Some thoughts on YEC...

[Darth Executor]

Is it just me or do YECs reject modern science more because they believe it is closely associated with atheism? It's not like the six 24 hour period interpretation of Genesis is the only literal interpretation available.

[EvoUK]

I still have yet to see whether they actually believe science to be connected with atheism, or if that's just the scare tactics they use for the sheeple.

[Superbug]

This is how I interpret their thinking: We know that God exists and that YEC is true because it's written in the Bible. Therefore any other theory must be false. Scientists propose another theory. Therefore we must conclude that, if science works, they are lying or mistaken. No matter what they claim, we can find a way to prove it false because it is false. The contradiction exists, I only need to find it. And why do scientists reject the obvious truth? It must be because they are atheists and/or stupid and/or dishonest.

[grmorton]

This is how I interpret their thinking: We know that God exists and that YEC is true because it's written in the Bible. Therefore any other theory must be false. Scientists propose another theory. Therefore we must conclude that, if science works, they are lying or mistaken. No matter what they claim, we can find a way to prove it false because it is false. The contradiction exists, I only need to find it. And why do scientists reject the obvious truth? It must be because they are atheists and/or stupid and/or dishonest.

THat is just about it, as I remember it from my YEC days.

[Darth Executor]

This is how I interpret their thinking: We know that God exists and that YEC is true because it's written in the Bible. Therefore any other theory must be false. Scientists propose another theory. Therefore we must conclude that, if science works, they are lying or mistaken. No matter what they claim, we can find a way to prove it false because it is false. The contradiction exists, I only need to find it. And why do scientists reject the obvious truth? It must be because they are atheists and/or stupid and/or dishonest.

The bolded part is what doesn't actually make sense to me. I think you should replace it with "and that YEC is true because that's what we think is written in the Bible" and you have a perfect paragraph.

[Roy]

The bolded part is what doesn't actually make sense to me. I think you should replace it with "and that YEC is true because that's what we think is written in the Bible" and you have a perfect paragraph.

You are neglecting to consider their ability to ignore the possibility that they might be wrong - if they think that's what the Bible says they by golly that is what the Bible says and anyone who thinks differently is simply wrong.

Roy

[Barry Desborough]

Is it just me or do YECs reject modern science more because they believe it is closely associated with atheism? It's not like the six 24 hour period interpretation of Genesis is the only literal interpretation available.

To add some suggestions to thoughts already posted:-

A poor understanding of the history and philosophy of science.
A resticted diet of very poor pseudo-science.
A shallow and restricted view of what constitutes being a Christian.
Being embedded in a YEC community/culture.
In some cases, not being embedded in such a culture, but wanting to be a rebel.
Being part of a wider culture that does not value knowledge and is ignorant, suspicious and fearful of science.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Is it just me or do YECs reject modern science more because they believe it is closely associated with atheism? It's not like the six 24 hour period interpretation of Genesis is the only literal interpretation available.

As I have noted in the past, my daughter is a YEC. As such, I can provide some understanding here.

First of all, she does not consider YEC to be a "salvation" issue. She just does not see scientists as having a corner on the truth. Moreover, she sees that not 100% of all scientists agree with the conventional outlook. While today's science is great, it is not obvious to her that extrapolations to the past are necessarily valid. She is just as happy following the writings of non-scientists in accepting a more literal view of Genesis.

At the same time she does not understand why some Christians are upset with the notion of life on other planets. Also, she has suggested that her own son talk to me when he has questions about evolution.

The problem, as I see it, is with the psuedo-science of ICR and AIG, not with YEC believers in general. It would be better to address issues with them -- rather than criticising YEC in general.

IMO

gg

[Meh_Gerbil]

Is it just me or do YECs reject modern science more because they believe it is closely associated with atheism? It's not like the six 24 hour period interpretation of Genesis is the only literal interpretation available.

I embrace the Scientfic Method, entirely.
I reject the evolutionary philosophical/religious interpretation of the evidence.

[Sacrificial Ram]

I embrace the Scientfic Method, entirely.
I reject the evolutionary philosophical/religious interpretation of the evidence.

It sounds to me like you reject the evidence, since the straight out conclusions of the evidence do require any philosphical/religious intepretations.

[Meh_Gerbil]

It sounds to me like you reject the evidence, since the straight out conclusions of the evidence do require any philosphical/religious intepretations.

How does one reject evidence?

One enters an apartment, the scene of a murder and denies there is a body lying on the kitchen floor? Does one deny there is a knife sticking out of the chest of the vicitm?

No.

The debate begins not with a denial or acceptance of the evidence but rather with 'what does the evidence mean'. Two different cops viewing that scene could embrace both the evidence and the scientific method and still come to two different, yet rational, conclusions.

-------------------------

I don't deny there are fossils, layers, or genetic similarities between species. Why? Because these things may all be confirmed with the scientific method. Hence, I don't deny the evidence and I don't deny the method.

I do deny the evolutionary philosophical/religious interpretation of the evidence, however.