RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs

From: George Cooper <>
Date: Mon Oct 27 2008 - 09:53:50 EDT



Why would you strongly disagree to the idea of religious hubris if you know
the scientific evidence refutes their claims? Is it not pride in their own
beliefs that makes YEC leaders so confident in their "science", which they
unfairly use to counter mainstream science?


Bernie said: Tell the YEC "I used to believe as you do, until I saw the
scientific evidence." Then they will say "Like what?" or "what about XYZ?"
Now you have your learning moment all primed. Be patient.


Yes, that's a great approach for anyone who has come from the YEC camp.






From: [] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 12:05 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs


George said:
"I see the YEC antiscience position as religious hubris and not unlike that
found in the Pharisees."


As a former YEC, I strongly disagree. I think the first problem is that
science is very deep, and the vast population is scientifically illiterate
(for example, in chemistry, DNA, cosmology, etc.). Therefore, the plain and
literal interpretation of Genesis seems quite reasonable to the masses. The
only reason for not taking it literally, and the gospel attached to that
interpretation, is because of modern science. Therefore, science is the
key, and the mover that will move people away from YEC. Arguing Biblical
interpretation will do nothing, because without the science, God could still
have done it that way. What's really important is the evidence from science
saying it couldn't have happened the YEC way.


Could God have created Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago? Of course! That is,
until you look at the scientific evidence, then it is "of course not!"


Tell the YEC "I used to believe as you do, until I saw the scientific
evidence." Then they will say "Like what?" or "what about XYZ?" Now you
have your learning moment all primed. Be patient. And when being accused
of being a heretic, don't react, but act (play Obama, not McCain, cool as a
cucumber). Remind them of other Christians who came to the same conclusion
as yourself- people they may recognize and honor- such as CS Lewis. Some
fundamentalists think CS Lewis was a devil because of his theology, but I'm
assuming your church isn't that fundamentalist. very likely, few are that
fundamentalist, and they self-destruct or implode when they get too big, I





From: [] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:45 AM
Subject: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs


[This is a bit long, but time will not allow me another shot at this.]


Many statements have been accurately given that epitomize the heart of the

Ian: On another occasion one YEC pastor told me "if I believed, as you do
that the world is billions of years old, then I would leave the faith
and become an atheist". It didn't give me much incentive to go on and
try and persuade him the earth was billions of years old!


Yep, notice there is no hint that their interpretation involves
interpretation. They are quite comfortable taking the more exciting zealous
warrior position of defending God's Word (no matter what the evidence or
alternate interpretation; "a day is a day is a day". To not accept a 24
hour day period will bring, quoting Ken Ham in his video, "the collapse of
Christianity". [Ham's statement was very annoying and it speaks very poorly
of the leader of Christianity, Christ Himself.]


I see the YEC antiscience position as religious hubris and not unlike that
found in the Pharisees. This is not a condemnation on YEC individuals that
I am making, however. My YEC friends and fellow church members are truly
wonderful folks that, indeed, do wonderful things for others, and I take
pleasure in working with them in any project. Wisely, we simply avoid this
area of contention. [Guess to whom I can do my venting? :)]


It also makes some sense that some of the more faithful (no sarcasm meant)
could be more susceptible to adopting positions that are strong literal
views. The most direct and simplistic reading of Genesis does favor their
position, given that all scientific evidence be deemed unfit to allow any
sway to this literal interpretation. Adding science to the mix is like
adding oil to holy water.



Ian said: I was accused of being "incompetent" at one point, for example.
There are certain people on the list who seem to froth at the mouth at the
sight of a YEC, and who think it's perfectly acceptable to indulge in ad
hominem attacks.


This is unfortunate and ad hominems can come from both camps as both are
convinced the other is wrong and damaging to their belief.


Murray said: My only suggestion is to find out what reasons the person
concerned has - from their own perspective - for holding to a YEC position.


Good advice. This makes you a listener who is showing respect for other's
views. Respect begets respect. "...before honor comes humility." (Proverbs
15:33 NAS).

Moorad said: We are inundated with people who profess the Christian faith
and are doing all sorts of damage by bearing a false witness and so driving
people away from the Lord. Those who take Genesis literally ought to be the
least of our worries.

As a science forum, it should not be the least of our worries, though you
are right in keeping our focus on more spiritual aspects of our faith. Yet,
anything that demonstrates the Bible should not be believed has enormous
consequences if left unchecked. The Bible should be in accord with
scientific "fact", especially when science supports itself with many lines
of evidence that brings these into an elegant confluence that is so
powerful. When someone is seeking the Truth, Biblical concordance with
science could make our witness so much more effective if these seekers are
affected by scientific evidence. If this could be found in one or more
literal interpretations, so much the better, though I admire TE views, too.
[This is why I hope scientists will consider M-Genesis' claims and tackle
them in the "back room" to see if it has merit.]


Mike said: If he is not interested in looking at any evidence, then you need
to either agree to disagree or agree to look at the evidence. Perhaps you
should gently inform him that you have looked at the evidence, and if there
was good evidence for YEC, you, as a fellow Christian, would gladly embrace


Nicely said.


One bit of evidence that you may wish to point out is found in comparing two
of the same Biblical genealogies. In Ezra 7 we find nine generations from
Aaron to Amariah. Yet, in 1 Chronicles 6, there are fifteen generations;
six more than in Ezra. This alone opens the door to the idea that many more
generations may exist where we don't have an account. Thus, the idea that
"6000" years is cast in stone, now has a crack. They may suggest you are
the one cracked, but you are at least arguing from scripture and you are
being literal, too. That isn't suppose to happen.


Dennis said: Alas, he has said that he does not want to read "anything from
my side" of the debate because he already knows that it will be in conflict
with Scripture.


Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Interpretation is no longer considered
applicable. They have the pure version, and you don't. At least you won't
be placed under house arrest, like Galileo was.



To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 27 09:54:10 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 27 2008 - 09:54:10 EDT