To convince a YEC

[anonymous1515]

I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion about a year ago, and I found it pretty interesting. He presented one story in particular, of a geologist (i think?) that went through the Bible (I'm guessing the OT) page by page, and cut out every phrase that he thought contradicted modern science. Apparently, by the end of his exercise the man was left with the front and back cover, and almost nothing in between. The man knew he had to choose between either accepting the modern views science or accepting the literal account of Genesis presented in the OT. Amazingly, the man decided to have faith in the literal word of the Old Testament, despite glaring contradictions with modern science. If I remember correctly, he said "If all the evidence in the universe suggested that God did not exist, I would still believe."

So, here's my question: in your experiences, are all YEC's like that? What evidence would it take to convince a young earth creationist that the Earth really IS several billion years old? If there are any YEC's looking at this thread, feel free to respond too. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, but rather trying to figure out why you believe Genesis to be literal, and what it would take to convince you otherwise.

Thanks guys/girls.

 

[juvenissun]

I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion about a year ago, and I found it pretty interesting. He presented one story in particular, of a geologist (i think?) that went through the Bible (I'm guessing the OT) page by page, and cut out every phrase that he thought contradicted modern science. Apparently, by the end of his exercise the man was left with the front and back cover, and almost nothing in between.

He must be an idiot.

You are not better by using this example.

 

[Scotishfury09]

So, here's my question: in your experiences, are all YEC's like that?

He must be an idiot.

You are not better by using this example.

I guess that's a yes to Juvie.

 

[anonymous1515]

He must be an idiot.

You are not better by using this example.

He must be an idiot? You mean the man who chose to reject science and believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God.

And what do you mean I am "not better by using this example." What does that phrase even mean? Better than what?

 

[gluadys]

I read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion about a year ago, and I found it pretty interesting. He presented one story in particular, of a geologist (i think?) that went through the Bible (I'm guessing the OT) page by page, and cut out every phrase that he thought contradicted modern science. Apparently, by the end of his exercise the man was left with the front and back cover, and almost nothing in between. The man knew he had to choose between either accepting the modern views science or accepting the literal account of Genesis presented in the OT. Amazingly, the man decided to have faith in the literal word of the Old Testament, despite glaring contradictions with modern science. If I remember correctly, he said "If all the evidence in the universe suggested that God did not exist, I would still believe."

So, here's my question: in your experiences, are all YEC's like that? What evidence would it take to convince a young earth creationist that the Earth really IS several billion years old? If there are any YEC's looking at this thread, feel free to respond too. I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, but rather trying to figure out why you believe Genesis to be literal, and what it would take to convince you otherwise.

Thanks guys/girls.

That would be Kurt Wise, an evangelical who studied paleontology under Stephen J. Gould. Dawkins has called him the only creationist he can respect, because he is honest about the fact that a literal interpretation of the bible is so inconsistent with science.

So, in one respect the answer to your question is "no" not all YECs are like that.

Some, like our friend juvie, convince themselves that a literal interpretation does have scientific support.

Others hold that scientists allow pre-suppositions to influence the interpretation of scientific evidence, so creationists are simply interpreting the evidence with bible-friendly pre-suppositions and these interpretations are just as valid as those of mainstream science.

And some also hold that the fall and/or flood (usually both) disturbed the cosmos so radically that there is no valid scientific access to the past earlier than Noah.

Often you will find the same person holding more than one of these positions.

But no matter how you slice it, YECs are very resistant to any evidence of an old earth. So in that respect they are alike.

 

[anonymous1515]

Yeah, I've noticed that trend. Most (if not all) of the YEC's I've seen on this site have seemed unwilling to even entertain the theory of evolution or an old earth.

 

[shernren]

Oi! I changed my mind, y'know! *waves hand around wildly in the air*

 

[anonymous1515]

Oi! I changed my mind, y'know! *waves hand around wildly in the air*

Hahah, I know. I thought of your story when I made my last post. You seem like a very rare exception though. Have you seen many others change their minds?

Also, have you guys ever seen anyone change their position from being a TE to a YEC? I saw a video about Kurt Cameron (from Growing Pains) who claimed to have changed his mind from believing in evolution as an atheist to rejecting evolution and becoming an evangelical. I'm not sure how genuine his story is, but if it's true it seems pretty amazing.

Edit: Actually, his "proofs" for creationism clearly demonstrate that he doesn't understand the evolutionary theory he rejected. Never mind...

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, I've noticed that trend. Most (if not all) of the YEC's I've seen on this site have seemed unwilling to even entertain the theory of evolution or an old earth.

I am a YEC, could I entertain one piece of your "theory"? If one could not satisfy you, we could do two.

 

[anonymous1515]

I am a YEC, could I entertain one piece of your "theory"? If one could not satisfy you, we could do two.

Alright. Perhaps we should make a new thread for this one?

 

[Molal]

I am a YEC, could I entertain one piece of your "theory"? If one could not satisfy you, we could do two.

