Hi-

At the request of Omega Red in another thread, I here present a brief overview of my round-trip through YEC. (I wrote this on-the-fly before lunch, so if there are any discrepancies with earlier write-ups of the same material, I'd trust the earlier writing.)

I was raised by college-educated Christian parents who subscribed to mainstream science. My dad has a degree in biology. When I was a child, my mom read me all kinds of books on earth history, particularly those about dinosaurs. We traveled a lot, and took the time to visit museums, geological sites, etc. When I got older, I continued reading science books on my own, including ones about biology and earth history.

I don’t remember thinking much about how all this might conflict with a naïve literal interpretation of Genesis. I suppose I would have thought one (or both) of two things: 1) that the stories in Genesis were mythological and figurative, teaching lessons rather than science and history, or 2) there was some possible harmonization (as some old-earth creationists believe).

When I got older, before I went to college, I made a renewed commitment to Christ. At that time, YEC creationism (nascent “creation science”) was in the ascendency among evangelicals. Most of my Christian experience during that time was with evangelicals, and I came to see YEC as practically a tenet of the faith. At the very least, I thought Christians who accepted mainstream science were naïve or thoughtless.

How did this transition happen in someone who had been educated in mainstream science since before being able to read. Two factors came into play. First, I thought it was what I was supposed to believe to be a good Christian, this gave me a strong impetus. Second, and perhaps more pertinent to this essay, I believed the counter-explanations for the mainstream data that were being published on the YEC side without looking too deeply into those explanations.

I didn’t do this lightly either. I studied a lot of geomorphology and biogeography in those days, and I really do believe my YECism impacted my grades negatively in some cases (to a minor degree). Not that the professors deliberately singled me out; they did not care what I believed as long as I learned the material. What hurt me was that I was so militant in my YEC beliefs that – even though I learned the mainstream material – I refused to regurgitate any more of the mainstream view than I had too, even on tests and required papers.

But even then, I realized something was wrong. Though I don’t think I explicitly realized it, I think I instinctively understood that the mainstream explanations were inherently concordant and strong, while the YEC arguments were ad-hoc and weak.

And saddest of all, though I did manage to learn the mainstream material and get pretty good grades in the end, my YEC entanglement deprived me of the sheer joy of learning basic science. You see, I had to approach everything combatively and in fear. Similar to how current YEC websites publish counter-arguments to any of the latest discoveries which threaten the YEC worldview, I had to be ready with internal counter-arguments lest my YEC defenses be breached.

As time went on, and I went to graduate school, I became more and more aware of how weak (and very often just flat-out wrong) the YEC explanations were. It affected me less on a day to day basis, however, because even though I studied biogeography in graduate school, my focus was on bioclimatology rather than historical biogeography.

Fast-forward a number of year: biogeography left behind, now working at a career in artificial intelligence programming. My job was partially R&D, so I had a good bit of time on my hands to explore things of interest. One day, I was working on a set of genetic algorithm routines for finding the exponents which solved some polynomials. I noticed an interesting behavior: the system seemed to advance in a set of “jumps.” It would work along making minor tweaks, and then suddenly some really good solution would emerge and the system would jump to a new state. I thought: “If I took snapshots of this behavior at random, like in the fossil record, this would just like punctuated equilibrium.” I still remember that exact moment.

Obviously, being interested in genetic algorithms, there were already some holes appearing in my YEC armor. But my experience of genetic algorithm “punk-eek” got me started wondering: “how good are those YEC arguments, anyway?” And so, to make a long story short, I exhaustively revisited all the YEC arguments and found them all wanting. Not all at once (I was busy with life at the time) but I got around to it. (And I have done likewise done so with all the new arguments in the intervening time since them.)

For a while, I tried to maintain a two-path approach: believe YEC fideistically, while maintaining an intellectual believe in the mainstream view. But that kind of double-think was unsupportable. So eventually I became an ex-YEC.

My saving grace that prevented a crisis of faith was twofold. First, that I had been raised by Christian parents who subscribed to mainstream science. Second, all of the excellent Christian professors and fellow students I had know who also subscribed to mainstream science (and who put up with my YEC excursion). So I had good role-models to fall back on. The extent that there was rigorous intelligence involved in this process, these people were it; I’m the slow learner, .

