Why - Science or Scripture? (for TEs)

[shernren]

I'm curious to know what the main objection of TEs is towards YECism. I know that you all would have multiple objections, but please do try to prioritise and pick the one which grates the most to you.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I chose #2 (non-literal Genesis). That is the root of the problem, especially when raised to the level of a salvation issue. If we read the Bible without considering the styles and devices used by the people of that time, we are apt to make mistakes in interpretation.

 

[PaladinValer]

All three.

 

[BlackSaab52]

Both one and two.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

It is a little of all the top three for me.

It is unscientific. (ID isn't science, AiG doesn't do science, etc.)

“Creation Science” claims to be science and wants to be taught as science but fails to follow the rules that the rest of what we call science follows. They refuse to test their ideas, they refuse to look at and account for evidence that contradicts their ideas. Real science cannot do this so the fact that “Creation Science” does this over and over again keeps it from being science.

It doesn't consider a non-literal Genesis 1. (ANE cultural mythology, comparative literature, etc.)

YEC and its demand that it be the only way a “True Christian” call interpret the Bible is the way that whatever Creationist movement church leader does removes all other possible ways to view a particular scripture and leads too many to dump Christianity all together once they find out their leaders were lying to them. It also steers anyone with a college level understanding of science away from the churches.

It's bad rep for Christianity. (Publicly refuted, using questionable sources and methods, etc.)

AiG, ICR and other creationist movements and many Creationists I have debated with have often used bad science, falsified material and even out right lies to promote their beliefs and try to convert others. I feel that we are given the mission to test all things and hold on to what is true. Creationism seems directly opposed to this. Because of this it puts a black mark on the reputation of Christianity when so many see Creationism and its lies as being what Christianity is. This makes it much harder than it should be when witnessing to non-Christians.

 

[gluadys]

I chose #4 because, while all the other three are valid, none is my #1 reason.

My #1 objection to YECism is that seems to me to verge on (and sometimes enter) the realm of heresy.

I feel that YECism slanders God's character, understands the incarnation of Christ in the manner of the Docetics, and frequently slides towards an idolatry of the bible in which the scripture, rather than the God who inspired it, becomes the object of worship.

 

[Joykins]

Everything listed above. God does not contradict his creation--that is not in the character of God. I would say in addition the insistence on one marginal interpretation of Genesis, which is problematic and interesting as a work of literature alone, as a basis of faith/salvation issue, is mind-boggling in its hubris.

Joy

 

[rmwilliamsll]

it is not just bad science but it is bad theology as well.
it doesn't do justice to the two book idea.
it is bad hermeneutics to ignore the cultural context of Genesis and to substitute modern common sense.
it is a direct desire to polarize the discussion into atheistic materialism or YECism by eliminating all the middle positions.
it is leading into the anti-intellectualism of the church and increasing it in conservative churches making solutions more difficult.


....

 

[Dark_Lite]

All 3.

 

[Jatopian]

I put #3, but really 1, 3, and 4 for me. Literal interpretation is not solely the root. They literally interpret a translation, which is frankly moronic. "yom" means 'period of time' not '24 hours'.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I chose #4, because my answer is All 3.