I also have anecdotal evidence: some people have based their entire Christian faith upon the earth being 6K old, and when they learn the truth, they throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is why YEC is doing such incredible harm to Christians. I go to a growing evangelical church and it is not YEC, ie the ministers and everyone I know there do not uphold YEC.
But yes, it would be great to see the numbers, because I strongly suspect that many YEC leave because they’ve never been offered the alternatives: which are far better and deeper IMO.
The Bible is not a science book. much of it is a history book. An infallible history book. YEC’s simply choose to stay with the true history as shown in the reliable eyewitness (ALERT! WERE YOU THERE ARGUMENT ALERT!) account in Genesis as opposed to the fallible calculations of human science.
Far from putting up scientific knowledge as the “supreme form” of knowledge, I would submit that the mindset is more along the lines of:
If Science is all these people respect, then we shall show them science! (Insert inspiring music here )
It appears (to be fair, looks may be deceiving) that a lot of EC people here do think that science is the supreme form of knowledge–I mean, why else would you go with the BIoLogos position?
Would you be open to PMing me some of these hidden scientists? It is a tactic that I’ve seen the Discovery Institute and Young Earth Leaders make a huge deal about, this persecution that exists with people getting fired left and right. Generally speaking, a closer look reveals maybe their views made them disagreeable, but in most of the cases it was due to a lack of productivity (i.e. as is documented here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/).
I think many have realized that the problem is not just scientific, but also theological and hermeneutical… i.e. YEC is a terrible way to try and read the beginning chapters of a text written in a world that is very very different from ours today.
There is still no reasonable way to get around the days in genesis 1 etc. being literal days (key word: reasonable ) (and yes, I have discussed this to death [or at least close thereto, because I feel the rumblings of it coming once again upon us )
That seems to be a good place to start as far as reasons why OEC has horrific “theological and hermeneutical problems.”
No EC people have never claimed or demonstrated that science is the most important form of knowledge. Science is still an important form of knowledge, though.
Ah, the good old, easily debunked, “were you there?” fallacy. Simple response: cross-checks and testable predictions. Next, please.
Well yes, looks are deceiving. I think you’ll find that most scientists agree that science isn’t infallible. But that’s why peer review, attempts at replication, and meta-analyses are a thing.
It’s right that we should subject old-earth and evolutionary theories to scrutiny. But when such scrutiny degenerates into absurdities such as accelerated nuclear decay on a scale that would have vaporised the earth if it had any basis in reality, I think we can safely say that such scrutiny is getting deep into “clutching at straws” territory.
One can be perfectly fine with reading Genesis 1 as referring to 24 hour periods and not be a young Earth creationist. I would never personally argue for the day-age interpretation. If you were God had had to describe everything that had occurred for the past 13.8 billion years to a people group that thought the Earth was flat, I dunno I imagine you’d be just fine simplifying it a bit!
I think that OEC can have hermeneutical challenges regarding the word yom and also a few phrases in the flood story - but to be honest, I’m perfectly fine with a 24 hour period being referred to and have no vested interest in debating which meaning of the word we should choose. What I am more interested in is the genre of writing in Genesis and how it is very similar to other cultures in the Ancient Near East who used similar symbols and motifs. They had similar understandings to other Ugaritic cultures in regards to other things as well like signs, wonders and omens. Some of the oddest omens in the law of Moses like the Ordeal of the Bitter Water share similar roots to others around them: Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia.
I don’t really care where knowledge comes from, I care that it corresponds with reality (or in other words, that it is true). It’s not about privileging one “form” of knowledge over another, it’s about privileging truth. SES, a conservative Evangelical seminary has had some good essays recently critiquing Ken’ Ham’s idea that knowing truth somehow starts with the Bible.
“It is impossible in principle to start with God’s Word in either the apologetics or interpretive tasks. There are many things one must know prior to being able to understand God’s Word or even know what a Bible is. The question of interpretation necessarily involves knowledge not derived from God’s Word.” (source)
“If I cannot properly understand reality without starting with the Bible, but the Bible is part of reality, then how can I properly understand the Bible? I would have to properly understand a certain part of reality (i.e., the Bible) prior to having my starting point for properly understanding any part of reality, but this is a contradiction and rules out the possibility of properly understanding anything!” (…) It is simply false that one must start with God’s Word or man’s word. The truth is that one must start with reality. (source)
I can only speak for myself, but as I recall the process, when looking at things many years ago, it was obvious the young earth ideas were false. That lead to consideration of OEC, which seemed viable, but as time progressed, it too was factually lacking. If I were to continue to embrace Christianity, physical reality had to be integrated into spiritual belief, and Biologos is the best fit. It certainly has challenges also, and like anything of man, imperfections, but it is the best way I have seen to put conflicts aside and worship in spirit and truth.
This seems to be a tacit admission that science does not support the YEC position. If science and young Earth creationism agreed with one another then you wouldn’t have to be putting one over the other.
So you reject science for the sole reason that it doesn’t support your interpretation of the Bible?
In the scientific method there is a concept called falsification which is the conditions under which your hypothesis is false. You can’t do real science without it. When you say that you will only accept science that agrees with your pre-conceived beliefs it means that you are no longer doing science.
For example, what characteristics would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a young Earth or a recent global flood? What features would a fossil need in order to falsify the claim that humans were created separately from other species? What shared genetic markers would you need to see in order to falsify the hypothesis that humans were created separately from other species?
I am guessing that you can’t name a potential falsification for YEC in the fields of geology, comparative anatomy, or genetics. This is because YEC is not science. Rather, YEC is an interpretation of the Bible that has to be protected from science because the evidence of reality contradicts that interpretation of the Bible. This is why creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis have statements like this one:
“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.” link
Whenever I see YECs talk about “secular science,” I mentally replace the word “science” with the word “measurement.” After all, with the age of the earth, that is precisely what you are dealing with.
Does talk about “secular measurement” make any sense? Somehow, I think not.
No, real science is science that obeys the Bible. In particular, Deuteronomy 25:13-16:
13Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. 14Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. 15You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
Or with respect to peer review, Proverbs 12:1:
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates correction is stupid.
and Proverbs 27:6:
Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.
And of course with respect to reproducibility, Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16 and 2 Corinthians 13:1:
Every matter must be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
I’ll need to update the introduction to include links to the other articles, but I’ll probably do that next week. I’ve just one more post in the series to go – a summary and conclusion, which is scheduled for Monday.
The Bible serves God’s purposes. Where God’s purpose is to describe reality, the Bible does so truthfully and sufficiently. “Accuracy” is a term related to data and measurement and I don’t think it is the best term for describing the Bible’s work, because I don’t think God is primarily concerned with communicating objective information precisely. I think God is concerned with communicating who he is so that we can love and worship him.
I object to the way some people treat the Bible as somehow the source of reality. The Bible does not establish reality, it is part of reality. Since it is part of reality, it can not be some kind of standard by which reality itself is assessed. That is circular and illogical. To claim that the Bible establishes the reality “real” science is allowed to describe is to put the Bible somehow outside and over reality. I think that is an idolatrous, magical, pagan view of the Bible.
)
) (and yes, I have discussed this to death [or at least close thereto, because I feel the rumblings of it coming once again upon us