The YEC enterprise and grooming conspiracy theorists

I’m glad you recognize that, Adam! Because that is exactly right. But they will inform you in no uncertain terms that the Bible does in fact teach exactly that … because they read the Bible like you do, Adam! Your reaction to them and your recognition of the damage they do to scriptures by conflating scriptures with lies, is exactly what we see you doing. The logical extension of much of ‘YECism’ (though not all YEC embracers) is to lead people in that direction, Adam. And that is an important point of this whole thread that people far and wide need to see.

1 Like

Yes they do…but that doesnt mean that the referencing used to support their theology is biblical sound.

For example…why does the catholic church worship sunday and not saturday? Almost all christian churches have followed suit and do so against the moral law instituted at creation (thousands of years before moses). The first sacrifice was immediately after the fall. Indeed cain killed able because his offering was rejected!.

Do you not find it strange offerings are not mentioned in the bible at any time whilst Adam and Eve were in the garden of eden?
That should raise an eyebrow for TEism but they dont see the obvious problem that creates for their entire world view. Death in sacrifice did not exist prior to sin.

The 4th commandment specificallys says…remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, for in 6 days the lord created the heaven and the earth but on the seventh day and rested. He sanctified and hallowed the sabbath.

This rubbish about the new covenant…the bible clearly says even Abraham was saved by faith…exactly the same way we are saved… faith in the righteousness of christ…the post christ salvation is no different to the abrahamic and mosaic one.

So the theolgy that sunday worship is a new covenant that replaced the old one is utter nonesense and yet…here we are.

Lots of individuals read into the bible but they rarely let the bible interpret itself…that is the problem.

Again, my arguments above present the philosophical problems individuals face if they choose the scientific method as authoritative above the bible.

At the end of the day what is more important, salvation or science?

Given Christ said its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to give up his wealth…

Well, I guess somebody forgot to inform Paul (not to mention the writer of Hebrews and all the gospel writers as well…) that the old covenant was already sufficient. They all were pretty excited that the new covenant (in Christ) revealed the real difference, and made for a turning point in history. You can think of all their gospel message as rubbish if you want, but I’m sticking with that way of seeing things.


I think you had better go back and read what paul wrote in the book of romans…its talks a great deal about righteousness by faith…so no Paul does not agree with your statement above.

Also, you appear to have not read what isaiah and jeremiah both say about the new covenant. How could two fellows, centuries before christ be talking about the new covenant?

The only difference bewteen the covenants is that in the original, it was the israelites who made the promise, in the new it was God who made the promise by writing his laws on our hearts and in our minds…instead of just on tablets of stone as in the first covenant. In the first covenant the Israelites said " all these things we will do", in the second covenant God said, “all these things I will do” (you didnt realise this?)

If you think you should elevate your theology over observation and reason, you are free to do so. Practically speaking, YEC exists less as a Biblical exposition and more as a reaction to science. You can hold to your theology and never talk about dinosaurs, galaxies, or anything discovered since the first century, but YEC is obsessed with science.

It is Ken Ham who actually posted asking if any humans have ever seen a live dinosaur, and are living today. It is Ken Ham who spreads innuendo that key information is withheld from the public. What information? That there is some unexplored hidden valley where T-Rex runs wild? That there is any real evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted?

So YEC itself wallows in misrepresentation, misleading quotes, and sins of omission and commission, and its conspiratorial mindset is projection.


I’m right here, Adam, you can tag me.

As an aside: “Mental illness” is a mental construct that functions primarily as a way of avoiding the reality of evil, not only in others but especially in ones self.

If you can label someone a “psychopath” for example, you can not only distance yourself from their perspective and dehumanize them, but also feel that you are innately superior, more good, more normal, etc.

But the Bible makes no mention of mental illness because it does not need to. “Evil person”, “fool” or possibly “possessed by demons” will suffice.

