Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Is YEC a religious belief or more?

I note that the lede of this article states that YEC is a religious belief as if that's the only thing that it is. It cites two sources for this sentence, one is Numbers who assiduously avoids labels like this (if you disagree, please cite the sentence where he labels YEC a religious belief) and the other is Scott's book which states that Creationism, in general, "transcends" simple religious belief. So I am tempted to either modify this claim or at least note a failed verification here. Thoughts?

jps (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

YEC is a species of science denialism born of and heavily influenced by religious belief (i.e., "Modern Biology is totally wrong and or wrong and irredeemably evil because it fails to mesh with a literal (mis)reading of the (English mistranslation of) Book of Genesis")Mr Fink (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This is more than a religious belief, then. jps (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism is a variation of creationism, "The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution." It's kind of like saying the current pope is a religious figure. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Creationism, however, has an older antecedent "philosophical" meaning which is more explicitly religious than the ideological movement that YEC. While obviously YEC is religiously inspired, it isn't a religious belief only. After all, it associates specific anti-scientific arguments as a matter of course (that's what the "young Earth" means). jps (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources? Please provide references, including page numbers for books, for any changes proposed. . . dave souza, talk 20:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the problem here is that the sources currently in the article do not verify the sentence they are supporting. I am hoping that someone may either explain how they do or propose sources which do support this point. Otherwise, I am happy to propose some alternative wording below if you think this is not going to be forthcoming. jps (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking through some sources

Okay, I've been scouring some sources and I am not exactly clear how to proceed still. The connection to religious belief is undeniable, but I think it's important that we identify YEC as a particular literalist approach taken in the context of a 20th Century argument over how Christians are supposed to square their belief that Genesis is correct with the context of a modern scientific understanding of deep history. Prior to The Genesis Flood, the arguably more popular version of creationism was Old Earth Creationism which is still touted in the more intellectually supine circles of Christendom (for examples of this, try William Lane Craig's objection, Biologos's objection, or Sojourner's objection). To define YEC as strictly a religious belief is to miss out on the purposeful way that YEC advocates (right now, it's essentially a duopoly of AiG and ICR) force this approach on the English-speaking Christian world -- especially when it comes to Christian higher education (c.f. [1]). What we essentially have is an antecedent religious belief about the importance of a certain literal interpretation of Genesis (the current prevailing one among conservative Evangelicals) with respect to timeframes that is propped up with rhetorical arguments from the YEC camp; YEC distinguishes itself as an approach to the question of how religious faith can work in the context of scientific fact by making specific time arguments that align with their desired chronology (see Heaton's exploration of such). Once it gets to the point of proposing alternative chronologies, I would not describe this as much of a "religious belief" as much as an ideological framework.

I'll also note that this explanation follows what is being said in the two sources currently in the article (Numbers and Scott). The National Academies frame YEC (and actually ALL creationism) not as a religious belief, but as an explicit sort of rejection of scientific knowledge: [2].

This is the beginning of my work, here, but I think it is clear that simply calling YEC a "religious belief" is missing a big part of the story here.

jps (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the definition in creationism isn't very good. A good start is:

creationism has a broad and a narrow definition. Broadly, creationism refers to the idea of creation by a supernatural force. To Christians, Jews, and Muslims, this supernatural force is God; to people of other religions, it is other deities. The creative power may be unlimited, like that of the Christian God, or it may be restricted to the ability to affect certain parts of nature, such as heavenly bodies or certain kinds of living things.
The term creationism to many people connotes the theological doctrine of special creationism: that God created the universe essentially as we see it today, and that this universe has not changed appreciably since that creation event. Special creationism includes the idea that God created living things in their present forms, and it reflects a literalist view of the Bible. It is most closely associated with the endeavour of "creation science," which includes the view that the universe is only 10,000 years old. But the most important aspect of special creation is the idea that things are created in their present forms. In intelligent design creationism, for example, God is specially required to create complex structures such as the bacterial flagellum or the body plans of animals of the Cambrian period, even though many if not most intelligent design proponents accept an ancient Earth.Eugenie C. Scott (3 August 2009). Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Univ of California Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-520-26187-7.

