What exactly should YEC be called as a body of ideas?

I noticed one of the posts is “the lies of AIG”.

What exactly is the right thing to call the young earth position of someone is defending it in your presence?

A lie? Or something else?

1 Like

It is an interpretation of the Bible.


That is very well put! You do a good job of discussing things diplomatically with others, I have noticed.

How would you suggest is a good way to interact, from your extensive experience? You can teach me, as can others on this Forum. Thanks.

1 Like

From my experience as a sociologist of this “origins” conversation over the past 15 or so years, watching the N. American conversation for 10 years from a distance where these topics are spoken about somewhat differently, and then returning to N. America in 2017, the “right thing” is:

  1. to call it not YEC (young earth creation), but rather YECism (young earth creationism), and
  2. to indicate, without any hesitation, that YECism is an ideology.

True, most YECists don’t “like” it to be told they are ideologues, since ideologues (or soften it slightly to “ideologists”) denote those who promote ideologies. Unfortunately for them, that’s the best sociological term to describe their “position”.

A key question in this conversation, then, is: why don’t more people call YECism an ideology?

1 Like

An excellent question. Yes, YEC is an interpretation of the Bible and an ideology, but at core it is bad theology. It cannot be disputed by reason, science, or Bible interpretation. Only by good theology.

1 Like

YEC argument is really no different to the physicists’ argument that the universe may be a simulation. If so, then 6,000 years may well be the go… by reason and science!

In which case, good theology says that the Bible makes it clear that the universe is not a simulation. It is reality.

How so? The Bible says in the beginning was the word. God used information. God upheld that information in the Divine Consciousness to bring the universe into being and thus make it a reality. This is on par with the physicists simulation. The only difference is that the physicists, like Dr Leonardo Susskind want to try and make the information physical. lol.

No, John1:1 says in the beginning was the Word, Logos, Jesus Christ. Jesus is not “information.” You are right, the simulation does not make sense, which is the reasons why YEC might be tempted to use it and good reason to reject it for theological reasons.

Most in YEC you come in contact with have a sincere belief that the age of the earth is young, and for them it is not a lie. Only if someone knows it is false and yet continues to put forward an argument is it a lie.
Therefore, I think you should listen, agree with them on your common beliefs, ask questions about those things you disagree with, listen, and continue the conversation where it flows. Many are not interested in following the conversation in that direction as it makes them uncomfortable due to the cognitive dissonance, and they would rather not talk or think about it. We should respect that desire, and perhaps as someone above suggested, discuss a side issue like interpretation rather than scientific issues.


That is interpretation. When I read the Greek there is no indication that the Word is Jesus Christ. Nor is the understanding in the Greek and even English translation that the Word has anything to do with Jesus Christ.
The Word is a way of saying “information”.

I am not saying the simulation doesn’t make sense. I am saying that Susskind’s attempts to try and find physical information to suit his version is nonsensical.

Consider that there is a non-physical realm, quite apart from the Spiritual, which we may call The Mind or The Mind of God. This One Mind is the source of all information. When we call on information, we are doing so in the Mind. And note, there is evidence for a One Mind, where as there is no evidence for the many minds theory that psychiatry and neuroscientists want to entertain.

Thus it is logical and reasonable that the selection of information can be upheld in the Divine Consciousness as to bring the creation into being and maintain it in existence. Our bodies work as if on automatic, but is it? The intelligence that drives the reactions at the sub-cellular level is of God. If God was to stop upholding that information in the Divine Consciousness then the Universe would cease to exist. We remain conscious beings but with no physical aspect.

John 1:1-5 (NIV2011)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
John 1:14 (NIV2011)
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

If you look at the full context of the Word in John1 you will find that there is no question that He is Jesus Christ.

Logos is a Greek philosophical term meaning “Meaning,” not a scientific term like “information.” We cannot mix apples with oranges.

This is pure speculation that cannot be proven.

It is, but it’s not just an interpretation of the Bible (like infant baptism or the permissibility of marriage after divorce). It’s also an interpretation of other realities. I think that is what makes it different from other interpretive disagreements. You aren’t just disagreeing about the best way to understand a Bible passage you are disagreeing about whether or not to accept other facts about the world.


It’s a unscientific understanding of nature by misunderstanding , and not applying, contextual analysis.

If I’m blunt to me it’s a stupid unbiblical view that results in many giving up on the faith because of the backwards culture it creates making Christians believe they have to choose god or science when reality the choice is choosing god and science verses a silly interpretation.

