What drives YEC

[Assyrian]

There is zero evidence for creationism, and plenty of evidence against it. This is particularly true of YECism. OEC is sort of between "we reject science because it disagrees with us" and acceptance of science.

YECism, on the other hand, is founded entirely on the notion that science must be rejected because it disagrees with their beliefs.

I don't think that is actually true. YECs are fiercely loyal to other sciences like the earth being round and heliocentrism. And they fervently insist that the passages that suggest other wise must be interpreted figuratively or given some other spin so they don't mean what the plain meaning of the text clearly says, in fact often they seem unable to look at the plain meaning and see what it says. They are just as insistent science must be wrong when the literal meaning of Genesis say otherwise and scripture can't be wrong, as they are that the plain meaning of geocentric and flat earth passages can not be what what the passage says, because science say other wise and scripture can't be wrong,

There seem to be a nested hierarchy of science denial
Flat earthers when they turn up will also deny heliocentrism, the age of the earth, and evolution.
Geocentrists accept the earth is round...but deny heliocentrism, the age of the earth, and evolution.
YECS accept the earth is round and heliocentrism ... but deny the age of the earth and evolution.
OECs accept the earth is round, heliocentrism and the age of the earth... but deny evolution.

The only explanation I can think of is that it seems to depend on how long the science has been around. If the great preachers and commentaries of the past accepted the science, then it filters down through the church and is accepted as obvious, newer sciences still a plot of the enemy. Remember it took a century or two for the church to come to terms with geocentrism. So we should expect to see the church coming to terms with geological age over then next generation and OEC and ID replacing YEC, until they disappear too and people wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I don't think that is actually true. YECs are fiercely loyal to other sciences like the earth being round and heliocentrism.

Because it doesn't disagree with their beliefs.

And they fervently insist that the passages that suggest other wise must be interpreted figuratively or given some other spin so they don't mean what the plain meaning of the text clearly says, in fact often they seem unable to look at the plain meaning and see what it says. They are just as insistent science must be wrong when the literal meaning of Genesis say otherwise and scripture can't be wrong, as they are that the plain meaning of geocentric and flat earth passages can not be what what the passage says, because science say other wise and scripture can't be wrong,

Because it disagrees with their beliefs.

The only explanation I can think of is that it seems to depend on how long the science has been around. If the great preachers and commentaries of the past accepted the science, then it filters down through the church and is accepted as obvious, newer sciences still a plot of the enemy. Remember it took a century or two for the church to come to terms with geocentrism. So we should expect to see the church coming to terms with geological age over then next generation and OEC and ID replacing YEC, until they disappear too and people wonder what all the fuss was about.

Evolution has been around at this point for over 150 years, and the vast majority of Christianity has come to terms with evolution. YECism as it is known today is a resurgence movement that started in the early 20th century. It's not really how long a theory has been around, but rather how quickly it takes for the education to spread.

YECism has everything to do with ignorance of science and nothing to do with how long evolution has been around. Evolution could be around for 6,000 years (ha), and if the education wasn't there people would still disbelieve in it. An easy analogy is religion. Many religions have been around for thousands of years. But as Christians we believe Christianity is the truth. If time were the real factor, everyone would theoretically be Christian by now.

Education really is the best weapon to use to combat YECism. Once people know what evolution actually teaches, it will finally dawn on them that YECism is incompatible with reality. It's just the continual beating down of all the walls erected by YECist teaching that makes it take so long. There is a continual denial of evolution through the use of strawmen, and then it may shift to denial of evolution by claiming evolution doesn't actually happen (which I guess is a strawman?), and then finally acceptance.