Entertain away, please provide peer reviewed published scientific papers/data instead of logical fallacies and appeals to ignorance.

From all the posts I have read, you have provided no evidence to suggest the theory of evolution is incorrect. Surely if the theory is so poor, you could provide this evidence easily..........

To reiterate, so you understand what I would like to see - peer reviewed scientific evidence, no logical fallacies or appeals to ignorance.

 

[shernren]

Hahah, I know. I thought of your story when I made my last post. You seem like a very rare exception though. Have you seen many others change their minds?

Also, have you guys ever seen anyone change their position from being a TE to a YEC? I saw a video about Kurt Cameron (from Growing Pains) who claimed to have changed his mind from believing in evolution as an atheist to rejecting evolution and becoming an evangelical. I'm not sure how genuine his story is, but if it's true it seems pretty amazing.

Edit: Actually, his "proofs" for creationism clearly demonstrate that he doesn't understand the evolutionary theory he rejected. Never mind...

As a kid I used to assume that the scientists were right about the age of the dinosaurs and all that. Hey, they said it with pretty colorful books. They couldn't possibly be wrong, right? And I just wasn't smart enough (or biblically-inclined enough) to figure out that something somewhere had to give. Then when I grew up and started reading more "science" I became a YEC. So technically I did change from (not much of an) evolutionist to (not much of a) YEC.

I think we must always be careful not to project our knowledge and perception of science onto others. Like it or not, creationism is incredibly scientific, from a PR point of view. It has simple, pithy arguments, complete with vivid examples and memorable quotes. Too bad it's all wrong. Like it or not, evolution really isn't a very user-friendly theory, to me. For example it still takes me quite a bit of thought to see and explain why twin nested hierarchies support evolution. (Or maybe I'm just slow.) A large part of evolution and evolutionary research is classification, and again that's not sexy, "breakthroughs in nuclear fusion / a cure for cancer / halting global warming" science. It can be subtle; consider the discussion over units of selection or the C-value enigma, neither of which have ever been picked up by scientific creationists as real, live issues in evolution.

So no, I don't think I've seen many others change their minds the way I did, proportionately speaking.

 

[Aggie]

I’ve pretty much stopped posting in the main creation/evolution section, for the reasons I described in this thread, but things seem a little better here in OT. I guess I’ll express my opinion about this.

I think that every YEC has something that can convince them of evolution, but it isn’t always something that can be shown to a person online. There are a few people for whom all it requires is showing the scientific flaws in creationism, although as Shernen said, these people are pretty uncommon. Most of the time, what’s necessary in order to accomplish this involves more than just science.

In my mother’s case, what it took was for me to show her how evolution could be reconciled with Christianity. For my sister, I found it especially interesting: she knew that I thought birds were directly descended from dinosaurs, but never had the patience to let me to explain the evidence for this to her. The thing that convinced her of it was when the type specimen of Sinornithosaurus was discovered, and there was a picture of it on the front page of the New York Times. It was so obvious from this fossil that the animal had partially-developed wings and feathers that she didn’t need an explanation for why it was considered a transitional fossil; she could just see it for herself.

Generally speaking, I think the better you know someone, the easier it will be to accomplish this. Knowing someone makes it easier to figure out what’s necessary in order to accomplish it, and if that thing is something other than just a scientific explanation, it’ll also often be easier for someone who knows the person well to provide it.

 

[anonymous1515]

I’ve pretty much stopped posting in the main creation/evolution section, for the reasons I described in this thread, but things seem a little better here in OT. I guess I’ll express my opinion about this.

I think that every YEC has something that can convince them of evolution, but it isn’t always something that can be shown to a person online. There are a few people for whom all it requires is showing the scientific flaws in creationism, although as Shernen said, these people are pretty uncommon. Most of the time, what’s necessary in order to accomplish this involves more than just science.

In my mother’s case, what it took was for me to show her how evolution could be reconciled with Christianity. For my sister, I found it especially interesting: she knew that I thought birds were directly descended from dinosaurs, but never had the patience to let me to explain the evidence for this to her. The thing that convinced her of it was when the type specimen of Sinornithosaurus was discovered, and there was a picture of it on the front page of the New York Times. It was so obvious from this fossil that the animal had partially-developed wings and feathers that she didn’t need an explanation for why it was considered a transitional fossil; she could just see it for herself.

Generally speaking, I think the better you know someone, the easier it will be to accomplish this. Knowing someone makes it easier to figure out what’s necessary in order to accomplish it, and if that thing is something other than just a scientific explanation, it’ll also often be easier for someone who knows the person well to provide it.

Excellent post Aggie (both this one and your linked thread that you provided). I completely agree with you - it does no good to simply shout others down, or insult people's intelligence. And yes, I also agree that even though evolution is a well documented and well supported scientific theory, that's no excuse for pro-evolutionists to use fallacious arguments to make their point. Thanks for your post!

 

[gluadys]

Edit: Actually, his "proofs" for creationism clearly demonstrate that he doesn't understand the evolutionary theory he rejected. Never mind...

