YECs: What would convince you?

[George Murphy]

YECs generally insist that early Genesis is to be read as accurate historical narrative. There are, however, other possible interpretations. Early Genesis may not be historical narrative at all. Or Genesis may be interpreted in concordist fashion. In any case, straight "history as it really happened" isn't the only possibility. (& this can be extended to other texts dealing with Adam & Eve &c - e.g., Romans 5.) These other interpretations do not deny the truth of Genesis but raise the possibility that it is true in other ways.

My question then to YECs is simple: What kind of scientific evidence about the universe, the earth, the history of life, human nature, etc. would convince you that the earth is old & that humanity has evolved from earlier species?

This is not just an attempt to put YECs on the spot (though it may do so). I think clear answers could avoid the waste of lots of time & energy. If the answer is, "Nothing could convince me" then there's really little point in debating all the age, evolution &c questions under the heading "natural sciences." Whatever discussion is going to take place should be under a biblical studies or theology heading. OTOH, if there really is some evidence that would convince you that a different - & non-YEC - interpretation is preferable, let the rest of us know. Then we won't have to spend time trying to make points that to you seem irrelevant.

Shalom,
George

[salvationfound]

As far as YEC or OEC I can go either way I haven't permanently made up my
mind either way so I'm willing to listen to any argument over the age of the
earth.

As for Genesis I personally feel that the Pentateuch we have today wasn't
done the same way as originally written by Moses. I believe cutting and
pasting and editing occured. (After all the ending of Deuteronomy couldn't
have been done by Moses since Moses died at the end). So I'm willing to
listen to arguments over the way Genesis was written.

As for man evolving from different species you'd have to first show a reasonable
abiogenesis model that fits evolution better than creation. Then show
arguments of a large number of transition species evolved over a long period
of time that are truly transitional and not simply a different kind of dog or
bird or cat. Then show arguments that only favor evolution and can't be
interpreted for creation model. (ex. people show how genetically similar a
monkey and man are. I don't see why God can't make the two similar as
though he is not allowed.)

[Gilgaron]

As for man evolving from different species you'd have to first show a reasonable
abiogenesis model that fits evolution better than creation.

You don't need abiogenes for human evolution in all possible creation schemes. A deity could have made fish and we evolved from there, for example.

Then show arguments of a large number of transition species evolved over a long period
of time that are truly transitional and not simply a different kind of dog or
bird or cat.

What groups do you feel this has not been adequately described for? I would agree that at present birds have not been entirely tacked down, for example, but cats and dogs are fairly straightforward. Really, within vertebrates is not really that hard, going outside that gets trickier because fossilization is less common.

Then show arguments that only favor evolution and can't be
interpreted for creation model. (ex. people show how genetically similar a
monkey and man are. I don't see why God can't make the two similar as
though he is not allowed.)

What data could possibly be inconsistent with any possible creation model? The world could have been created just this morning with everyone's memories of the past constructed and we'd never be able to tell. You have to start getting into theology about whether or not the creator would trick us and other issues before you could get back to science.

[Minnesota]

I'm an evolutionist, not a YEC, but let me venture an answer and reason. There can be no such convincing animal. Because of the YEC belief that the Bible cannot be wrong, and that their interpretation of the Bible cannot be wrong, there is absolutely nothing that can both contradict what the Bible says and still be correct. If a piece of evidence comes along that contradicts the Bible, the contradiction is only an apparent contradiction because the evidence had been improperly interpreted. Now this is done all the time, and as we know, it results in some pretty stupid explanations. But this is of little concern, because no matter what kind of fruit cake conclusion they are forced to come to, the matter can now be said to have been addressed and resolved to their satisfaction, and be safely put on the back shelf and forgotten. Intellectually dishonest? Certainly, but I believe they have so compartmentalized their mind, putting what makes sense in one room, and what their faith says is correct in another room, that they can live in peace with their faith and never be bothered by what makes sense. Don't know how they accomplish such a feat, but it obviously works.

[wattsr1]

As far as YEC or OEC I can go either way I haven't permanently made up my
mind either way so I'm willing to listen to any argument over the age of the
earth.

As for Genesis I personally feel that the Pentateuch we have today wasn't
done the same way as originally written by Moses. I believe cutting and
pasting and editing occured. (After all the ending of Deuteronomy couldn't
have been done by Moses since Moses died at the end). So I'm willing to
listen to arguments over the way Genesis was written.

As for man evolving from different species you'd have to first show a reasonable
abiogenesis model that fits evolution better than creation. Then show
arguments of a large number of transition species evolved over a long period
of time that are truly transitional and not simply a different kind of dog or
bird or cat. Then show arguments that only favor evolution and can't be
interpreted for creation model. (ex. people show how genetically similar a
monkey and man are. I don't see why God can't make the two similar as
though he is not allowed.)

