Death Among the Daisies: a Challenge to YEC

As being less familiar, probably.

No. Neither was anybody else. How else do you get a hole exactly like the ones that they make today? How else do you get animals inside the ribcage of another? No, claiming it was the violent flood [that would have smashed all of them] doesn’t work.

Raw data is assumed? That’s news to me.


I’ve heard this one often too, and I think it’s basically saying that data is essentially worthless without being “interpreted.” Therefore any interpretation that is drawn from the data can be wrong, even if it’s the most obvious and sensible option. It’s an easy way to selectively dismiss entire fields of study.


Yes, it’s the old LSDYEC magic shibboleths again. “It’s just an assumption.” “It’s just an interpretation.” “It’s just a presupposition.” They seem to think that they can just trot them out to abracadabra away anything and everything that they don’t like.

The answer is, of course, that in science, assumptions and interpretations have to follow strict rules, and so too must any challenges to those assumptions and interpretations.

In particular, in order to challenge a scientific theory by attacking its assumptions, you must:

  1. state what the assumptions are;
  2. make sure that it really does make those assumptions in the first place, and has not been superseded by a more modern version that does not;
  3. provide a credible explanation as to how those assumptions could have been violated in such a way as to still give the precise measurements that we see in the evidence anyway.

What is their answer to that? “It’s just an assumption.” “It’s just an interpretation.” It’s like trying to argue with a parrot.


And not at all honoring him or spreading the good news!


The irony is that those same YEC’s will use those same types of assumptions for their own claims. They are seen throughout flood geology.

It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. :wink:

1 Like

YEC updating their hypotheses, based on “new evidence”?

Did no one tell Hank he should remove the sharp, pointy things before eating?

Maybe there’s hope for the Great Lakes after all.

Ironically, I heard this story about “rebranding” Asian Carp to try to make them seem more palatable as food. Whatever it takes. Get Gwenyth Paltrow in on it. She can sell ANYTHING.


1 Like

Good post. However, it is not even necessary to cite animal features to prove that death in the biblical sense occurred prior to the rupture between God and human beings. Two passages say that seeds die when they germinate (Jn 12:24; 1 Cor 15:36-37). Unless seeds were not germinating before sin entered the natural world, then death of at least one kind was already present. It is also useless to argue that biologically germination is not death, because we are speaking specifically about biblical definitions regardless of their relationship to biology.


To play devil’s advocate only for the first bullet point, I suppose a YEC may offer two potential responses:

God knew the humans would fall and in His foresight He created the diversity we see accordingly. Or these creatures changed due to the fall (e.g. the snake went from walking to crawling).



Great points, and I’ll happily concede that an argument could be made for this changes in some species (mosquitos for example). On your first, point:

I would ask, “If YEC is science that sits under the authority of the Bible, please could I have a verse to support that please.”

On your second point,

I don’t deny that the text says that God cursed the serpent to walk on its belly, God also cursed the ground, and the man and women. Where in the text does it say that God’s curses effected any other creatures? Surely, one swallow does not make a summer.

Thanks for helping me sharpen my thinking on this.

Great observation, Derek. This reminds me of the classic critique where Jesus is supposed to have incorrectly described the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds. If the Bible is teaching science or should be taken at its word, what are w to do with these sections? Why are these statements non-literal, but “God made the man from the dust of the earth” isn’t? If anything, Jesus statements about seeds dying or the mustard seed are even less equivocal.

1 Like

I think that that was a standard phrase at the time, but am not sure of that. However, that does not change the implications.


I agree. I was just saying that such an option isn’t open to the YEC.


I’ll push back some more.

No need to straw man YECs. Obviously the Bible is the supreme source of all intellectual authority on earth. But there are things the Bible does not mention that must be inferred/ discovered. Just because something is not in the Bible does not make it true but nothing true can contradict anything in the Bible. God’s truth is beyond contestation.

The Bible doesn’t say that nor does it need to. You offered a problem with the Biblical conception of God and creation. I offered a logically consistent and plausible harmonization based on inferences. We know this happened with the snake. Maybe reality changed or maybe God pre-planned for this in his sovereign, Calvinistic, definitive, exhaustive foreknowledge. Or maybe it’s something altogether different. Regardless of the solution, the problem is your denial of what the word of God plainly states. Sometimes when you have multiple truths they naturally must fit together somehow. We can accept truths from reason but if they contradict the word of God they are wrong.

Why is harmonization a problem when YECs do it but not Arminians or Calvinist’s or most Christians in the face of Biblical errors, competing theologies and contradictions? Why can’t YECs do what (presumably) you and every other Christian does, myself included? Fit external truths and observations with Biblical truths into a coherent whole?


Thanks, I’ll give it some thought.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.