That has been my experience with most people who claim to have switched from "believing" in evolution to YEC.

In a sense they are right. They did "believe" in evolution, i.e. they took for granted it was true because that is what they heard at school and in the media. But they certainly never understood it.

Their half-baked misunderstanding of evolution made them easy prey to the pseudo-science of YEC.

 

[juvenissun]

Alright. Perhaps we should make a new thread for this one?

Whatever you like, go ahead.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Edit: Actually, his "proofs" for creationism clearly demonstrate that he doesn't understand the evolutionary theory he rejected. Never mind...

Yeah, as Gluadys said, this seems to be fairly common. One of the mistakes is that many (not all) YECs seem to think that it is enough to disprove Darwinian evolution when in fact, the theory itself has evolved. However, too often the modern evolution synthesis (Darwinian natural selection, Mendelian genetics, Malthusian population models, with a little shove from Gould's punctuated equilibrium) is ignored and the arguments against evolution are boiled down to logical fallacies and insults.

 

[sfs]

Our church is running an adult Sunday School class on Christian views of origins. I'm going to be the speaker on the subject of what science says about origins. It is an interesting challenge: present the history of the universe, along with supporting evidence, in 45 minutes. (I'm also supposed to present a later session on theistic evolution, i.e. how one can reconcile the scientific viewpoint with Christianity, but I haven't given that talk much thought yet; I'm too busy putting together the science one.)

I'd say most class participants are some kind of OEC, with some YEC leanings and some TEs, or at least TEist leanings. Lots of people have heard relevant things (mostly bad creationist arguments), but I think most are pretty fuzzy on exactly what they believe. The spirit in the discussions has been good.

My goal in attending and contributing to the class is not really to convince YECs (or OECs). What I would really like is for people to understand that evolution is a viable option for Christians, that scientists have good reasons for accepting it, and (possibly) that creationism is not really a competing model, scientifically speaking. Given human nature, which tends towards tribalism and distrust of outsiders, and the unfortunate fact that evolution has long since been branded as the enemy in evangelical circles, I am treading carefully: one careless statement could mark me as an enemy rather than a member of the community, and hobble my ability to persuade people of anything.

 

[anonymous1515]

Our church is running an adult Sunday School class on Christian views of origins. I'm going to be the speaker on the subject of what science says about origins. It is an interesting challenge: present the history of the universe, along with supporting evidence, in 45 minutes. (I'm also supposed to present a later session on theistic evolution, i.e. how one can reconcile the scientific viewpoint with Christianity, but I haven't given that talk much thought yet; I'm too busy putting together the science one.)

I'd say most class participants are some kind of OEC, with some YEC leanings and some TEs, or at least TEist leanings. Lots of people have heard relevant things (mostly bad creationist arguments), but I think most are pretty fuzzy on exactly what they believe. The spirit in the discussions has been good.

My goal in attending and contributing to the class is not really to convince YECs (or OECs). What I would really like is for people to understand that evolution is a viable option for Christians, that scientists have good reasons for accepting it, and (possibly) that creationism is not really a competing model, scientifically speaking. Given human nature, which tends towards tribalism and distrust of outsiders, and the unfortunate fact that evolution has long since been branded as the enemy in evangelical circles, I am treading carefully: one careless statement could mark me as an enemy rather than a member of the community, and hobble my ability to persuade people of anything.

That is a very insightful position. I hope all goes well!

 

[Molal]

Our church is running an adult Sunday School class on Christian views of origins. I'm going to be the speaker on the subject of what science says about origins. It is an interesting challenge: present the history of the universe, along with supporting evidence, in 45 minutes. (I'm also supposed to present a later session on theistic evolution, i.e. how one can reconcile the scientific viewpoint with Christianity, but I haven't given that talk much thought yet; I'm too busy putting together the science one.)

I'd say most class participants are some kind of OEC, with some YEC leanings and some TEs, or at least TEist leanings. Lots of people have heard relevant things (mostly bad creationist arguments), but I think most are pretty fuzzy on exactly what they believe. The spirit in the discussions has been good.

My goal in attending and contributing to the class is not really to convince YECs (or OECs). What I would really like is for people to understand that evolution is a viable option for Christians, that scientists have good reasons for accepting it, and (possibly) that creationism is not really a competing model, scientifically speaking. Given human nature, which tends towards tribalism and distrust of outsiders, and the unfortunate fact that evolution has long since been branded as the enemy in evangelical circles, I am treading carefully: one careless statement could mark me as an enemy rather than a member of the community, and hobble my ability to persuade people of anything.

Although I haven't done exactly what you are proposing, I did teach science on wednesday night adult class. It was much fun because I did experiments!

But it was very challenging to some and others falt-out refused to attend. It lasted 2 months.

I like to think the class helped people understand what science is and what it does and how it functions.

I did powerpoint presentations each week and brought my work's projector with me and set it up each week - and setup experiments - simple things like acid/bases, titration, bread making/cooking an egg, beer-yeast and brewing (my favourite).