Even within that narrower definition, there was a significant change between the original YEC of 1960 and the creation science of the early 70s, though both continue to co-exist:

Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. pp. 269–273. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0. synonymous tags 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' .... signified a major tactical shift among strict six-day creationists. ... Instead of appealing to the authority of the Bible, as John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Morris had done in launching the creationist revival, they downplayed the Genesis story in favor of emphasizing the scientific aspects of creationism

Before that, few used the term creationism for what had been commonly known as anti-evolution. See Ronald L. Numbers (1998). Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press. pp. 49–. ISBN 978-0-674-19312-3. . . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the problem of broad and narrow definitions of creationism. Fortunately, YEC is an intellectual inheritor of the narrow one and the associated anti-evolution rhetoric as evolution (and other scientific theories) conflict with the hermeneutics of special creation, as Scott puts it. The developing rhetorical devices of neo-creationism are well-documented and, I think, can be covered in other pages. YEC, however, is not a religious belief, even still. It's a combo-jump from an inherited anti-modernist disapproval of higher criticism and scientific theories that conservative Protestants fought in Scopes and in previous arguments joining with an active promotion of a specific alternative chronology. In contrast to and uniquely among other creationist endeavors, YEC argues about timeframes. jps (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Creationism is a broad label; YEC has subsets including creation science, and itself developed from antievolution combined with Price's version of Flood geology. It's rather an anachronism to describe Scriptural geologists as creationist, though they share many traits. It's important to be clear that creation science is religion and not science, perhaps the best terminology is theological doctrine. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. Mixing up the different ideas is something we should be careful to avoid. To that end, I would shy away from "theological doctrine" as well because the people who developed this were not theologians but rather amateurish autodidacts with respect to scientific ideas and almost none had theology degrees either. jps (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It has its source in doctrine, and as such is pseudoscientific, as its "research" motivation and goal is to justify religious beliefs, and not seek actual scientific facts, even if they lead away from those doctrines. Price was employed by the SDA church and found his initial support base there. He was more devoted to proving the Bible true than seeking objective scientific facts.

Needless to say, those involved don't see it this way. They see themselves as better scientists who aren't letting their atheism block their search for "truth" in areas which might prove the existence of God. Both groups can, in some instances, rightly be accused of letting their biases direct their research. Scientists are, after all, fallible humans, but good scientists will ultimately allow the evidence to change their beliefs. That's where the two groups diverge, as scientific creationists will not allow this to happen. They will maintain their beliefs, no matter what. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. The question really is, though, how to describe an enterprise whose goal is justification of religious belief. It's something like a paramilitary justifcation for literalist Christian ideology. jps (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Their's is a process of starting with theological doctrine and attaching scientific words to make the doctrine appear consistent with scientific evidence, even though no mainstream scientist would give such theories the time of day. They are not fooled. They know pseudoscience when they see it.

These "scientists" are footnoting their church's doctrines with references to their own scientific "research" because they can't do it with mainstream research. Note that the research never changes the doctrines, but the research must always be bent to accomodate and support the doctrine. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. That's a bit hard to put succinctly. I don't think simply calling it a "religious belief" does it justice. It's more of a selection of pseudoscientific arguments selected to support a religious belief. jps (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Trying to source ideas, I came across the comment by Glenn Branch (10 July 2014). "Everitt versus Midgley, Part 3". NCSE. the foreshadowing of "intelligent design" in "scientific creationism," which (as Henry Morris always insisted) involves "no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model" cited to "The Tenets of Creationism by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Tuesday, July 01, 1980". icr.org. – which states Creationism can be studied and taught in any of three basic forms, 1) is scientific creationism as above, 2) is Biblical creationism (no reliance on scientific data, using only the Bible to expound and defend the creation model), and 3) is Scientific Biblical creationism (full reliance on Biblical revelation but also using scientific data to support and develop the creation model). Choice to depend on where the "form" is being used, but all clearly religious. small print at foot "All the genuine facts of science support Biblical creationism and all statements in the Bible are consistent with scientific creationism." . . dave souza, talk 16:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This probably needs expounding upon at creationism rather than here, although as you point out part of our problem here is the inheritance of the problem there. I'm not sure that this tripartite distinction has been made cleanly in practice which is probably part of the reason the Wedge Document was written -- the advocates couldn't keep their stories/audiences straight. I note that typical creationist evangelism wildly swings from one form to another in the AiG-inspired stuff. ICR is a bit more careful, but even when they get talking to church groups it often falls into a deep divine into Biblical creationism. jps (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, Morris is the classic YEC, which tends to get equated with scientific creationism, and this is a clarification that even after developing that, he explicitly said it's fully equivalent to open Biblical creationism, but better suited to public schools while the Biblical version is better for Sunday school. Strange that it kept failing the Lemon test! . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Also of interest, not great for a definition but makes some good points, including [in narrow view]: Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth (Numbers 1992). (Because ‘literalist’ is the common term, we continue to use it. More accurately, such people are better known as ‘inerrantists,’ implying that the stress is less on the actual words and more on the interpretation, especially given the extent to which they interpret the Bible, especially when it comes to prophecies.)Ruse, Michael (Winter 2018). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). "Creationism (First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Fri Sep 21, 2018)". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2018 ed.). . . . I think it's important to be clear that there are multiple different inerrant literal YEC interpretations of the Bible. . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". NCSE. 13 February 2018. – online version of pp. 63–73 of Scott's book, it doesn't include pp. 73–75 which cover points such as "Which tradition is more faithful to the original documents is ascertained differently by different factions .... Proponents of different Biblical interpretations tend not to persuade one another because their religious assumptions are different, to some it is not a matter of logic or empirical evidence". . . . dave souza, talk 12:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Workshop wording

