IgoFan wrote:Jac3510 wrote:Do you think that any self-respecting YEC would bother submitting themselves to your little test? The premise is downright offensive, as if the only reason a person would hold the position is due to ignorance of the prevailing model's reasoning. That's the kind of attitude that keeps the divide far and wide.
The premise above isn't my position. A YEC could fall into one of at least two distinct categories:
- 1 Misunderstands/misrepresents science while promoting a young Earth.
- 2 Interprets scripture to supersede science.
(I'm tentatively leaving out the possibility that YECs are scientifically correct.)
I almost never meet YECs, hence the reason for my topic question.
I don't have any issue with case #2, which is a logically consistent position. In fact, I have more respect for those in case #2, than for a Dawkins or Hitchens, who should know better than to misuse science to make untenable statements about God.
I'm concerned (as some others seem to be) about how many fall into case #1.
First, people can fall into both categories. They aren't mutually excusive. Second, people on both sides can fall into #1, changing, of course, the idea that they are defending. Third, I would expect that all conservative OECs fall into #2 as well. We all believe that Scripture is the absolute authority and that science can't contradict it. One of the main complaints that YECs have is that it seems to them that OECs are interpreting Scripture THROUGH the lense of science. To this, OECs reply that they are doing no such thing, that they are intepreting Scripture through its own lense, and it just so happens that (certain parts of) modern science back their claims.
So, any way you look at it, you've misunderstood motives all the way around. As a matter of fact, there are people on both sides (as is the case in ANY argument) who hold their position because they just assume it and have never stopped to understand the other position. Further, their are people on both sides who
have looked at the other side, both the science and the exegesis, and have come to contrary conclusions. I'm telling you, whether you intended it or not, your question was so phrased as to imply that the only reason you could possibly see that someone would hold to YEC is if they simply didn't understand science and/or were misusing it. As you didn't intend that, I'm sure you can see the obvious offence in it, just as much as if someone were to say that the only reason you could possibly hold to OEC/evolution (whatever your position) was because you just didn't understand the Bible. Such arguments aren't constructive.
zoe wrote:I know many of the students I teach who come from YEC households do so without examining evidence and will often accept the idea that the universe is young simply by default. They are perplexed when I show them other creation models.
The adults that I have spoken to about this fall into much the same category. I think for many Christians to even suggest that it could be old is such an anathema to them that they don't bother to study the science, because it is so comforting to simply accept that there is science out there to back up what they think is the best view out there. Let's face it, it's far easier to simply click on the ICR webpages and others and read about how fossil dating is incorrect and accept it on face value instead of reading through the methods (that often would take up more time and energy). I think the vast majority *do* fall into that category....why bother investigating it, the sources I like tell me what I want or what I think has to be true.
And it doesn't do much good to have the Atheists contribute to the cause by perpetuating the idea that the age of the earth and the evidence for microevolution has established the reason for rejecting God, as if they get to lay claim on truth.
I agree about the importance of #2, but many don't think through the possibiliyt that an OE framework does fit within scripture.
I think you are contradicting yourself, zoe, if not explicitly then perhaps you're just crossing your wires a bit.
1. You make a consistent case, as pretty much everyone does, that the OEC reading of the Bible is perfectly natural and literal. I suspect to bolster that case, you would point to the many testimonies of people who just naturally understood the Bible that way (Ross comes to mind). Thus, we should be able to reject the YEC claim that their position is th e
most natural, if not the
only natural way to read the text. This, of course, simultaneously reduces the prima facie exegetical appeal of YEC while raising the same for OEC.
2. But here, you make a big deal about the number of people who are "perplexed" at the OEC model. Not just perplexed, but your students didn't even know it existed! For them, the "natural" way to read the text is YEC. But that falls into the argument the YECs make that you flatly deny in (1).
It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. If (1) is true, then (2) is purely anecdotal; statistical anomalies, if you will, that can in no way be said to be representative of the YEC community as a whole (much less of the larger Christian and nonChristian population). But if (2) is true in that it DOES accurately represent YEC and general Christian populations, then the YEC argument that the YEC position is the most natural reading of the text proves to be true. Of course, just because that argument is true, in such a case, doesn't mean that the position itself is true, but I don't believe you'd want to give that up either.
Canuckster wrote:The issue isn't whether God "could" do it in a week. The issue is whether He did.
A wonderful stock response, Canuck, which is, of course, true as far as it goes. But it misses the point of the argument YECs make here. If you agree that God "could" do it (as we all do), then ALL of the evidence for an old-earth goes out the window as invalid. The question becomes what God DID do, and for that, one can only appeal to Scripture rather than science. I've been around long enough to know that OECs do
not consider the scientific evidence irrelevant, and it would be disingenous to claim that they do. Secondary, perhaps, but irrelevant, absolutely not.
In the end, it doesn't really matter for the same reason I pointed out to IgoFan above. We all consider the Bible to supercede science. If the Bible teaches OEC, then it teaches OEC, and it doesn't matter what science says. If the Bible teaches YEC, then it teaches YEC, and it doesn't matter what science says. If YEC, then YECs can choose to try to answer the scientific evidence (which an honest person should do to the best of his ability). On that ground, harth's answer is perfectly acceptable. I don't believe he submitted it as evidence that YEC is true. He submitted it as a basis for shrugging off scientific proof of an old earth in a philosophically/theologically justifiable way. As the entire point of this thread is one's justification for shrugging off that very evidence, then his remarks are very relevant. What God actually "did" do is another discussion entirely, one that cannot rely on science, but instead only on revelation.
God bless