Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Church Fathers question

Noticed the article, specifically the comment on the views of the early Church Fathers. The article presents one point of view on the views of the early Church Fathers, but this is by no means the only point of view on what they believed. Two examples of opposing views on what the Church Fathers thought concerning Genesis are seen in the writings of Hugh Ross and Jonathan Sarfati. In the 1994 edition of Creation and Time, Ross writes concerning the Church Fathers: "A majority of those who wrote on the subject rejected the concrete interpretation of the Genesis creation days as six consecutive twenty-four-hour periods" (Ross, 18) He further states on page 24 (same book), "Nearly all of the key figures acknowledged that the length of Genesis creation days presented a challenge to their understanding and interpretation." (Ross, 24) Jonathan Sarfati's position on the topic is best summarized in his quotation from Davis Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth, 22 [citation given in Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, 110]:

The virtually unanimous opinion among the early Christians until the time of Augustine was that human history had lasted approximately fifty-five hundred years. It is also very probable that the age of the world was regarded as the same number of years, for the writings of the church fathers generally do not reveal any sharp distinctions between the intial creation and the creation of man... It is also generally necessary that the days of creation (Gen. 1) be regarded as ordinary days if one were to hold that the earth was only fifty-five hundred years old. We find absolutely no one arguing that the world is tens of thousands of years old on the grounds that the days are used figuratively for long periods of time... Many of the church fathers plainly regarded the six days as ordinary days.

JFMW

Popularity in the United States?

The wp article on Dawkin's tv documentary ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F ) states that..

"Next, Dawkins visits Colorado Springs to discuss the rise of fundamentalist Christianity in the United States where, according to polls, 45 percent of the population believe the universe to be less than 10,000 years old."

Needless to say, I was blown away by the mere possibility YECs might be so numerous in USA. Is this a mistake, or are there actual polls to support such an overabundance of gross scientific illiteracy among Americans? Might I suggest a section describing this "movement's" popularity throughout the world? 212.152.70.12 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The poll result indicates that despite 80 years of evolutionist's pseudoscientific propoganda, a large proportion of the population has not been sucked in. See poll reslts here [1] ^rossnixon 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This poll is interesting, and I believe is the one reflected in the article: ( http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm ) I find the description of the results of the poll as "an overabundance of gross scientific illiteracy" very amusing. Wouldn't want people to make decisions for themselves now, would we?  ;) 64.228.74.176 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested if there was a real source on the subject, I'd be interested... websites with a religious affiliation I don't really trust the figures from.

DarthSidious 10:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

I fixed a POV statement in the history section

It is the last sentence in the 4th paragraph "Before long, scientific inquiries provoked by his claims had pushed back the age of the earth into the millions of years – still too short when compared with what is now known, but a great advance on the literalist view of an Earth that was only a few thousand years old."

Saying "compared with what is now known" automatically assumes that YEC is wrong from the POV of the author of the article. I changed it to say "still much younger than commonly accepted by mainstream scientists."

I understand that in most articles it would be acceptable to assume that the commonly accepted theory of the majority of mainstream scientists is correct and list it as such, but in this article that is precisely what is contested and it is POV to assert that the other side's view is "what is now known." The naked prophet.

I would say that was more a case of clumsy wording than outright POV, but your change is a definite improvement. Well done for fixing that. -- ChrisO 07:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that the scientifically-determined age of the Earth is a "point of view". It's not a point of view, it's a fact. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No it's not! Science has never proven anything to be fact! You're biased. Scorpionman 14:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

and yet, your computer works! Dang science and their "semicondictor" theories... human 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, isn't every single human being on earth biased in some way? Homestarmy 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean over a certain physical or intellectual age? •Jim62sch• 18:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really, after all, wouldn't very small children have that typical bias for....themself? :D Homestarmy 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any kids? •Jim62sch• 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you about to tell me something about how small children are so precious they are incapable of wanting something for themselves over wanting something for someone else? Homestarmy 18:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How the heck did this discussion on children start? Cyde isn't merely biased; he's prejudiced. He insists that the scientifically-determined way of dating the age of the earth "isn't a view; it's a fact." I said it's not a fact because science ahs never proved anything to be a fact. Scorpionman 00:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Scorpionman, the only way that what you are saying could be true, is if facts themselves were impossible to obtain. The scientific method has uncovered more truth and guided more rational thought than any other method of analysis that has ever existed. If you’re using some kind of deep meaning for the word fact, then there is no point in even having a wikipedia, because nothing is certain with 100% clarity, we might as well just be clucking like chickens. Applying such philosophy (that nothing is certain) to everyday life is dangerous, because there certainly is knowledge which can be used to predict future events and guide us through our lives. Currently, the scientific method is the best method for determining what is true, and what is not true with certainty. Think of the theory of natural selection as if it were a prophet, and think of it's Hypotheses as prophecy. The predictions that the theory of natural selection has made about the world are constantly validated by hard evidence. How can you say that science has not proved anything to be fact? Without the proven scientific facts of physics, how would we have cars, and planes, and computers, and the internet? All of these great inventions are the result of predictions about what is true which have been made by the scientific method. I'm always amazed at how people can have so much passion for the truth, and yet fail to see how much the scientific community respects the truth with its scientific method. Don't you see how much we have acheived through science?--146.244.137.178 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You gotta understand, those things you talk about, cars, planes, computers, the internet, all of those are fine. But with natural selection, thats a direct attack on Christianity, which many adherants believe(Including myself) is proven compleatly because we were born again. I don't see how you can just lump all the achievements of man together and say that every single thing we've ever created should be looked at in the same exact light of "truth" and by that standard say that every time the scientific community agrees on something, everybody is obligated to believe it or their hypocrites for picking and choosing whats right. Besides, on a fundamental level, everything scientifically is speculation, because what we see in our world depends on our understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe and their smallest components, which we don't know everything about. We see that the reactions of fuel and oxygen, when given a spark, will create energy that drives things. We can't see into the individual nucleus's of every molecule of that reaction, to literally know exactly the shape, composition, nature, and building blocks of everything in there down to the smallest thing possible. And yet, irregardless, we know that these forces are giving us the reaction we need. It's called Quantum Theory for a good reason, there's always more to discover :). The same should logically follow for natural selection, the framework which evolutionists use to look at the past. So what is "known" today in the scientific world will probably discarded for tommorow, pretty much as science has always done. Homestarmy 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My main concern was with scorpionmans statment that "Science has never proven anything to be fact!". But this is an old issue, and I don't have any objection to how the article itself is worded at the moment, so I probably shouldn't have said anything.--146.244.137.178 18:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This may be an old article but I can't see what your problem is. I never said that we should go through life saying that nothing is certain. All I said was that science can't prove anything. Science cannot prove that the earth is as old as Cyde Weys thinks it is, so I told him that and now you start off on some tangeant about something I didn't even say. Are you saying that science can prove anything? Scorpionman 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay... hopefully this'll clear the air a little. It is a fallacy to claim that a scientific estimate of Earth's age is fact. I personally am not a creationist or a Young Earth enthusiast, but that particular statement was false. The theories on which our current estimate on the age of the planet are based are verifiable, tested and currently accurate, but the age of the Earth is derived from them. If they change, the estimated age of our planet will change. Besides which, occassionally a scientist may revise the figures and come up with a minor increase or decrease int he age of the Earth. This is the way science works- nothign is known 100%. What we can say, however, is that due to the weight of evidence, the current scientific estimate for the age of the Earth is far more likely to be accurate than the one derived from literal interpretations from the Bible. However, it is also innaccurate to describe the scientifically derived Earth-age estimate as POV. Scientifically derived theories, information, hypothesis' etc aren't chosen by opinion- they are rigorously tested and debated, and are accepted because, of all the opposing and diverging alternate theories, they hold the most weight. (Weenerbunny 13:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Category: Pseudoscience

"Young Earth creationism" is soooo far out of the mainstream science that I think it can't help but be labeled as Pseudoscience, yet someone reverted me on this when I added it in as a category. I went to a lecture by Kent Hovind two months ago and YEC seems to have more pseudoscience in it than Bigfoot, Nessie, and chupacabra combined. Can you please explain why you think this tag is not appropriate? --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 16:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What is it that Hovind said that you don't agree with? You shouldn't be heavily criticizing unless you have evidence to prove what you are saying. Blanket criticisms just don't cut it. Sorry. Scorpionman 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

creation science is controversely called a psedeuoscience, but young earth creationism is not becase it is a belief system. 12.220.94.199 03:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As young earth creationism is a beliefe system, I have added it to catagory:Religion.--146.244.137.178 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism includes the belief that the Universe is 6,000 years old. The Starlight problem is a good example of pseudoscience in YEC beliefs. The theories that can properly be called pseudoscience are C-decay and Russell Humphreys theories of black holes, white holes and time distortion to explain the starlight problem. Both of these would rock the world of astrophysics and put either of the creators of these theories on the league with Einstein and Hawkins. Both are generally unaccepted within the scientific community. Most of the support comes from within the YEC evangalists. Reading the original works on these issues, they 'look' scientific but scientific scrutiny does not hold this up. So, for these explanations, the term pseudoscience seems to fit well. Liberty4u 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism is not the same thing as Creation Science. Creation Science is where c-decay and the other stuff are. i'm am familiar with these theories to a degree, but i have issue with the word pseodo-science because its often placed on anything that is not mainstream. if that was the real definitions, multi-universe theories should also be classified as such. and if its occams razor, well thats not really true, because you can twist any theory to fit evidence, so techinically all are not fallsiable. either way, young earth creationism is religious, creation science is what you would clasify as pseudo-science. 12.220.94.199 04:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think your posting is insightful. How do you feel about this statement: 'YEC is a religious docterine that makes the scientific claim of a young earth.' And I agree that the term pseudoscience should not be used in the wikipedia article, although I do believe it to be accurate. Liberty4u 14:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with that. That is probably the best wording that I can think of, considering that Young Earth Creationists make a variety of claims some of them don't make any claim regarding science while others go full throttle by claiming that earth is flat(they do exist, sadly but they are very very very small minority, thankfully). 12.220.94.199 03:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the Flat-Earth Society is a different creationist group than YEC. But unfortunately, anti-creationists have been lieing a lot to the public to get people to associate creationists as all Flat-Earthers.

Psuedscience- noun: an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

Labeling YEC psuedoscience is saying that the assumptions it is based on are incorrect.

Science	Assumption
YEC science	The Bible is the innereant word of God who created the universe as described in Genesis
evoultion	The universe can be explained without God

So calling either psuedoscience is denying one of those, obviously POV.

