Confessions of a Young Earth Creationist

[Remus]

I admit it. My opinions are basically what one would be described as young earth creationists. How can any intelligent person (and yes, I’m quite intelligent) still believe this in the face of all of the scientific evidence that we have today? Well, I have learned that scientific matters have something in common with spiritual matters. How long did it take you to figure out that you shouldn’t rely on another person’s opinion on spiritual matters? It took me a little longer than that to figure out the same thing when dealing with scientific matters. To see where I’m coming from, all one has to do is look back 15 or 20 years. Compare what scientists were saying then to what they are saying today. Similar in some cases maybe, but there are some major differences that trouble me. Now, don’t misunderstand, I don’t expect scientists to have all the answers, nor do I think that science itself is flawed. However; don’t expect me to treat today’s theories as anything more than theories to be considered.

Even with all of this, I am in now way dogmatic about my position. I am always reconsidering my opinions and am willing to change them if need be. So far, there hasn’t been sufficient evidence that has lasted to convince me that my position is incorrect. In many cases, I can see the reasoning others have different opinions, and I can respect that. What I can’t respect is anyone that doesn’t respect my opinion.

So you can expect me to continue to form my own opinions based on the evidence that I have today, the evidence that I have seen in the past, the evidence that I have seen in the past that is no longer valid, and the evidence that will continue to come and possibly change.

God bless

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Give me one major difference in scientific thought in the last 15 or 20 years. Heck give me one example in the last 50 years.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

One thing is for sure. Science SHOULD be approached with a skeptical mind. All evidence, and more especially - all conclusions - should be filtered through a healthy skeptical point of view.. Now, outright denial is not skepticism. Neither is blind acceptance. But taking all claims with a grain of salt is. When ever I see a program where the latest scientific discoveries are being presented, I always take it in with skeptical mind. And all to often, especially when presented by the media, a skeptical analysis scientific claims are more then justified.

A skeptical mind is an open mind.

Anybody remember the X-Files TV show. Mulder had a poster which said "I want to believe" (the hocus pocus stuff) and Scully totally dismissed anything smelling of the metaphysical. Somewhere inbetween those two exremes would be healthy skepticism.

 

[Remus]

Give me one major difference in scientific thought in the last 15 or 20 years. Heck give me one example in the last 50 years.

The Brontosaurus comes easily to mind.

 

[Andy D]

I also am a young earth creationist who believes in 6 day creation and adam and even being real people. I also have tried to approach the scientific evidence with an open mind but keeping in mind that the Bible is the authority as it is God's Word. I also respect the opinions of those who believe in theories that are not presented in the Bible, and accept that some evidence can lead many to believe YEC is not possible, but all too often I also have seen how evidence could be used to prove either view depending on how you desire to view it.

I know there is no point arguing YEC vs evolution or another theory and regardless of what percentage of Christians dont believe in 6 day creation or Adam and Even being real people, I will always hold it to be true. I am sure I wont be condemned for believing as I do, after all, if one did not have any sientific evidence or propaganda to base their views on, we could really only take it the way it was presented in the Bible. Considering God knew it would be taken literally for majority of the time that the Bible was written, I cant see how we can suddenly say, it is symbolic or wateva people say.

Obviously it is in the Bible for a reason and written that way for a reason, and regardless of it being written by man, God inspired it and lead the people to write as they did and preserved His word for a reason. God is not the author of confusion.

God bless u all
Andrew

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Which version of the bible is the ultimate infallible authority then?

The catholic bible?
The protestant bible?
The coptic bible?
The eastern orthodox bible?

 

[Ron21647]

The Brontosaurus comes easily to mind.

What, that they changed its name to Apatosaurus? That was because they realized that they had one creature with two names, and per custom, they went with the earlier discovery.

As far as "only a theory", what about gravity, quantum mechanics, particle / wave theory of light, special and general relativity? Evolution is on firmer ground than some of those. For example, explain why gravity works. We know the formula for calculating the amount of gravity, but the why is harder to come by.

Ron

 

[Remus]

What, that they changed its name to Apatosaurus?

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of its head being wrong.

As far as "only a theory", what about gravity, quantum mechanics, particle / wave theory of light, special and general relativity? Evolution is on firmer ground than some of those. For example, explain why gravity works. We know the formula for calculating the amount of gravity, but the why is harder to come by.

What kind of argument is this? Is this supposed to make me have more faith in today's scientists?

 

[seebs]

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of its head being wrong.

Giving up on evolution because of that is comparable in scope to abandoning Christianity over the debate over how many people were at the tomb. The important point isn't the people who are there...

 

[Remus]

Giving up on evolution

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion about my lack of faith in scientists.

Either way, I've not given up on evolution. I'm still waiting for the compelling evidence that would convice me that macroevolution is in fact reality.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'm still waiting for the compelling evidence that would convice me that macroevolution is in fact reality.

The most compelling evidence to me is the damaged GLO gene see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ and the existence of telomeres and an extra centromere in chromosome 2 see: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

There are lots of other things but the only not-evolutionary explanations for these two items makes God out to be a liar.