Since then, I have largely accepted the prevalent mainstream and liberal Christian viewpoint: the stores in Genesis are lessons from our spiritual ancestors. These lessons are set in the world as they understood it. We now have more data and we understand the world differently, but that does not devalue those lessons. In fact, we now have the advantage of being able to understand those lessons on two levels. First, we can consciously suspend our assumptions of modern knowledge and attempt to understand the stories as written. Second, we can look at them in a larger context, and perhaps by understanding the interface between the stories and the worldview they presuppose, we can understand them better than with a naïve reading.

And that, in capsule, is my “there and back again journey to YEC.”

-Neil

Originally posted by Neil

I believed the counter-explanations for the mainstream data that were being published on the YEC side without looking too deeply into those explanations.

It sounds as though there was an expectancy for you to follow YEC early on through the church and on your part a willing acceptance of the YEC defence. Just curious as to whether you really felt this was a tenable position to hold & embraced it or were you fighting those nagging doubts? I’m trying to understand the YEC mindset of believing one thing (like following a rational scientific approach) and following another (allowing predetermined conclusions to flow from a narrow investigation of the data).

Originally posted by Neil

I think I instinctively understood that the mainstream explanations were inherently concordant and strong, while the YEC arguments were ad-hoc and weak.

When you discovered that for you the YEC explanations didn’t delve deep enough, how did this make you feel, e.g. that you weren’t honest, intellectual, open enough with yourself/others? How do you see other YECers now? What do you think is the best way to approach/deal with them?

I guess all I got to do now is find someone who has followed the path from OEC/TE into YEC and figure out what kind of mindset they used to have and how they're so sure of the YEC position.

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by NeilUnreal

Hi-

At the request of Omega Red in another thread, I here present a brief overview of my round-trip through YEC. (I wrote this on-the-fly before lunch, so if there are any discrepancies with earlier write-ups of the same material, I'd trust the earlier writing.)

I was raised by college-educated Christian parents who subscribed to mainstream science. My dad has a degree in biology. When I was a child, my mom read me all kinds of books on earth history, particularly those about dinosaurs. We traveled a lot, and took the time to visit museums, geological sites, etc. When I got older, I continued reading science books on my own, including ones about biology and earth history.

I don’t remember thinking much about how all this might conflict with a naïve literal interpretation of Genesis. I suppose I would have thought one (or both) of two things: 1) that the stories in Genesis were mythological and figurative, teaching lessons rather than science and history, or 2) there was some possible harmonization (as some old-earth creationists believe).

When I got older, before I went to college, I made a renewed commitment to Christ. At that time, YEC creationism (nascent “creation science”) was in the ascendency among evangelicals. Most of my Christian experience during that time was with evangelicals, and I came to see YEC as practically a tenet of the faith. At the very least, I thought Christians who accepted mainstream science were naïve or thoughtless.

How did this transition happen in someone who had been educated in mainstream science since before being able to read. Two factors came into play. First, I thought it was what I was supposed to believe to be a good Christian, this gave me a strong impetus. Second, and perhaps more pertinent to this essay, I believed the counter-explanations for the mainstream data that were being published on the YEC side without looking too deeply into those explanations.

I didn’t do this lightly either. I studied a lot of geomorphology and biogeography in those days, and I really do believe my YECism impacted my grades negatively in some cases (to a minor degree). Not that the professors deliberately singled me out; they did not care what I believed as long as I learned the material. What hurt me was that I was so militant in my YEC beliefs that – even though I learned the mainstream material – I refused to regurgitate any more of the mainstream view than I had too, even on tests and required papers.

But even then, I realized something was wrong. Though I don’t think I explicitly realized it, I think I instinctively understood that the mainstream explanations were inherently concordant and strong, while the YEC arguments were ad-hoc and weak.

And saddest of all, though I did manage to learn the mainstream material and get pretty good grades in the end, my YEC entanglement deprived me of the sheer joy of learning basic science. You see, I had to approach everything combatively and in fear. Similar to how current YEC websites publish counter-arguments to any of the latest discoveries which threaten the YEC worldview, I had to be ready with internal counter-arguments lest my YEC defenses be breached.