Jphl 03:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How does OEC fit in this? Old Earth Creationists believe that YECs misinterpret the Bible, hence, they base their understanding on fallacious assumptions. Those that believe in Biblical Innerancy cannot come to agreement on this issue and do NOT require a YEC belief to believe in biblical innerancy. YECs often try to make it a Evolution vs. Young Earth debate and, I believe, purposely hide the fact that they are in disagreement with like-minded fundamentalists. Liberty4u 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution doesn't assume that. It assumes that natural selection exists, that if a creature has an advantage over others it is more likely to survive and mate, thus passing the advantage on to it's offspring. Fast forward a few hundred years and those with the advantage are dominent and the species has changed, evolved. Evolution can include God, wouldn't the ability to let God into one's life be an advantage over other creatures? As a religious person you answer to that should be yes. Thus you'd be contradicting yourself by saying that evolution doesn't include God. The main assumption of Young Earth is that the earth is 6-10,000 years old, when all scientific evidence points against this. That is why it's considered a pseudo-science. Eccentricned 09:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good evening to you. First things first, I personally think that to refer to anything that there is any dispute over a Pseudoscience, when the term itself is a loaded term, not in the spirit of wikipedia. Ok to your specific point, there are numerous scientists who have either trained as such, work as such or have worked as such that hold to Creationist views (and for scientific reasons as well as religious) that this is clearly still POV. Because many hold that Point of View does not invalidate the alternative. The issue is essentially what is scientific, or what is scientific method. As such thories over origins could all be said to be a matter of faith rather than science as they are not 'falsifiable'. I would contest that evolutionists and others in this area of enquiry hold their positions as much for reasons of faith and non-faith as for reasons of empirical endevour. On your reference to Kent Hovind I can't comment directly as I don't know the man, however some of the freinds of an idea it a diservice by ill considered comment - and this is true in many subjects. All I can say is that you tend to hear what you are preconditioned to accept and that types of presentation are poor vehicles for changing the mind's of those sceptical, again regardless of subject. Time prevents more - happy to converse more - perhaps offline Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is like saying it's loaded to call someone a pedophile just because they molest little children. If it’s not practicing the scientific method, it’s pseudoscience. If it’s molesting little children, it’s a pedophile. I don't care if it's loaded or not. It is what it is.--146.244.138.41 00:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"There are scientists who believe otherwise, so there is a valid controversy." Check. "Both views are just matters of faith." Check. You haven't said anything that isn't already covered at TalkOrigins. Specifically, see the following pages:

• Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
• More than 300 scientists (over 400 as of 7/18/2005) from all disciplines have signed a statement expressing skepticism of the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
• Many mainstream scientists point out serious problems with evolution, including problems with some of its most important points.
• Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.
• Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.

Good luck, Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Cyde, you've raised some important points here. First of all, I agree that most scientists reject YEC as untenable science, but that doesn't mean all of them do. Second, many of the charges brought against YEC have been answered (see the Starlight problem). I'd like to hear some more good examples of the "evidence" found against YEC by that wide variety of sciences. (just a question) I'm not trying to be too personal; I'd just like to know, are you a theistic evolutionist or an atheistic evolutionist? From many of your arguments that I've seen it's quite hard to tell. Third, many charges against YEC are by theistic evolutionists, not atheistic ones, so there is a problem here. Just to let you know, Nessie may be psuedoscience but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You should back up your arguments better than that. Ratso 21:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean about "charges brought against YEC have been answered"? My take on the Starlight problem is that it YECs have no tenable scientific theory for a young earth. Liberty4u 01:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read some of Ken Ham's writings. He has addressed the Starlight problem among many other problems brought against YECs. I know from the comments I found on Talk:Evolution that the evolutionists here don't respect him, but just read a few of his articles. They have a tenable theory; God created the world and sustains it, although He took away some of his sustaining power after the Fall, thus Entropy.

The Starlight problem is easily resolved by YEC's. When God created the universe, he filled the whole universe with the light of the stars. It didn't take billions of years. The speed of light was probably higher in the past. Of course, if you have an objection to this, you can take it here, but I would advise that your objections be taken to the Answers in Genesis Answers Department. Tell them the numerous problems you find with YEC, and see if they can't answer them. When I said "charges against YECs have been answered", I meant that many of the problems found have been explained. The Starlight problem is an example. Ratso 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And there is even another convincing Starlight Answer provided by Answers In Genesis.

At this point, I don't see how anyone can convince people like you. Vendettanine 06:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Convince me of what? Lies? YECs can answer the charges agains them! Go to Answers in Genesis and see for yourself! Ratso 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine, clarity of thought, understanding of all the issues envolved and the ability to explain clearly and concisely your points. However all these don't mean that anyone will necessarily change their opinion because however good the the arguementation we are seeking to discover truth not win arguements, are we not. And truth is not exclusively the perview of the science method, just some aspects of it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Right you are, Kevin. But evolutionary scientists think that the scientific method has given their theory solid proof, which it has not. Ratso 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Ratso. Not only that, but they think their theory is infallible. And they attack anyone who challenges their views (You're included, Cyde Weys!!) It seems to me that they're more concerned about being right than about being scientifically accurate. Scorpionman 02:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Being "right" but not "scientifically accurate"? Please. We do not think our theory is infallible. It is a theory of science and, as such, could be overturned if evidence cropped up that suggested it was incorrect. Anyone who could present this sort of evidence would be richly rewarded in scientific circles. YEC beliefs, by contrast, are so comprehensively overturned by just about everything we know about the world that it's extraordinary that they persist at all. The power of wishful thinking clearly shouldn't be underestimated. But you already know this, so I'll stop. --Plumbago 10:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Strangely I find I am agreeing with almost all of what you are saying. All I would say is that often what we are calling evidence is actually interpretation of evidence. Rediometric dating is one example, presuposing noting from this but we date an artifact from assumptions (right or wrong) based on actual facts, ie, measured amounts of strontium, argon, carbon esotopes etc. We need to be able to "terrier fashion" find our way through thories down to actual observations. Often theories are actually based on other theories. Anyway I;m glad someone appears able to see something of the big issues. Also just bear in mind "Wishfull thinking" is not exclusively our's and is actually could be thought of as a close synonym for "faith". all the best. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis put the decreasing speed of light theory (C-decay) in the "arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use" category . See Answers in Genesis FAQ AIG also believes that YEC theories about the starlight problem that "there are still a number of problems, many of which were raised by creationists, which we believe have not been satisfactorily answered." Liberty4u 03:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They admitted that they don't have a satisfactory answer for everything. They deserve some credit for that, don't they? And Plumbago, I don't know how you can say that YEC is "overturned by just about everything we know about the world". I find this not only biased, but prejudiced. "Wishful thinking" also belongs to evolutionists, because they are desperate to disprove anything creationist (they go on long expeditions just so they can find a fossil that will prove that land animals evolved from fish, and their find isn't completely satisfactory). And since you seem to think that creationism has absolutely no evidence, why don't you give me an example of what has "overturned" it? Scorpionman 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt they went to Canada in order to disprove Creationism. In fact, I don't think they had Creationism in mind at all. —Gabbe 00:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but they sure wanted that fossil! Doesn't that tell you something?

You still haven't given me an example of evidence "against" creationism. Scorpionman 01:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence against creationism is easy to come by. Nothing fits with it. Rock ages don't fit, one doesn't have expected sediments of a global flood, one lacks the genetic bottlenecks one would have if every species had been on the Ark, just to name a few. The fact is that in 1750 almost all scientists accepted the Genesis account in a literal fashion. By 1850, almost none of them did and the simple reason for it was that the evidence did not fit. JoshuaZ 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no conclusive evidence then. No surprise. ^rossnixon 11:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as Young Earth Creationists a priori refuse to accept anything contradicting a literal reading of Genesis, it's self-evident that no such thing as "conclusive evidence" will ever exist. —Gabbe 13:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are an open-minded scientist, then you too will examine evidence contradicting evolution. I have been indoctrinated in school in the theories of evolution, but how much have you looked at the other side? Have you read books by scientific creationists, or are you afraid to? A book I would recommend is Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris. If you find things in here you disagree with, please let me know.

Hmm. I have a hard time pinning down a copy of it. But tell you what, if there's a specific claim that book makes that is not found on this list, let me know on my talkpage. —Gabbe 09:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Rock ages don't fit... This assumes rock-aging methods are flawless. This is an incorrect assumption, as many rock-aging methods, such as carbon-14 dating, are problematic. ...one doesn't have expected sediments of a global flood... Then explain why the fossil layers themselves speak of rapid formation. You cannot have a fossil without it initially having been rapidly and compactly buried, and fossils are found in sedimentary rock. ...one doesn't have the genetic bottlenecks one would have if every species had been on the ark... Please explain what you're talking about. Scorpionman 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, one doesn't need "flawless" rock dating methods, one only needs them to work within a decent approximation, and so far no creationist has explained why if they are so flawed almost all the dates given by them are in such close agreement. And no, you don't need rapid burial for something to fossilize. For example, a bone could be exposed for a few years and then be buried or be slowly buried and it would still fossilize nicely. And in any event, there is nothing wrong with rapid burial for many fossils, for example those that died in the ocean often will have fossilized rapidly. The sediment issue is simple- floods leave silt pretty much all over, so a global flood should leave a global silt layer. No such layer exists. As for genetic bottlenecks, you could start by reading Population bottleneck. The point is that basic genetics allow us to estimate pretty precisely when a population was last at a very small size. If the flood story were true then every population would show having had a bottleneck at least some 5000 years ago. This is not the case. Now, this is really just turning into a YEC-evolution argument, I strongly suggest taking it to another forum such as talk.origins. JoshuaZ 12:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to take up one issue, The theorical work done on the idea of a global flood does not postulate a global silt laver (apart from some early, fringe or untutored apologists). What is prposes is vast cataclismic, seismic, plate tectonic level changes in the surface of the earth. With such forces and movements silt would be a feature, but gargantuan desposits of gravel, aggregates, continental scale deposits of sedimentary and then metamophic rocks. The silts would be left as the seas began to settle back to normal, and these far more localised. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and Cardon-14 dating is not a technique used for aging rocks. Or at least not directly. Other (also flawed) techniques are used for that. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Guy's I am going to again ask that this be taken to talk.origins or some other forum since this is just turning into a debate over the merits. Incidentally, the idea that there would be "vast cataclismic, seismic, plate tectonic level changes in the surface of the earth" Thanks for demonstrating why this topic should be listed as pseudoscience- you have no mechanism for that and merely have it postulated so that you might not get a global silt layer (and you would still see far more silt than you actually do). Also, the fact that this is in the realm of what is discussed by "apologists" rather than scientists again shows that this is pseudoscience and should be categorized as such. And yes, I have tried to explain that carbon dating is not used for dating rocks to Scorpion already. Maybe he will listen to you then. As for claimed flaws in radiometric dating- despite all claimed flaws, no creationists has explained why the data is in such near perfect agreement for a myriad of different radiometric processes, relying on completely different decay processes. JoshuaZ 12:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To get back on topic... The YECs have a scientific hypothesis that the earth and stars are 6,000-10,000 years old. Observation (starlight that is older than 12,000 years) disprove this hypothesis. YECs don't accept this and will admit NO observations will disprove their hypothesis. Therefore, they are not scientific, but, by making a scientific claim (age of earth and stars) and denying any falsifiablity, have put themselves into pseudoscience. At best, they could claim to be a protoscience (not enough data in yet), but they would deny ANY amount of data, making this claim invalid, also. Let's put this article in the pseudoscience category. Liberty4u 22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't deny any falsifiability. But you evolutionists do. You think that nothing can ever, ever contradict your theory and if it does, it's pseudoscience or the science is flawed. Radiometric dating is very problematic; you refuse to admit it, saying that it's flawless and that it perfectly dates rocks back to 4.5 billion years. If you place this article in the pseudoscience category, I will revert it. It's not pseudoscience, it's simply a legitimate disagreement with mainstream "science" and evolutionists can't handle their views being challenged so they attack and bash anyone who would dare to do such a thing. Like I said above, it seems they're more concerned about being right than about being scientific. If they wree scientific, they would accept challenges to their theory and not name-call and bash creationists. Scorpionman 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