I'm spitballing here, but I think we have enough work done above to start the ball rolling. We can decide on which sourcing to use after we come up with decent wording, I think. jps (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a kind of creationism that assumes that the universe and the Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago. YEC is based on a religious belief in literalist interpretations of the Bible, especially as it pertains to the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis.

• Done from memory, a couple of points: not all YECs have held (or still hold) that the universe is under 10k years old, think Morris was an exception with that. Not necessarily Biblical, though that's commonest, so could be creation by other deities. Here's a try: dave souza, talk 12:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is creationism which holds a central tenet of religious belief that the Earth and all kinds of life on Earth were created in their present forms by direct supernatural acts of a deity within a set time, usually between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Most commonly, YEC is based on belief in the biblical inerrancy of particular literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis.

Looking quite nice to me. What self-identifying YECists argue for an age older than 10,000 years? I've been looking for examples but came up short. It would be good to get it right out in the open. I don't think there are, for example, million-year-young Earth creationists out there, but I could be wrong. I would also try to succinct-i-fy, so presuming that 10,000 years is not the upper limit, I would just modify that age:

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created in their present forms by supernatural acts of a deity between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. In its most widespread version, YEC is based on religious belief in the inerrancy of certain literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis.

Thanks, couple of clarifications – don't think any go over 10,000 years, I meant to convey the point that not all YECs hold the universe to have been created within that time, though all hold that the Earth was formed then. Also, I'm not sure if God is held to have created all supernatural forms of ?life such as angels within the same timeframe. The line "all kinds of life on Earth were created in their present forms" tried to cover Scott's "the idea that God created living things in their present forms". Am wondering if instead of "most commonly" it could be "in its most widespread version". . dave souza, talk 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dating creation#Other biblical estimations has three earlier dates, the only relevant case would be Harold Camping and "approximately" should cover that. .. . dave souza, talk 22:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems good. Added some tweaks to take care of your points. jps (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the previous wording. YEC is obviously a form of creationism, per the name, and the article on creationism defines creationism as "the religious belief that..." So saying it is a form of creationism implies that it is a religious belief. The wording defining YEC as a "form of creationism" was long-winded and needlessly complicated. 86.28.158.33 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an introductory sentence, hence a link to creationism which is more specific than just saying it's a religious beliefs. It may look implicit to you, but our article is to inform readers who may not share your preconceptions, not leave them with a guessing game. Also, worth noting as some forms of creationism, including versions of YEC, claim to be purely scientific. . . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it a "preconception" that a position with "creationism" in its name is itself a form of creationism? It's not implicit, it's explicit. There's usually no need to spell things out explicitly when they are already implicit. Here, it's already explicit anyway, saying it's "a form of creationism" effectively just repeats what immediately comes before. The link to creationism is already there in the sidebar, and impossible to miss. It doesn't matter what the position claims itself to be, only what it actually is. AIDS denialism claims to be scientific too, but we don't hesitate to label it as denialism. We shouldn't cautiously sidestep accurate terminology just because they might object to it. Creationism is denialism as applied to the scientific truth of evolution, and the claim that their beliefs are scientific rather than religious is itself part of that denialism. 86.28.158.33 (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

"Creation Safaris" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Creation Safaris. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldest trees? Ambiguity in "scientific refutation" section

I realise this article is likely to bear the scars of a few brutal edit wars, so raising this here so that editors more attuned to the dynamics can perhaps make suitable adjustments rather than inadvertently disturbing a delicate equilibrium myself (WP:BOLD be damned), although I doubt this will be too contentious. Also, because I don't really know what the article is trying to say here, not sure how to just fix it myself aside from deleting the point altogether.

