paranoia in abatement, it would be possible for something like respect for both the literal and figurative interpretations to exist in a YEC Christian as you suggest was possible in earlier times.

I would leave all mockery, ridicule, and belittlement of YECs to the aggressive atheists. Christians should do whatever they can to encourage an understanding of science in YECs in a way that is not threatening. That is why sophisticated YEC can help, as can, of course, the encouragement of a metaphorical understanding of Genesis, if it is possible. The thing is, sophisticated YECism does not challenge the YECs religious faith, so it cannot be seen as threatening.

The casuistic ("it was settled 157 years ago") baggage in the term "omphalos" is not helpful. It may not be as bad as "innocently" speaking of black people as "n****rs", but we are moving in that bigoted direction with the term. Try respect for the people developing a metaphysics which can solve the problem we have from creation "science" today.

For those who have a problem with the metaphysics of sophisticated YEC, I suggest reading The Capricious Cosmos by Joe Rosen, a professor of physics at Tel Aviv University. Professor Rosen does not espouse the metaphysics of sophisticated YECism, but he makes it clear that it is "as good as" any other (emotionally generated labels like "insane", "crazy", or "absurd" notwithstanding). For a look at how weird the metaphysical ideas of physicists can get, try Parallel Universes by physicist Max Tegmark. A universe like the universe of sophisticated YECers exists under the fourth type of parallel universe considered in Tegmark's metaphysics. If it is not beyond the Pale for a physicist to speculate this way, why should the same metaphysics from a YECer be scorned? Finally, for those who like the meat of a little mathematics, physical chemist Jim Baggott's The Meaning of Quantum Theory outlines quantum mechanics, the theory which, along with Einstein's theory of relativity, started physicists on the journey of deep metaphysical speculation which makes physics today the field whose practioners are most likely to be involved in leading scientists back to religion just as they led the movement away from religion in the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Interesting. We may have chance to talk in other threads. I absolutely do not mind to be cornered, even in public. I am a scientist. In fact, I would really enjoy be cornered. That would be the best moment of learning.

OK juvenissun. Note that I talked about trying to corner you. I didn't claim that I would succeed.

Why don't you respond to my thread The Odd Resurgence of young Earth creationism?

 

[shernren]

For those who have a problem with the metaphysics of sophisticated YEC, I suggest reading The Capricious Cosmos by Joe Rosen, a professor of physics at Tel Aviv University. Professor Rosen does not espouse the metaphysics of sophisticated YECism, but he makes it clear that it is "as good as" any other (emotionally generated labels like "insane", "crazy", or "absurd" notwithstanding). For a look at how weird the metaphysical ideas of physicists can get, try Parallel Universes by physicist Max Tegmark. A universe like the universe of sophisticated YECers exists under the fourth type of parallel universe considered in Tegmark's metaphysics. If it is not beyond the Pale for a physicist to speculate this way, why should the same metaphysics from a YECer be scorned? Finally, for those who like the meat of a little mathematics, physical chemist Jim Baggott's The Meaning of Quantum Theory outlines quantum mechanics, the theory which, along with Einstein's theory of relativity, started physicists on the journey of deep metaphysical speculation which makes physics today the field whose practioners are most likely to be involved in leading scientists back to religion just as they led the movement away from religion in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I study physics. I would say that among the explosion of the "understand stupendous physics without getting a degree" books that have been written in the past twenty years, about half are simply pure bollocks, and about a quarter are incapable of being read as anything other than pure bollocks without the physics education that the popularizer implicitly assumes the reader lacks. (The remaining quarter are mostly textbooks.)

This includes almost anything about parallel universes (yes, I know I'm aiming the gun at luminaries such as Michio Kaku). "The Meaning of Quantum Physics" is however indeed a gem, except that it has been superseded by Beyond Meaning, also a fantastic book.

Those who are interested in a Christian philosophy of science (without going through the pseudoscience peddled by many physics popularizers today) should make Alister McGrath their first stop. His "A Scientific Theology" series is simply fantastic albeit a bit deep (written for fellow philosophers, I suspect). Roy Bhaskar's "A Realist Theory of Science", which forms an important basis for McGrath's work, is also important and useful (although even less accessible).

Vern Poythress in "Redeeming Science" makes a defense of omphalos-type viewpoints, although he fails to convince me.