Gidday Salvationfound,

I am both an evolutionist and an atheist (perhaps something more of an agnostic).

Surely on issues such as the age of the earth, the evolution of life, what God did or did not do – physical evidence is the criterion by which we judge things?

The age of the earth has been well dated to 4.6 billion years in age. The physical evidence for evolution is found in transitional species such as those showing a path from meonychids or artiodactyls to whales or those showing a transition from reptiles to mammals etc.

And as for God having done this or that, surely with God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity, anything and everything is possible. So unless you can come up with good evidence for his actions and intentions, choosing to invoke him here, not invoke him there, partially invoke him else where means very little.

Regards, Roland

[burgy]

...
My question then to YECs is simple: What kind of scientific evidence about the universe, the earth, the history of life, human nature, etc. would convince you that the earth is old & that humanity has evolved from earlier species?

As I understand it, The Bible is trump. If a contradiction exists, trump wins every time.

When I was a YEC, however, I really did not think any contradictions existed. Then the books began to appear (Abusing Science was the first I read) that pointed out that contradictions DID exist. I remember actually BEING AFRAID to read those books -- but mt science background kept saying "Look at ALL the evidence." It took, as I recall, about six months of study (part time -- I was still working long hours at IBM) before I left the YEC camp. Even then, I had to be convinced IN MY OWN MIND that abndoning henry Morris was not in any way abandoning Jesus Christ. If that had not been so, I'd be a YEC to this day, for my experiences with Christ are more "real" to me than any science (or any Bible either).

I looked up the other day how long ago that was. In 1988 I attended a week-long seminar by ICR. In 1991 I was still in the YEC camp, although I was, by that time, willing to explore other options. The break must have come about 1992 or 1993. Gosh. Only 11 years ago!

Looking back I can see how I was conned, for t he ICR writings ARE persuasive if one does not read opposing material -- of which (excuse time) there was very little until the late 80s in print.

Good to see you here, George.

[wattsr1]

Burgy:-I remember actually BEING AFRAID to read those books

I remember a similar experience.

Back in the 1960s, I was afraid to read books by theologians of the "God is Dead" school (I think that is what it was called.)

When I went through my counter conversion experience one of the early things I did was buy a book written by one such theologian. I found him to be a very deeply committed Christian. It was just that he did not believe in most orthodox Christian beliefs.

I found his book quite rewarding.

Fear in the mind of the "true believer" can be a rather debilitating thing.

Regards, Roland

[geochron]

If the answer is, "Nothing could convince me" then there's really little point in debating all the age, evolution &c questions under the heading "natural sciences."

The points of the debate, for me, are to show that it is not correct that the evidence favours Young Earth Creationism, that the science advocated in support of Young Earth Creationism is flawed, and that the criticisms of mainstream science advanced by Young Earth Creationism are unsound. I don't expect to change the minds of Young Earth Creationists.

[EvoUK]

As far as I know, most people who argue against the likes of Socrates et al aren't aiming to change his mind (that's all but impossible, as someone already noted, his interpretation of the bible trumps evidence every single time), but to make other people who read the fora realise how intellectually bankrupt YEC actually is, and how lacking in real science it is.

GR Mortons threads about various problems regarding YEC are a good example of this. Almost every one of them have been ignored with regards to explaining the evidence coherently within a YEC viewpoint- they usually just devolve into biblical interpretation screaming matches- obviously having nothing to do with the science involved.

Socrates will never debate morton from a scientific standpoint, because he's so wrong and out of his depth. So, he instead attacks him from a biblical interpretation standpoint, and ignores the science completely- showing once again that evidence is of no importance to him at the end of the day.

[grmorton]

Burgy:-I remember actually BEING AFRAID to read those books

I remember a similar experience.

I too remember fear of reading books that disagreed with me. YEC is largely supported by a deep fear that the interpretation might not be true.

[brett]

Hi George.

YECs generally insist that early Genesis is to be read as accurate historical narrative. There are, however, other possible interpretations. Early Genesis may not be historical narrative at all. Or Genesis may be interpreted in concordist fashion. In any case, straight "history as it really happened" isn't the only possibility. (& this can be extended to other texts dealing with Adam & Eve &c - e.g., Romans 5.) These other interpretations do not deny the truth of Genesis but raise the possibility that it is true in other ways.

I'll bet you buy into those alternatives about as much as I do.

My question then to YECs is simple: What kind of scientific evidence about the universe, the earth, the history of life, human nature, etc. would convince you that the earth is old & that humanity has evolved from earlier species?