My translation.
John 1:1 In the beginning is the word. And the Word is of God. And highly revered is the Word.
(note: a meaning of the word theos in ancient Greek is highly revered / Modern Greek the word theos is reserved on for word “God”)
John 1:2 It (the Word) is from the beginning of God.
John 1:3 Everything of it (The Word) was made (came into being) and without it (The Word) nothing came into being/ was made.
John 1:4 Of it (The Word) life is and life is the light of the human.
John 1:5 And the light within the darkness shines. And the darkness does not comprehend it (the light).
John 1:6 It (The Word) became human sent by God and named John.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and made a place of abode with us. And we beheld the glory of it/ him, glory as a one of a kind of the Father, full of Grace and Truth.
In John 1:14 it certainly says “the Word became flesh” and a reference to a human full of Grace and Truth, which is a reference to Jesus no doubt, but that has to be taken in context. Of the Word was made everything that is made and nothing is made without the Word. So The Word is not simply something that became Jesus, but Jesus as well as everything else, the Universe and everything in it.
Logos is used to mean “word” in Greek. Philosophically it means reason or a discourse that gives an explanation of something. It does indicate information.
A One Mind is not pure speculation. In fact there is no evidence for the many minds theory in science or more particularly psychiatry. This is why they are trying to make a case for the personal mind arising out of the brain’s complexity.
However there is evidence of a One Mind and the strongest evidence is telepathy. This is being discredited by using subjects in experiments that are either double blinded, which removes relationship OR the majority of the subjects, the 95% are trivially related. And the issues used are trivial, like what is the image on a playing card.
If you take moderately strong to strong relationships and you use issues that are of great importance to the subjects you will see telepathy beyond doubt. However it will need the humane public to do the necessary experiments to demonstrate telepathy.
For telepathy to take place there has to be a certain degree of mental entanglement. That requires either strong relationship or relating in the moment, which will work but not so strong. The only way there can be mental entanglement is if there is a common mental platform, a One Mind.

Mostly I was just rejecting the terms “ideology” and “theology,” because it seemed too small for those. But yeah, “different from other interpretive disagreements” is a good point. It is hard to find a good word for what it is. It is closely connected with the scripture principle one is using – since a rather so called “high view” of the Bible is implied. Though to be sure this one dimensional high-low spectrum is quite inadequate for all the questions involved. In fact, I think there is considerable deception because most of those with a so called “high view” have frankly replaced much of the Bible with a particular interpretation of it – giving rise to the complaint that when you look closer it isn’t that high of a view of scripture after all. So… here is a more multi-dimensional evaluation of scripture principle.

1st measure - divine versus human agency in the origin of the content of the Bible.
2nd measure - literalism versus the recognition that many literary forms are being used.
3rd measure - authority, whether primary or second to some other authority such as ecclesiastical
4th measure - scope of the Bible… whether about all important aspects of life or just Christianity.

So for example, my scripture principle is high in 1st and 3rd but low in 2nd and 4rth. High in the 1st is to say that God is the author of the Bible using history and human authors as His writing instruments, and while the use of human authors may speak to the inapplicability of such terms as inerrancy and infallibility, it doesn’t give much support to modern literary criticisms of the Bible. Low in the 2nd measure is supported by warnings of Jesus Himself in Matthew 13, telling us that a serious treatment of Bible does not equal taking the text at face value in literal sort of way. Sola Scriptura is my answer to the 3rd measure which is largely about a mistrust of human authority. And finally I see the Bible as only having authority over Christianity because it simply doesn’t speak to the majority of things in life and I am certainly not going to live like person from ancient history as if that were the only life we are allowed by God to live.


What is wrong with “worldview”, which is non-pejorative and encompasses an integrated global outlook which is guided by some fundamental core beliefs? Of course, worldviews can be empirically false and internally inconsistent, and in fact most have to be because they are generally mutually exclusive.


It is a belief that someone may strongly believe in.

I don’t think it is helpful to directly call someone’s beliefs a lie. It may be helpful to show them the lies other people have told them, but it isn’t helpful to tell them they are directly lying. We shouldn’t make people feel bad about trusting other people who they thought were acting in an honest way.

It might also help to ask if YEC is scientific. Make it clear that we aren’t asking if it is true, but if it is scientific. You can objectively address the ideas without attacking the personal beliefs of the person.


Good post. However, I am trying to envision the interaction and response with this question. I can see some of my YEC friends saying “it’s consistent with true science, which is found in the Scripture. All else is mutable and dependent on our fallible and sinful minds.”

My first instinct would be to outline the scientific method and then ask them how YEC fits into that method, step by step. I would also remind them that there are brothers and sisters in the church who are scientists, and also accept the standard theories in biology and geology. Finally, I would remind them that scriptures were written by and and are interpreted by fallible and sinful humans (and I don’t mean this in a derogatory sense, just a factual one).

However, if their whole point is that science should be completely ignored, then there really is nowhere to go from there, unless you would want to discuss theological positions.


“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.