First, whether evolution is pseudoscience is in fact not relevant to whether young creationism is pseudoscience. Second, you have yet to articulate why you think that radiometric dating has problems. Third, there are many things that could falsify evolution. The classic example is rabbit in precambrian rock. This would be a massive problem for evolution. Another example would be if genetic mapping had shown a tree-diagram of how species are interrelated which corresponds very closely to the Linnaen classification. Asserting "If you place this article in the pseudoscience category, I will revert it." is not productive and simply a sign that you are unwilling to actually discuss the matter. JoshuaZ 15:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's analyze your statements Scorpionman. YECs get their doctrine from the infallibility of scripture. The Chicago Statement says: "We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood." In your second statement you say "you evolutionists". I don't know enough about the science of evolution one way or another to say that I believe or disbelieve in that. Therefore this statement is ad hominem. I did not say anything about radiometric dating and know very little about it. Again ad hominem. If you are going to revert because of incorrect assumptions and personal attacks, I would call this a biased POV action. What do others think? Liberty4u 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

They'll probably think I'm just another "anti-science creationist kook" (quoted from Cyde Weys) and not regard anything I say as relevant to evolution. So you admit that evolution has problems? Or did you say that if a rabbit was found in precambrian rock it would be a problem? I am willing to discuss the matter if I could discuss it with people who would actually acknowledge that the earth's age hasn't been accurately determined (Cyde Weys said that the scientific determining of the earth's age is a fact), and wouldn't bash creationists and organizations like Answers in Genesis. But I haven't the time nor the means to present a good argument online and suggest that you simply read one of the books I suggested. Then we can talk. Scorpionman 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read numerous creationist books, so I doubt I will gain anything from reading more of them at this point in time. And you statement that you'll only discuss it with "people who would actually acknowledge that the earth's age hasn't been accurately determined" amounts to "I'll only discuss it with people who already agree with me" And no, I didn't admit evolution has problems, I gave examples of what would be problems if they were found. And your comment that you dont have the time or means to present a good argument, ok then why should we listen to you about this topic? JoshuaZ 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the category "Pseudoscience" as YEC is a religious belief. It's supporters may invoke scientific support, but then they are talking about "Creation Science". The category "Pseudoscience" belongs there according to most scientists. ^rossnixon 23:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

YEC is also a scientific belief. They make a scientific claim that the earth is young. Liberty4u 23:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Now, JoshuaZ, you should listen because not only have I been indoctrinated in evolution from grade-school up and have a good understanding of it, but also because you misunderstood what I said. I did not say that I didn't have the time or the means to present a good argument, I said that I don't have the time (which is the means mostly) to present a good argument online. If you weren't admitting that evolution is problematic then you're not scientifically minded at all. Real scientists acknowledge that their theories have flaws, and you're not one of them. Scorpionman 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is online, if you can't present a decent argument online, it amounts to the same thing. Second, whatever you were "indoctrinated" clearly had very little to do with what evolution actually says, given your comments about lizards turning into elephants and myriad other misunderstandings. Third, I never claimed to be a scientist, and my occupation is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Fourth, scientists acknowledge flaws when they exist, not when they stem from religion disguised as science that has no basis other than attempting to conform reality to fit one's prior beliefs. JoshuaZ 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

rossnixon reverted back out of the pseudoscience category. He gave his reason as: "the belief that the earth is young, is based on their scriptures, not on science". But the YEC belief is firmly rooted in the belief in Biblical inerrancy. Biblical inerrancy proponents, as stated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, believe that the Bible can make scientific statements. So I believe that saying that it is not science, is incorrect. I could be wrong and am always open to correction and other opinions. Liberty4u 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you're quite right. But JoshuaZ, the evidence against evolution doesn't just "stem from religion disguised as science that has no basis other than attempting to conform reality to fit one's prior beliefs". That is heavily prejudiced. There are problems with evolution; consider the gaps in the fossil record. Secondly speciation (large-scale speciation) isn't observable and is therefore a belief. If you want more on this I suggest you read Scientific Creationism the book that I have suggested several times already. Scorpionman 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we take this to another location, such as my talk page, or email, since this is getting wildly off topic. You are among other problems still confusing claimed issues related to age of the earth with evolution and also implicitly engaging in the standard false dichotomy between YECism and evolution. And, I strongly suggest again that instead of repeating tired creationist argument you actually study some of the biology and geology that you so heavily criticize. "large scale speciation" isn't even a term, you mean large scale morphological changes. And no, it isn't a "belief." Very often we can be quite sure of something even if it hasn't been directly observed. Obvious examples are use of DNA evidence to convict or exonerate criminals, or use of DNA to determine parentage. In fact, the DNA methods used to determine parentage are essentially identical to the methods used to map genetic relationships among species. I again strongly urge you to stop making long-refuted creationist claims, actually learn about the relevant topics from real sources, and please take this to another forum. (Oh and please make up your mind, you can't agree with Liberty that YECism is rooted in biblical inerrancy and disagree with my statement that it stems from religion disgusied as science). JoshuaZ 04:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Determining parentage takes place within species. You think we can do the same thing in between species. Oh, you want me to study these subjects which I heavily criticize from "real" sources, so why don't you study creationism from a real source? You obviously haven't, since you can't understand it. Scorpionman 14:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should whether or not they are the same species matter? We can use genetics to determine how closely two people are related in general, whether or not they are able to interbreed. Also, I have studied a large amount of creationist material, and even if I hadn't you would still be commiting a tu quoque fallacy. Since this is wildly far off from the original topic, this will be my last comment here on the matter. You are welcome to continue this conversation by email or on talk.origins. JoshuaZ 14:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I gave my objections of the category be included for reasons above, that YEC's are supportive of Creation Science, which claims to be science so its a pseudoscience, while YEC is a belief but thats not my main issue. Why is pseudoscience in the see also and in a Category. Thats not necessary. Personally, I prefer to keep it in the see also because it may provide some useful information for a reader, while the category doesn't benefit the reader. 12.220.94.199 21:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Anyway, JoshuaZ, this will also be my last post on this page. I will say that your genetic bottlenecks problem is easily explained away. The creation model predicts that species rapidly change as opposed to evolution which states that they change over a long, graaaadduuuaaaal period of time. Thus, the species that came off the Ark quickly changed and new ones emerged, explaining why we have so many more today than there were on the Ark. Scorpionman 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may chip in, YEC has existed as a belief ever since, well, I don't know exactly when Adam and Eve were created :/. Back then, there was no scientific method, and today, YEC is still not dependent on scientific theorums to exist, rather, it is dependent primarily on faith in a religion. I fail to see how YEC is pseudoscience when it's not necessarily "science" in the first place. Homestarmy 13:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have written this before (see above) that YEC is firmly rooted in inerrancy. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that: "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science." Liberty4u 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all YECism is psuedoscience. What makes a large part of it pseudoscience is organizations like the ICR and AiG which claim that there are scientific bases for their claims. Such claims are generally false, have not gone through peer review and show many of the standard signs of pseudoscience. The religious bel

What were you going to say about religions? Well, anyway, might I give you all a good definition of a true pseudoscience (as well as a definition of science fiction): A "scientific" claim which tries to exclude God, and which does not take the Bible's account literally. There! there aren't any loopholes in there. As for there "not being any scientific bases for their claims", the whole thing is based on science! I'd have to say that science includes belief in a rational, intelligent Creator (NOT a "blind watchmaker" as that idiot Richard Dawkins puts it). Scorpionman 18:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, what that lacks in rationality is made up for by its religious zeal. •Jim62sch• 22:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Scorpionman, good point. You're absolutely right; science fiction is "science" which tries to disclude God or refuses to take Genesis literally. And as for you, Jim62sch, your insolence and irrationality make you out to be what you are: an uneducated buffoon (that's not a personal attack, it's the truth). If you want to sound educated you should stop making flippant remarks like that and actually put up a decent argument. 67.150.219.8 15:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Evoltuion doesn't actually assume that God doesn't exist. It assumes that natural selection exists, that if a creature has an advantage over others it is more likely to survive and mate, thus passing the advantage on to it's offspring. Fast forward a few hundred years and those with the advantage are dominent and the species has changed, evolved. Evolution can include God, wouldn't the ability(i.e. the higher brain functions which most creatures do not posess according to most believers in creationism) to realise that there is a God be an advantage over other creatures? As a religious person you answer to that should be yes. Evoltuion doesn't restrict itself to gentetics either, culture and psycology can both be triats which if changed could make a creature dominent over others, and these traits are easier to pass on quickly since you don't need a blood connection to pass them on. You pass them on by teaching your offspring about them, through spoken word rather than blood. Again, would you say that someone who follows the teachings of the bible be dominent over one that doesn't? Again, your answer should be yes. And has the number of believers in the Bible chanmed since the dawn of man? Yes, it has. So, in other words, the trait of belief in God proved stronger than the pagan belifs that were all over the world before it which allowed it to spread untill the majority of the western world shared the same trait. The assumptions of Young Earth that mark it as a pseudo-science is that the earth is 6-10,000 years old, when all scientific evidence points against this, same with the great flood. That is why it's considered a pseudo-science, not because it disagrees with evolution. Even if the Earth was that young, it doesn't mean that Evoltuion hasn't happend(my example above is a form of evoltuion, which only took about a thousand years). Even if God did create humanity, it doesn't mean it hasn't changed since then, or that any other creature hasn't changed in the last 10,000 years. Untill there is emperical evidence that all of geology, archaeology and cosmology is wrong, Young Earth falls under the catagorey of pseudo-science. "Someone wrote this down 2,000 years ago, in a Book!" isn't proof enough, I'm afraid.Eccentricned 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But here's the thing, that 6,000-10,000 year number was not derived at first from science, it was derived simply by counting back geneologies and doing some estimating. It's the things creation scientists come up with as other support that people call pseudoscience, like saying that comets don't last long enough, that brown dwarfs or whatever don't last long enough, I don't remember it all. If the Bible had had, say, 10 more generations inside it, then the YEC count for the age of the earth would be a couple thousand or so years older depending on where those generations are, not because of coming up with postulates or whatever, but because we can count. It's not what caused the creationism itself that people can call pseudoscience, because this is just counting, it's the things YEC's will come up with about observations in the universe and whatnot that people call pseudoscience, and therefore, Young Earth Creationism itself isn't the "pseudoscience", it's supposedly everything that Creation Scientists come up with. And you don't need a Creation Scientist to count genelogy trees. Homestarmy 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And you're wrong, Eccentricned, in saying that all scientific evidence points against YEC. That is absolutely false. Scientists have calculated that at the rate our magnetic field is degenerating, it cannot be much older than 6-10,000 years old. You atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists are completely ignoring this, because it doesn't agree with your worldview. Isn't this so? 67.150.218.193 06:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's quite so. And Eccentricned, evolution, not YEC, falls under the category of pseudoscience, no matter how many people agree with it. Scorpionman 16:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you could source this statement and put it in the article on Earth's magnetic field, because I don't see anything there supporting the claim you think "evolutionists" are ignoring. Lamont A Cranston 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What they're doing is no better; inventing silly theories to try to explain away the magnetic field's young age. They'll invent theories to try to explain every single little piece of evidence that creationists bring up. There's no way the field could keep on generating and regenerating itself. Scorpionman 23:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum.