I actually think it would be logically possible for me to be convinced of evolution and an old earth (without which evolution is impossible). What it would take?, is a good question (which I haven’t considered). I’m open to suggestions. But I certainly have rejected other spiritual beliefs which I once put a lot of stock in.

This is not just an attempt to put YECs on the spot (though it may do so). I think clear answers could avoid the waste of lots of time & energy. If the answer is, "Nothing could convince me" then there's really little point in debating all the age, evolution &c questions under the heading "natural sciences."

I tend to agree with your sediments, somewhat. For instance, if evidence did come along that convinced me Genesis was inaccurate, I suppose my reaction would NOT be to reject my old interpretation of the Bible, but to question christianity in general. I think this is one of the reasons my faith is so strong. I’ve never seen any reason for doing so. But if there were, to me, the OEC and TE positions are just attempts to make excuses for the Bible. The same method could be applied to the Koran or any other religious book. When I’m looking for truth, I first want to find out what is being claimed, and then see if it holds up. If my wife says she loves me and then I find out she has another boyfriend, should I then go back and reinterpret what she meant by “love”??

Whatever discussion is going to take place should be under a biblical studies or theology heading. OTOH, if there really is some evidence that would convince you that a different - & non-YEC - interpretation is preferable, let the rest of us know. Then we won't have to spend time trying to make points that to you seem irrelevant.

I suppose there are christians that aren’t interested in evidence. Personally did pay attention to the evidence and came to the point where I now give the Bible the benefit of the doubt even when difficulties arise. I would image you’ve done the same with your philosophical beliefs. I do listen to opposing views though as i don't see any reason not to.

P.S.
Just out of curiosity, George, would scientific evidence of a young earth be enough to convince you of a literal reading of Genesis? In other words, let’s say mainstream science actually embraced “whitehole” cosmology and all the time dilation effects that go along with it. Would you then seriously begin to consider the Bible as God’s word? I’m guessing your answer will be no. Just a hunch, but I'm curious.

[kuboes1831]

Hi George.


I tend to agree with your sediments, somewhat. For instance, if evidence did come along that convinced me Genesis was inaccurate, I suppose my reaction would NOT be to reject my old interpretation of the Bible, but to question christianity in general. I think this is one of the reasons my faith is so strong. I’ve never seen any reason for doing so. But if there were, to me, the OEC and TE positions are just attempts to make excuses for the Bible.

Just out of curiosity, George, would scientific evidence of a young earth be enough to convince you of a literal reading of Genesis? In other words, let’s say mainstream science actually embraced “whitehole” cosmology and all the time dilation effects that go along with it. Would you then seriously begin to consider the Bible as God’s word? I’m guessing your answer will be no. Just a hunch, but I'm curious.

Brett I think you have hit the nail on the head for many YECs. It is widely held that if you reject a literal Genesis then every Chrsitan belief form creation to Chrsit tumbles like skittles.

That is a false view as yEC was very much a minority view before 1970 when most accepted some kind of OE. This goes back to the 18th century and I await Soc to attack me with his inaccurate history whiich also comes out in Refuting Compromise. There is no logical or biblical connectiuon between YEC and accepting the atonemnet of Christ which is why nearly all evangelicals from 1800 held to both OE and evangelical beleifs. I would not where to start listing them as there are simply too many. YECs simply avoid refering to them. Read Darwin's forgotten defenders by David Livingstone 1987 or Mark Noll The Scandal of Evangelicalism 1995 for starters.

OTOH I would have been convinced by UYEC when I read the Genesis Flood if Morris had given a coherent and honest argument of why geology and its vast ages was wrong. As he misunderstood them AND falsified references I rejected his stuff as false. The same with every YEC writer I have read since.

[grmorton]

Brett I think you have hit the nail on the head for many YECs. It is widely held that if you reject a literal Genesis then every Chrsitan belief form creation to Chrsit tumbles like skittles.

That is a false view as yEC was very much a minority view before 1970 when most accepted some kind of OE. This goes back to the 18th century and I await Soc to attack me with his inaccurate history whiich also comes out in Refuting Compromise. There is no logical or biblical connectiuon between YEC and accepting the atonemnet of Christ which is why nearly all evangelicals from 1800 held to both OE and evangelical beleifs. I would not where to start listing them as there are simply too many. YECs simply avoid refering to them. Read Darwin's forgotten defenders by David Livingstone 1987 or Mark Noll The Scandal of Evangelicalism 1995 for starters.