That's a bibliography I would recommend.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

I study physics. I would say that among the explosion of the "understand stupendous physics without getting a degree" books that have been written in the past twenty years, about half are simply pure bollocks, and about a quarter are incapable of being read as anything other than pure bollocks without the physics education that the popularizer implicitly assumes the reader lacks. (The remaining quarter are mostly textbooks.)

Yes, there are lots of what I call, "Gee whizz" books out there.

This includes almost anything about parallel universes (yes, I know I'm aiming the gun at luminaries such as Michio Kaku).

Not only Kaku. Also such luminaries as John Archibald Wheeler and 58% of 72 "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists ... including Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman" favoring the "Many worlds" interpretation, a parallel universes interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is supposedly the second most popular interpretation.

You do not make clear whether you refer to Tegmark's paper under the assessment, "bollocks". If you do, I would have to wonder what they are teaching in schools these days. You can't dismiss it so easily, though you may feel like it (me too - I'm of the 'there is only one universe' persuasion). One of his four parallels is "many worlds", supported by a large number of physicists who probably won't be deterred by a "bollocks" analysis. The 4th parallel follows rather readily from a "theory of everything" universe. Belief in this type of universe has been around since Pythagoras ("the universe is all number") and many physicists today hope for a complete mathematical description of reality. If the universe is "the program" with no mystical (non analytical) "substance" (God, free will) then every "program" is as real as the one running our universe. It would include a "program" which would be like the universe of the sophisticated YEC.

The whole point in mentioning Tegmark's paper is that if physicists can speculate about versions of reality that include sophisticated YEC types universes (and many weirder types) without cries of outrage or mockery from other scientists or the rest of society, then sophisticated YECs should be similarly tolerable.

Tegmark's paper is the natural result of metaphysical interpretational issues that have been impossible to ignore since the advent of quantum mechanics. I do not favor Tegmark's metaphysics, but I will not cry out "bollocks" because that won't do. It is a matter of choice, really, even ... a matter of faith.

"The Meaning of Quantum Physics" is however indeed a gem, except that it has been superseded by Beyond Meaning, also a fantastic book.

I'll take a look at it if I get the time.

Alister McGrath

I believe I have a book by him, but I've recently moved and many of my books are still in boxes. I'm not sure if the book I'm thinking of, which was an overview of the many schools of thought about the relationship between science and Christianity, was by him.

 

[shernren]

Not only Kaku. Also such luminaries as John Archibald Wheeler and 58% of 72 "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists ... including Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman" favoring the "Many worlds" interpretation, a parallel universes interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is supposedly the second most popular interpretation.

You do not make clear whether you refer to Tegmark's paper under the assessment, "bollocks". If you do, I would have to wonder what they are teaching in schools these days. You can't dismiss it so easily, though you may feel like it (me too - I'm of the 'there is only one universe' persuasion). One of his four parallels is "many worlds", supported by a large number of physicists who probably won't be deterred by a "bollocks" analysis. The 4th parallel follows rather readily from a "theory of everything" universe. Belief in this type of universe has been around since Pythagoras ("the universe is all number") and many physicists today hope for a complete mathematical description of reality. If the universe is "the program" with no mystical (non analytical) "substance" (God, free will) then every "program" is as real as the one running our universe. It would include a "program" which would be like the universe of the sophisticated YEC.

Being able to do physics is one thing. Being able to do metaphysics is another.

And being able to communicate metaphysics in a way that both withstands physical scrutiny and attracts financial profit is a rare gift that I daresay most physicists (even otherwise extremely competent ones) don't possess.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the many-worlds interpretation itself is bollocks. Rather, I'm saying that what most people think it is is bollocks. Most people think of the many worlds in many-worlds as worlds that are somehow all simultaneously existent (okay) and somehow physically relatable to each other, like so many pancakes in a pancake-and-syrup pileup (wrong). If you look at the physics from which the many-worlds interpretation emerges, the "larger space" within which many worlds exist is entirely mathematical, completely non-physical, and certainly not going to be bridged any time soon whether by the crew of the Enterprise or by Superboy-Prime.

The whole point in mentioning Tegmark's paper is that if physicists can speculate about versions of reality that include sophisticated YEC types universes (and many weirder types) without cries of outrage or mockery from other scientists or the rest of society, then sophisticated YECs should be similarly tolerable.