 

[rcorlew]

Wait a minute is C.S.Lewis being postmodern here? Lewis was a massive influence on me as a young Christian, I have a whole library of his books in the attic*. Thinking back I remember reading this, if not that precise quote, the same idea that the way we think today is not how people thought in the past. It is something I keep coming back to in discussions with YECs that their 21st century perspectives assumptions and interpretations of scripture are not necessarily what scripture is saying. I get called postmodern for that. Now I find out my postmodernism is all C.S.Lewis n

I do not think CS Lewis is postmodern by any means and I think that you that because you seem like you are being jest with that. I think that he brings up a good point, that people will pick the "opposite" side of an argument in order to push back, so if an atheist uses evolution to disprove God then the YEC "must" choose the opposite which is YEC in order to push back. I do not believe that this is a fault of the YEC though, it is basic human nature to do this. The problem that the YEC gets into is that they argue against a fallacious extrapolation of science, the Bible is very clear that "all people" know there is a God and I will not go into that argument here. The point is though that the YEC argues against science in order to disprove philosophy because to an atheist many times science is their philosophy, I believe this is foretold in the Bible as the "antiChrist" setting up a temple to be worshiped which is the ultimate conclusion of Humanism that man is the sole party responsible for our own destiny and we have the power to create. It amazes me how similar Humanism is to the Roman pantheistic environment as talked about in Romans chapter 1 where man worships the creation instead of the Creator.

I would also like to point out that C.S. Lewis was an evolutionist.

Odd isn't it that two people can look at the same thing and based on their a priori assumptions draw differing conclusions.

After much thought I have come to a conclusion about the "Watchmaker" analogy of design. God is not the watchmaker, He is the machinist who makes the gears and parts that go into the watch, evolution is the watchmaker who assembles the parts based on the machinist's work, a watchmaker can only assemble the parts that are given to him in a specific manner to create a watch that was designed by the machinist. Saying that God does not exist because of evolution is like saying that architects do not exist because carpenters assemble the house.

 

[rcorlew]

Because it doesn't disagree with their beliefs.

Because it disagrees with their beliefs.

Evolution has been around at this point for over 150 years, and the vast majority of Christianity has come to terms with evolution. YECism as it is known today is a resurgence movement that started in the early 20th century. It's not really how long a theory has been around, but rather how quickly it takes for the education to spread.

YECism has everything to do with ignorance of science and nothing to do with how long evolution has been around. Evolution could be around for 6,000 years (ha), and if the education wasn't there people would still disbelieve in it. An easy analogy is religion. Many religions have been around for thousands of years. But as Christians we believe Christianity is the truth. If time were the real factor, everyone would theoretically be Christian by now.

Education really is the best weapon to use to combat YECism. Once people know what evolution actually teaches, it will finally dawn on them that YECism is incompatible with reality. It's just the continual beating down of all the walls erected by YECist teaching that makes it take so long. There is a continual denial of evolution through the use of strawmen, and then it may shift to denial of evolution by claiming evolution doesn't actually happen (which I guess is a strawman?), and then finally acceptance.

You know I think the strawmen they knock down are usually not of their own creation, I believe they keep trying to knock down Julian Huxley's strawman from any possible angle and this strawman keeps getting erected by people today so it must be continually knocked down.

The problem is how do you educate someone on science without addressing the philosophical underpinnings of science, to not address the philosophical implications is to agree with Humanism by implication as it is based on the philosophy of science. That my friend is the problem, it is not YEC, disprove or negate Humanism and you win the YEC battle.

 

[Jase]

Education really is the best weapon to use to combat YECism. Once people know what evolution actually teaches, it will finally dawn on them that YECism is incompatible with reality. It's just the continual beating down of all the walls erected by YECist teaching that makes it take so long. There is a continual denial of evolution through the use of strawmen, and then it may shift to denial of evolution by claiming evolution doesn't actually happen (which I guess is a strawman?), and then finally acceptance.

The problem with this is most YECs completely reject education. I've shown people on this board evidences of evolution, the age of the earth, etc. and they still basically say "nuh uh, The Bible says it, that settles it!" No amount of education will break through that kind of illogical barrier.

 

[Dark_Lite]

You know I think the strawmen they knock down are usually not of their own creation, I believe they keep trying to knock down Julian Huxley's strawman from any possible angle and this strawman keeps getting erected by people today so it must be continually knocked down.

