Why I Am Not A Young Earth Creationist
zeteo....@gmail.com
am reproducing it here to see if other former YECs will be willing to
post their stories of conversion away from YECism.
http://gnosos.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-i-am-not-young-earth-creationist.html
** Why I am not a young-earth creationist **
Several young-earth creationists (YECs) have read my post on Evidences
for Evolution
(http://gnosos.blogspot.com/2006/07/evidences-for-evolution.html) and
asked me why I changed my affiliation from YEC theory to the theory of
evolution. One of these is Janice, and in my response to her, I outline
the process I went through in "changing teams." I have included much of
her original e-mail, since I think it is a good example of the letters
I have received in response to my recent post.
My words.
>> Janice's words.
---
Janice,
I appreciate the opportunity to interact with you on this topic. Since
tone is hard to read in an e-mail, let me just state at the outset that
I consider this a rational discussion, not an argument.
>> Thanks for that very interesting trip into your blog and the websites. I find myself feeling sorry for "Nick", though. I was not surprised that you directed him and myself to websites to sort through endless information, most of which, you already knew, that we would not understand anyway.
It was certainly not my intent to send you to information you found
unintelligible! I apologize if you found this to be the case. You asked
a $50 question, and I was trying to give you a $50 answer. I'm giving
you the benefit of the doubt that an e-mail will not change your mind,
so I pointed you towards some of the resources that helped change mine.
It has taken me years to wade through a stack of books and a litany of
websites. I have found that this is the best way to make an informed
decision, rather than dogmatically asserting allegiance to either
creation or evolution without a rational basis.
>> Every person that believes in evolution, that I have asked to show me why, just points me to another website, written by another person, who believes in evolution.
Again, this is because it takes a detailed application of one's mind to
come to a conclusion about the confusing array of information out
there. Please do not write off my opinion just because the answer
cannot be summed into a sound bite.
>> Maybe you can explain some of the main concepts, simply, for those of us who are not as "advanced " as you in this Field. I think that would be a GREAT blog for you, from your OWN words, not other people's.
OK, let me give it a shot...
>> You say that you used to be a Christian, so think back to that point and try to explain what inevitably brought you to where you are now.
... but let me state again that what I say about evolution and science
is not the same as criticizing Christianity. My reasons for being an
agnostic philosophically/religiously are not the same as the scientific
reasons I accept evolution as the best theory to describe our origins.
For now, I am only speaking about evolution, not Christianity. In the
past hundred years, it has only been a recent trend, since Henry
Morris' work in the 1960's, to conflate the two.
>> ... I assume that it was alot of information over the years, but if you had to explain it to a child, using just some main points that stand out, what would you say?
As I stated in the post on evidences for evolution, my process for
accepting evolution had two parts. (1) I found that YEC theories are
untenable. There was a period after this discovery during which I
subscribed to neither YEC nor evolution. During this period I devoured
much of the material listed in the post, along with much written by
YEC's and intelligent design folks. (2) I found that the theory of
evolution fits the evidence found in the natural world better than any
other theory.
Let me create an outline. My process of discovering that YEC is
untenable followed these lines of logic. Once again, I provide websites
to back up the science, but what you were most interested in was my
line of reasoning. The reasoning based on the evidence is my own.
(Note: many of my links are from Christian sites!)
1. The earth is old
1. Dendrochronology (Tree ring dating). This is one of the
most accurate dating methods known. Trees only ever produce one ring
per year, and those rings are affected by the environment during the
years the trees were producing rings, creating markers. We can use
these markers to match up environmental events in history to create a
description of history back over 9,000 years. Note that the flood was
to have taken place about 4500 years ago, which would have destroyed
this record, and that creation was supposed to have taken place 6,000
years ago. There is already a problem.
http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
2. Varves. Varves refer to an annual deposit of either
sediment (at the bottom of lakes) or rock (in mineral deposits). Only
one layer (or one couplet) is deposited per year. These can be counted
back 40-50,000 years when counting sediments in lakebeds. In geological
deposits, we can count back millions of years. It's a simple process
very similar to tree rings. We can see how varves are created today; we
can count how many have been created. The interesting thing is that
these deposits show that they are laid down under tranquil conditions,
excluding the possibility of a flood.