Back on topic… like the Pharases before them, the YEC leader are misleading God’s people with their lies, doing the will of the Father of Lies.

@Christy I completely agree with this.

YEC rejection of science (and truth) in the name of God is wrong and dangerous and not only that, it is diabolical.

People either end up accepting science and rejecting YEC (and lose their faith) or they end up adrift from truth, able to be easily lead astray by more deception and lies.

Neither of these outcomes glorify God or show his truth to the world.

The Father of Lies has no qualms about embracing and then corrupting religious ideas or even quoting scripture himself as the temptation of Jesus makes plain.

And we know this as we clearly see the fruits of YEC, of which a succeptability to other (often exploitive) conspiracy theories is just one.

To be sure: teaching and spreading YEC ideas is the work of the Devil.

1 Like

The Bible makes no mention of mental illness because they did not share our constructs of psychology, and did not have our detailed knowledge of how brains and social groups work, knowledge we have gained from systematic scientific investigation, which wasn’t a thing in 4000 BC or 75 CE.

Just because mental illness is a construct (that can be used by people in various ways with social implications) doesn’t make it “not real” and your claim that it’s primary function (avoiding the reality of evil) is a highly debatable bare assertion.

This is all somewhat tangential to the topic at hand, but there is a real issue that those who go deeper and deeper into conspiracy theories often end up with impaired mental health. And those who become leaders of conspiratorial groups are not mentally well.

1 Like

Ron I accept that there is a tendency for certain individuals in the public eye to be a bit redneck about YEC.
Personally, i think Ken Ham is doing generally good work, however, there are elements of his speech that are a bit “donald trump like” (i hope that is an adequite explanation as i am looking in at American politics from the outside)

From my point of view the dilemma is not complicated:

  1. people who are searching for God have only a single source for Him…the Bible.
  2. The theme of the bible is that we were created, fell into sin, Christ died physically to atone for that sin, and that he will redeem us at the second coming, and finally satan will bear the responsibility for all sin (illustrated by laying on of hands by high priest on the head of scapegoat azazeel). Daniel chapter 2 (Nebuchadnezzars statue) takes us through the latter stages of that theme.

If TEism were to come up with a working set of doctrines that maintained harmony with the above 2 biblical themes, im sure we would not be having these kinds of discussions.

Now you say its YEC who are corrupt, however, that is simply not the case. The point you are making is that in your view YEC appears to be contrary to reality of what science observes around us. The problem is, when Elijah was in the cave, he did not find God in the windstorm, lightninig, thunder, earthquake…he found God in the still small voice. Its those little things we find in science research that point to God and the accuracy of the bible narrative.

Science is very clearly influenced by a being, Satan, who is by far more intelligent and understands science much better than any other being in the cosmos next to God. It is a fools errand to make the claim that Satan is incapable of influencing what we find in the ground around us and see in the heavens. If you do not believe me, read the first chapter of Job (the lord said to satan “only do not lay your hand on Job”…so

Satan destroyed everything else job owned via

  1. influencing men, who attacked jobs possessions and stole them away,
  2. fire from heaven fell down and consumed other posessions job owned, and finally,
  3. great storm destroyed the house Jobs children were in and killed them all

How can you possibly claim satan is incapable of interacting physically with the world around us given the biblical narrative of Job? God inspired men to write about these things and TEists make the claim…oh no God had nothing to do with that…its just a fairytale?

Its the wilful ignorance of biblical writings that is dangerous here…not dissagreement over science. One cannot be saved by getting ones science to match that of secularists “anti God” interpretations. The vast majority of scientist do not believe in a God…its contrary to their world view. Surely even you can see that?

When i look at a number of individuals whom i interact with on this forum…i am aware that a number of them have a lot of health issues, and these issues certainly affect those individuals mental health. These are people who are not YEC specifically.

I do not agree that the bible makes no mention of mental health problems…mental health is not a phrase found in ancient biblical languages. The entire bible narrative talks a lot about mental health…its a significant part of who we are and how sin causes so much pain and suffering. Sin affects more than just the physical.

