The dangers of YEC'ism

Vance said:

Now, hold on once again. You believe that those who do not read the Bible as YOU do are unable to defend their Faith? That is not really what you are saying, is it?

Click to expand...

If the Bible is myth then there is no basis for Christ's substitutory atonement, his deity &c therefore the Bible becomes worthless. Only if we read it literally does it have any worth. Are you saved? How do you know?

AV1611 said:

Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins i.e. substitutory atonement? If so how do you know? Could this not be just a legend? How do you determine what is truth and what is myth when you read the Holy Bible?

Click to expand...

I believe Jesus died. I don't hold to substitutionary atonement; I get more out of the Christus Victor and the Incarnational models of atonement myself, although I have nothing against SA.

I believe He rose from the dead because He is alive today. If He wasn't, a bible verse saying He had risen would hardly convince me. Why the Bible and not the Koran?

I'm sure many of the gospel accounts surrounding the events of Jesus' life and death are legendary, written to illustrate a truth that the Early Church had come to understand about Jesus.

And that's the rub. The convincing corpus of evidence is not the Bible, but the tradition of the whole Church of which the Bible forms just a part.

Karl, didn't you know? Evolutionists are all Atheists who hate Jesus, the Bible, and the Church because they are also Communists, anti-semitic, and racist too![/sarcasm]

AV:

1. Evolution is a worldly truth.
2. The Bible is a Book of spiritual Truths, not worldly truths.
3. Evolution therefore contradicts nothing in the Bible.

To paraphrase the beliefs of the Apostles, the Fathers, the Martyrs, and the Ecumenical Councils, "The Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in all matters of doctrine and faith"

Does evolution have anything to do with salvation? No.
Does evolution have anything to do with faith? No.
Does evolution have anything to do with doctrine? No.

Unless, of course, you believe the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils lied and ther Martyrs died for a false faith...

Vance said:

1. A non-literal reading does not mean the Bible is not True. The Bible, every word of it is God's holy Word. Literal or not.

Click to expand...

2. The basis for God's redemptive gift of His Son is based on the fact that Man is in a Fallen condition: we have lost our immediate communion with God because of our sinful nature and need redemption. We know this is true because Genesis 1 and 2 tell us about the loss of communion and later Scripture tells us the plan for redemption. You are saying that this message from God can only truly exist if the text is read literally. The majority of Christianity (starting with Augustine) realize that this Message is straight from God and is all Truth, whether it is told to us in literal or in allegorical or figurative language.

Click to expand...

The above two quotes shews that you do not understand what literalism is...can you define it for me please?

3. You are telling the world: unless you can accept the Bible literally in every detail, don't bother with Christianity because the Bible is then WORTHLESS.

Click to expand...

Indeed I am...if God did not create the Earth in six days as the Holy Bible states then the Bible is wrong.

BTW, I know I am saved the same way you do.

Click to expand...

The Holy Bible is the "word of truth" and truth is exclusive...when it says the earth was created in six days it means six 24hour periods, because that is what a 'day' is.

AV1611 said:

The above two quotes shews that you do not understand what literalism is...can you define it for me please?


Indeed I am...if God did not create the Earth in six days as the Holy Bible states then the Bible is wrong.


The Holy Bible is the "word of truth" and truth is exclusive...when it says the earth was created in six days it means six 24hour periods, because that is what a 'day' is.

Click to expand...

and when it says that God has wings.....?

herev said:

and when it says that God has wings.....?

Click to expand...

Find me the verse...

AV1611 quoth;

Indeed I am...if God did not create the Earth in six days as the Holy Bible states then the Bible is wrong.

Click to expand...

Then, by your logic, the Bible is wrong.

I'm off to become a Buddhist. Is this what you want?

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

AV1611 quoth;
Then, by your logic, the Bible is wrong.

Click to expand...

Actually the Holy Bible is true because the Earth was created in six days and will celebrate its 6000th Birthday on October 23rd 2004.

AV1611 said:

herev said:

and when it says that God has wings.....?

Click to expand...

Find me the verse...

Click to expand...

Psalm 91:4 (NIV)
He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

AV1611 said:

Actually the Holy Bible is true because the Earth was created in six days and will celebrate its 6000th Birthday on October 23rd 2004.

Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. I've yet to see you address any of the thousands upon thousands of pages of evidence that the world is far older than this, and that current biodiversity came about by a process of descent with modification. If God really made the earth in six literal days only 6000 years ago, then He needs to answer to why He was such a dishonest, lying git to make it appear far, far older.

And since you're so sure you know the truth, why don't you explain why God deceives us in this manner?