Tegmark's paper is the natural result of metaphysical interpretational issues that have been impossible to ignore since the advent of quantum mechanics. I do not favor Tegmark's metaphysics, but I will not cry out "bollocks" because that won't do. It is a matter of choice, really, even ... a matter of faith.

I'm really intrigued by the argument-from-other-people's-weirdness that I've seen cropping up in CF.com over the past few years. It intrigues me because it really doesn't help me accept YECism at all. Fact is, I don't oppose YECism because it's embarrassing, so much as I oppose it because it's just wrong.

So I don't need to hear why other people's weirdness sanctions your own ideas. Just tell me why they're right.

 

[Tom Cohoe]

Being able to do physics is one thing. Being able to do metaphysics is another.

And so?

And being able to communicate metaphysics in a way that both withstands physical scrutiny and attracts financial profit is a rare gift that I daresay most physicists (even otherwise extremely competent ones) don't possess.

Other than Michio Kaku, who are you talking about and how is it relevant here?

Mind you, I'm not saying that the many-worlds interpretation itself is bollocks. Rather, I'm saying that what most people think it is is bollocks. Most people think of the many worlds in many-worlds as worlds that are somehow all simultaneously existent (okay) and somehow physically relatable to each other, like so many pancakes in a pancake-and-syrup pileup (wrong). If you look at the physics from which the many-worlds interpretation emerges, the "larger space" within which many worlds exist is entirely mathematical, completely non-physical, and certainly not going to be bridged any time soon whether by the crew of the Enterprise or by Superboy-Prime.

No doubt, but so what?

I'm really intrigued by the argument-from-other-people's-weirdness that I've seen cropping up in CF.com over the past few years. It intrigues me because it really doesn't help me accept YECism at all. Fact is, I don't oppose YECism because it's embarrassing, so much as I oppose it because it's just wrong.

Well, I agree that creation "science" is wrong, but I'm enough of a metaphysician to know that I can't actually say that young Earth Christianity is itself wrong. I've argued that here sufficiently that, even though I'm not a young Earth Christian myself, for a while I was almost feeling that to say so would be some kind of betrayal of young Earth Christians. Since you "know" it's wrong, I'd appreciate some specific reasoning.

So I don't need to hear why other people's weirdness sanctions your own ideas.

Did I say Tegmark's weirdness sanctions my reasoning? Do you know what my reasoning is?

Tegmark, who, like it or not, is a metaphysician (or if he is not, why not? He does not talk about drilling down from one pancaked world to the next, or about Star Trek, which seems to make up the gist of your complaint). He seriously speculates about the existence of parallel (I mean a metaphysical not a geometric parallelism) universes, one of which, it is easy to deduce, would be a universe pretty much like the universe of YEC Christianity (I say like because one suspects that YEC Christians would want a supernatural God rather than an "anything goes" metaphysics to be responsible for the creation of the universe they believe is the one they live in).

My whole point in citing Tegmark's paper (which I make for the third time) is that if he can receive respect for it, then sophisticated YEC Christians should not be treated with the bigotry and derision to which they are routinely subject. What's good for the big shot physicist should be good for the little uneducated creationist willing to agree that creationism is unscientific (just as any good physicist would agree that Tegmark's speculations are beyond science). That doesn't mean agreeing with them that they are right that the Earth is young. It just means treating them with respect as human beings and as Christians.

Just tell me why they're right.

I am not arguing that they are right. I am arguing that we don't know that they are wrong, which is a much weaker proposition. I distinguish, always, between young Earth christianity and creation "science", which we both know, is bollocks.

I would suggest again that you read physicist Joe Rosen's The Capricious Cosmos (linked several messages up). It is not a gee whizz book. For someone who uncritically laps up Discover Magazine, Kaku, and all the rest of the popularizers, it would probably be a bore. It is not about all conquering science's newest hyped up marvel (speculation in disguise). It is about the limits of science and the boundary between science and metaphysics.

Of course, if you don't want to read it, that's fine, but please, no more suggestive, non specific denunciations. If there's something wrong with Rosen's philosophy, let's hear it, specifically.

Since you are a physics student, you might appreciate the following little puzzle. How many wavelengths of green light (you choose the exact frequency) produced by a laser hovering over a 1 kg non rotating black hole at the distance from the black hole of a 1 kilometer circumference orbit are there between the laser and the black hole's horizon?