That would be the propagation of ignorance. If you repeat something enough times to the same people, it becomes truth. Once something becomes "true," it can be very hard to get rid of it--regardless of how true or false it actually is.

The problem is how do you educate someone on science without addressing the philosophical underpinnings of science, to not address the philosophical implications is to agree with Humanism by implication as it is based on the philosophy of science. That my friend is the problem, it is not YEC, disprove or negate Humanism and you win the YEC battle.

I assume you're talking about the tendency of some creationists to link evolution to atheism? I think your observation would work if YECs rejected all of science. However, they only reject stuff that disagrees with their narrow interpretation of Genesis. Creationists are perfectly fine with naturalistic science until it comes knocking on their theological doorstep.

You will often see creationists claim that "true science agrees with the Bible." What they really mean to say is that "true science agrees with my interpretation of the Bible." So while it may outwardly appear that they are rejecting humanism/methodological naturalism, they are really only rejecting it when it's convenient.

That is, rejection of philosophical naturalism is only a symptom--it's not a cause. You have to address it, but not as if it were the direct cause of YEC beliefs.

Also, weren't you a young earth creationist awhile ago?

The problem with this is most YECs completely reject education. I've shown people on this board evidences of evolution, the age of the earth, etc. and they still basically say "nuh uh, The Bible says it, that settles it!" No amount of education will break through that kind of illogical barrier.

There will always be people that will stubbornly refuse to leave the reality they have created for themselves. This is not exclusive to YECism. It happens in TEism, OEC, and really any viewpoint. When debating these people, it's best to debate for the benefit of others who might be reading, rather than the person you are debating.

 

[Assyrian]

I do not think CS Lewis is postmodern by any means and I think that you that because you seem like you are being jest with that.

I actually am serious, I just think it is hilarious.

 

[shernren]

One of the biggest pitfalls in characterizing creationism as science-denial is that, at heart, what they aren't doing isn't quite as simple as that. Creationists believe that they are being scientific - indeed, at least as scientific if not more scientific than evolutionism which is really (by the old creationist canard) religious faith.

The way this happens is via the twin processes of simplification and ethicization. Simplification happens when creationists repeat a simple claim over and over again because it is straightforward and hence must be true and scientific - like all the other science reports they hear in the media - and thus they drown out the typically more complex evolutionist counter-arguments. Ethicization occurs when the choice between evolution and creationism is seen to involve moral choices (above and beyond the choice of doing science with integrity), e.g. when evolution is linked with abortion, homosexuality, and disgraced former ministers.

You can see how these two processes reinforce each other. For one of the simplest claims about evolution is that it encourages social Darwinism - but this is an ethicizing claim, a claim that evolution is somehow wrong to believe for a reason other than its being false. On the other hand, once the choice has been moralized, our natural human tendency is to see everything in absolutist black and white - because a moral choice is involved, either they're wrong and I'm right or vice versa. But this is a very simple claim, and it encourages further simplification, to the point where one can strongly decry evolution without so much as once considering what kind of evidence it would take to support it and whether that evidence exists or not.

That's why, say, ID is far more popular than geocentrism. It's hard to moralize one's choice of a cosmological reference system today (as compared to Galileo's time); but ID on the other hand essentially proceeds from the moralization of certain statements about randomness in the process of evolution. From there it proceeds to a "us Christians against them heathen atheists" simplification, which in turn reinforces the ethicization of the cause - look at all the Dawkinses and Shermers opposing us! - which again generates more simple ideas, which ...

 

[rcorlew]

I actually am serious, I just think it is hilarious.

I do not think that CS Lewis is post-modern, he did see the errors of pre-modern thought though as any person will notice as they learn things will see that their beliefs about things change as they learn about them. Post-modern is characterized as relativistic and subjective and I have not seen evidence of Lewis exhibiting any of those behaviors, rather he seems to affirm that the more he (we) learn(s) the closer we come to the truth.