I've posted links to the evidence a dozen times, and I'm not wasting time posting them again. If you care about evidence, you'll look them up. If you'd rather wallow in ignorance of reality, that's your affair.

Yes, creationist attitudes are getting up my nose big time.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

Don't be ridiculous. I've yet to see you address any of the thousands upon thousands of pages of evidence that the world is far older than this...

Click to expand...

Thousands of pages of evidence...Ha ha ha...heresay is more like it. No empiricle evidence contradicts YEC wether you like it or not.

AV1611 said:

Thousands of pages of evidence...Ha ha ha...heresay is more like it. No empiricle evidence contradicts YEC wether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Did you mean to say "hearsay" or "heresy"? I need to know which particular form of YEC bluster I'm up against.

Vance said:

"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will." ~Davis Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, 1982

"The church serves no good end by clinging to failed interpretations of the Bible and refusing to explore new directions. Christian scholars have an obligation to lead the way toward a renewed reverence for God's truth wherever it can be found. Conservative scholars must develop a more aggressive attitude toward creation and encourage the church's youth to enter not only the pastorate, mission work, and theology but also such fields as the natural sciences, archeology, an-thropology, and the social sciences. If anything, Christians should be preeminently motivated to investigate the intricacies of God's created order; confident that a better grasp of both God's Word and God's works will be forthcoming." Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood, A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence, pp 304-312.

Click to expand...

I'm a YEC myself and yet I can totally understand what the above people are saying. Before I was a Christian I was strongly a evolutionist. I thought YEC's were mad, although I always supported their right to beleive such a thing. I always thought Christianity and evolution were compatable and therefore had never dismissed Christianity. Last autumn I went to the Christian Union stall at university and asked them if Christianity and evolution were compatable. They said it was. I contued my exploration in the Christian faith and eventually accepted Christ as my saviour. I was a staunch TE for about four months before realising the problems TE and Christian had. Now I dont think they are compatable and 100% beleive in the young Earth.

I think the attitude Christians should take with non-Christians with regards to the earths origins is one of an open mind. Although I do beleive the 'evolution being true would make Christianity false' scenario I will not state this infront of non-Christians. When I asked I will state that I am a YEC and that I dont think the evidence for evolution is as conclusive of many people think. But I will also say that there are many different positions that Christians take on this issue. I will say that some Christians are TE's, some OEC's and some Gap theorists. Given the chance the non-Christian will probably know little about these will and probably wont be bothered to research each position in detail will open up in the mind lots of different possibilitys for Christianity being true.

The Alpha leaflet on this subject tackles the issue in the correct way. It never endorses evolution, but it does state that "many Christians are sincere beleivers of evolution and find no conflict between the Bible and evolution". Here Nicky Gumbel (the author) states something that is a fact (many Christians do beleive TE's and see no problem with it) without saying that Christianity and evolution are compatable. Through the cleverness of his writing Nicky Gumbel leaves non-Christian readers with an open-mind without betraying a literal interperation of the Bible.

This is what we should do as Christians. We are called to open doors for people to come to Christ, not close them. How can we seriously expect non-Christians to beleive in creationism? I have never met a non Christian (other than my dad funnily enough) who thinks there is a chance YEC could be true. So to promote the YEC is true OR Christianity is false line is a very dangerous way of spreading the gospel although it is a premise I agree with. I also think it is wrong for TE's put forward nothing but TE when the non-Christians ask. The ideal way to answer them is to say "many Christians have different opinions on this issue and there are lots of different theorys on how God made the world, but I personally beleive in _____!" This way if the non-Christian doesnt like your position, they still have 3/4 other theorys to consider.

However once someone is born-again I think an eventual conversion to YEC is important for their spiritual health and for the faith. But it is more important to get people born-again before we get them into creationism. It will be better on judgement day to be a non-literalist evolutionist Christian than to be a Muslim orthodox creationist.
So this dilemma of either YEC being true or Christianity being false should only be presented to people who have a strong faith in Christ, not to those who havent accepted Him. Our job is not to convert people to creationism, premillineialism or biblical literalism; but to bring people to knowledge and acceptance of Christ as God and Saviour.

I have to disagree with the idea of eventual conversion to YEC. I believe it is fundamentally dangerous to ever associate Christianity with the acceptance of a model of origins that is as scientifically credible as the earth being flat and supported by four elephants on a giant turtle.

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:

I have to disagree with the idea of eventual conversion to YEC. I believe it is fundamentally dangerous to ever associate Christianity with the acceptance of a model of origins that is as scientifically credible as the earth being flat and supported by four elephants on a giant turtle.

Click to expand...

It is however YOUR opinion that YEC is as credible as a flat earth/four elephants on a giant turtle. I admit YEC isnt currently scientifically credible, but it is certainly better supported than the flat earth/giant turtle models.