Anyway, the article offers as evidence inconsistent with YEC the example of "the age of ... the oldest known trees before 12,000 BCE", with a wikilink to the dendrochronology article. Not really sure what's meant by "oldest known trees" here: is it the oldest currently living trees? The oldest known non-clonal one is Prometheus (tree), about 5,000 years old, so quite consistent with YEC; Pando (tree) is certainly many thousands of years old, quite possibly from before 12,000 BCE though this is not established beyond doubt, and anyway its precise age cannot be established by dendrochronology as the link suggests because it's a clonal tree (ie the trunks are replaced through the lifespan of the organism). If talking dead trees, the oldest known example of an organism that could be called a tree is at least back in the Triassic, so way more than 12,000 BCE, but not too much more helpful in refuting YEC than pointing to a dinosaur fossil, surely (eg, if someone's going to reject the basis of stratigraphy for a dinosaur fossil, as YECs do, there's no reason why they wouldn't use the same argument for a tree). Earliest trees aside, I'm sure there'll be plenty of bits of dead tree that radiometric dating conclusively places beyond 12,000 BCE, but what makes them "oldest", and why is 12,000 BCE a special cut-off? At any rate, unless I'm being daft, what is meant here is unclear, and it could perhaps use some tightening by someone familiar. ArdentComplainer (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It is murkily written. From context (and the link to Dendrochronology) I assume this is the oldest date we can establish from overlapping tree ring data. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree the wording needs some help. From the linked article, it mentions that tree-ring data goes back 12,310 years for North America, and 12,460 years for central Europe; that's years ago, which is not 12,000 BCE, but closer to 10,000 BCE. And the link text is "oldest known trees", which can be easily confused for "oldest living trees", which I believe is the bristlecone pine, but that's less than 5000 years old. There are a few other plant or plant colonies (not trees) that are far older, and might be used as evidence against YEC, but not sure if that helps here. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

First Sentence of “Scientific Refutation” Subsection

I want to be careful with this edit to NOT make it seem as though YEC hasn’t been refuted 4.54 billion times over or that EVERY competent scientist doesn’t reject it.

The first sentence of the “Scientific Refutation” subsection says: “The vast majority of scientists refute young Earth creationism.” That sentence seems to be combining two different claims into one: (i) Nearly every scientist REJECTS YEC, and (ii) YEC has been refuted over and over. As it reads now, it seems to be saying that nearly every scientist has themselves refuted YEC, i.e., done some work that refutes YEC. But most scientists just find it ridiculous and in conflict with...all of science, and so don’t themselves have anything to do with it.

If you all agree with the above analysis, how would something like this be for a rewrite of that one sentence?: “The vast majority of scientists reject Young Earth Creationism, and the position has been refuted by overwhelming evidence from numerous scientific disciplines.”

Thanks for your consideration! Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That change looks good but would need some reference work. The current "scientists refute" wording was added 9 April 2016 by ThePlatypusofDoom. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

All right; I think the refs are probably already in the article and wouldn’t require SYNTH to get to that statement. I’ll take a look and make the change if that’s the case. If anyone has any problems with me making the change, let me know. Thanks, Johnuniq. Thanksforhelping (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Any update on this issue? @Thanksforhelping:'s original suggestion seems plausible to me. @Johnuniq: -- Python Drink (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

YEC as a conspiracy theory (in the US)

[3]. I found more, including two creationist sites that attack the idea it's a conspiracy theory, which may be enough to use it.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we also used Panda's Thumb (blog) as a source, so also [11] Doug Weller talk 09:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

With the observation that their conspiracy theory is an auxiliary hypothesis in order to dodge the fact that they are rejected by mainstream science. So, while the YEC "theory" does not need a conspiracy theory, they need it in practice in order to not lose face with their adepts. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that an unproven/unprovable/incorrect/etc claim about reality is ipso facto a "conspiracy theory" in any meaningful sense. I suppose that nowadays the term has been broadened quite a bit, to mean something closer to "dumb" or "bad" – but it's not clear to me that including "dumb and bad" is terribly encyclopedic. jp×g 21:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As tgeorgescu said, it is an auxiliary hypothesis. The conspiracy theory is "biologists, or scientists in general, are conspiring to hide the truth, which is that Genesis is factual". They need that conspiracy theory to explain why creationism is not taught at universities, just as climate change deniers need Global warming conspiracy theory. Nobody wants to conclude "conspiracy theory" from "dumb and bad". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Squaring the Circle"

I'm surprised that there seems to be no mention of Psalm 90:4 - "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." or of 2 Peter 3:8 - "... with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Applying this to the calculated period of 3760 to 4004 (or even 5509) years from "the creation" to "the birth of Jesus", we get 1.37 or 1.46 or 2.01 billion years - which is between 30% and 44% of the current scientific estimate of the age of Earth, or about 10% to 15% of the current scientific estimate of the age of the universe. Heraldica (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That is because the article is about Young Earth creationism, not about day-age creationism. Different type of fundamentalist pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Hob - I hadn't heard of that one (which also doesn't seem to mention this factor of 365250) Heraldica (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)