http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/varvetct.htm
3. Ice core dating. Similar to the varves and tree rings
above, we can note that layers are also added to glacial ice deposits
annually. In some formations, we can count back approximately 160,000
years. This also eliminates the possibility of a recent worldwide
flood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
4. Carbon 14 dating. Without getting into detail, the
half-life of Carbon 14 lets us date things back to 40,000 years with
great accuracy (60,000 years with some newer methods). What is
interesting is that this method can be cross calibrated with other
methods to see if they both achieve the same result. For example, this
has been done in conjunction with dendrochronology, sedimentary varves,
and ice cores. Guess what? They agree with each other.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm
5. Radiometric dating. This operates on the same principle as
carbon 14 dating, but since the half-lives of other radioactive
elements (Uranium, Argon, Rubidium) are much longer, we can date even
older things. These dates can take us back billions of years
accurately. Once again, this is not just one method, and when tested
against one another, they agree with each other. Scientists are not
just shooting in the dark. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
At this point, I have named 5 categories with multiple dating
techniques within each that all point to a world older than that
described by young earth creationists. To believe the YECs, all of this
-- supported by the sciences of physics, chemistry, and geology -- must
be discarded. Not only are these methods supported by these sciences,
when cross checked, they agree with one another. The world is looking
pretty old.
2. Geological features are not supported by the flood.
1. River channels in the geological column. This is an
interesting one. There are many examples of rivers found buried in the
geological column with many layers beneath them and many above. If a
flood laid down all the layers, how was a river preserved in the middle
of them? http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rivchan.htm
2. There are lots more examples like this one of structures
that cannot form during a flood. One of them is coprolites -
fossilized animal droppings. These are found in various layers
throughout the geological column. According to flood theories, these
must have been fossilized during a catastrophic flooding event.
However, similar to the rivers, coprolites are found both on top of and
underneath many layers of rock. It's hard to imagine a flood scenario
that lays down many layers of rock, stops for long enough for
coprolites to be created, then continues to lay down rock.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bathroom.htm
3. I name only two here; there are a multitude more.
So, then, not only does science say the world is old by dating
techniques, the flood theory breaks down because we find features in
the geological column that cannot have been created in a flood. Please
note that I have said nothing about biology. The above facts were not
invented to support the theory of evolution, they exist and are
confirmed outside of it.
3. Geological features point to biological change over time
1. The Geological Column. Yes, it does exist, despite the
protestations of creationists. This column, dated accurately by the
methods listed above, tells the story of a Cambrian explosion of life
over 500 million years ago, new life forms emerging over time, old life
forms becoming extinct, simple life forms becoming more complex, sea
life moving to land-based life, and much, much more.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
What do we know at this point? (1) We know the world is old. (2) We
know that the flood is not possible, nor is it recorded anywhere on
earth geologically or dendrochronologically. (3) We see life changing
over time in the geological column. None of these evidences against
Young Earth Creationism are based on any assumption of evolutionary
theory - they are independently justified. There is a multitude of
other lines of reasoning that could also reach these conclusions --
again without needing to resort to evolutionary assumptions. Let me
know if you need more.
When I reached this understanding, I was at a stasis point. I had
realized that the YEC position is indefensible. I found the YEC
protestations to this case unreasonable. None of these reasons require
the assumption that evolution is true, they are all independently
justified, and they all seem to tell the same story. If young-earth
creationism does not fit the evidence, what does?
This is when I was finally willing to consider evolution as a potential
theory to describe the origins of life on earth. For this reasoning, I
will point you back to my original post, Evidences for Evolution.
http://gnosos.blogspot.com/2006/07/evidences-for-evolution.html
Again, to summarize, I didn't just jump ship to support evolution in a
day. Through a reasoned study I concluded (1) that YEC does not make
sense and then (2) evolution fits the evidence better than any
competing theory.
>> "It is impossible for those who have been once enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace." Heb 6:4-7
>> I certainly hope you "calculated" this into your equations...
Again, this response is all about evolution, not Christianity. But,
since you seem to have read my thinking on religion as well, I will
respond. Of course, I am aware of this passage in Hebrews. Scary stuff.
For some of my thoughts on the matter, please see my post here:
http://gnosos.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-am-i-freeing-myself-to.html
Janice, I have laid my thinking out before you. I would be curious if
you will return the favor. How do you justify your own system of
thought that includes a young earth?