TEism goes to great lengths to make the claim the death experienced by Adam and Eve was spiritual…ie mental separation from God…and yet here you are denying this is biblical? Something drastically wrong with your theology there Christy…you are shooting your own theology in the foot with such claims!

So does the bible talk about mental health? Most definately it does.

Typically mental health was considered in ancient and indeed medievil times as possession by evil spirits. However, I am certain that if modern Psychologists and Psychiatrists were able to go back in time, the vast majority of secular scientists would deny demon possession and claim mental health diagnoses for almost all instances of these individuals in the bible narrative.

Below are two significant biblical individuals who very clearly suffered from mental health problems in the bible:

  1. King Saul (engaged David to play the harp in order to keep his “demons” from overwhelming his mind…Saul was clearly mentally unstable and suffered greatly.
  2. Judas Iscariot (killed himself by suicide after betraying Christ)

I would argue its a fools errand to deny suicide is not driven by a significant decline in mental health. The death of Judas Iscariot is a significant and very real example of mental health problems in the bible narrative.

obviously, there are different types of mental health…one of these is driven by environmental factors that surround individuals…such as the circumstances they find themselves in after making poor choices (as was the case with Judas).

Another environmental one is talked about in Luke 21 related to the last days before the second coming of Christ…this is similar to the narrative in Egypt just prior to the Exodus:

  1. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

  2. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

  3. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

  4. 26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

  5. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Nope. Not what was happening at all.
Plus, we are not the same. I don’t care if modern constructs are “biblical.” “Biblical” has become a meaningless word that essentially gets thrown around by fundamentalists to yell at people who have different interpretations or different approaches to applying Scripture to modern life. I absolutely do not care if the construct of mental health used by people in our modern context is “biblical.” I hope it’s not. I hope it’s research-based and grounded in best practices.


[EDIT i am self critising my statement about you not caring …its a bad one…i apologise, withdraw that and have removed it)

Perhaps this is why fundamentally TEists and YEC dissagree. You do not care for Bible theology over that of observational science. I worry taht in doing so is that you have this hope that science will save you. Those who refuse secular science, because its the mainstream view (the thunder and lightning), are listening to a still small voice and being led astray. I do not think that is biblical…the bible says differently i think.

We will not find any salvation in Science…that is a fools errand. One can try to make this my fault…“Adam a YEC who is corrupting the world into sin”, but it isnt my aim.

My Grandfather years ago always used to say, “if there was a God, bad things wouldnt happen. The fact that bad things do happen means there cannot be a God”. Bart Erhman makes the same claim.

So, when science cannot help suffering and death, who is at fault then? Why is it almost impossible for TE scientists to believe that Satan has more knowledge than we do, and can physically interract with and manipulate our reality? I also would like to add a caveat here…i recongnise that God has ensured a snippet of truth remains visible…i believe that because of the still small voice at the mouth of the cave that drew Elijah out of it after he didnt find God in the lighning, thunder, howling wind, or earthquake.

Read the first chapter of Job…Satan clearly does have both massive amounts of knowledge (more than we do only God knows more) and physical power…even to bring lightning down from heaven!

Christy you really need to explain biblically how it is that you do not believe Satan can do those things…i am genuinely interested in understanding your theology on this.

@dale and @adamjedgar I’m going to delete a bunch of your bickering. Stop it.

Correct. Because I don’t think they operate in the same domains and therefore there is no hierarchy that requires us to rank one “over” the other. I care a great deal about the Bible and theology and it’s proper use in proper domains.

Don’t waste your worry on me and my soul.

We know what you think, you repeat it ad nauseum. Please refer to the guideline:

  • State your case and then respect other people’s right to agree or disagree. Avoid repeating the same ideas over and over because you have failed to convince everyone to accept your viewpoint.