As time went on, and I went to graduate school, I became more and more aware of how weak (and very often just flat-out wrong) the YEC explanations were. It affected me less on a day to day basis, however, because even though I studied biogeography in graduate school, my focus was on bioclimatology rather than historical biogeography.

Fast-forward a number of year: biogeography left behind, now working at a career in artificial intelligence programming. My job was partially R&D, so I had a good bit of time on my hands to explore things of interest. One day, I was working on a set of genetic algorithm routines for finding the exponents which solved some polynomials. I noticed an interesting behavior: the system seemed to advance in a set of “jumps.” It would work along making minor tweaks, and then suddenly some really good solution would emerge and the system would jump to a new state. I thought: “If I took snapshots of this behavior at random, like in the fossil record, this would just like punctuated equilibrium.” I still remember that exact moment.

Obviously, being interested in genetic algorithms, there were already some holes appearing in my YEC armor. But my experience of genetic algorithm “punk-eek” got me started wondering: “how good are those YEC arguments, anyway?” And so, to make a long story short, I exhaustively revisited all the YEC arguments and found them all wanting. Not all at once (I was busy with life at the time) but I got around to it. (And I have done likewise done so with all the new arguments in the intervening time since them.)

For a while, I tried to maintain a two-path approach: believe YEC fideistically, while maintaining an intellectual believe in the mainstream view. But that kind of double-think was unsupportable. So eventually I became an ex-YEC.

My saving grace that prevented a crisis of faith was twofold. First, that I had been raised by Christian parents who subscribed to mainstream science. Second, all of the excellent Christian professors and fellow students I had know who also subscribed to mainstream science (and who put up with my YEC excursion). So I had good role-models to fall back on. The extent that there was rigorous intelligence involved in this process, these people were it; I’m the slow learner, .

Since then, I have largely accepted the prevalent mainstream and liberal Christian viewpoint: the stores in Genesis are lessons from our spiritual ancestors. These lessons are set in the world as they understood it. We now have more data and we understand the world differently, but that does not devalue those lessons. In fact, we now have the advantage of being able to understand those lessons on two levels. First, we can consciously suspend our assumptions of modern knowledge and attempt to understand the stories as written. Second, we can look at them in a larger context, and perhaps by understanding the interface between the stories and the worldview they presuppose, we can understand them better than with a naïve reading.

And that, in capsule, is my “there and back again journey to YEC.”

-Neil

**********************************************************************************

That was interesting. It helps to explain most of your posts. It's also a sequence of events that I have heard countless times.
You may be interested in knowing that there is a common 'thread' in all these sequences (see, e.g., grmorton's account). That
common feature is this : people seek YEC answers and either find none or what they do find doesn't satisfy them. They then take
that as a sort of "proof" that YEC is invalidated. What never ceases to amaze me is that those 'faults' that they could not accept in
YEC are accepted in OEC / TE / PC without any problems. The "ad hoc , weak" arguments that YEC allegedly has are never
seen as 'ad hoc and weak' in their newfound position. They're given more palatable names like "scientific hypotheses", "tentative
status" and many others. IMHO it's more a question of personal compromise / capitulation than that of genuine problems with
YEC. I never cease to remind myself that choice trumps knowledge on any day of the week.


Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

IMHO it's more a question of personal compromise / capitulation than that of genuine problems with YEC.

Just curious, so a 6kyr old earth in a 6kyr old universe supporting 6kyr old life has no problems being backed up with scientific data? Perhaps it’s down to your definition of “genuine problem”? I'd have thought that the lake varves of Suigetsu would be considered a genuine problem for YEC.

Originally posted by Omega Red

It sounds as though there was an expectancy for you to follow YEC early on through the church and on your part a willing acceptance of the YEC defence. Just curious as to whether you really felt this was a tenable position to hold & embraced it or were you fighting those nagging doubts?

The most important point to keep in mind is that I had never been exposed to YEC arguments at all. I did not have the time, nor really the background at that point, to look deeply into those arguments. Therefore, the very fact that the arguments existed was enough to assuage my doubts for a while. I suspect this is the case for many YECs: they find out that there are arguments, and this is enough to satisfy them; no need to look deeper.