— Knowledge Seeker দ 09:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you can link me to a talk.origins page for further discussion of this?

--74.108.47.126 18:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just the doctrine of 'biblical inerrancy' alone should qualify Young Earth Creationism as pseudoscientific, so the categorization should have stayed IMHO. Doctor Atomic 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Issue

Is:

However, the development of scientific methods of enquiry soon produced a considerable volume of evidence that made a scientific belief in young Earth creationism untenable.

A NPOV?

Also I dont know what do make of this paragraph:

-Young Earth creationism has also failed to make much of an impact outside of fundamentalist Protestant denominations. Virtually all other Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, reject the concept of young Earth creationism. Many Bible scholars dispute the idea that Genesis should be taken literally, as young Earth creationists argue.-

"fundamentalist" here is used here in its everyday inaccurate and somewhat disparaging definition. The fundamental movement of the 1920-30s was succeded by the present day Evangelical movement which holds the majority of american christians. People like to call evangelical's fundamentals because fundamentalism is associated with backward southerners. In any case, YEC has succeeded in making "much of an impact" in evangelical christianity. "Virtually all other Christian denominations.." is misleading, since most non catholics in america are evangelical. I want to be fair though: Catholisism has said evolution is OK, and liberal christian denominations dont accept YEC.

-"Many Bible scholars dispute the idea that Genesis should be taken literally"-

"Many" is very relative. "A majority" is not, but is harder to prove. Yes, I'm taking pot shots at the POV of this article, but I'm trying to be NPOV myself. How about "Bible scholars continue to debate the proper interpretation of Genesis 1-11" ?

And all this isnt halfway thru the article. Oh well.

15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)68.116.88.111 15:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)jerrel

If the first thing isn't sourced by a pretty big degree of references which contain the statement in context, (As in, nothing obscure about the scientific method being "better" than Christianity or something) then I would say it should be nuked with much prejudice for being POV. (Ah, the irony!) As for fundamentalism, in my experience, its only negative depending on who's side people are on, for instance, i'd be glad if people thought I was a fundamentalist because that means im hopefully succeeding in "letting your light shine before men",(Or, you know, I might just be annoying them alot. Ah well!) but im sure people who are against fundamentalism would, you know, think of it in a negative sense heh. And I like your last suggestion about the many vs. majority thing personally. Homestarmy 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism and Cosmology

I just added this topic. People can check the wording and help point out any NPOV. Liberty4u 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oops. This topic was already covered well in Starlight problem. I reverted. Liberty4u 03:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixing references

This article needs to have properly formatted references using <ref> and <references />. I might get around to it, but it could take awhile. --Cyde Weys 22:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Young Earth Creationism

The article refers to YEC as being both a Jewish and Christian belief, but the only mention of any Jewish acceptance is from the first century. Is there any significant Jewish acceptance of YEC beliefs today? If so, we should have some references. –Shoaler (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe many if not most Orthodox Jews adhere to young earth creationism. I don't have time to look up references though, hopefuly someone else will come along. 12.220.94.199 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt most is true, but it certainly is common among orthodox jews. My general impression is that most orthodox jews are between OEC and theistic evolution. Modern orthodox are generally theistic evolution or something similar. Certain groups are officialy YEC, the most prominent example being the Lubavitchers. I'll try to see if I can dig up any formal references for the section. JoshuaZ 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 12.220.94.199 21:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic YEC

Just a thought, YEC is also believed by many muslims, but the article makes no mention of it. I can probably find some good references quite easily, so I was wondering if there is any reason not to include it in the article.Islamic Creationism has it's own article, but it is still a YEC belief. Jefffire 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Add it. Alister Namarra 23:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added it in. Jefffire 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Religion.

It is patently obvious that young earth creationism stems from religion. However, saying that this makes it religion is a "genetic fallicy" and is incorrect. I have been to many young earth creationism meetings over my lifetime, and, although the speakers always take the time to smugly state the necesarry inference of the data they present (i.e., there is a God), they always scientifically present data. Yet, people insist that the primary basis for young earth creationism is that "The Bible says so." This has never been enough for any of the proponents of the theory, so making the theory called "religion," for that reason is a "straw man fallacy." And whether or not "mainstream scientists" have chosen to label it science or a "faith position" is totally irrelevant since that is an appeal to bandwagonism and improper authority. Why then does this article dare to say, "Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine" as it's first line? That's approximatly as legitimate a statement as if the Islam article were to say "Islam is a terrorist orginization"! Both are vehemently denied, profoundly offensive, contrary to the written works, but contstantly repeated as an ad hominem polemic against them both.

The various religious doctrines of creation belong all in one article in the series on christianity, not seperated with the young earth opinion mislabled under what is a subgroup of the Intellegent Design movement, with the "series on creationism" banner on the side. Creationism, not just creation but creationism, always refers to theories which at least attempt to produce scientific theses parralelly opposed to evolution, and thus if evolution is a science, creationism is as well. Thanatosimii 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point about the "genetic fallacy" of the article (which I take to reference creationism's parentage in religion), and also that there's a whiff of improper authority in there. However, I would dispute your suggestion that creationism produces scientific theories, and therefore is science.

For starters creationism is scientifically back-to-front, searching for evidence to support a pre-existing religous chronology and discounting evidence that opposes it. And given that almost everything that is evidence falls into the latter category, this is hardly a good start. Usually one starts with all the evidence one can muster then one builds a theory to explain it (evidence which contradicts a theory, or seems to, is particular important). Next, having carefully selected evidence, creationism then produces "theories" that sound like science, but it singularly, and without exception, fails to use them in a scientific manner. They aren't tested, and they aren't altered to take account of new evidence (or old evidence that was discounted at the first step). Instead, they're carefully crafted models that include only the evidence that suits, and they blithely ignore considerations that would falsify them.

I'm not sure how one would describe this, but science is not it. Any ideas? Cheers, --Plumbago 16:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely not science. From what I have read, the leaders of the YEC movement will say that scientific evidence that shows that YEC theory is wrong will not be accepted. The Bible is stronger evidence to them and therefore they reject ANY evidence to the contrary. The [scientific method] says you can come up with an experiment that will have results that support or deny the theory. But YEC leaders say that NO evidence can disprove their theory. Scientific would be the wrong word for their theories. Religious doctrine seems like a good term but I would be open to other descriptions. Liberty4u 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a young earth creationist, young earth creationism is faith. Basically, young earth creationists take it on faith that the biblical record is absolutely correct. Therefore, evidence to the contrary is de facto wrong. Considering that there is lots of "scientific evidence" that is based on shaky or false assumptions, it is generally not difficult to discount. El Cubano 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The scientific evidence that deals with young earth creationism's territory is pretty unequivocal. If it were wrong, too much of our understanding of the rest of the world would also be wrong. And we wouldn't have things like petrochemicals, electronics, etc. Dodgy science always gets outted in the end, just look at the errata that appear in science journals (not least because of the fame and career advancement that comes out of toppling it). As for "shaky assumptions", just how rock solid is a literal reading of an ancient text that doesn't even claim to be science?

Anyway, we're getting off base here. Thanatosimii was disputing the assertion that creationism is religion. I can see what he/she is getting at, but it's absolutely not science. I prefer pseudoscience, since that best encapsulates it to me - the trappings of science, without any of its intellectual rigor or objectivity. The very fact that a particularly literal interpretation of one set of religion tracts drives YEC "research" and, hey presto!, said research is performed by people with an emotional commitment to said tracts is telling as far as I'm concerned. What about all those other religious tracts? I don't see them being investigated by YEC "scientists".

So, any advance on pseudoscience? Cheers, --Plumbago 08:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thinking about it again, I guess YEC could, as El Cubano suggests, be defined as religious when it's narrowly confined to a faith position. The article presently directs readers to creation science on the specific subject of the (pseudo)scientific efforts of creationists. Does that help?

Pseudoscience implies that the scholars are being deceitful. Creationism is certainly not mainstream, but there has to be a less pov word for non mainstream than pseudo. Remember, most of our scientists have been non-mainstream before, but their works could never today be considered pseudosciences. Thanatosimii 22:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Afraid not. The definition of pseudoscience perfectly suits creationism. Not only is it not mainstream science, it's not science. When you throw out perfectly acceptable data at the outset, cherry-picking only the bits that fit your pre-ordained "theory", you've long since stopped being scientific. Whether that's deceitful or not is probably a POV issue (I'm sure that creationists wouldn't see themselves as deceitful), but it's clearly nowhere close to good scientific practice. Hence why creationism remains unpublished in anything approaching a scientific journal. --Plumbago 11:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe considering Creationism doesn't actually need creation science stuff to be a concept, many creationists might not be trying to get anything published in a scientific journal because they don't care? This article is on the position of Young Earth Creationism, and while some may feel the Creation Science section of this article may qualify as pseudoscience, I don't need science to count back geneologies in the Bible, and I suspect the founders of the YEC position didn't need it either. The concept of Young Earth Creationism isn't a "science", it's the position that God made the world in a very short time period as reflected in the Bible, the Qu'ran, or whatever. If something not being science makes something pseudoscience, then every topic in Wikipedia not dealing with science counts as "pseudoscience". Homestarmy 21:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

YEC is not a pseudoscience, because pseudoscience, by definition, claims to be science. YEC does not claim to be science. It claims to be fact, but this is not necessarily the same thing. YECists base their position not on fallacies they claim to be science, but on the Bible. Creationism is not science, but it does not claim to be, so it cannot be pseudoscience. Not every belief not based on scientific examination is a pseudoscience. Many beliefs are entirely separate from science. Creation science may well be pseudoscience, but creationism itself is not.