One of the biggest pitfalls in characterizing creationism as science-denial is that, at heart, what they aren't doing isn't quite as simple as that. Creationists believe that they are being scientific - indeed, at least as scientific if not more scientific than evolutionism which is really (by the old creationist canard) religious faith.

The way this happens is via the twin processes of simplification and ethicization. Simplification happens when creationists repeat a simple claim over and over again because it is straightforward and hence must be true and scientific - like all the other science reports they hear in the media - and thus they drown out the typically more complex evolutionist counter-arguments. Ethicization occurs when the choice between evolution and creationism is seen to involve moral choices (above and beyond the choice of doing science with integrity), e.g. when evolution is linked with abortion, homosexuality, and disgraced former ministers.

You can see how these two processes reinforce each other. For one of the simplest claims about evolution is that it encourages social Darwinism - but this is an ethicizing claim, a claim that evolution is somehow wrong to believe for a reason other than its being false. On the other hand, once the choice has been moralized, our natural human tendency is to see everything in absolutist black and white - because a moral choice is involved, either they're wrong and I'm right or vice versa. But this is a very simple claim, and it encourages further simplification, to the point where one can strongly decry evolution without so much as once considering what kind of evidence it would take to support it and whether that evidence exists or not.

That's why, say, ID is far more popular than geocentrism. It's hard to moralize one's choice of a cosmological reference system today (as compared to Galileo's time); but ID on the other hand essentially proceeds from the moralization of certain statements about randomness in the process of evolution. From there it proceeds to a "us Christians against them heathen atheists" simplification, which in turn reinforces the ethicization of the cause - look at all the Dawkinses and Shermers opposing us! - which again generates more simple ideas, which ...

Sadly the YEC does not understand the only way to win over the atheist is not in debate, it is in the gospel. You cannot argue against science using philosophy which is what you clearly demonstrate they are doing without even knowing it. I will never ever debate the existence of God with an atheist anymore, I simply relay the gospel to them. I have however crafted the best possible response to an atheist's opposition to God's existence and one that is impossible to defeat without admitting the existence of God.

It is such a tangled web, I do not think it will ever be resolved.

 

[Assyrian]

I do not think that CS Lewis is post-modern, he did see the errors of pre-modern thought though as any person will notice as they learn things will see that their beliefs about things change as they learn about them. Post-modern is characterized as relativistic and subjective and I have not seen evidence of Lewis exhibiting any of those behaviors, rather he seems to affirm that the more he (we) learn(s) the closer we come to the truth.

I would have thought he was a fan of premodern thought, and loved the different perspective you could get understanding say the medieval mindset. It was modernism he had the biggest problems with.

A couple of interesting quotes came up when I googled C.S.Lewis and postmodernism:

“What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what sort of person you are.”

Part of what we know now is that we cannot, in the old sense, ‘know what the universe is like’ and that no model we build will be, in that sense, ‘like’ it.

 

[Willtor]

I do not think that CS Lewis is post-modern, he did see the errors of pre-modern thought though as any person will notice as they learn things will see that their beliefs about things change as they learn about them. Post-modern is characterized as relativistic and subjective and I have not seen evidence of Lewis exhibiting any of those behaviors, rather he seems to affirm that the more he (we) learn(s) the closer we come to the truth.

*snip*

This is one way that the term "postmodern" is used. But in some circles, it is used to mean that there is no intrinsic a priori knowledge -- no universally accepted or provable foundation for knowledge. It isn't that there isn't an objective reality, though knowledge that there is an objective reality would be one of those bits of knowledge that one can't prove, even if one believes it is so.

This latter meaning of "postmodern" is more common among philosophers, even though it isn't typically the one you'll hear from the pulpit. It is an epistemological statement, not an ontological one. As to this, in all my reading of C.S. Lewis, I don't think he was a postmodernist of either sort, though he certainly accepted many of its criticisms of modernism.

 

[Assyrian]

Because it doesn't disagree with their beliefs.

Because it disagrees with their beliefs.

I don't think this gets to the root of the question, how they choose which sciences to believe and which scriptures to take literally.