 

[Ron21647]

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of its head being wrong.

Ok, the specimen in question was discovered in 1877 by Marsh, one of the first people involved with digging up dinosaur fossils and displaying them. When the first nearly complete specimen of apatosaurus / brontosaurus (he named them both, but thought they were two different kinds of animals) was found, he placed the wrong head on it. That skeleton went into the Yale Museum, with the wrong head, and no one noticed, because there were more recently discovered specimens which were more complete. That one wasn't being studied. Finally, after it had been on display for 100 years, someone noticed, and fixed it. The fact that someone noticed shows that the correct head was known for quite some time. That is what science is supposed to do, correct errors as they are found. While it is an embarassment, it in no way disproves evolution.

What kind of argument is this? Is this supposed to make me have more faith in today's scientists?

I am trying to point out that science is never going to have the certainty that you seem to want. There is always the possibility that a new fact will be found that causes part of an existing theory to change.

Sometimes it will be a major change, where the old theory must be discarded. An example would be the phlogiston theory of combustion. when it was proven to be wrong by accurately weighing everything before and after the combustion, it was replaced by the oxygen theory of combustion.

An example of a theory which was extended but not discarded would be Newton's Laws of Motion. When Einstein showed that Newton's laws did not apply at speeds which are a measurable percentage of the speed of light, the theory was changed to accomodate this. In this case, Newton's formulas are still used at normal speeds, with the knowledge that there are some cases where they do not apply.

In the examples I gave, in many cases the fact of what happens is known, and we have formulas to calculate which can be used in predictions, but scientists do not really know why it is this way. And they may never know. This does not make the theory wrong, just possibly incomplete. And there is always the chance that a new fact may become known which would require change to the existing theory.

Ron

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Give me one major difference in scientific thought in the last 15 or 20 years. Heck give me one example in the last 50 years.

Plate tectonics.

Science allows for revolutionary improvements in our understanding of phenomena.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion about my lack of faith in scientists.

Either way, I've not given up on evolution. I'm still waiting for the compelling evidence that would convice me that macroevolution is in fact reality.

It may be you are not convinced of evolution because you have been led to believe it will do things it cannot. In short, if your basic concept of evolution is skewed such that the "compelling evidence" you are looking for cannot exist, then it would be pretty difficult to produce the "compelling evidence" that would satisfy you.

At the same time, evidence that IS compelling to people who do not have a skewed idea of what evolution is and does, fails to convince you because you do not see its relevance.

All of the above refers to the concept of "macro-evolution" commonly held by creationists---which is most unlike the scientific concept of "macro-evolution". Because the creationist concept of macro-evolution is a straw man, evidence for it cannot be produced. At the same time, creationists tend to dismiss the evidence scientists offer for macro-evolution because it does not look like the sort of evidence they would consider "compelling."

So, for example, scientists can demonstrate speciation in fruit flies which meets all the scientific criteria of macro-evolution, and creationists dismiss it on the grounds the new species are "still fruit flies" and not a "distinctly new kind". Since they have not seen one "kind" turn into another "kind" (their straw-man criterion of macro-evolution), by their lights they have not seen "compelling evidence" for macro-evolution.

The existing evidence for macro-evolution is compelling if you understand what biologists (not creationists) understand macro-evolution to be, and understand the relevance of that evidence to the scientific understanding of macro-evolution.

The other major difficulty for many people (and not only creationists) is a poor grasp of scientific method. The idea, for example, that a "common designer" is equal to "common ancestry" as a scientific explanation of biological homologies shows an inability to discern the consequences of each theory and test them against observation.

So I suggest that before you decry a lack of "compelling evidence" you describe at some length what it is that you want compelling evidence for. It may be that what you want evidence for is not what evolution is.

Then, if we can clarify what evolution is, we can move toward a definition of what compelling evidence you should really be looking for and see if it exists.

 

[Remus]

The most compelling evidence to me is the damaged GLO gene see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ and the existence of telomeres and an extra centromere in chromosome 2 see: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

These links are interesting and I admit that they are compelling. One doesn’t have to go down to the molecular level to see similarities between species. But, before I can even consider macroevolution, I would have to be convinced that the earth is, in fact, millions of years old. If I'm not mistaken, this is one of the fundamental assumptions for evolution. However, there are other issues that I have with macroevolution, but I’m sure you’ve heard them all before.

There are lots of other things but the only not-evolutionary explanations for these two items makes God out to be a liar.

That looks like a topic for another thread

 

[Remus]

...it in no way disproves evolution.

I didn't say that it did.

I am trying to point out that science is never going to have the certainty that you seem to want.

I don't see this as a limitation of science. I see it more of a limitation of scientists, whom I originally stated that I don't expect to be perfect.

There is always the possibility that a new fact will be found that causes part of an existing theory to change.

Or, in some cases, to cause the theory to be discarded. And this is where I'm coming from?

It's like this; when I am presented with a theory, I think through the theory and examine the evidence. I typically start with the assumptions. If I have issues with one or more of these assumptions, then these have to be addressed before I can accept it. Wouldn’t you agree?