And I say this as both an atheist and a scientist. Labelling creatinoism pseudoscience is in every way wrong.

In summary; YEC, and other forms of creationism, are faith, not pseudoscience. Creation science, and other "scientific" evidences for that faith, are pseudosciences. -Switch 04:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do the LDS believe in YEC in some form or another?

I'm the member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I was wondering by studying my Religion) that it seems that my Church seem to believe in a form of Young Earth creationism; So do my Church do really agreed or supported this theory or not? Please answer me. Thanks.

And P.S., To tell you more about this is that my church sorta pointed out that the earth was created about 4,000 years ago and that mankind did not coexist with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden and/or any other time period, to explain more to you (and they also pointed out that dinosaurs and other pre human life forms came before the time of Adam and Eve even though that this kinda in a way would somehow violated the traditional belief of the existince of Mankind.) And you can let a fellow Latter-Day Saint answer this question for me too. Thanks again. User:206.180.134.108

Many YECs i've seen do think dinosaurs may of walked the earth among us before the flood or something, but if you can find sources for this information, it should probably be mentioned in this article some way or another. Or hey, don't find sources, it doesn't seem like unbelievable information to me :). I don't really know about what the LDS believes about YEC specifically however. Homestarmy 21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind would be a source of such information. I have seen some of his presentations on pre-flood zoology and other related topics. El Cubano 00:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Kent Hovind is LDS? I meant the information that the topic starter is talking about, not my first sentence heh. Homestarmy 16:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hovind is certainly not LDS, he's ultra-Baptist.

I don't think Mormons are creationists per se, a few of the more fundamentalist ones may be, but it isn't dogma and you can accept science and be a Mormon. See [2] [3] and so on — Dunc|☺ 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you can be an OEC and claim to be a Christian too, I think what this situation needs is the actual Mormon church official stance on this. Homestarmy 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You can be a Christian and accept science as well (OECs generally reject some science). As far as I am aware, Mormons generally do not see a contradiction between science and religion, though some will disagree. — Dunc|☺ 17:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What im trying to say is that the user who brought up this topic may have a point, if the official stance of the mormon church (Not just those adherants whom scientist type people consider to be enlightened) has something to do with YEC, then it should be mentioned here. google groups and Talk Origins are hardly representative of official LDS position. Im gonna go ask a Mormon friend if he knows the score here. Homestarmy 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official stance on Evolution or Young Earth Creationism theories. Some church leaders including David O. McKay and James E. Talmage found nothing in the theory of evolution that was inconsistent with church teachings, while Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie believed that there was no death in the world prior to the Fall of Adam. In the same vein, Church members are undecided on the issue which has not been officially addressed. The closest official statement is a document called The Orgin of Man which came out nearly 100 years ago that stated that man is created in the image of God, but stopped short of discussing evolution or the process by which mankind was created. There was a second statement issued in the 1950-60s but it too didn't address teh age of the earth, only that it took six creative periods - see Abraham 4 [4] which were designated days. How long each of those "days" lasted has been speculated about by people from Brigham Young to Orson Pratt to Bruce R. McConkie to Spencer W. Kimball. In addition, the Doctrine and Covenants teaches that the earth, from the fall of adam until its end has a "temporal existence" of about 7000 years [5]. Bottom line is that its inconclusive as the the complete age of the earth. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Visor; the Church of Jesus Christ has no official statement regarding evolution. What we have is what is found in scripture. They are very clear that man was formed in the divine image and likeness of God. Having said that, you will find individual Latter-day Saints that profess a broad range of beliefs from YECs to Evolutionists. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for citation by anon IP

Plumbago thinks the claim does not need a citation and reverted the citation marker. If anyone disagrees, a citation might be [6] or if they find that insufficient, one of the many sources listed there which make the same assertion. JoshuaZ 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy for there to be a cite there, I just wasn't convinced that we need one. The one above seems fair to me, but something from one of the larger professional societies might be good too. There were certainly a couple published last year during the ID trial as I recall. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, digging up a bit more, we get [7] which gives the percentage of scientists who are YEC as under 5%, we have Project Steve [8], we have this which is more about ID than YEC but is still pretty relevant since YEC seems to be a subset of ID [9], and finally we have in the Cobb County case an amicus brief filed by 56 major science organizations pdf here. I wasn't able to find any as extensive as that in the Dover trial although there were I think evidence submitted to that affect. If anyone cares and I have time, I'll go through the Dover records in more detail. So the question now becomes which of these sources do we prefer? JoshuaZ 16:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit at "Revival of Young Earth Creationism"

I've changed the last two sentences of this passage.

WAS: Many Bible scholars reject the fundamentalist approach to taking Genesis literally, contrary to what some see Jesus as having stated (Mark 10:6). Young Earth creationists disagree with their view.

NOW: Many Bible scholars reject the fundamentalist approach to taking Genesis literally. Young Earth creationists disagree.

REASON: As it stood it seemed that many YEC disagreed with what Jesus said in Mark 10:6. (The unintended result of an interjected edit, I presume.) And because Mark 10:6, anyway, isn't the best support for a YEC view. The statement that YEC disagree hardly needs references at all: it's the entire point of the article. MacMurrough 22:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading on to the section "Characteristics of Young Earth Creationism", I then attempted to tidy up the somewhat odd syntax in the sentence referring to Archbishop Ussher, adding a link to Ussher's Chronology that gives a little background information. Better links might be found, I don't know. I find it endearing that Ussher should have gone about his exercise in such a rationalist logical manner. And all that labour, lucubration! To work our the Ark landed on Mt Ararat on 5 May 2348 BC is one thing; but contemplate the calculations that would assure him this was 'on a Wednesday' -- it's just lovely. MacMurrough 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording that implied the evidence was incontrovertibly "for" evolution

Re intro text:

that scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism is wrongly interpreted.

This goes against NPOV fairness of tone. The tone suggests that the evidence "really is" for evolution (to the exclusion of creation), but that young earth creationism (incorrectly) believes the evolution are misinterpreting it.

I reworded the text to avoid an implication of the evidence incontrovertibly supporting one theory over another.

--Ed Brey 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says precisely that the evidence which is interpreted one way by the vast majority of scientists they think is being wrongly interpreted. Please read NPOV again, especially the section about undue weight. JoshuaZ 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Under WP:SPOV, I could see this (I think, haven't looked into SPOV much), but NPOV's undue weight section does not call for exclusion of a class of people (in this case non-scientitsts) when determining whether a viewpoint is held by a significant minority. Perhaps the undue weight section should be clarified, but excluding the viewpoint of the vast majority of the population seems quite contrary to the spririt of NPOV and Wikipedia in general. --Ed Brey 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, it was actually a creationist, Jphl, who reworded the text to the disputed version. They were clarifying an earlier (and, to my mind, more flawed) version which implied that creationists questioned the very existence of certain evidence for an old Earth (see here). Anyway, while I understand JoshuaZ's point entirely, I don't find Ed Brey's text objectionable. Not least because a sentence or so later it's clarified that science views creationism as pseudoscience. The possible implications of the more subtle wording we're debating here is likely to be missed when it's revealed that creationism is bunk (in a scientific sense that is; it's fascinating from a sociological perspective). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistake in Poll reference

The poll referenced near the end of the decline section, http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm , was made in 1997, not 2006 as this article claimed. Likewise, the poll defines scientist as anyone with a degree in science, which some people would disagree with. So I changed "Scientist" to "US citizens with degrees in science" to remove any possible confusion. Eccentricned 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To whoever made that revert, here's the quote from the article being referenced: The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc. You can find this quote right under the poll, it's the first line of text right after it actually. Some scientists wouldn't consider having a degree in a science enough, some would think a scientist is someone who has a pHd or actively engages in research.Eccentricned 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah - my bad. Sorry. I see what you're getting at. I latched onto the bit about college degrees. Erroneously. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. That website, although giving very useful information, isn't very clear at times.Eccentricned 09:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Adam and Eve

What does the picture of Adam and Eve have to do with the article? I don't think YEC's would say that God literally looks like Adam or Eve. A belief in a first human father and mother is not distinctive to YEC, is it?

65.213.207.3 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that picture of Adam and Eve is fair enough, since they are significant figures in Genesis and YECs believe in their historical existence. The current caption is a bit unhelpful however, and I'd suggest changing it to something that notes that YECs believe that these were the first two people ever to have existed.

Regarding "created in God's image", while I agree that this shouldn't be used in the caption, it does beg an interesting question. Given that YECs take the Bible literally everywhere else, what are we to make of the suggestion that Adam and Eve were created in God's image? To not take it literally seems to be introducing an arbitrary division in interpretation. Anyway, I'm sure there's some clever sophistry out there to get round this.

Cheers, --Plumbago 08:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that traditional Christian doctrine would say that "created in God's image" means created with an intellect and free will. In that sense, the idea of creation of human beings in God's image is pretty much a universal Christian belief, and does not seem to shed any light specifically on YEC. Many Christians would say that one can perfectly well simultaneously believe that humans were (are) created in God's image, and still believe in evolution. 65.213.207.3 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I just seemed to talk myself off-track earlier. Your point about being "created in God's image" is well-made - it's not really very relevant to the YEC article. However, as I think the image is not a bad one for the article in general, I've just rewritten the caption. Is this any better, or do you still think that the image should just be deleted entirely? I'm a fan of pictorial encyclopedias, but if you think the article would be better off without this image, I reckon just go ahead and cut it. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just make the caption "A depiction of Adam and Eve"? JoshuaZ 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the new caption is good. It is direct and clearly states relevance of the picture to the article. 65.213.207.3 13:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello 86.31.x.x

I have reverted your recent edit for the second time. YEC organisations cannot be considered professional because they do not submit their work for peer review among the mainstream scientific community. And if they did, it would be laughed out of court. Laurence Boyce 13:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it to "Mainstream science journals and science organizations generally oppose young earth creationism." The previous sentence with "professional" in is false, under any normal definition of "professional". 86.31.251.190 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted. The use of "professional" is pretty clear on matters scientific. That you don't like it is neither here nor there. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plumbago, going from your "Talk" page, you clearly have history on this. I had no idea that you'd previously gone to such lengths on it. You're probably not a good person to arbitrate in this. 86.31.251.190 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, so because I have clearly expressed the opinion that nonsense dressed up as science should be knocked for this, I'm to be excluded from debates on said topic? Hardly the way the WP does things. You'll have to argue your corner on this one properly. Specifically, why are well-established science organisations not professional? That they reject unproductive pseudoscience really isn't enough to disbar them. And your use of "mainstream science" implies that creationism is simply "non-mainstream science", which flatters it wildly. It's. Not. Science. Period. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuity error: Basil the Great

The first section claims, "...Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days", while the final section says, "Young Earth creationists such as Basil the Great ..." Which is correct? I believe it is the latter, but can anyone source that and correct the article accordingly? Ephrathah 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any sources, but it's possible Basil subscribed to the theory that the days of Genesis actually represented 12 hour days instead of 24, which would certainly make him even younger of an Young Earth Creationist (albiet an uncommon one). So these sentences aren't necessarily contradictory. (of course, if a source names him an Old Earth Creationist, then they would be.) Homestarmy 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Biased Article (part 2)

This article is extremely bias towards criticism of Young Earth Creationism. It was obviously written by a person(s) hostile towards the theory. This is hardly the professional stance of a legitimate encyclopedia. The entire article should be rewritten and made impartial.