I don't know why or how God made the world 6-7,000 years ago or why or how the world wide flood came about 4,500 years ago. All I do is accept that He did do that. Remember our God is so amazing that He can do things far above our logic and understanding. And for the world to be made 7,000 years ago and for the evidence to show otherwise may not mean God is lying or deceiving us. He certainly wants us to have the option of beleiving in evolution so that people can have the freedom to choose atheism. He left evidence which 'can' be intrepreted as evidence for evolution, but this evidence must also genuinely point to something else otherwise God is deceiving us by planting false evidence.

Creationism as we understand science I would say is false. But I put my faith in the knowledge that human beings still dont understand everything about science yet. Maybe there is hard evidence for creationism somewhere we have not found yet. Maybe we are misunderstanding how carbon dating or other scientific principles works. We have never been able to measure the effects of a flood on the scale of Noahs flood. Maybe water in such quantity as a worldwide flood has different properties than water in local floods. Maybe the water of Noahs time was different back then. The water of Noahs flood could have had a chemical that has an eroding effect on rock and soil. This may be enough to carve out the grand canyon within weeks. And the reason we dont see this chemical in water today is because that chemical disapeared either naturally or because God disabled it in order to prevent the chemical from eroding the entire earth.
In this case God hiding the evidence for this chemical is not deception, but done for a good reason. (to stop the world from being completely eroded) It so happens to also serve the purpose of giving man the freedom to reject God. But this would not be the only reason. So therefore God is not lying.
I have so much sympathy for those who struggle with YEC. I was once as avid beleiver in evolution as Back-slider or any of the other TE's are. I remember argueing with YEC's on these very boards and I used the same points as you make. However a reading of the Bible coupled with answer to prayer and conviction of the Holy Spirit has made me into a YEC for life.

I admit that YEC is impossible if we accept that the only scientific process' that have been discovered or thought of by humans are the only process' there are or have been. But if we accept there could be something that happened/happens that we have discovered yet or ever will discover then YEC becomes a remote possibility.

YEC through current scientific understanding is not possible.
YEC + scientific process X is possible.

I dont know what that process is and probably never will know. But I trust that God has used it. Creationist in a sense have their own 'missing link'. But I beleive our God is an intelligent God and has invented something beyond our current understanding that no one has probably even thought of. He has done this before. Before the 1930's many people rejected the authority of the Bible because of a prediction about the End Times. Revelation describes the dead bodies of two witness' in Juruselum. It then goes on to say that for three days the whole world will stare at these dead bodies in Juruselem and rejoice. Many people rejected this prophecy because they thought 'how can people all over the world be looking at the same two bodies in one city at the same time?' Isnt it impossible for people in Russia, Japan and Brazil to all be staring at something that is happening in just one location Jerusulum? This prophecy turned the Bible into a joke. But the Bible beleivers of the time accepted that whilst they didnt understand how this was possible, they understood that under the might of God it was possible and that God would know how. Then they invented television! Now that once discredited verse has become a propechy highlighted to show the prediction of the invention of media technology. I am trusting God has done the same with creation.


I had to reject evolution because it makes such a mess of theology and the Bible. I have also found evolutionary thinking to be dangerous in so many ways. I remember when I beleived in evolution I heard the claim that black people are less intelligent than whites and I remember thinking 'under evolutionary theory this could be a possibility'. For a long time I had uncomfortble thoughts that there might be a bit of thruth in this theory. I feared it might be true and if it was proved truth the racism that would result would be horrendous. I began to question if blacks were an inferior race. I was almost on track to looking down on black people. But Creationism, even if false, provides a far healthier way of veiwing the different races. From what Gods Word says about us all coming from One Blood provides no room for thinking that some races are inherently superior to others. It is easier to see blacks and Asians as relatives and equals under YEC.
People could also attempt justify rape and pologamy from evolutionary thinking. Rape becomes a way of surviving and continueing the genetic line, rather than an abominable act. And under evolution it is very easy to excuse men sewing their wild oats. Men dont sleep around because they are in sinful rebellion against their Creator. Men sleep around to ensure plenty of women are impregnated in order to keep the genetic line going. Under evolutionary thinking (even whilst wearing a Christian cap) men sleeping around isnt wrong, its nature taking its course.Pologamy becomes natural. Why not let the local male stud have a one night stand with your daughter? To disaprove would be to go against the evolutionary process and nature itself.
As for male rapists, they are not demon possessed sinners, they are fine examples of genetically healthy predators just trying to survive in the evolutionary world.