Besides, this isn't about evolution, nor is it about creation. I can comfortably reconcile evolution, old earth, etc… into what the Bible says. As I stated before, I'm not dogmattic.

 

[Remus]

It may be you are not convinced of evolution because you have been led to believe it will do things it cannot.

I believe that my use of other people's terms have caused this misunderstanding. I used the term "macroevolution" to differentiate between changes that take short periods of time and those that take long periods of time. If this is the incorrect use of the term, then you have my apologies.

 

[gluadys]

But, before I can even consider macroevolution, I would have to be convinced that the earth is, in fact, millions of years old. If I'm not mistaken, this is one of the fundamental assumptions for evolution.

That looks like a topic for another thread

Actually, the age of the earth is not an assumption at all. It is a conclusion from the evidence. Nor is it a conclusion of evolution. It is, for the most part, a conclusion of geology.

That the earth is millions of years old is a fact settled mostly by Christian investigators into the geology of the earth in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. As the accepted theory of the time was that all but the most ancient of the geological strata had been laid down by the Deluge, they began studying them with that assumption in mind.

Bit by bit they kept turning up geological facts (such as angular non-conformities, or beds of chalk or shale which had to take hundreds of years to form, or sequences of paleosoils one on top of another) which are incompatible with a global flood.

By the 1820s no geologist (Christian or otherwise) suggested that more than the topmost gravels and moraines could have been left by the flood. The work of Louis Agassiz (a life-long foe of evolution) proved that these were a result of glaciation, not flooding.

In 1831, the President of the Royal Society, who was also a Christian and a member of the clergy, Rev. Adam Sedgwick, announced that he was now convinced that the flood had to have been a relatively local event.

The fact that the antiquity of the earth was proven by Christians who fully believed in creation is the reason why, until 1950, the vast majority of Christians who rejected evolution were Old Earth, not Young Earth creationists.

Old Earth Creationism was the belief I was raised in. I switched to theistic evolution when I discovered that there was no godlessness implied in evolution, and that the evidence for evolution made sense of so much in biological and ecological studies.

The geology of the 19th century is quite sufficient to indicate that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old. That the earth and solar system are actually thousands of millions (=billions) of years old is a consequence of the facts of physics in regard to the decay of radioactive materials such as Uranium, Argon and Rubidium. (Not Carbon 14---it is useless for dating rocks of any age, and for dating anything older that 50,000 years.) I know many creationists have doubts about radiometry, but, in terms of the earth being millions of years old, it is not necessary to use radiometry. Straightforward geology is sufficient.

For more info on how geology establishes that the earth is very old see the web site of former creationist, Glen Morton, where he analyses the complete column as it is found in North Dakota.


http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm


Evolution does take time. But if you know the history of scientific discovery, you find that the age of the earth was determined first, and did not necessarily lead geologists to embrace evolution when Darwin proposed it in 1859. Geology and evolution are separate scientific fields. They touch on each other only when establishing the time period in which fossils existed as living organisms and in working out the ecology that prevailed in different geologic ages.

So, in one sense, you are starting in the right place. How old is the earth? is not a question about evolution. But evolution is incompatible with a young earth scenario. So looking at geology and why we must conclude from geology that the earth is very old is a good place to start.

It doesn't commit you to accepting evolution, but it does take away one major obstacle.

 

[gluadys]

I believe that my use of other people's terms have caused this misunderstanding. I used the term "macroevolution" to differentiate between changes that take short periods of time and those that take long periods of time. If this is the incorrect use of the term, then you have my apologies.

That's a much better understanding of the terms than most non-scientific ones I've seen.

But macro-evolution does not need to take a long time. Short-lived species (like fruit flies) can provide examples of macro-evolution in a few weeks or months.

The scientific distinction is that micro-evolution refers to processes of evolution within a species and macro-evolution refers to processes of evolution which lead to the generation of new species (="speciation"). So micro-evolution deals with such things as mutations, variation, natural selection and adaptation which help a species survive through changing environments (and lead to changes within the species), while macro-evolution deals with population genetics, ecology, geographic dispersion, sexual selection and mate choice, and the mechanisms which lead to speciation.

 

[Andy D]

I know some people dont like Answers in Genesis, but read this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp

It will ask you a lot of questions regarding the flood that I would also ask but I dont have time to go through them right now. Basically, if the flood were not global, i see it as calling God a liar or else His word incorrect....which is...calling God a liar. If you think scientists can come up with evidence to prove God is a liar....sure...but dont go telling me you are also a Christian who believes in God and that He loves us and is all He is described as in His word.

A global flood of course would not do the evolution theory any good though...so it cannot be accepted on any terms but scientists who believe the earth is millions of years old.

Just a thought....I know this isnt the thread to post info about the flood, but it was brought up so I wanted to let you know what us YEC believe with regards to the flood and this link sums it up so beautifully...without even having to give us a whole heap of scientific evidence...but rather telling us that the Bible says that a global flood occured.