Originally posted by Omega Red

When you discovered that for you the YEC explanations didn’t delve deep enough, how did this make you feel, e.g. that you weren’t honest, intellectual, open enough with yourself/others? How do you see other YECers now? What do you think is the best way to approach/deal with them?

I didn’t feel too bad, though I did have a bit of regret I had not looked deeper into the YEC arguments sooner. The reason I didn’t feel bad had more to do with “not enough hours in a day” than anything else. That is, though YEC was important too me, it was also a very busy period of my life in other ways. I feel like I was honest to myself and others, within the scope of what I knew about YEC. When I got around to widening that scope, the YEC arguments collapsed for me quite quickly.

And so I always extend that same courtesy to YECs that I encounter. I presume they are dealing honestly with the information they have, and that their intentions are honorable. That they may be ignoring some of the information they have, I feel more comfortable ascribing to time and fear of what they might find than to dishonesty. I also extend to them the courtesy of knowing that, as in my case, not everything happens at once; knowledge is a journey.

And of course, science itself is contingent, so there is just the tiniest of possibilities they may be right.

-Neil

Originally posted by Omega Red

Just curious, so a 6kyr old earth in a 6kyr old universe supporting 6kyr old life has no problems being backed up with scientific data? Perhaps it’s down to your definition of “genuine problem”? I'd have thought that the lake varves of Suigetsu would be considered a genuine problem for YEC.

Remember that Jorge, and only Jorge, can decide what is a "genuine" and what is an "apparent" problem with YEC. Nobody else has the right to define what Jorge means by the word "genuine". A reading of the story of Humpty Dumpty might be of relevance on this point.

rossum

Originally posted by Omega Red

Just curious, so a 6kyr old earth in a 6kyr old universe supporting 6kyr old life has no problems being backed up with scientific data?

Depending on what is accepted to be that "scientific data", the answer to that question can be ' no ', ' heck no! ', ' yes ', or ' heck yes! '.

Perhaps it’s down to your definition of “genuine problem”? I'd have thought that the lake varves of Suigetsu would be considered a genuine problem for YEC.

Right ... you're starting to catch on. But it goes much deeper than that. Hope you don't mind waiting a bit.

Jorge

Since Jorge is proud never to have stepped off the YEC "farm," you'll pardon me for not being particularly whelmed by his descriptions of Gay Paree...

Originally posted by Jorge

**********************************************************************************

That was interesting. It helps to explain most of your posts. It's also a sequence of events that I have heard countless times.
You may be interested in knowing that there is a common 'thread' in all these sequences (see, e.g., grmorton's account). That
common feature is this : people seek YEC answers and either find none or what they do find doesn't satisfy them. They then take
that as a sort of "proof" that YEC is invalidated. What never ceases to amaze me is that those 'faults' that they could not accept in
YEC are accepted in OEC / TE / PC without any problems. The "ad hoc , weak" arguments that YEC allegedly has are never
seen as 'ad hoc and weak' in their newfound position. They're given more palatable names like "scientific hypotheses", "tentative
status" and many others. IMHO it's more a question of personal compromise / capitulation than that of genuine problems with
YEC. I never cease to remind myself that choice trumps knowledge on any day of the week.


Jorge

Jorge is here living in denial, or just flat out lying. We'll likely never know which, but I tend to think it is the former. That is, I think Jorge is sincere.

But the reality is that YEC has no consistent interpretation of the data at hand, and nearly all of it's supporting data is based on flawed analysis, or fair simple misunderstandings of the theories. He calls the various facts that have driven many of us away from YEC 'supposed conflicts'. Just look at the questions given in his own request of questions thread! There are no YEC answers to those questions that do not involve ad hoc miracles (that is, unverifiable miracles) and major conflicts with other datasets or basic laws of physics.

For example, consider Humphreys answer to why there are objects nearby of great age. They don't fit into a varying time dilation WHC, because there simply hasn't been enough time to make these objects in the near. His answer? "Well, it is not inconvievable God created these miraculously for variety".

I mean, come on. Why bother with science at all? And that is my point. Scientifically, YEC fails. It is a place of faith, and faith alone. It is not supported by science. Jorge's words not withstanding.

The fantasy of a soft landing is rudely awaiting a meeting with the real concrete below.

