Right. The idea isn’t to avoid “stepping on toes.” The idea is to avoid speaking as if we know other people’s hearts. You can do a lot of criticizing public ideas and pointing out harm without speaking for someone else’s spiritual condition.
I have never suggested I know someone’s spiritual condition, only that I have a suspicion as to why they are doing certain things. Obviously I can’t read individuals’ minds, but I think I can make educated guesses. And even though I think these guesses are close to accurate, I would never declare them absolutes, especially in a debate etc.
1 Like
The reasons for doing this as I see it are as follows:
(This is when approached online or in person by a YEC zealot, but not the AiG creators.)
-
As a way to be able to stand firm in the face of their ridiculous claims without having to counter those claims directly. These people are armed with more nonsense to back up their nonsense and often the experience of dealing with them is like a disturbing and never ending flow of irrationality, so this arms you with a firm, reasonable, universal and easily communicable response. This response simply demands a higher standard of knowledge and argument than they are presenting. It says that their failure to do that is not your problem but theirs, and they are welcome to come back once they are properly informed and then have a real conversation.
-
That YEC zealots are ‘trained’ to twist your words around and cherry pick what you say. This approach puts a stop to that because you are not engaging with them on their terms.You are not saying the kinds of things that they have ready comebacks for. All you are doing is setting the conditions whereby you would be prepared to talk with them about this topic. If they don’t want to play ball, you can end the conversation.
-
Collectively, if we all approach it this way, the uniform experience of these people would be that if they want to ‘spread the word’, then they have to either spend more time seeking out the weak, vulnerable and gullible, or actually do the real work of honestly researching the scientific evidence.
Ultimately, I am advocating a tactic that might drive some of these people to actually go beyond AiG to secular sources, scientific sources, and speak to people who do know how evolution works. They will be doing this out of frustration perhaps, or believing that they will see for themselves that evolution is wrong, but most will find to their surprise that science is right (hopefully!)
My approach is not to convert people on the spot, but to limit their ability to convert others. If as a result of that one or two of them discover the real facts and escape their cult all the better. If you watch Ray Comfort’s highly selectively edited videos interviewing college students, you find that because the education system has done such a terrible job of explaining evolution, these people are easily baffled and confused and unable to justify their acceptance of evolution. These students do not have the time to research and have ready answers to all the nonsense on AiG, so it is better to simply teach people that what YEC/AiG is advocating is an alternative theory about the nature of reality which not only questions evolution but the knock on effect implies the complete overturn of all of our current scientific understanding of everything. Thus, the appropriate response is that they put forward their views once they have demonstrated that they understand what science is saying and can produce a cogent, scientific, testable and verifiable alternative to all of science. This will defeat all of their nonsense with one uniform response. Remember the onus is on them to make their case, it isn’t on everyone else to have to deal with their nonsense.
So, BioLogos will do a great job of welcoming these people and being a great example of a gracious Christian who believes in God but accepts evolution and is not evil and misguided 
Outside of BioLogos, we should all (believers and non-believers) be firm in our treatment of these people and not allow them to dominate the conversation with unfounded claims and utter nonsense. We simply direct them to the right sources and say to come back when they know what they are talking about. So they can’t get any traction there either.
And, to answer your question about what happens if they persist. Then as I said, you can either leave the room at that point or take it further by arguing that they have a moral and ethical duty to be properly informed if they are going to preach an alternative explanation of reality and denounce all science and scientists (which is exactly what they are doing). If they recognize the obligation that medical doctors have to know the proper medical facts, then they should appreciate that this applies to them since what they advocate is the wholesale uprooting and replacement of all of science. The impact of this would be earth shattering if true. So, they have a huge responsibility and if they shirk that responsibility then they are not just being willfully ignorance but are actually willfully deceiving people. It is willful deceit because they are deliberately and consciously seeking to avoid evidence counter to their views, and pretending to you that this evidence does not exist. That is dishonest, it is deceptive. At this point you can say again “once you can demonstrate that you know the facts and how evolution works, how scientists establish the age of the universe, and how all of science supports evolution, then we can talk. Until then, I have no reason to continue listening to you”.
