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

[Job 33:6]

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.

This discussion affects everyone in that young earthers really are attacking science. I understand it's a contentious topic and people want to defend the word of Christ to the best of their ability. But it ends up transforming into an intellectually dishonest and uninformed campaign against science.

 

[AV1611VET]

...

But who is Mr. Ham addressing when he says this:

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

If it is an inhouse debate why do so many Creationists attack the "Godless atheists who deny the literal meaning of the Bible and doubt the Earth is only 6,000 years old"? Why are there so many creationists on this forum and popping up on science forums, attacking science and scientists because of their views on evolution and the age of the universe.

I don't doubt for a moment that the debate occurs inhouse; I've seen several YECs on this forum implying that anyone who isn't a YEC is not a true Christian. But it extends far beyond the Christian community, as noted in my earlier examples.

 

[lifepsyop]

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.

In the 19th century there were many young-earth creationists (some geologists themselves) who were persuaded and conformed to the current fashionable theory of earth history (at the time strict Uniformitarianism), and they were eventually shown to be just as wrong as the evolutionists.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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 for posting this. I shared it on Facebook in my Casual Religion group. I also bookmarked his blog.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

Teaching science is about teaching the scientific view. I'd call that adhering to appropriate science standards for the third grade.

Life Sciences

3. Adaptations in physical structure or behavior may improve an organism’s chance for survival.

But at least we established that in the 1920s (and ever since!) it has been politicians motivated by religious fundamentalists who have tried to promote their particular sectarian religious ideas in science classes to the detriment of actual science.

 

[crossnote]

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 ?

Your premise and question is laced with bias, proving my point.

 

[crossnote]

This discussion affects everyone in that young earthers really are attacking science. I understand it's a contentious topic and people want to defend the word of Christ to the best of their ability. But it ends up transforming into an intellectually dishonest and uninformed campaign against science.

I would rather state 'the so called Christian Old earthers are attacking the Scriptures and are capitulating to 'so called science'. My beef is not with the atheists and agnostics (that's expected), but with Christians who compromise God's Word.

 

[crossnote]

If it is an inhouse debate why do so many Creationists attack the "Godless atheists who deny the literal meaning of the Bible and doubt the Earth is only 6,000 years old"? Why are there so many creationists on this forum and popping up on science forums, attacking science and scientists because of their views on evolution and the age of the universe.

I don't doubt for a moment that the debate occurs inhouse; I've seen several YECs on this forum implying that anyone who isn't a YEC is not a true Christian. But it extends far beyond the Christian community, as noted in my earlier examples.

See post 28 above. Believe me, this topic rages among Christians, usually along the divide of theological liberals and conservatives.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would rather state 'the so called Christian Old earthers are attacking the Scriptures and are capitulating to 'so called science'. My beef is not with the atheists and agnostics (that's expected), but with Christians who compromise God's Word.

I wouldn't call it attacking scripture at all. Justification through science is a means of elaborating on God's creation as it truly is. In and of itself, and not perceived souly through interpretation of written word.

 

[crossnote]

I wouldn't call it attacking scripture at all. Justification through science is a means of elaborating on God's creation as it truly is. In and of itself, and not perceived souly through interpretation of written word.

We don't interpret Scripture according to man's theories, otherwise you might as well reject the miracles, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the fulfilled prophecies; in short anything miraculous as that runs counter to the empirical methodology. It is an attack on Scripture, having 'man's sight' trump God's Word...

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(Heb 11:3)

But I think this is another topic

 

[Job 33:6]

We don't interpret Scripture according to man's theories, otherwise you might as well reject the miracles, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the fulfilled prophecies; in short anything miraculous as that runs counter to the empirical methodology. It is an attack on Scripture, having 'man's sight' trump God's Word...

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(Heb 11:3)

But I think this is another topic

All scripture is interpretted through the eyes of man. But the earth, created by God remains as it is, unchanged, despite man's wild imagination.

No amount of interpretation can make a rock less dense than a marshmallow, for example. It is as it is. And if it shows us that it's old, then it is as it is.

Scripture on the other hand, tells us little to nothing about how creation of the earth occurred, or even how long it took. Leaving our imaginations to run amuck, and to distort views of what God's creation truly is.

 

[pitabread]

We don't interpret Scripture according to man's theories, otherwise you might as well reject the miracles, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the fulfilled prophecies; in short anything miraculous as that runs counter to the empirical methodology. It is an attack on Scripture, having 'man's sight' trump God's Word...

Do you believe that Genesis 1 & 2 are meant to represent a literal history of the world as opposed to a figurative one?

If yes, then how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Halbhh]

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.

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.

Nice illustrations, though I only skimmed (I've read well over 10,000 astronomy and astrophysics articles, and don't need even a well written review really). I noticed another article the author wrote, in which he says the wonderful outcome:

" God became much bigger to me when I accepted the truth about the cosmos."
How I Stopped Believing the Earth Is 6,000 Years Young

That feels right, because while I never believed the Universe or Earth were young, never learned such non-Christian extraneous ideas as 'Young Earth Creationism' (YEC) in any of a half dozen church denominations we attended when I was young (YEC was absent from them all, in -0- out of perhaps 1,000 sermons!) -- I remember how utterly awed I was when I first began to truly comprehend the real scale of the cosmos.

Understanding the awesome reality of the cosmos is only an aid to faith, really, if the faith isn't distorted.

 

[variant]

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.

How many people do you meet on average that really appreciate the world around them for what it actually is?

 

[Ophiolite]

How many people do you meet on average that really appreciate the world around them for what it actually is?

Lots. What confuses the issue is that most people, most of the time are too caught up in the problems of survival, or rather what passes for survival in modern society. (Choosing between heating your bedroom or buying a meal, getting to the meeting on time, or acquiring the latest i-phone, compared with avoiding being eaten by a tiger.)

However, take those people out of the moment and put them in the right environment and many become poets, philosophers and joyful optimists.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Your premise and question is laced with bias, proving my point.

Meaning that if the "alternative viewpoint" you speak of is not your chosen alternative instead of some from the countless of others it also ranks as nonviable as real science.

Funny to have you talking about bias.....

 

[crossnote]

Meaning that if the "alternative viewpoint" you speak of is not your chosen alternative instead of some from the countless of others it also ranks as nonviable as real science.

Funny to have you talking about bias.....

I'm sorry, I noticed your list of Creation myths did not include the 'Judeo' myth which I had expected. So no, I don't accept any on that list, I accept the Genesis account, and as a Catholic I would 'assume' you do to.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm sorry, I noticed your list of Creation myths did not include the 'Judeo' myth which I had expected. So no, I don't accept any on that list, I accept the Genesis account, and as a Catholic I would 'assume' you do to.

Look harder.

The Genesis creation myth is listed under "Middle East".
OB

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I'm sorry, I noticed your list of Creation myths did not include the 'Judeo' myth which I had expected. So no, I don't accept any on that list, I accept the Genesis account, and as a Catholic I would 'assume' you do to.

That is nice. However we are talking about science and what universities should teach. So you figure that each religion in their own universities should teach their creation myths as reality instead of something that scientific research confirms is true for everyone ?