My experience...Ken Ham and YEC.

[Ryukil]

Hey everyone. I was brought up a Christian fundamentalist. My parents were more or less YECs. As I got older, I got more interested in the creation/evolution debate. Some time in my late teens, my mind finally dealt with the cognitive dissonance and I accepted evolution. Because I had been brought up a YEC (and I can't stress enough the point that YEC is self-defeating, i.e. it is teaching people that they can't use reason AND be Christians, so people who can think choose not to be Christians) I sort of rejected Christianity once I accepted evolution...it didn't occur to me that there was a middle ground.

Well, I get very passionate about this debate. Anyway, Ken Ham will be coming to my church this weekend. He and a man called Dr. Andrew Snelling, one of the AiG staff. They are shipping kids from a local Christian school to come see him. I've known about this for a while. But when I was at church yesterday, I saw advertisements for the Ken Ham event. We got this one in our bulletins: http://calvaryrr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/AIG-Dangerous-ideas-pp.jpg

"Dangerous ideas." The idea of "dangerous ideas" goes against my entire world-outlook...which is freedom of ideas and conversation. This advertisement looks to me like some kind of Cold War propaganda ("The Marxists are coming to destroy your family! Enlist now!").

When I was in church yesterday, it hit me that my church was REALLY endorsing this man. They were endorsing this repression of ideas, this roadblock to scientific progress. Then it struck how delusional all of these people must be to support this man. At that point, I decided that I wanted nothing to do with religion anymore. I was going to be a militant atheist. If religion could brainwash ordinary people in such a way, there was really something wrong with it.

I'm supposed to go to see Ham with some friends of mine from church. I don't think they are very well equipped scientifically and are just as likely to fall for Ken Ham's views as anyone (granted, they are definitely above average intelligence). But I don't know if I even want to go anymore. I am so frustrated that I just want to give up on religion. YEC especially, and the people who want to undermine science (which is a wonderful thing...if anything is going to give us a cure for cancer it is not Jesus it is science!) is about a fight for reason itself.

Anyway, I feel a sort of moral obligation to go. The moral obligation is to ask some questions (hopefully there will be a sort of question time) about the age of the earth, evolution, etc., but fit into there that there IS a middle ground between fundamentalism and reason. I need these people, who come from a similar background as I do (namely fundamentalism), to understand that it's not so black and white (i.e., the Bible is perfect and good, science is evil). Especially the little kids! I really feel a moral outrage that they are being fed this stuff.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Anyway, I feel a sort of moral obligation to go. The moral obligation is to ask some questions (hopefully there will be a sort of question time) about the age of the earth, evolution, etc., but fit into there that there IS a middle ground between fundamentalism and reason. I need these people, who come from a similar background as I do (namely fundamentalism), to understand that it's not so black and white (i.e., the Bible is perfect and good, science is evil). Especially the little kids! I really feel a moral outrage that they are being fed this stuff.

Maybe you could ask the speaker how he feels about the majority of christians in the world believing in evolution and if he thinks they are genuine christians.

 

[Ryukil]

Maybe you could ask the speaker how he feels about the majority of christians in the world believing in evolution and if he thinks they are genuine christians.

Could you source that?

 

[Ryukil]

This whole YEC thing is driving me right to becoming an out-and-out atheist/antitheist.

 

[Aureus]

Could you source that?

Wiki is a good starting point for getting more specific sources

Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically every main-line Protestant Church in the United States supports theistic-evolution directly or says that its ok to believe in Evolution and that literal biblical creation is not a required part of faith.

Or there's the Clergy Letter Project which is just shy of 13,000 signatures by Christian Clergy members. Its pretty clear to and includes this statement

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."

If you are actually able to get off that paragraph in full please have someone record his (non)-response.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Well, for a start catholicism accepts evolution. That's over half the world's christian population for a kick off.

 

[Dizredux]

I can't find out the data on Christians but here are the figures on acceptance of evolution world wide.

Creationism world wide 2011

Lastly, the survey revealed that four in 10 (41%) believe in human evolution compared to 28% who believe in creationism and 31%of the global population who is unsure what to believe.

