Re: My daughter is a YEC -- omphalos argument, "YEC" Nomenclature, &c.

From: Dr. Blake Nelson (
Date: Sat Sep 13 2003 - 17:29:58 EDT

  • Next message: Dr. Blake Nelson: "Rainy DC"

    --- Walter Hicks <> wrote:
    > Darn! Nothing I ever do is original. I do wish it
    > had a nicer
    > sounding name than omphalos.

    You don't like bellybuttons? The name of course
    refers to the postulate that Adam had a bellybutton
    despite having been created and not born.
    > > However, that is not the claim that
    > > YECers generally make. It is at least
    > theoretically
    > > important to distinguish between the position that
    > 1)
    > > creation is recent with apparent age and 2) the
    > > attempt to attack science on its own turf in
    > asserting
    > > a YEC conception of Genesis.
    > And here we disagree. I believe that most YECs. just
    > want to left
    > alone and not engage in scientific debate at all.
    > They are, I
    > believe just normal non-scientific people who just
    > learned the
    > Bible in Sunday School and take it at face value.
    > They may or may
    > not believe in evolution but don't consider it a
    > life defining
    > issue. In all likelihood they never heard of Gish or
    > ASA.

    I think the list then has a nomenclature problem.
    When I have used the term YEC, which I adopted from
    the list, I have always used it to mean someone who
    asserts that christianity _requires_ one to believe
    that the universe is only 6,000 years old or who not
    only asserts that, but also uses "creation science" to
    try to show that science is wrong about the universe's

    Perhaps, I should be more precise in what I mean by
    YEC and not presume that it is understood as such by
    others as I did adopt the prevalent usage on the list.
     Perhaps we should identify whether it is the bad
    theology or the bad science or both that one objects
    to. I don't think anyone necessarily objects to
    someone holding the belief of a young earth per se. I
    certainly don't, other than the potential it perhaps
    has to lead to bad theology.

    I think most of the comments I have read on the list
    where YEC is excoriated have almost always meant
    "creation science". I agree that someone who assumes
    the universe was created 6,000 years ago and does not
    espouse that as a christian doctrine or think that
    "science" (if I can refer to it as an abstract thing)
    is evil because it does not believe likewise is

    However, if someone espouses that the universe is only
    6,000 years old and that is what christianity says (or
    worse, requires), that is factually inaccurate and
    should be countered vehemently.

    > >
    > > It seems to me that the problem lies where someone
    > > says that a particular view is the necessary one
    > as a
    > > litmus test for being a christian or if there
    > version
    > > of reality is not true christianity is wrong. I
    > knew
    > > little about Duane Gish until I saw him in a video
    > at
    > > from one of the Vatican
    > > conferences. When he asserted that an atheist was
    > > correct that if evolution were true, Jesus
    > essentially
    > > meant nothing, I was flabbergasted.
    > Therein lies the problem. Everyone on this list
    > seems to equate the
    > loonies like Gish with the typical YEC and my
    > experience says that
    > they are not. Most of them are not interested in
    > science in the
    > first place. ASAers attack the wrong dragon. Stick
    > to slaying the
    > voodoo science monsters and you do a good deed. To
    > generalize about
    > the majority of YECs is to do a slanderous and
    > sinful thing

    I would agree if when someone says YEC they mean
    anyone who thinks the universe was created 6,000 years
    ago but does not espouse that as a christian doctrine.
      When I have used YEC, as noted above, I mean
    something other than someone who just happens to
    believe in recent creation. Sorry for the confusion
    in my use of the term.

    The fact of the matter is, unless it taints one's
    understanding of Jesus (as I think it apparently does
    for Gish), whether one believes in young or old earth
    is immaterial to the working of the Holy Spirit in
    one's life.

    It is obviously the case due to the historical fact
    that the kerygma is effective regardless of the state
    of scientific understanding in a culture (contrary to
    the apparent beliefs of some of our less informed
    recent and long-standing atheist visitors). The
    kerygma is not about the scientific state of affairs,
    but the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Our
    response to it does not depend on our scientific
    understandings or lack thereof.

    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 13 2003 - 17:32:13 EDT