Jim

Hey Neil,

My thoughts resonate with the OP strongly, for I had a teenage infatuation with YECism. However, I have left it behind now I'm in University. Some thoughts…

Neil: And saddest of all, though I did manage to learn the mainstream material and get pretty good grades in the end, my YEC entanglement deprived me of the sheer joy of learning basic science. You see, I had to approach everything combatively and in fear. Similar to how current YEC websites publish counter-arguments to any of the latest discoveries which threaten the YEC worldview, I had to be ready with internal counter-arguments lest my YEC defenses be breached.

Thankfully, I lived like this only during my high school and into A-levels. I know exactly how that felt. For me the tension wasn't that great because in schools and sixth forms, they teach a very simplistic form of evolution etc, so the counter arguments of YEC websites seemed convincing enough at that time.

One of the things that resulted in me opening my mind again was the ridiculous rhetoric of YEC arguments against the "compromisers". I found it very offensive. Now, in University I totally enjoy learning. As you put it, "sheer joy of learning basic science". Christ set me free not to get shut into another cramped box!

I believed that being a theist (specifically Christian) would expand one's horizons. I don't have to worry about the metaphysical side of things--its already taken care of. I'm free to investigate, learn, without any predetermined conclusions. Alas, with YECism I found the exact opposite of that.

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

Jorge is here living in denial, or just flat out lying. We'll likely never know which, but I tend to think it is the former. That is, I think Jorge is sincere.

But the reality is that YEC has no consistent interpretation of the data at hand, and nearly all of it's supporting data is based on flawed analysis, or fair simple misunderstandings of the theories. He calls the various facts that have driven many of us away from YEC 'supposed conflicts'. Just look at the questions given in his own request of questions thread! There are no YEC answers to those questions that do not involve ad hoc miracles (that is, unverifiable miracles) and major conflicts with other datasets or basic laws of physics.

For example, consider Humphreys answer to why there are objects nearby of great age. They don't fit into a varying time dilation WHC, because there simply hasn't been enough time to make these objects in the near. His answer? "Well, it is not inconvievable God created these miraculously for variety".

I mean, come on. Why bother with science at all? And that is my point. Scientifically, YEC fails. It is a place of faith, and faith alone. It is not supported by science. Jorge's words not withstanding.

The fantasy of a soft landing is rudely awaiting a meeting with the real concrete below.

Jim

******************************************************************

For the '74th' time, O-Mudd, it's bad enough that you err in this topic as badly as you do but then you gravely compound
that error by relentlessly blasting away without actually knowing / understanding what it is that you're blasting at.

Other than to remind you of that fact I'm not going to waste my time yet again trying to correct you for the '75th' time.

Jorge

Originally posted by Zimri

Hey Neil,

My thoughts resonate with the OP strongly, for I had a teenage infatuation with YECism. However, I have left it behind now I'm in University. Some thoughts…
Thankfully, I lived like this only during my high school and into A-levels. I know exactly how that felt. For me the tension wasn't that great because in schools and sixth forms, they teach a very simplistic form of evolution etc, so the counter arguments of YEC websites seemed convincing enough at that time.

One of the things that resulted in me opening my mind again was the ridiculous rhetoric of YEC arguments against the "compromisers". I found it very offensive. Now, in University I totally enjoy learning. As you put it, "sheer joy of learning basic science". Christ set me free not to get shut into another cramped box!

I believed that being a theist (specifically Christian) would expand one's horizons. I don't have to worry about the metaphysical side of things--its already taken care of. I'm free to investigate, learn, without any predetermined conclusions. Alas, with YECism I found the exact opposite of that.

**************************************************************************************

You have a lot to learn, young man .... a LOT! May our LORD guide you ('cause, from the above, you're already somewhat lost).

Jorge

Hey Jorge,

You have a lot to learn, young man .... a LOT! May our LORD guide you ('cause, from the above, you're already somewhat lost).

Am I? May I ask you to kindly point out why I'm lost. Thanks.

Originally posted by Jorge

You may be interested in knowing that there is a common 'thread' in all these sequences (see, e.g., grmorton's account). That common feature is this : people seek YEC answers and either find none or what they do find doesn't satisfy them. They then take that as a sort of "proof" that YEC is invalidated.