A typical example of said bias is the line

“The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the 20th century saw a revival of interest in Young Earth creationism, as a part of their rejection of the explanation of evolution.”

First off, the idea that there was a "rise" in fundamentalist Christianity in the 20th Century is a fallacy. Historical mainstream Christianity in America, which has only recently been referred to as "fundamentalist" has been in constant decline since the late 19th century, at least. Indeed, most of what was considered orthodox 200 years ago was much more "fundamentalist" than was 100 years ago, and the same applies to the 100 years later today. This fact is evidenced in the history of our Ivy League schools, all of which used to be orthodox theological seminaries, and now are almost entirely secular, if not exceedingly liberal in dogma. America has not shifted "right" in over 200 years, if indeed it ever has. It has consistently grown more and more liberal, never the opposite.

Secondly, the so called "revival" of interest in YEC was not a revival at all, but rather a more thorough study of the field. Prior to the theory of evolution, and even up until the mid 20th century in many areas, there was not a mainstream contrary position to YEC, so no such science would need be pursued. In fact, prior to the theory of evolution, YEC was the accepted norm for all of modern history (I am speaking in terms of public opinion, not the scientific community). With the shift of public opinion and especially the implementation of evolutionary studies in public schools in the 1950’s, the study of YEC theory became warranted, not "revived". The article makes it look like YEC was concocted as a means to contradict emerging scientific data. In reality, the scientific study of YEC arose from the contrary opinion of evolution and its expanding time frames.

There are too many of these types of erroneous statements in the article to point out as time and reader interest will not allow, but suffice to say, the entire article needs a major unbiased reworking.

BigFatLoser 3Oct06

Actually, there was indeed a rather noticeable movement of Christians around the early 20th century, in fact, I think that's when they coined the term "fundamentalist" to show how they were attempting to get back to the "fundamentals" of Christianity. They even wrote a book, called "The Fundamentals" or something, and the movement was involved during the whole Scopes trial thing. And just because collages have shifted to the left doesn't mean all of America has. Homestarmy 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Homest is correct, and actually note that even prior to the theory of evolution old age views were very common among geologists (as early as 1820 or so) and there were many fewer objections to this on religious grounds (although they did exist). The Fundamentals actually make very interesting reading. JoshuaZ 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that this article is unashamedly biased. Take this passage: "There is no support for a "young Earth" theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations,[1][2] which Young Earth Creationists claim is often due to discrimination and censorship." This is obviously somebody's opinion, and cannot be verified. Also, the last clause is a direct attempt to discredit the Young Earth promoters' integrity and credibility, stereotyping promoters and showing them in a bad light. Nickatnoon141 April 3, 2007

This article is biased indeed. Could somebody please tag this article until it is sorted. For example it says that only 5% of scientists believe in creation. that's in 1997 not today. plus it only scientists that think that. 47% of people believe in creation according to the same poll. The poll itself could be biased in their selection of people. 78.16.1.182 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh

The article states that "The text of Genesis relates that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh." And I agree if you do a casual reading of English translations. However, some commentaters, notably E. W. Bullinger, argue that the six days describes the creation of the new world after the "world that was". I have researched and understand Bullinger's argument. I will present it here.

NIV:

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

KJV:

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now, the English word "formless" in the NIV and the english words "without form" in the KJV are translations of the Hebrew word tohu, G/K Number H9332 and Strong's Number H8414. The Strongs Concordance lists one of the meanins of toho as "to lie waste" or simply "waste."

Likewise, the english word "empty" in the NIV and the english word "void" in the KJV is translated from the Hewbrew bohu, G/K Number H983 and Strong's Number H922. Strong's Concordance provides one of the definitions of bohu as ruin.

Consequently, it is argued that the verses could be considered something like ~ "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was waste and ruin, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Furthermore, Bullinger's observations link Ge1:1-2 to 2Pe3:6, which states (KJV) 2Pe3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."(italics added) Bullinger believes that this is a reference to Ge1:1-2, and not the flood during Noah's time. He concludes with "The creation in eternity past, to which all fossils and remains belong." (Companion Bible, page 3).

Consequently, the articles should include, in my opinion, the fact that some theologians reject the young Earth on literal grounds.

See the Bullinger's side notes [[10]].

Also, a quick google search will show that other literal interpreters [[11]] agree with Bullinger.

To summarize: The article should be changed to reflect the fact that some literal interpreters of the Bible do not think the Earth is roughly 6000 years old. 65.73.80.45 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

This is the basic tenet of Gap Creationism, one of the OEC variants that are compatible with biblical literalism. I don't think we need to explicitly refer to it in this article - if this article made the claim that YEC was the _only_ possible literalist viewpoint, it would need correcting, but I can't see anywhere that it does. Tevildo 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks like original research

I just removed the following paragraph from the article:

A second problem is that the plants which Adam and Eve and the animals ate in Eden must have not "died" during their ingestion, digestion, and excretion. Genesis 1:29 indicates that God gave to man seed-bearing and fruit-bearing plants, but does not specifically say whether man ate the fruits or seeds (which would not kill the plant) or consumed the entire plant. In any case, plant death may not have to be explained. Leviticus 17:11 can be interpreted as stating that only creatures with blood are "alive" (the specific passage reads "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (NKJV), and this does not necessarily indicate a statement that only those organisms with blood are alive), so Genesis could have been referring to the death of those organisms that are "living" in this sense only. Following this line of reasoning, plant fossils and geological resources such as gas and oil don't directly conflict with YEC in terms of "death", but only in terms of the age of the earth.

This looks a lot like original research. Samboy 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Catastrophism

I added catastrophism under the theories denied by creationists. Catastrophism is a legitimate and scientificlly founded geological theory, and is basically condidered the opponent theory to uniformitarianism. It was edited out as "doesnt belong" but it is within context and directly relavent to the statement being made. It is even linked to its own page

Look at Catastrophism. Noah's Flood is given as an example. ^rossnixon 10:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an insane claim. Creationists do not reject catastrophism, for the reason above. 4.158.210.252 22:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever thinks we [Christians] reject catastrophism has never read of the flood, as mentioned above, or the book of Revalations. - MarioFanaticXV

External Links

Hi everyone :)

The External links section is strange - it has "YEC videos" then "Critical of YEC." What would be better is having a section for Pro-YEC, listing a few (major) YEC organisations (i.e. Answers in Genesis), and then some more under "critical", combining both Old Earth creationists (like the Answers in Creation link and Reasons.org) and some atheist organisations which focus on YEC.

Yoda921 07:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Yoda

New subsection, "Biblical scholarship"

I've added this new subsection to the Criticism" section, as it's quite an important area which so far is lacking from the article. At the moment it's lacking citations - please add citation needed tags and I'll try to oblige. Also any suggestions for amendments to the subsection. PiCo 10:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My first impression is that much of the new material does not belong here, and should only be in Documentary Hypothesis. Oh, also; it's confusing to have "first millenium" etc without BC or BCE. ^rossnixon 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's BC :). Thanks for the critique Ross. If the general view is that it doesn't belong we can delete it. My reason for thinking that it does belong is that, as I understand it, the YEC case is based on Genesis being actual history, and that we know it's actual history because it comes from God Himself. I don't know how many YECists ask themselves just how it came from God, but the answer is that He revealed it to Moses, either in a single revelation on Sinai or over the course of the 40 years in the wilderness. If biblical scholars say that the Torah was in fact written by four different people or groups of people, at various dates stretching from c.922 BC to c. 400 BC, and that each writer had a distinctive but always human purpose in writing, then that makes a major challenge to the YEC woirld-view. PiCo 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the subsection. I think it goes in the wrong direction. 08:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism seems to only be about critics angle, not their actual facts against

I don't see one thing in there about actual critiques. One that comes to mind are expanding on time-based traits (radio carbon dating, for example, is very accurate up to 50,000 years). Another thing that comes to mind is getting the distance of planets, and finding that light would have had to travel for so many years. Of course i know radio-carbon dating is challenged with only accurate to 50,000 years (counter-counter argument: That's still more then 6,000), and that god created light closer to earth. But some arguments i think should be in there. MikedaSnipe 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you could only mention the critiques in a 'general' way. If you try to get too specific, you will be shot down with counter-arguments. e.g. In the case of C14, there should be virtually no C14 in diamonds and coal-seams that are dated at millions of years old, but there is! ^rossnixon 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ross that criticism shouldn't go into detail - you just end up with a long argument in place of an informative article. The criticism section could be shortened considerably, and focus more on why YECists contine to believe in YEC despite all the evidence to the contrary. Something like: "The beliefs of Young Earth Creationism run counter to the conclusions of scientists and scholars across a wide range of fields, including biblical criticism, geology, astronomy (fill in your own list). Its followers, nevertheless, contend that it is modern science which is in error, and have put forward a number of explanations to uphold their beliefs. These include (brief outline of major YEC counter-arguments). PiCo 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor Writing

I tagged this article for poor writing...it could use some revision —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.87.207.1 (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Article's References

The introduction says

"There is no support for a "young Earth" theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations."

but when I clicked on the second citation for this (the first requires you to be a member to view) the front page said

"The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation."

...which, and maybe it's just me, seems to imply that there are professional scientists who support it...so where's the evidence for the introduction's statement?? Trimethylxanthine 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Creation Research Society says it is a professional science organisation." That is a fact; it's the sort of fact we regularly include in wikipedia articles.