I will use this with YECs, racists, sexists, conspiracy theorists, ant-vaxers, and flat-earthers, 9/11 truthers and anyone else that seeks an audience to spread lies.
I saw something about that but didn’t follow it closely.
I don’t think Talk Origins has been updated in years. It seems to be a stagnant site. And it’s not anti-religion. It’s relatively neutral. You can tell there is input from both Christians and atheists. So it’s not awful or anything. But it is out of date. That happens when people don’t have time to maintain such a behemoth of a site.
Whatever it is that we would like YECs to see, it should definitely not be an ID site. At least, if the goal is to introduce them to proper scientific thinking at least.
If you are an ID enthusiast you will likely not agree, but ID poses as a science but simply is not science. It is quasi-scientific in that it looks ‘sciencey’ to those who are non-scientists, but fails all the basic tests and is simply a way to insert God into the evolutionary process in a way that is unnecessary. This is not to say that God did not set it in motion, or that He does not care about the outcome, but it is to say that real science has no need to insert God into the ever shrinking gaps.
The trail of breadcrumbs needs to lead to a site that is theist friendly, but nevertheless a site that is unimpeachable scientifically. We need to contrast the pseudo-scientific, heavily theologized, non-sceptical, vague-wishy-washy yet arrogantly certain language of AiG, with the calm, methodical, evidence based, cautious, non-arrogant, robust and meticulous work done in the real scientific community.
I am now a big fan of James McKays (@jammycakes) site at least as a starting point - the first breadcrumb perhaps…?
This site promises to help those who want to challenge science with an alternative theory, but to do that in a science-like way. This is exactly the kind of approach I am trying to advocate as our first step.
1 Like
Greeting @Peter,
I appreciate your thoughts. I am curious (sorry if I missed this). Were you YEC at one point? If so, what made you change your mind?
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Randy
Hi Randy,
no I was never YEC. My history is that a lifelong friend of mine became a YEC at 19 and 35 years later is still completely embedded in the cult. For me, it is such a waste of an otherwise good mind, and this has also limited our friendship in that we cannot meet as equals intellectually. I have encountered many of his YEC friends, while most are nice, there are some rather belligerent and obnoxious individuals too.
I have been tracking the rise of Ken Ham since before he left for the USA. The whole thing is deeply disturbing to me.
1 Like
Glad for your constructive ideas.
“And it’s not anti-religion. It’s relatively neutral.” (Talk Origins) … “I saw something about that but didn’t follow it closely.” (Peaceful Science)
The first part just isn’t enough anymore. Too much manipulation can still take place that way, such as what happens at Swamidass’ “Peaceful Scientism” in promotion of “secular” conversation. For example, the promotion of “cultural evolution” as “OK” (incl. “evolutionary religious studies”, cf. atheist studies of religion), alongside promotion of “biological evolution”. This is often given a free pass by “theistic evolutionists”, but is just as “anti-religious” as Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, Harris, et al.
“we cannot meet as equals intellectually.”
Yes, this happens with people who go on such detours. Michael Behe is another such example who suffered intellectual decline by embracing IDism.
“I have been tracking the rise of Ken Ham since before he left for the USA. The whole thing is deeply disturbing to me.”
There is a way out of this. Ken Ham would most likely sabotage himself if the actual audience he wanted for himself actually got to see him. There are too many people nowadays who were at one point or another, either by a pastor or by advocates in the pews of their local church, “psychologically abused” by YECism to let Ken Ham and Kent Hovind “get away with it” as they are currently doing. The tipping point will come eventually when the people in their audience turn and remove them. Some people have been waiting for that already for years, right?