Ipsos Global @dvisory: Supreme Being(s), the Afterlife and Evolution | Ipsos

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey everyone. I was brought up a Christian fundamentalist. My parents were more or less YECs. As I got older, I got more interested in the creation/evolution debate. Some time in my late teens, my mind finally dealt with the cognitive dissonance and I accepted evolution. Because I had been brought up a YEC (and I can't stress enough the point that YEC is self-defeating, i.e. it is teaching people that they can't use reason AND be Christians, so people who can think choose not to be Christians) I sort of rejected Christianity once I accepted evolution...it didn't occur to me that there was a middle ground.

Well, I get very passionate about this debate. Anyway, Ken Ham will be coming to my church this weekend. He and a man called Dr. Andrew Snelling, one of the AiG staff. They are shipping kids from a local Christian school to come see him. I've known about this for a while. But when I was at church yesterday, I saw advertisements for the Ken Ham event. We got this one in our bulletins: http://calvaryrr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/AIG-Dangerous-ideas-pp.jpg

"Dangerous ideas." The idea of "dangerous ideas" goes against my entire world-outlook...which is freedom of ideas and conversation. This advertisement looks to me like some kind of Cold War propaganda ("The Marxists are coming to destroy your family! Enlist now!").

When I was in church yesterday, it hit me that my church was REALLY endorsing this man. They were endorsing this repression of ideas, this roadblock to scientific progress. Then it struck how delusional all of these people must be to support this man. At that point, I decided that I wanted nothing to do with religion anymore. I was going to be a militant atheist. If religion could brainwash ordinary people in such a way, there was really something wrong with it.

I'm supposed to go to see Ham with some friends of mine from church. I don't think they are very well equipped scientifically and are just as likely to fall for Ken Ham's views as anyone (granted, they are definitely above average intelligence). But I don't know if I even want to go anymore. I am so frustrated that I just want to give up on religion. YEC especially, and the people who want to undermine science (which is a wonderful thing...if anything is going to give us a cure for cancer it is not Jesus it is science!) is about a fight for reason itself.

Anyway, I feel a sort of moral obligation to go. The moral obligation is to ask some questions (hopefully there will be a sort of question time) about the age of the earth, evolution, etc., but fit into there that there IS a middle ground between fundamentalism and reason. I need these people, who come from a similar background as I do (namely fundamentalism), to understand that it's not so black and white (i.e., the Bible is perfect and good, science is evil). Especially the little kids! I really feel a moral outrage that they are being fed this stuff.

I only read your opening post and none of the following responses so if I say some things that have been already said I apologize. I have not read one word about your relationship with God or Jesus. You haven't said anything about why you were a believer in the first place. If you were a believer because your parents were and had no interaction with God in your life then you are the one at fault for being mislead. Not only are you mislead in religion but also in life itself. There has always been those who would want to keep information out of the hands of those who disagree with their own views. There have always been in those who kill those who disagree with their own views.

In something that determines an eternal question, one must not rest on man to determine what is the right and correct answer. It is time you turned to God for answers rather than man. Only then will you be able to make your way in the world and the world hereafter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This whole YEC thing is driving me right to becoming an out-and-out atheist/antitheist.

That is not because you are having problems with YEC or evolution, it is because you have not found God. Until you turn to Him for answers you will never know the truth. To become an atheist due to YEC is just you not having a relationship with the living God and has nothing to do with YEC or OEC or evolution. It has everything to do with whether you know God exists or not. The rest gets worked out in that knowledge.

 

[Ryukil]

What bothers me so much is that I could go in there and present some kind of "evidence" against evolution that is completely made up. I could say, "You know, it was recently discovered that Australopithecus afarensis was nothing more than a mutant chimpanzee" and the audience would believe me.

 

[Ryukil]

That is not because you are having problems with YEC or evolution, it is because you have not found God. Until you turn to Him for answers you will never know the truth. To become an atheist due to YEC is just you not having a relationship with the living God and has nothing to do with YEC or OEC or evolution. It has everything to do with whether you know God exists or not. The rest gets worked out in that knowledge.

I disagree.

 

[RickG]

Anyway, Ken Ham will be coming to my church this weekend. He and a man called Dr. Andrew Snelling, one of the AiG staff. They are shipping kids from a local Christian school to come see him.