"The Creation Research Society is a professional science organisation." That is not a fact, it is an opinion. I could go into more detail, and offer other opinions on this very subject, but that should be enough to answer the question. SheffieldSteel 13:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true; but that's not my point. My point is that that link is not a citation supporting the statement saying there is no professional support for young earth creationism; if that statement is to be made, there must needs be a citation for it; so my question is, where's the citation?? Trimethylxanthine 07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've replaced that with a link to the IAP statement on evolution. While I was editing the lead, I noticed that the first link requires a login to view, so I've moved it here for now. I'm not sure what to do with it. "Scientists say that earth is billions of years old" "Parks Agency Leaves Controversial Book on Shelf" New York Times, January 5 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/washington/05canyon.htm?_r=1&oref=slogin SheffieldSteel 16:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also reworded the intro section so that it does not require us to provide a citaion that would prove a negative (no support for YEC). That still leaves the problem covered by the next section... SheffieldSteel 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in introductory section

For some reason or another (most likely typo) the last sentence read "there is no support for a "young Earth" theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations which is due to discrimination and censorship." To read "which they claim is due to discrimination and censorship." -V Dr v 05:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch Dr v. It may well have been a typo, but the odds of this aren't good for this article.  ;-) Incidentally, when you add an new topic to a talk page it's standard to do so at the bottom of a page (which might seem back to front, but that's what we do). If you use the "+" tab at the top of the page, it'll set up a new topic for you in the correct place. Just thought I'd let you know as you're a new user. Keep up the good work. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a typo. If you check the ref [4] given, you will see that this is the finding of a US Congressional Committee in 2006. Granted, this (I assume) is a one-off finding, so I have slightly reworded it to "which is sometimes due to discrimination and censorship." ^rossnixon 02:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's a finding of a Congressional Committee, the text must make that clear. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to say that at all. The links cited on the page do not point to a congressional committee report, but to (for example) a Discovery Institute page which interprets the report (and gives a report link which doesn't work, for me at least). So we what does the DI have to say on the subject? It appears to be a POV account of how one man has been harassed for getting one pro-ID article published in a biology journal. This is a long way from saying that "there is no support for a "young Earth" theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations" and that the lack "is due to discrimination and censorship." Gaps in the logic include, but are not limited to...

• The article at the root of this is pro-ID, not pro-YEC.
• One man being allegedly harassed or censored cannot account for there being no support whatsoever in journals or organisations.
• The DI webpage says who the report was prepared for, but not who by. Something smells a little fishy here.

This argument is synthesis, pure and simple. If anything, the citations actually make a stronger than ever case for saying that it is YEC supporters who claim the lack of support is "due to discrimination and censorship."

This is a pretty clear case - we must convert an opinion to a fact by attributing it to a source. Therefore I am changing the text back. SheffieldSteel 03:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Source update! Here's the Wall Street Journal [opinion piece] which kicked off this sequence. One interesting quote:-

“ The offending review-essay was written by Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism--mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. Mr. Meyer gathers the threads of their comments to make his own case. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago... ”

This essay is in fact completely irrelevant to Young Earth Creationism; it supports ID and is incompatible with YEC belief (530 million years is not young enough). The whole sequence of cites needs to go, and the claims of discrimination and censorship are effectively uncited. I propose that we remove the cites from the article and put a fact tag on the end of that sentence. SheffieldSteel 03:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The severe harassment was not due to a pro-ID stance. Several times it is mentioned that it was due to allowing an article that was "... SKEPTICAL OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION". All Creation Scientists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution. Therefore this case specifically shows discrimination against a central tenet of Creation Science. ^rossnixon 03:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if I have this straight. An article which is incompatible with YEC is published in a journal and the author is allegedly harassed and/or discriminated against. Therefore the reason that there is no support for YEC in any scientific journal or academic society is discrimination and harassment?

I very much hope that you are going to help me fill in the logical gaps in this argument, because I honestly cannot do so myself. SheffieldSteel 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See if this helps.

• The editor (not author) was harassed for including an article which was skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.
• All creationists are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.

Therefore there is no way that a YEC article would be allowed in this journal. The reason that there is no support for YEC in any scientific journal or academic society is that they do not accept articles that are skeptical of Darwinian Evolution. Discrimination against all skeptics by definition, includes discrimination against ID, OEC and YEC peer-reviewed articles. ^rossnixon 02:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that a joke? (I'm not sure if it was, so I will address that as if it was an honest comment) That is far too much a tangent to be used as evidence of anything. If you have direct sources of discrimination against YEC then include it but don't assume that because of ONE controversy over ONE article that is NOT YEC makes a broad conclusion about YEC in ALL articles in ALL journals. Anything else is your POV based on what you think they will do. - V Dr v 05:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course the reasoning is flawed. That's not a problem. It's not our reasoning. All we have to do is report it. Here's the sentence in question, as it now stands:-

"Young earth creationists claim that the reason for lack of support for a "young Earth" theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations is due to discrimination and censorship.[2]"

...and here's the footnote...

"These articles describe the consequences of publishing an article which advocates Intelligent Design and is thus incompatible with a young Earth. Nevertheless this is cited by creationists as proof that any research paper critical of evolutionary theory would be met with discrimination and persecution by the scientific establishment.[12][13][http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400][14]"

...and that is pretty much exactly what AiG and DI are claiming in those references. Is this coverage about right? SheffieldSteel 16:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New weasel

Anon editor 131.172.4.43 has recently made a number of edits to the article. While one or two are helpful, most are (to my mind) weasely in nature, and serve to soften up long-established text. An obvious example is the replacing of "no" with "very little" in the context of YEC impact on science. This is clearly untrue (where are the scientific papers conceding ground to the YECs?) but some of the other edits are more equivocal. Anyway, before I revert wholesale (actually, I'd be inclined to retain one or two changes), would anyone else like to comment? Anon editor 131.172.4.43 for instance? Cheers, --Plumbago 08:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking over the recent changes by 131.172.4.43 and feel that the article needs to be reverted. I will start with the first edit and have placed the changes in BOLD

"The revival of Young Earth creationism has had very little significant impact on modern naturalistic science — creation science is regarded as pseudoscience by many mainstream scientists."

All of these changes are incorrect. First I have never seen or heard of one significant impact that YEC has had on modern science. If there has been one than let the user cite a source and explain how that YEC concept has significantly changed science. Science is based in methodological naturalism [Talk Origins on Naturalism in Science] so by adding the word "naturalistic" the user is attempting to say that science should be based in what? Supernaturalism? Creation science in general, not only YEC, is regarded as pseudoscientific by mainstream scientists, but YEC in particular is seen as pseudoscience since it is based almost purely in theology. When one looks at the facts and focuses on scientists involved in the fields which Evolutionary science is based (Earth and Life) you find that only 0.15% accept YEC [Article with refs cited]. Since less than 2 tenths of a percent of scientists with degrees that would even be involved in Evolutionary research accept YEC than I would say "many" is incorrect and that mainstream scientists do reject YEC and creation science. RiverBissonnette 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few hacks to remove very weasely statements (thanks Rossnixon for your earlier edits). One statement which just about sounds sensible but has bad/confusing grammar is ...

"Christian theologians and scientists like Augustine of Hippo and Gallileo held that, the literality creation in Genesis were believed to be true at the time, it doesn't destroy Christianity to suggest future scientific discoveries might change the way we view this account but, in the same way science could clarify the content of Scripture, it could also stand opposed to it and neither of these men ever proposed that science was superior or more reliable than the Bible."

Can anyone edit this to make sense? It's another overlong sentence, it seems to confuse tense at various points and it introduces the unusual expression "literality creation". Cheers, --Plumbago 07:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like an alternative form of the orthodox Catholic view that "truth cannot contradict truth", i.e. if scientific research seems to contradict Scripture, then either the research is flawed or the interpretation of Scripture is wrong. SheffieldSteel 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of the brunt of this discussion: God vs. Science, or the defination of Young Earth Creationism?

The subject of creationism vs. evolutionism has always been one of great interest to me. I've had personal experience with more than a few fanatics and visionaries on both sides of the fence. My own views on the subject though, along with much of what I've read of the rest of the discussion elements on this page seem to be largely irrelevant to the topic of the page though.

It's my understanding that the purpose of an encyclopedia, be it hardbound or online, is to "inform" and not serve as a platform to promote a person or organization's views on the topic in question; opinions are, by virtue, subjective, and encyclopedias are supposed to be built upon objectivity as much as possible.

That being said, I believe the article was excellent! Granted, I had never even heard the terms "YEC" or "ID" before today (I followed a link from the "Oort cloud" article), so I couldn't speak to the factual accuracy of the article itself, but as I previously had no definition for "Young Earth Creationism" before reading the article, I assume it to be true until such time as someone can show me evidence to the contrary. So, as an informative, encyclopedic, piece on the subject of Young Earth Creationism, I believe it to be a fantastic success.

As far as whom on the discussion page believes what and for what reason, what does that have to do with the article itself? Assuming for the sake of argument that everything in the article, in reference to the past, present, and doctrines of YEC is 100% correct, how could there be any discussion concerning the validity of its views? Why it subscribes to the platform that it does is not the issue. All the article should say is something like, "This is what Young Earth Creationism is, these are its doctrines, this is what they've done, this is what they're doing, and these are its officially stated reasons for it." Whether you agree or disagree is beside the point.

In reality though, since it is most likely NOT authored by a deity or its minions, there may be typos and grammatical and/or factual errors. I saw some discussion along these lines and this is to be expected, even encouraged! But so often, particularly regarding subjects like this, "discussions" degenerate into finger-pointing and bible-thumping; the meat of the respective arguments, enlightened or ignorant though it may be, only succeeds in confusing people who have not yet formed an opinion of their own (perhaps the only people that stand to be swayed in matters such as these). Everyone who has a stance on this and other issues of this nature means to keep it, so trying to "convert" one another accomplishes nothing. Do yourselves a favor and stick to the facts and how the relate to the purpose of the article in the given context; arguing about who's right in this particular place and situation will only cause rationale, intelligent people who have not yet made up their minds one way or the other (presumably the only people one would choose to populate their organization with) to avoid the matter entirely due to lack of any clear and concise evidence presented in an orderly and easy to understand format.

It is all very interesting though. Asuka.n.Pico 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of us know all that - but it is easy, sometimes useful and often interesting to go a little "off topic". (Some of us are usenet addicts from way back).^rossnixon 02:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Eternal Time Creation" Is it a new type of Creationism? Should it belong in YEC or should there be a new article?

The recent addition of "Eternal Time Creation" by Ikester7579 has been removed to determine if the ideas presented fit within mainstream Young Earth Creationism that is presented in this article. While conducting a search of "Ikester7579" it became apparent that this person is the originator of "Eternal Time Creation" since yecheadquarters.org (A.K.A. sixdaycreation.org) is listed as his homepage at various sites including [here], [here], and [here] as well as being the first site appearing in a google search of Ikester7579. This attempt to edit the YEC article seems to be nothing more than self promotion at the least. I would suggest either a new article titled "Eternal Time Creation" is created or maybe linking this concept to the Kent Hovind page since the user is obviously of a follower Mr. Hovind's. RiverBissonnette 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept does nto appear to meet notability criteria and I can find not a single reliable source mentioning it. It should not be discussed here nor any other article on Wikipedia until we have reliable sources that mention it. JoshuaZ 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't have YEC remain in any positive light now can we?