Thanks. I feel somewhat similar about this, but I was strongly YEC at one point. My story is that I changed my mind when I encountered real, nice evolutionists. In high school, a biology teacher rebuked me kindly for being cynical. In undergrad, a geology teacher overruled my classmates’ exasperation with my YEC objections to the age of the earth to kindly explain the age of the earth to me; and finally, my evolutionary biology teacher enthusiastically encouraged examination of Gould’s text (that was in '95). They all showed me for being uncharitable (not intentionally so), and proved to me that they were more Christian than I was. The actual science (genetics, etc) really only cemented things for me once I changed my mind.
I, too, am dismayed at a YEC church when the pastor naively says that evolutionists suppress the truth to ignore God. While I always disagreed with that idea, I mourn the disconnect from really understanding what science is that they must experience, as well as the real struggle that our young people will go through when the go to college.
@DOL Dr Lamoureux and others who communicate so well their own struggles and the ways they have come to embrace science may help avert the suffering; but if I’m caustic to my pastor and others, I am concerned that they won’t listen to me (and I will lose good friends and family in the process). I try to find common ground, so when they come face to face with the truth, they will understand.
I am learning the same about Covid conspiracy theorists, some of whom are in my family.
At any rate, having been one of those who truly followed the wrong way, I am learning a bit more now about how confusing things can be for those who are told that science is a racket. Science can be daunting. As a family doc who majored in biology in undergrad, I still have a ton to learn. I am sure you can teach us.
thanks.
6 Likes
“it should definitely not be an ID site.”
Yes, and no. I believe they should be led to see an ID site as a bad example, not a good one. If YECists could “gain context” by considering IDism, that may help, but obviously not if it was presented as a “live” option, but rather as a distortion of “good science.”
“If you are an ID enthusiast”
Nope. I’m the lone figure who went to the DI’s summer program in Seattle who had already rejected ID theory. Made it through the week, but they changed the name of one of their programs the next year.
“real science has no need to insert God into the ever shrinking gaps.”
Yes agreed, with the obvious caveat that real science likewise has no need to insert atheism or agnosticism into the gaps where valid and monumental extra-scientific questions belong. And likewise, the defense of “methodological naturalism” at this point in the conversation, often just turns into “methodological anti-theism”. Since BioLogos does not take a “methodologically theistic” approach, and allows the language of “methodological naturalism”, a similarly biased playing field towards naturalism is enabled for natural scientists to exploit, just as Swamidass is exploiting “secular” to attract atheists and agnostics against ID theory and YECism at PSism.
“The trail of breadcrumbs needs to lead to a site that is theist friendly, but nevertheless a site that is unimpeachable scientifically. We need to contrast the pseudo-scientific, heavily theologized, non-sceptical, vague-wishy-washy yet arrogantly certain language of AiG, with the calm, methodical, evidence based, cautious, non-arrogant, robust and meticulous work done in the real scientific community.”
This is precisely Swamidass’ language of intention. I’ve been watching traffic there since PSism began, and it has exceeded, then shrunk, and now equals or exceeds again the traffic here at BioLogos. Swamidass’ language is in some ways significantly more arrogant than AiG’s, and far more presumptive that it is capturing the “middle ground” that BioLogos has been unable to capture, given its focus on evangelical Protestants. They have very different foci, of course, while the number of participants who hold PhDs in scientific fields at PSism seems to considerably exceed the numbers with PhDs here at BioLogos.
Yes, I support linking to James McKay’s site as a starting point also. Maybe he could share the traffic numbers at his site to let us know the progress and attention it gets?
Quite sure you just mean evolutionary biologists, not ideological evolutionists. Your language seems to conflate these two groups. Are you sure you wish to do that?
“I, too, am dismayed at my YEC church when the pastor naively says that evolutionists suppress the truth to ignore God.”
Every single ideological evolutionist I’ve met distorts the truth to “suppress the truth of God”. Every single one. That said, I do not include “theistic evolutionists” because I consider that a misnomer.
If you are dismayed by your YECist church and naive pastor, then if you don’t take action, you’re in some small way part of the problem. One of the ways out, of course, is to leave protestantism altogether. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian communities are not YECist. It may be time for a turn away from the “context” that embraced YECism in the first place; it started with 7th Day Adventists, and spread like wildfire among “biblical literalist” Protestants, but not among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. We agree on that sociology of the currently landscape in this conversation, do we not? Iow, AiG is almost entirely a Protestant problem, not a Catholic or Orthodox problem. Thanks for confirming if we see the same “social facts” here.