Evolution has been around at this point for over 150 years, and the vast majority of Christianity has come to terms with evolution. YECism as it is known today is a resurgence movement that started in the early 20th century. It's not really how long a theory has been around, but rather how quickly it takes for the education to spread.

YECism has everything to do with ignorance of science and nothing to do with how long evolution has been around. Evolution could be around for 6,000 years (ha), and if the education wasn't there people would still disbelieve in it. An easy analogy is religion. Many religions have been around for thousands of years. But as Christians we believe Christianity is the truth. If time were the real factor, everyone would theoretically be Christian by now.

Education really is the best weapon to use to combat YECism. Once people know what evolution actually teaches, it will finally dawn on them that YECism is incompatible with reality. It's just the continual beating down of all the walls erected by YECist teaching that makes it take so long. There is a continual denial of evolution through the use of strawmen, and then it may shift to denial of evolution by claiming evolution doesn't actually happen (which I guess is a strawman?), and then finally acceptance.

Education is important, but not the whole answer, not when people can homeschool, get on education boards, or simply ignore the deception of worldly philosophy. I do agree modern mass communication and slick marketing has given YEC a boost, though I think it may be giving way to ID which is much more agnostic on age if not OEC. How big a role did education play in the acceptance of heliocentrism? Or is it that only people with a good education had a voice? Anyway any thought on my nested hierarchy of flat earth geocentrism age of the earth and evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

What drives most people to hold the Young Earth view?

I'm not sure, but I would say interpreting the Bible literally is what does it.

 

[shernren]

I would have thought he was a fan of premodern thought, and loved the different perspective you could get understanding say the medieval mindset. It was modernism he had the biggest problems with.

A couple of interesting quotes came up when I googled C.S.Lewis and postmodernism:

“What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what sort of person you are.”

Part of what we know now is that we cannot, in the old sense, ‘know what the universe is like’ and that no model we build will be, in that sense, ‘like’ it.

I think his argument was that

many people are familiar with modernism, therefore
they can use its sensibilities to correct premodern thought, but

few people are familiar with pre-modernism, therefore
few can use those sensibilities to correct modern thought, so that

modern errors go uncorrected far too often.

IIRC it is a sentiment that first appears in GK Chesterton. I've never really thought of CS Lewis as a postmodernist born before his time, more of a premodernist born after his time - like a time-traveller from the Medieval ages but one who has also familiarized himself well with the sentiment of his current times.

 

[shernren]

How big a role did education play in the acceptance of heliocentrism? Or is it that only people with a good education had a voice?

Heliocentrism is actually quite a bit of a different case, for the simple reason that at the time of Galileo's struggles, it wasn't actually a mature theory. Galileo's theory of the tides was simply wrong. Whether or not heliocentrism was better than epicycles was disputable - true, epicycles had circles upon circles, but at least those were proper circles and not those silly squashed ellipses that you'd need in a heliocentric model. And the true evidence of heliocentrism, namely stellar parallax (so that the Earth does actually move with respect to the distant stars instead of the Sun, which is the real difference between geo- and heliocentrism), is actually far too small for then-astronomical instruments to measure.

So the opposition against heliocentrism was legitimately opposition to a theory that, in addition to its theological implications, was not yet scientifically sound. For those interested in the historiography, the astronomer Clavius is a good pivotal person to study. He was not rigidly Aristotelian, recognizing the satellites of Jupiter and the internal motions of the Earth (precession, nutation, etc.); and yet all the same he considered heliocentrism an immature scientific theory.

Anyway any thought on my nested hierarchy of flat earth geocentrism age of the earth and evolution?

I'll have to think a bit about that - my best current guess would be that it's simply a question of the accuracy of our instrumentation. All you need to show that the Earth is round is a good enough ruler (and intrepid explorers); to show heliocentrism you need a telescope that can resolve stellar parallax (surprisingly hard); to show the age of the earth you need either good geological models or an accurate way to measure radioactivity; and to show evolution you need a whole heap of tools from paleontology to taxonomy to molecular genomics.