I am not saying that TEs or even atheistic evolutionists think any of the above are morally good. But evolutionary theory would imply that such acts are okay. So even if evolution is true, the evolutonary worldveiw is not a healthy or positive one to have. Look at Hitler for example!

One final point is that if theistic evolution is true then God set up the Laws of Evolutiuon and the Law of the Survival of the fittest. And yet the teachings of Christ teach us to be humble and go against the law of the jungle. Jesus taught us that it is better to give than to receive. This isnt the case according to the laws of nature that His Father set up. To be a giver will result in extinction. Why would God set up a natural law in order to set up a spiritual law that contradicts it?

Jesus often said "do not be like the world" and "resist the god (Satan) of this world". But if you beleive in TE why reject the ways of the world if they are part of Gods natural law? Under TE it also becomes God, not Man who gave the world into the hands of Satan.

But under Creationism whilst the laws of surivival of the selfish still apply to the world, this is only a result of the Fall. Adam and Eves rebellion against God placed humanity into the rat race.

AV1611 said:

Find me the verse...

Click to expand...

From Psalm 17:
6 I call on you, O God, for you will answer me;
give ear to me and hear my prayer.
7 Show the wonder of your great love,
you who save by your right hand
those who take refuge in you from their foes.
8 Keep me as the apple of your eye;
hide me in the shadow of your wings
9 from the wicked who assail me,
from my mortal enemies who surround me.

and Psalm 36:
7 How priceless is your unfailing love!
Both high and low among men
find [2] refuge in the shadow of your wings.
8 They feast on the abundance of your house;
you give them drink from your river of delights.
9 For with you is the fountain of life;
in your light we see light.

And Psalm 57
Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me, for in you my soul takes refuge. I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings until the disaster has passed.

and Psalm 61
I long to dwell in your tent forever and take refuge in the shelter of your wings. Selah

And Psalm 63
Because you are my help, I sing in the shadow of your wings.

and Psalm 91:
4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
(note the specific reference to feathers, here)


and yet in Psalm 18, he uses the wings of the wind and flies on cherubim
10 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared on the wings of the wind.

and in Psalm 104, he rides the clouds on wings of the wind
3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.

Personally considering 'space and time' and 'mass and time', 'c' decay etc. I can see why YEC is simply not the majority scientific viewpoint.
However, whilst I do accept that evolution does occur to an extent, I simply cannot see it as origin of the species and I have just read the section on it in the origins link and become even more convinced when I see these propositions. IMO there are simply no where near enough convincing transitional fossils, gaps or no gaps. For me this is a major and fundemental stumbling block to the theory.
Also what I have never been at all comfortable with is the origin of life explained by science, one example being left-handed amino acids. This year Imperial College have published a work on homochirality and to me its good science (who am I to question IC) But one must note that they say that they believe that at the dawn of biological life.... and they have demonstrated that an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product, in conditions expected around the time of pre-biotic life and displays all the signs to suggest it may be a model for how biological homochirality evolved.
Maybe this is how science can explain how God spoke life into being Genesis 1:11 "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation.."

In the UK evolution gets presented daily as fact and yet creationism gets totally dismissed, in fact I think it gets outlawed.

The link is http://www.ic.ac.uk/P5343.htm

ahab said:

Personally considering 'space and time' and 'mass and time', 'c' decay etc. I can see why YEC is simply not the majority scientific viewpoint.
However, whilst I do accept that evolution does occur to an extent, I simply cannot see it as origin of the species and I have just read the section on it in the origins link and become even more convinced when I see these propositions.

Click to expand...

Could you be more specific?

IMO there are simply no where near enough convincing transitional fossils, gaps or no gaps. For me this is a major and fundemental stumbling block to the theory.

Click to expand...

I don't know that that's true. There are lots of transationals between major groups - what gaps do you think are damning?

Also what I have never been at all comfortable with is the origin of life explained by science, one example being left-handed amino acids. This year Imperial College have published a work on homochirality and to me its good science (who am I to question IC) But one must note that they say that they believe that at the dawn of biological life.... and they have demonstrated that an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product, in conditions expected around the time of pre-biotic life and displays all the signs to suggest it may be a model for how biological homochirality evolved.

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis is a far less well fleshed out field than evolution. I tend to believe that it will be explainable in terms of natural causes because that appears to be the way God works, given everything else.

Maybe this is how science can explain how God spoke life into being Genesis 1:11 "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation.."

Click to expand...

Exactly. The Bible and science are asking different questions, and their answers are complementary.

In the UK evolution gets presented daily as fact and yet creationism gets totally dismissed, in fact I think it gets outlawed.

Click to expand...

No. Just no-one credible tries to push it.

The link is http://www.ic.ac.uk/P5343.htm

Click to expand...