Randy, statements like this from you give me an appreciation for what those of you whose minds are open to the empirical truth are up against. Your concerns seem very real and important to me. Rooting for you.
1 Like
I’m curious, are you talking about what goes on on this forum, or how people who participate in this forum respond to people in other areas of life, church, Facebook, etc?
Because the “holding people to account” happens all the time here on this forum. Ask @jammycakes how many times he’s quoted his honest scales verse to a YEC when talking about radiometric dating. Do you think this forum is some kind of haven for YECs where they get patted on the back and coddled?
I think some of the pushback you are getting comes from the fact that you seem to be saying “All of you here on this forum need to change the way you are dealing with people on this forum” which leads to wrong assumptions about what you are advocating. Have you read many of the threads where people engaged with YECs? What exactly is different than what you are proposing? Do you think anyone comes here to this forum to get converted to YEC thinking by the random proponents who show up?
Personally, I have on average one conversation a year outside of this forum about YEC.
It is sad how often church leaders conflate some idea of “evolution” with anti-theism. It’s also hard to know how to engage with people without being labeled a troublemaker considering the way that AIG has taught many people to view those who “accept millions of years.” It is good to know there are others in the same boat, even though it’s not a very fun boat. I do think change can come over time, but it’s very difficult to know how to go about it… other than by hanging out here. 
1 Like
Right. And it also humbles me when I hear Denis Lamoureux @DOL and others point out that we aren’t knowledge imperialists. If a little old lady is happy believing YEC, what does it matter? If a pastor believes YEC, what does it matter? It’s important to keep what’s important, as first.
If my pastor friend tells me that someone who believes science does so because of selfish interests, I can point him to real scientists and lovingly correct him; maybe introduce him to writings of others.
If I aggressively say, “You’re all wrong–you have to listen to me,” then I’m setting myself up for failure, and becoming argumentative.
I continue to learn a lot from my YEC friends and relatives. Many exceed me in maturity and kindness, in spite of their naivete elsewhere. Life, love, worship; our personal worth; are much more than the sum of our knowledge base.
Thanks.
2 Likes
Thanks for this reminder. I have to keep reminding myself that the problem isn’t just that I was taught wrong information – that’s a problem, but even worse is that it was made into this ultimate thing. If I do the same thing in reverse, I’m not doing much better than the ideology I criticize.
3 Likes
There might be a bit more at stake with the pastor who is expected to be - looked up to as a shepherd. But even then, there is still plenty of room for distinction between the pastor for whom YEC is worthy of pulpit crusading, and the pastor who happens to be YEC as more of a ‘default’. The latter may never speak about it from the pulpit because it just isn’t an issue for that particular pastor or congregation. Their stance may be more an accident of absorption - recently inherited and largely undisturbed assumptions, not considered as having “missional imperative”, and they aren’t much threatened by the notion that other believers may think differently on those peripheral matters.
2 Likes
Yes, there are definitely YEC like that. Do you know of some offhand? My own pastor actually told me he strongly considered evolution to be compatible with the Bible at one time. So, although we disagree on the interpretation, we have a common ground.
Also, as Jared Byas wrote, we can learn from everyone–and there are things I can learn from Ken Ham, too.
Hi. I definitely believe we need to respect the older saints who are entrenched in their YECism. I attend a large Pentecostal church and go to the early service with the old guys (because I am an old guy!). I never talk about origins with them. Most have never gone to university. But for the young adults, we need to informed them of various Christian views of origins, including progressive creation and evolutionary creation. When I speak in a church, it’s only on a Friday night with young adults, many of whom are university students. I use my “Beyond” lecture and it is always well received. Here is a link to it: Science & Religion Web Lectures Denis Lamoureux
4 Likes
Thanks. That will be useful for us in discussing with YEC.