I'll add to your list a debate that's waiting to explode, namely the question of dualism in human thought (are we souls or just brains?). It's the key question that simmers underneath many bioethical issues, such as abortion and euthanasia (if brain activity stops, is there a soul still hanging around that we need to respect?) and cloning (I've got a working brain. So what if it's genetically an exact duplicate of someone else's?). Once neuroscience matures to the point where MRI technology can be routinely and discreetly used, the debate will blow wide open.

But as I said, this question merits far more thought than I've given thus far. (Was thinking about vitalism in the sciences as a possible link, then realized that it didn't really explain anything other than the current opposition to evolution.)

 

[rcorlew]

I think his argument was that

many people are familiar with modernism, therefore
they can use its sensibilities to correct premodern thought, but

few people are familiar with pre-modernism, therefore
few can use those sensibilities to correct modern thought, so that

modern errors go uncorrected far too often.

IIRC it is a sentiment that first appears in GK Chesterton. I've never really thought of CS Lewis as a postmodernist born before his time, more of a premodernist born after his time - like a time-traveller from the Medieval ages but one who has also familiarized himself well with the sentiment of his current times.

I think you nailed that about CS, he seemed to be pre-modern in philosophy and yet fully accepting of truths in math and science. You can then use those truths to correct many misgivings about prior thought, I believe he even went as far as to mandate the intellectuals among the Christian body to do this very thing. I have grown very fond of him [CS] and his common sense way of approaching things, not at all bedazzled by all the splendor of the current state of things.

I think the biggest modern error is Humanism and it has crept into absolutely everything, which is why I have argued that if you cannot address the philosophical implications of science along with the science it is probably best to stay away from teaching science in the current climate. I do not wish them to address this as if to say that God used the process of evolution to create us, rather to briefly discuss what science does not say, ie. there is no God. If you do not say [or not allowed to say] these things you have just preached Evolutionary Humanism by default, the sad thing is only a scant few people actually see this and even fewer still have problems with it.

Why is "6" part of the number for "The AntiChrist"; because it enjoys all of the fruits of creation [6 days] without acknowledging the Creator on day 7 by dedicating this day to Him which then completes a full week.

In short, Humanism is the worship of man(kind), or in the book of Romans, worshiping the creation instead of the Creator. Finally through Humanism we have a full edict of how to worship humanity, and because science now does not need God, that means that there is no God at all ala Richard Dawkins and the like.

My opinion is that in order to be able to have a good dialogue with YECs and help them along, we must first defeat Humanism but that is much easier said than done.

 

[Assyrian]

I think his argument was that

many people are familiar with modernism, therefore
they can use its sensibilities to correct premodern thought, but

few people are familiar with pre-modernism, therefore
few can use those sensibilities to correct modern thought, so that

modern errors go uncorrected far too often.

IIRC it is a sentiment that first appears in GK Chesterton. I've never really thought of CS Lewis as a postmodernist born before his time, more of a premodernist born after his time - like a time-traveller from the Medieval ages but one who has also familiarized himself well with the sentiment of his current times.

He certainly loved premodern thought, but more as a visiting anthropologist more comfortable with the tribes he studied than the shallow arrogance of society back home. Understanding how these different culture thought and lived their lives exposed how modern society thinks it is prosperous and needs nothing, not realizing that it is wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. He is more the Modern time traveller who has distant times gone native. He doesn't really think medieval, though he prefers it. He just stands in a place where he can see both medieval and modern and see the strengths and weaknesses in both, and is wise enough to realise by implication even his own views are flawed too.

 

[Willtor]

I'm not sure, but I would say interpreting the Bible literally is what does it.

That is _definitely_ not it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure, but I would say interpreting the Bible literally is what does it.

That is _definitely_ not it.

I beg your pardon?

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between c. 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs.

 

[Cabal]

A simple way of checking, Willtor.

Ask them what "very good" in the creation account means.

Watch literalism go right out the window from the first chapter.