Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Sun Mar 29 2009 - 20:39:53 EDT

There is plenty of scientific evidence that the earth is old that is just as compelling as the evidence for the age of distant stars. In addition, a strict literal interepretation of Gen.1 places the creation of the stars after that of the earth.

There is no YEC view that is congruent with objective reality.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Clounch
  To: Dehler, Bernie
  Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning

    So when you observe a supernova explosion at 90 million light years away, that event didn't really happen because the universe is only a few thousand years old.

    With this logic we could also all believe that everything was just made 10 seconds ago- including the memories of all our past events, which didn't really happen.

  I had not read this until now. You point out something I have been thinking of for a long time. The YEC position can produce a quirky phenomenology. The real problem with this phenomenology is it is also FATAL to the concept of objective reality. If I were a YEC I would run from this as fast as I could. Christianity and the very idea of truth are both based on the idea of an objective reality. As is science.

  One must ask, is there a form of YEC that teaches that the earth is young but the universe old? That seems to be the only chance YEC has of being congruent with objective reality.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: [] On Behalf Of John Walley
    Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 6:13 AM
    To:; Randy Isaac
    Subject: Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning

    I think it is probably wise to leave the door open to "appearance of age" YEC because at the end of the day we have to accept supernatural intervention at some point anyway and we can't scientifically rule this out. It is probably a good strategy to just draw the line on countering and disproving false statements that are offered as scientific support of these views. It is a free country and people can believe whatever myths or fables they want as long as they don't try to represent it as science.

    But by this logic would ASA take issue with RTB statements that newfound function for junk DNA and the function argument in general negate the pseudogene evidence for common descent? Doesn't that fall afoul of the criterion for integrity in science?

    Ironically, this postion backs RTB into the corner of "appearance of ancestry" just like the YECs appearance of age. They will admit it looks that way but they appeal to a deceptive record of nature and a deceptive Creator to avoid the obvious implications if the science. I concede they should be allowed to believe that if they want but they shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying science supports them in that without a response. Does ASA officially address this anywhere?



    --- On Wed, 2/4/09, Randy Isaac <> wrote:

> From: Randy Isaac <>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Yes -- the YECs are still winning
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 10:24 PM
> Bernie wrote:
> > But even the ASA doesn't have a position against
> YEC, so maybe it is true? ;-)
> From PSCF June 2007 Vol. 59 No. 2 p. 143-146
> "The ASA does not take a position on issues when there
> is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is
> adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in
> science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes
> young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of
> a recent creation with appearance of age or which
> acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific
> data and a young-earth position. However, claims that
> scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the
> criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE
> project as confirming scientific support for a young earth
> contradicts the RATE project's own report. The ASA can
> and does oppose such deception."
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

    To unsubscribe, send a message to with
    "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

    To unsubscribe, send a message to with
    "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 29 20:40:13 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 29 2009 - 20:40:13 EDT