Re: YEC refutation

From: Sheila Wilson <>
Date: Wed Jun 15 2005 - 09:28:10 EDT

Several replies by Gordon Brown, Jim Armstrong, and Michael Roberts have helped me better express what I am trying to say. I have spoken with many non-scientist Christians who believe we have two choices: believe the Bible or believe satanically-inspired science. They see no middle ground. I have personally been told by loved ones that I need to quit teaching science because it is wrong; that I have been severely deceived and am leading people away from God; and that science has twisted my thinking, jeapordizing my faith in God.
People like Ham appeal to emotions rather that common sense. If you believe science is a deception from the devil, then no scientist can convince you otherwise because you don't want to talk with them anyway. Science has become evil in the minds of YEC believers and non-scientists.

Michael Roberts <> wrote:
This is a wise analysis. It highlights the whole problem as most cannot
understand the science but they can understand appeals to Biblical

Also few can conceive that many YEC arguments verge on, if they do not
cross, the limits of honesty. This has been a problem at least since TGF was
published in 1961, but the average Evangelical wants an authoritative bible
and are opposed to the atheistic reductionism of a GGSimpson or Dawkins. YE
provides that and of course good Christians are always honest.
Also YEs have tried to show that there are alternative scientific
explanations supported by Ph Ds, so thus YEC must have some credibility.

I could have written this in 1971 when I read my first tranch of YEC

The honesty issue will not go away

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Armstrong"
To: "ASA"
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: YEC refutation

> Let me try this on for size..a little different take on your question.
> You described the problem well enough, but the answers so far will only
> satisfy some folks, primarily those who might be both openminded and
> left-brained, or those who have some really operational understanding of
> critical thought.
> I would argue that for most folks, the persuasion comes through
> plausibility arguments, not facts and logical connection.
> Most of the answers here seem to attempt to respond to your request with
> logical, factual data.
> The essence of this "game" on the other end, though, is who do you respect
> enough to trust?
> If one has been taught to suspect any contrary data, that factual approach
> will not work.
> My sense is that there is still a need for factually correct teaching
> materials/processes that are more focused on persuasive plausible
> counter-stories, not counter-arguments - not succombing to the relatively
> unproductive data-lobbing wars.
> While this is counter to my instincts as a technical person, what appears
> to be needed is wide exposure to well-informed, personable, trust-invoking
> individuals (and materials) who (which) are capable of portraying the
> stories of nature in more persuasive anecdotal form, showing how
> marvelous this creation really is in its workings, consistency, and
> coherence, and in its patient homage to an intelligent creator. If new
> trust can be established in that form, then perhaps good data may be more
> meaningful to a larger audience, not because of its logic, but because the
> information complements a heart-felt position in a way that will proved to
> robust over time in the face of argument, additional study, passage of
> time, personal reflection, and onset of new discovery. At least one can
> hope.
> No one is going to replace a significant chunk of their belief system with
> something that controverts that chunk unless something cause mistrust of
> the existing, or creates a level of trust that strongly compels one to
> move in a new direction.
> The bottom line is that as long as a person does not have the tools to
> assess the data, they will rely on personal persuasion and plausibility.
> So my argument is that this aspect of education needs to be done with as
> much thought and quality as the data-oriented side if a broader range of
> folks are to be persuaded.
> That, however, takes rather special people to present and create resources
> of this sort. The need seems to be evident in what seems to be the lack of
> an abundant supply of such teaching materials.
> JimA
> durable and robust way.
> Carol or John Burgeson wrote:
>>I've been thinking (a painful process) more about the YEC claims in my
>>last post.
>>The problem is -- the typical person has no way to evaluate them. To him
>>(or her) it comes down to two opposing "scientific" viewpoints. One has
>>the appearance of being biblically supported. No contest.
>>Is there ONE argument that can be used to show clearly and convincingly
>>to a nonscientific person that the earth really really is much older than
>>a few thousand years?
>>Something that can be looked up -- verified?
>>One such argument goes something like this:
>>1. Almanacs give data on coal and oil production over the past -- say --
>>100 years.
>>2. This is business data. It is verifiable. Factual. No arguments
>>3. All coal and oil deposits ever found and analyzed show that they
>>originate with organic (pre-living) plants and animals. No exceptions.
>>4. There is a way to measure the biomass that produced these deposits.
>>5. There is too much biomass to have been produced in only a few thousand
>>6. Therefore (1) either God produced the deposits and made them look like
>>biomass had produced them, or (2) many more years than a few thousand
>>took place to produce them.
>>7. Since (1) is sort of flaky (like the Gosse theory), (2) must be true.
>>8. Therefore the earth is much more than a few thousand years old.
>>Comments? I tried once to quantify the above argument; it seemed
>>reasonable at the time.
>>2.9979 x 10**8 m/s, is not just a good idea, it's the law.

Sheila McGinty Wilson
Received on Wed Jun 15 09:30:56 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 15 2005 - 09:31:00 EDT