Thanks,
Z
Westprog
<zeteo....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155067196.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
...
> >> You say that you used to be a Christian, so think back to that point
and try to explain what inevitably brought you to where you are now.
> ... but let me state again that what I say about evolution and science
> is not the same as criticizing Christianity. My reasons for being an
> agnostic philosophically/religiously are not the same as the scientific
> reasons I accept evolution as the best theory to describe our origins.
> For now, I am only speaking about evolution, not Christianity. In the
> past hundred years, it has only been a recent trend, since Henry
> Morris' work in the 1960's, to conflate the two.
I found this an interesting post. I'd suggest that it would be worth
referring Janice to a Christian who accepts the truth of evolution, who can
explain things from a religious viewpoint.
J/
Bill Hudson
zeteo....@gmail.com wrote:
[snipped]
So nominated. I always enjoy the personal stories of a journey away
from YEC and toward reason.
Bill Hudson
Glen Morton (whose site is linked in the post) is a former YEC who now
accepts evolution. There are several books by scientists who happen to
be Christian that are available as well. Ken Miller's "Finding
Darwin's God" is one such.
Cubist
of Glenn Morton's site. If you're not familiar with Mr. Morton, he's a
guy who used to be a YEC until continued exposure to physical evidence
*forced* him to acknowledge that YECism just doesn't work, and who now
has an interpretation of the bible which is both (a) literally true and
(b) compatible with mainstream science.
Ye Old One
ok, I'll second it - if only to encourage more people to read it.
--
Bob.
rev.goetz
I was YEC for a couple of years. I became a YEC because of some vocal
advocates in my church soon after I converted to Christianity in 1984.
But my church had no official YEC doctrine. After considering galactic
red shift, I decided that God had no reason to make the galaxies look
billions of years old except that they were actually billions of years
old. So I became and Old Earth Creationists because at the time I did
see enough evidence for my common ancestry with plants and fungus.
James Goetz
Frank J
zeteo....@gmail.com wrote:
> I am a former YEC, and I have recently posted my story on my blog. I
> am reproducing it here to see if other former YECs will be willing to
> post their stories of conversion away from YECism.
>
> http://gnosos.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-i-am-not-young-earth-creationist.html
>
Nice, but try not to use the word "evidences". Also Janice appears to
form her opinion on faith, not careful examination of the evidence. So
as other posters said, she probably needs to talk to science-literate
Christans who accept evolution. May I also recommend John Haught and
Denis Lamoreaux:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/
Don't forget that there are other creationist positions that deny or
misrepresent the evidence, such as the various OEC positions and the
"don't ask, don't tell" ID scam that tries to accommodate them all
while asserting not to be "creationism" (presumably meaning YEC, which
it's not). Professional anti-evolutionists tend to impress vulnerable
people like Janice, because they claim to have "evidences" for her
interpretation, or if not, at least against "Darwinism." Hopefully
Christans like Morton and Miller can get through. Or at least get her
to admit an "Omphalos" position. At least then she won't succumb to
misrepresenting evidence even if she chooses to believe somethong she
knows can't be supported.
r norman
wrote:
> So I became an Old Earth Creationists because at the time I did
>see enough evidence for my common ancestry with plants and fungus.
>
But now ......
No, that's just too easy! I'll wait for something that presents a
little challenge.
Faux_Pseudo
> http://gnosos.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-i-am-not-young-earth-creationist.html
>
> ** Why I am not a young-earth creationist **
I never get tired of reading about other people explaining how they
put their peices of belife structure together.
--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
\ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
:F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O-
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Joe
Thanks for sharing.
Victor Eijkhout
> >> "It is impossible for those who have been once enlightened, who have
tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have
tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their
loss they are crucifying the son of God all over again and subjecting
Him to public disgrace." Heb 6:4-7
>
> >> I certainly hope you "calculated" this into your equations...
Scare tactics. Man, that's just about the most pathetic defense of one's
beliefs possible.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
TomS
<1155074869.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Bill Hudson stated..."
I recommend this book:
Darrel R. Falk
Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and
Biology
InterVarsity Press, 2004
Falk is a conservative evangelical Christian who is also a
professor of biology at Point Loma Nazarene University. He covers at
some length the evidence for an old earth.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20