No doubt they are getting paid well for their appearance. Snelling is well known for being conveniently on both sides of a young earth.

Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

And talk about intellectual dishonesty.

CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic wood

 

[Oncedeceived]

I disagree.

About?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What bothers me so much is that I could go in there and present some kind of "evidence" against evolution that is completely made up. I could say, "You know, it was recently discovered that Australopithecus afarensis was nothing more than a mutant chimpanzee" and the audience would believe me.

I am confused. I thought that you were raised YEC and then you learned more about evolution and changed churches in the process to a church that did not take the view that the earth was young and so forth, was I wrong?

 

[RickG]

This whole YEC thing is driving me right to becoming an out-and-out atheist/antitheist.

I can relate to that, it's a burr in my posterior as well. If one has to so overtly misrepresent and lie to justify a belief in God, that doesn't represent the faith very well. Even OEC and GAP theory requires intellectual dishonesty.

But one thing to keep in mind. The YEC targeted audience is targeted to those who want to believe what Ham, et al peddle and who will never fact check any of their claims. They are promoting Christianity for the wrong reasons, which in reality is more harmful than helpful.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can relate to that, it's a burr in my posterior as well. If one has to so overtly misrepresent and lie to justify a belief in God, that doesn't represent the faith very well. Even OEC and GAP theory requires intellectual dishonesty.

But one thing to keep in mind. The YEC targeted audience is targeted to those who want to believe what Ham, et al peddle and who will never fact check any of their claims. They are promoting Christianity for the wrong reasons, which in reality is more harmful than helpful.

What about Spiritual dishonesty? How do you feel about that?

You seem to be pretty good at pointing your finger at other Christians and their beliefs and calling it intellectual dishonesty while standing in the world claiming God and dismissing some pretty important elements of the faith.

 

[RickG]

What about Spiritual dishonesty? How do you feel about that?

Are you suggesting I am guilty of that?

You seem to be pretty good at pointing your finger at other Christians and their beliefs and calling it intellectual dishonesty while standing in the world claiming God and dismissing some pretty important elements of the faith.

What Ham, Snelling, and other (et al) YEC's propagate is deliberate and overt misrepresentation of many disciplines of the physical sciences. I can see this as I am academically trained and experienced in some of those fields they misrepresent. For me it is easy to spot those misrepresentations, unlike their lay audience. A few posts back I provided two links to Snelling's dishonesty.

When I mention intellectual dishonesty do you know what I am talking about? What do you think intellectual dishonesty entails?

 

[Split Rock]

What bothers me so much is that I could go in there and present some kind of "evidence" against evolution that is completely made up. I could say, "You know, it was recently discovered that Australopithecus afarensis was nothing more than a mutant chimpanzee" and the audience would believe me.

This is a good reason for you to attend and confront these guys. Ask them if its necessary to deny reality in order to accept Jesus as your savior.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you suggesting I am guilty of that?

I am saying that you sometimes come off that way.

What Ham, Snelling, and other (et al) YEC's propagate is deliberate and overt misrepresentation of many disciplines of the physical sciences. I can see this as I am academically trained and experienced in some of those fields they misrepresent. For me it is easy to spot those misrepresentations, unlike their lay audience. A few posts back I provided two links to Snelling's dishonesty.

I totally understand and feel that there are people in the Christian faith that do deliberately misrepresent and go as far as lie. If you talk specifics and specific people and back up those I see no problem with that, however, when you lump all YEC's and OEC's into groups that are intellectually dishonest I have a problem with that.

When I mention intellectual dishonesty do you know what I am talking about? What do you think intellectual dishonesty entails?

I believe I do, do you doubt that I am comprehending your position?

 

[RickG]

I am saying that you sometimes come off that way.

Pardon my open honesty.

I totally understand and feel that there are people in the Christian faith that do deliberately misrepresent and go as far as lie. If you talk specifics and specific people and back up those I see no problem with that, however, when you lump all YEC's and OEC's into groups that are intellectually dishonest I have a problem with that.

I am referring specifically to those who originate and propagate it.

I believe I do, do you doubt that I am comprehending your position?

I'm not quite sure. Would you provide a definition of what you refer to as intellectual dishonesty, then we can compare.