Kuboes, you and I have gone around about some aspects of this before. It is not just the YECs who hold to the view that the demise of the Genesis account leads to the demise of Christianity in general. I hold that view, by that I mean that if there is no concordistic way to interpret it then it is false. In no other area of life except religion do we behave in this fashion, where we believe something contains deep truth even though it is historically false or should I say concordistically false. In physics as in geology, we look for concordistic explanations of the data we see. But in religion we suddenly remove ourselves from verificational principles with which we live in science.

I wrote this on another list:
It is only in the area of religion that we humans decide that
concordism isn't important. If we did that in Geophysics or physics,
we would be considered cranks. If we claimed that there really weren't
seismic waves but that they were a metaphor for man's struggle for
existence, we would be dismissed as an idiot. But we make claims
like that about the Bible when it speaks to areas of reality about
which we think it speaks falsely. I suspect we do this so that we can
have a heads I win; tails you lose situation. We don't want
verification because we fear it won't be verified.

Now, for some historical examples, H. G. Wells held precisely the YEC logic, which is one reason he was an atheist. He originally wrote this in 1920, long, long before Morris.

[cite=H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1961), p. 776-777]"If all the animals and man have been evolved in this ascendant
manner, then there would have been no first parents, no Eden,
and no Fall. And if there had been no Fall, the entire
historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin
and the reason for an atonement, upon which current teaching
bases Christian emotion and morality, collapses like a house of
cards."[/quote]

Unfortunately, I can't find a quotation I wanted to put here in which a historian notes that theology in the 19th century moved to a position where they protected their turf from verification in order to forever put themselves out of reach of science. I think this is what the generally accepted liberal point of view has done. No matter what nonsense the Bible might teach, it is still true by fiat.

[rmwilliamsjr]

I think that a couple of threads of thought are useful here.

The first is the general rise of Fundamentalism since the 1920's has been accompanied by a general anti-intellectualism in the conservative/orthodox Christian community. I believe that there are a handful of reasons for it, but the outcome has been to alter the emotional balance between the way the 2 books of God are read. There has been a shift that believes that the book of works is read by reason and the book of words by faith. Since it is clear that the book of words has some sense of priority to the book of works this makes an unreasonable faith preferable to a reasonable faith if reason is misaligned with unbelief, with secularism.

I think this is what happened, even in the conservative Reformed community which looks strongly towards Christian intellectuals for guidance in the Church. People seem to prefer an irrational faith as a sign to God of their faithfulness and allegience.

the things i've read here on TWeb just seem to confirm these thoughts, so thanks for the help working on the issues.

[George Murphy]

Before we switch topics to the history of YEC - an interesting one but not what I had in mind - let me comment on the responses to my initial question.
Several people seem to have missed what my question ("What would it take to convince YECs?) assumed: That there are different ways of interpreting early Genesis which consider it to be true & authoritative.

So "The Bible trumps science" isn't really an answer. Does a particular interpretation of the 1st chapters of Genesis trump science for YECs? If so then, as I said earlier, talking about these issues under a "natural sciences" heading is pretty much a waste of time.

Then I want to respond in particular to Brett's PS:

"Just out of curiosity, George, would scientific evidence of a young earth be enough to convince you of a literal reading of Genesis? In other words, let’s say mainstream science actually embraced “whitehole” cosmology and all the time dilation effects that go along with it. Would you then seriously begin to consider the Bible as God’s word? I’m guessing your answer will be no. Just a hunch, but I'm curious."

What would convince me that the earth is young? That's difficult because there's so much evidence now that seems to indicate that the earth is old, & that would have to be disposed of. But if it came out that there had been a conspiracy among all scientists doing radiometric dating for the past century, & if in fact no rocks, meteorites &c were actually more than 10^4 yr old then my belief that the earth is old would be badly shaken. That would indeed have to be a huge & well organized conspiracy which would require (just as one example) either that there are large amounts of U-235 that we don't know about or that nuclear physicists had been lying consistently about the half-life of that isotope.

But I'm especially struck by the question "Would you then seriously begin to consider the Bible as God’s word?" I already consider the Bible as God's word!

Belief that that a biblical text is part of the written word of God, that it is true and authoritative, does not determine what type of text it is or how it is true. & the fact that a Christian doesn't consider a text to be accurate historical narrative doesn't mean that he or she denies that it's the word of God. YECs think Gen.1-3 is straight historical narrative. Glenn Morton thinks that Gen.1 is "days of proclamation" & 2-3 history in an old earth concordist sense. I think that Gen.1 & Gen.2 are 2 theological statements about God's creation of our world & humanity. Clearly we have important differences of interpretation & those differences need to be discussed, but we all believe that Genesis is part of the written word of God.

Shalom,
George