I’m not really interested in engaging your questions, Adam. It’s not been my experience that you try to understand what other people are saying or represent what they think fairly. I don’t “really need” to explain anything to you, and I frankly don’t believe that you are interested in understanding my theology, because I have already answered your question in a previous reply and I don’t have anything to add to it, and it’s off-topic on this thread.

1 Like

if i wasnt interested in your theology Christy, i would not be here criticising it (academic use of the word btw). You mistake robust challenge to your belief with useless bickering…i recognise that I frustrate you…we frustrate each other (i admit that), however, change requires intellectual conflict (this is academic fact). My fighting with you guys here is an indicator of the fight that goes on in my own head about this stuff. I cannot even begin to consider the science when the philosophical dilemmas remain unanswered. Anyone can choose to believe the science…but not everyone can simply overlook the philosophical problems Christians must resolve first.

Mine is not a grooming conspiracy…its demanding that all of us justify our positions and answer the hard questions. If we are incapable of that…what is the point of all of this in the first place…why are we even here? Are we here simply to have someone operate a tv remote and/or program us like robots?

Now to the point I am trying to make…the reality is, not a single one of you on this forum has (that i can recal at least) answered my question about the following:

  1. TEism claims allegory for the writings of Moses
  2. The Old Testament Sanctuary service pointed directly to how we are saved and to Christs death on the cross
  3. Exodus 20 states…in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth but on the seventh day he rested
  4. The salvation those who are in Christ receive at the second coming is clearly stated by the bible as entering into Christs rest (ie the Sabbath)

these above are significant theological truths…they are paramount in understanding the bible theme and therefore knowing God. TEism seems to fall on its sword by claiming spritiual death and allegory…thats an impossible scenario given the following:

Why did Christ die physically for the atonement of the wages of sin is death?
** (as Adam and Eve were warned about in the garden of Eden)**

I am arguing that the mere fact TEists refuse to answer the question means that it is some thing even you cannot reconcile with your world view…this means you simply turn a blind eye and ignore it. The problem is, that is the fundamental theme of the entire bible…its the crux of Christianity.

What on earth is the point of all ones belief in science if one is completely unable to reconcile the most basic Christian question? Its seems to me to be a pointless exercise even bothering to be Christian. (I am not making this claim to say you are not Christian…I am making this claim because i struggle with it myself)

Sure, but there comes a point, where if I say “I think the Bible teaches Satan is a created entity, an angel, who is not all-knowing and is not omnipresent, and has no power to create or manipulate reality, only “accuse” and “deceive” (that is what he does in the Bible, he doesn’t use “forces”)” and you say “I think the Bible teaches that Satan knows all of science and can manipulate everything in the universe and corrupt all of the physical world and infiltrate and control human pysches” then we just fundamentally disagree about what the Bible says. There is nothing more to explain. We have come away from the Bible with very different pictures of what it teaches. It’s not really worth my time to dig up a bunch of verses and say “Look!” because I guarantee you will just read them differently than I do and assume they imply things I don’t think they imply. There is no “proving” to be done. We don’t use the same rules of hermeneutics or accept the same basic presuppositions about what the Bible even is and how it works.

Choosing to accept demonstrable scientific facts about things we can measure and observe is not the same thing as believing one preferred Bible interpretation over another. We’ve had this discussion a bunch of times but you don’t accept it, and without this basic presupposition, we don’t have enough common ground to have a discussion. The philosophical questions that you think must be resolved are not my questions because I don’t believe the Bible teaches what you say it does. And I don’t grant your givens, and you don’t grant mine, so our arguments are not going to be persuasive to each other.