Perhaps it will be helpful to go into detail about what I mean by YEC arguments being ad-hoc and weak relative to mainstream arguments. This will show a little bit more about why I abandoned YEC because of the evidence.

It is also critical to keep the following point in mind: aside from what I learned as a child, all of the evidence for both the mainstream view and the YEC view that I learned up to the time that I abandoned YEC I learned as a YEC. In other words, my predisposition at the time I was acquiring the evidence was to believe in the YEC view and to try to fit the evidence into that view first. (In passing it should also be noted that I had already resolved the mainstream peer pressure part; in that respect I was also comfortable as a YEC.) I wasn’t seeking evidence to reject the YEC view, I was seeking evidence to maintain it.

However something kept bothering me. In the YEC explanations, there was neither confluence nor concordance.

For example, one YEC explanation had continents racing around like yachts, while another had the need for undisturbed gyres of fresh water in the midst of the salt. One YEC explanation said that evolution could not occur swiftly, while another had the number of animals comfortably reduced to what could fit on the ark and then evolving at record speed. Not that these particular examples are selected or singular, the lack of confluence was the rule rather than the exception.

And the YEC explanations failed to jive with the data. It’s easy to say “a worldwide flood laid down all the sediments.” But where then is the flood unconformity? It would seem a trivial thing to find and agree on, but the answer just kept coming back as “we’re working on it,” etc., or the tried and true “well there are a lot of things mainstream science can’t explain either.”

So taking the same yardstick to both theories, YEC and mainstream, I found that mainstream science won hands down. But wait! I didn’t use the same yardstick. As YECs often accuse, I used a biased yardstick when I made my decision in favor of mainstream science. But here’s the point: at that time, my yardstick was biased in favor of YEC.

So where does that leave me vis-à-vis my YEC friends? I’m afraid that they will have to accept my decision that I have looked at the data and the YEC explanation and have found that explanation wanting. I simply cannot in good conscience say that I believe in YEC. To do so, or to pretend that I could would be to engage in a falsehood.

To be fair, however, I do extend them the courtesy of believing that they feel the same way about YEC. But I do find a great deal of beauty and simplicity in the mainstream view. I even feel a theological attraction in a world grown and developed whether in cosmology, geology, or biology.

-Neil

Originally posted by NeilUnreal

Hi-

And saddest of all, though I did manage to learn the mainstream material and get pretty good grades in the end, my YEC entanglement deprived me of the sheer joy of learning basic science. You see, I had to approach everything combatively and in fear.

I think what you have said here, Neil, is 100% accurate. I don't mean to pick on Jorge, but he is the resident YEC's, and that explains his responses when the data and explanation of that data go against his YEC. And that his afraid to face up to the facts that the earth is billions of years old and that we are share common ancestry with all life.

Originally posted by NeilUnreal

My saving grace that prevented a crisis of faith was twofold. First, that I had been raised by Christian parents who subscribed to mainstream science. Second, all of the excellent Christian professors and fellow students I had know who also subscribed to mainstream science (and who put up with my YEC excursion). So I had good role-models to fall back on. The extent that there was rigorous intelligence involved in this process, these people were it; I’m the slow learner, .

Then I have to say you were more fortunate then others. When I left the faith, oh! 12-13 years ago now, it was painful. I lost alot my friends, I became an "evil" person. It was not a pleasant experience. In away, though, I guess I am also fortunate. Since YEC or Evolution was not an issue for my Church or my Christianity. Not like it is today, it seems to me the pressure that Christians kids are placed under by YEC's, must be even harder. Especially, if they grew up with YEC, then they discover that science left that idea behind in the 19th century. It would be like receiving a kick in guts from Gary Ablett Jnr [For those who follow Aussie Rules Football ]

Anyway I like your OP, Neil. Very informative.

Ash

I have a comment, Neil.

Originally posted by NeilUnreal

I wasn’t seeking evidence to reject the YEC view, I was seeking evidence to maintain it.

That is something that is so obvious to me too, when I discovered AIG (in 2000). It's like ok! you have talked about how to rationise the evidence to try to fit a Young Earth, but where is the discussion about the overwhelming against it. I kept looking but I think I found two articles, its like if they admit a problem, YEC's, will abandon them or something.

I am finding this OP quite interesting, actually.

Ash