These are all off-topic on this post. If you want to discuss them, start new threads, and address one of them at a time. But it gets frustating when you keep insisting things that aren’t true or are gross simplifications or insist on putting someone else’s claims into your own presuppositions that we don’t share. I think by “claiming allegory for the writings of Moses” you mean disputing that the Penteteuch had a single author, Moses." This really doesn’t have anything to do with allegory and shows that when people try to explain nuanced biblical scholarship to you, it somehow doesn’t compute in your brain and then you go around saying people claimed stuff they never came close to asserting. I have zero interest in your Old Testament Sanctuary service discussion. It’s an esoteric part of SDA theology I just don’t care to learn about and discuss. We have already discussed the Sabbath plenty, we don’t agree with your interpretation. Nobody owes you more of an “answer” if you aren’t convinced by ours. Sometimes people agree to disagree.

Whole books have been written on the topic of original sin and death and the EC position. There are multiple FAQs on the BioLogos website with well-researched, expert-reviewed answers to questions about death, sin, and the fall. This is just a silly accusation that holds no water.


With regards to the OP, I think at issue here is the strategy of claiming that “they” aren’t telling you everything, where “they” means everyone that doesn’t support the position of the claimant. This is a classic form of manipulation, that plays on people’s insecurities.

Mr. Ham is welcome to make whatever claims he wishes on dinosaurs, or whatever, and people can evaluate them on their merits. But I have difficulty with telling people that there is a conspiracy among scientists to withhold information.

What I see here with the presentation of Evolutionary Creation arguments is: here is what credible science is telling us, and here are some approaches to reconciling the basic doctrines of the Christian faith with that. Here are the tensions that exist, and some things that Biblical scholars have said about these. Evaluate them according to your belief system.


How did we go from Ken Ham’s most recent posting and the other things you list in your blog, Christy?

No, Christy. I do not think necessarily that there is any such between the various views you listed—and YEC in general. Some of this is just the era we live in, where literally everything is considered half-digested on a website somewhere for at least ten minutes. We thought superstition ended with the Enlightenment!..Some of the ideals you listed also likely come from reactions to other things and connecting them with creationist thinking or with vaccination policies and the high cost of Snickers Bars (just made the last one up).

I do know, or have known, people who hold to (for example) a young earth view. But they were not into “germ denial” or things of that sort. I know people of that YEC persuasion who also recognize that the earth is not flat etc…People can hold to some one of the views you listed and not accept others. …climate change, for example. As for the situation with vaccinating children in Mexico…the details of that case would be nice to know before we throw an entire group of people (the evil creationists) under the bus and assume it is all that.

And I do not think Christians are leading the “charge to elect conspiracy theorists who are pushing for destructive policies”- — is really more than maybe not agreeing with someone else’s political or social views and then painting all with a very broad brush.


Conspiracy theories have historical antecedents that predate the Enlightenment and the writings of Karl Marx. People have long suspected hidden plots and secret cabals throughout history. For example, the belief in witchcraft and witch hunts in the Middle Ages involved conspiracy-like narratives.

Marx’s ideas did play a role in shaping certain conspiracy theories, especially those related to class struggle and the notion of a secretive ruling class. Marx’s writings on capitalism and class conflict provided a framework for understanding societal inequalities, which some conspiracy theorists have applied to claim that a small, wealthy elite controls the world, but there are instances where a small, wealthy elite exerts significant political and economic influence, and this can be a legitimate concern. The concentration of wealth and power among a select few individuals or groups can have profound consequences for society, including exacerbating inequalities and undermining democratic processes.

Some conspiracy theories may draw on real-world concerns, but we have to distinguish between these and elements of misinformation, fear-mongering, and scapegoating, which can be counterproductive to addressing the underlying problems.

However, conspiracy theories appeal to cognitive biases and psychological factors that are not limited to any specific historical period. These include confirmation bias, the need for cognitive closure, and the desire for simple explanations to complex problems. And of course, conspiracy theories have evolved over time, drawing from various historical, cultural, and intellectual influences. Certainly, some aspects of modernity, including Enlightenment ideals and Marxist thought, have contributed to the development of some conspiracy theories, but it is an oversimplification to attribute their existence solely to these factors.

1 Like