Is the main reason it was deleted. Just as a previous poster said about the page being bias. Because it has bias overtones all through it. It just shows with the deletion of everything I wrote. I am glad I found out about this bias before I wrote any other things on this wiki. I won't waste my time here. But I will link to this page as an example of evolution censorship, and wiki bias. At least my experience here was not a total loss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikester7579 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC). It's unsigned because I'm not familiar with using a Wiki program.

Erm, it looks like you added a whole lot of unsourced original research. By the sounds of things, what sources were provided were only to your own work. Furthermore, the concept of eternal time creation only racks up 3 Google hits (other word combinations are more favourable, though less specific). While Google isn't an especially reliable authority for credibility, this isn't a good sign for ETC's notability.

As for censorship, the procedure from here is quite straightforward: demonstrate (with independent sources) that the material you added is worthy of inclusion. Since YEC self-describes as science, cites to scientific publications are particularly pertinent on this point. --Plumbago 12:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ikester7579, if you had read my reason for taking your "Eternal Time Creation" down you would have realized that I was not censoring you, but telling you that your concept should either be moved to a new subsection of the YEC page or that you should create a entirely NEW wiki article for your ideas. You are the first person (with your websites yecheadquarters.org and sixdaycreation.org) to introduce this concept and as such it did not belong within the already established article focusing on mainstream Young Earth Creationism. If you feel that "Eternal Time Creation" should be part of Wikipedia then create an article of that title and explain how it differs from Young Earth Creationism.

I am sorry you interpreted my trying to help you solidify your idea in wiki as censorship and feel that your need to threaten people at Wikipedia and make such angry unjustified statements would have never occured if you had taken the time to understand the reasons for removing your addition to the YEC entry. RiverBissonnette 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a some research about the bias here

I have to put this on my site because here everything gets deleted. And the only reason I used a pic of a profile to make my point, it has been my dealings with evolutionist that they will change what is written and say it is not so. And say it never said that and call me a liar in the process, etc... So here's my new webpage about the bias here: http://yecheadquarters.org/shame_part2.16.html

Shall I go further into it, or is it going to be admitted? For I can do at least ten more pages on bias here by showing word for word comparison between how creation is presented vs evolution. And if I go to that much trouble to change things here, I won't be taking it down anytime soon. To bad I can't do it here in dicussion. From this point forward I will be making copies of everything said concerning this issue, just in case someone deletes what I say here, or adds to it to try and make me look like I said what I did not say. I already have had someone accuse me of threatening people. What is my goal? If you going to push neutral view on the users, better hold up to it on your end as well.Ikester7579 09:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ikester7579 - you should read the appropriate policy sections in WP:NPOV (the defunct WP:SPOV page is helpful too). On matters of science, rigidly equal treatment of all viewpoints is not "neutral". YEC is a minority viewpoint at best; in reality it's even less than that - it has no presence in the scientific literature at all. YEC makes statements about the world that are so markedly at odds with observational data, that to present it as if has some scientific basis is simply dishonest. That YEC comes up with different answers to mainstream science is not its major flaw. At the most fundamental level, YEC is a complete inversion of the scientific method. It starts with the answer (e.g. the Flood happened) and then works backwards (e.g. here's a vegetarian pirhana grown under two atmospheres) to justify it, all the time disregarding unhelpful observations that fail to support "the Answer". Anyway, you may find the material you've worked on is more acceptable over at CreationWiki. --Plumbago 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. I'm a liar and that's the reason my writtings were deleted. Why not just include that all YECs lie and are dishonest? Thanks for your honesty on what you think about all YECs. I will include this on my website. My view you you calling "all" YECs dishonest: [when you call someone a liar, and do not have absolute truth yourself. You become just as much a liar as the one you accuse]. I guess I will be starting on my 5-10 webpage report of the bias at this wiki.Ikester7579 21:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Ikester7579 21:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is calling you a liar. The reasons behind removal of your material from the article might be a bit obscure to a newcomer, so I can understand why you might be assuming a more "obvious" motive. It might look like all the atheists are out to get you here, but that really isn't the case. Please take the time to read the guidelines about the neutral point of view and about notability of sources, and hopefully things will become clear. SheffieldSteel 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You may think I'm stupid for being a YEC (I know "all" evolutionist do). But I know what the word dishonest implies. It implies that I not only lie, but knew it was a lie and planned to do it. If I say: You are dishonest for believing evolution, did I or did I not just call you something without coming out and saying it? And from looking at your user profile, I see you are a big time evolutionist believer. Being someone who has debated many, I understand why you feel the need to reply and defend what you believe here so it can reign supreme always on this Wiki. And I also understand why no one here will address "any" of the issue I brought up on my website, or pointed out here. Your cop out is the NPOV in which only applies to me and my subject. But gives subjects, and users, and admins special rights when dealing with subjects already pre-approved. There is no assuming when the ones who run this Wiki refuse to address the issues I have clearly pointed out. Using the NPOV like a political dodge to get around the issue shows there is something to hide. Other wise, all my issues would have been addressed instead of the continous referal and refusal to deal with it.Ikester7579 05:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is calling you stupid either. Unfortunately you've got me wrong. I am not really a "big time evolutionist believer"; I'm just someone who likes pictures of happy fishapods. The only things I have "defended here" are wikipedia standards and guidelines, and the integrity of scientific principles. Anyway, enough polite small talk. Did you have any suggestions to make about improving the article? SheffieldSteel 06:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Ikester7579 - please read my remarks again carefully. I was not calling you a liar. I was simply saying that it would be dishonest to present YEC as if it had equivalence with mainstream science. YEC inverts the scientific method, has no presence whatsoever within the scientific literature, and is at odds with basic, boring facts from scientific disciplines as disparate as archaeology and particle physics. A naive equal-treatment of YEC and science would do a disservice to anyone seeking objective knowledge from the Wikipedia. Anyway, having now taken the time to visit your website, it's very clear we're going to have to agree to disagree. Before adding any more material to this article you really need to read WP:NPOV, WP:SPOV and WP:NOTE. Otherwise you'll probably just find yourself running afoul of what we're here for, and your hard work will be deleted. --Plumbago 09:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agrees with all that, except that YEC'ists have their own scientific literature. ^rossnixon 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I would not dream of being a editor here

I made my mind up once I realized how bias and the religous bigotry was being promoted here. This Wiki has no intentions of changing. I accept that. But it don't mean I won't be exposing it on my site. I determine I will be able to expose the bias here on about 5 different levels, maybe more. But when I am done, there will be no doubt about what is promoted here. A fair and balanced Wiki? Yeah, right.Ikester7579 04:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What bias and what religious bigotry? You have made these claims many times, but have not pointed out one article with one instance of bias or bigotry. HERE in the talk sections of the article is where that needs to be done and I know that myself an others want to see that Wikipedia is as non-biased as possible and help from you would be much appreciated. Again I refer you to the religions section and ask that you show how Wikipedia is misrepresenting Christianity or any other religion. RiverBissonnette 04:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to have anyone here listen to what I say. All I get is go to this page and read this on how to post and how to be fair. Over and over, and over it was said (I already have read it, how do you think I figured out you guys don't follow your own rules?). That is why I said it was a cop out of not wanting to deal with the situation. And I have still yet to see that anyone here that hears anything I have said (and for that reason I won't answer your questions). And I also have noticed that someone here has gone to the evolution Wiki to post what is going on here. Left links to all this as well. Which proves even more so that this wiki is about only protecting evolution. While creation gets a raw deal. So how many evolution sites will it take to get involved, how many wikis?Ikester7579 11:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Ike. --THobern 10:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to argue that there is systematic bias throughout an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Bistromathic 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can edit, not does edit, and since there is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias over the systematic bias on Wikipedia, I think it would be remarkably easy to argue that there is systematic bias throughought an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but was started primarily through the efforts of one countries citizens.... Homestarmy 17:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the allegations of bias on the page you linked seem to be very minor (spellings, article names, etc.), and some of them are contradictory (apparently there are both pro-liberal and pro-conservative bias throughout Wikipaedia), so I will rephrase what I said: it's very difficult to argue that there is significant systematic bias throughout an online encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Of course all bias is subjective, when I see 'there is bias on Wikipedia' I read 'Wikipedia does not conform to my biased opinions'. I'm not really sure what my point is here... I suppose you are right about bias towards the US - if that's what you meant - though if a large proportion of visitors to the site are from a country, is over-representing topics that pertain to that country really a problem? The same goes for bias towards articles about computers, technology, online encyclopaedias, and so on: visitors to this website will of course be more interested in these topics than the general population, but only visitors to the website will see the articles anyway. Back on topic, trying to portray YEC as having any level of public acceptance would definitely be US-centric. Bistromathic 09:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, but while doing my research on the bias here. I found websites and forums just dedicated to what you guys say does not exist. I even found someone at another Wiki that had an even worse experience here than I had. Then I found the remark that explained the whole thing. On the forum that is about the bias about Wikipedia. One guy said that this Wiki is connected to several special interest groups. Special interest groups are not interested in anyone elses views except their own, on any subject. Must be why a whole forum dedicated to the bias here has gone up. And why it stays busy. And no it's not a bunch of YEC's who go there. You can research this yourselves by typing in "wikipedia bias" in any search engine.Ikester7579 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A guy actually said something on a forum? That's hardly damning evidence you have there. Given the option of going and researching wikipedia bias, I think most of us would rather stay here and discuss improvements to this article. And speaking of which, I'm still not sure I understand your point. I'm not sure whether you're arguing that there are too many US-centric views here, or that belief in Young earth Creationism is under-represented. Which is it? SheffieldSteel 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias towards anything religious. Just in case it was missed again: Bias, Bias, Bias, Bias. Did anyone miss it? Bias: a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. This is done on every religious page'. Favouritism: an inclination to favor some person or group (evolution is what is favored here). discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice (compared to articles written for evolution, the discrimination is clear and written all through all the articles).Ikester7579 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is everyone out to get you or are you paranoid? If you think that wikipedia is biased, then you also have to consider the more likely possibility that you are biased. Wikipedia is edited by everyone and hence is not a perfect resource, and there are always biases out there - however over time the quality of a page improves. To say that some special interest groups are running wikipedia is just stupid. Also aimless accusations of bias aren't going to get you anywhere - find specific points in the article, come up with references to back up your viewpoint, and share it with us. You will find that we are reasonable people... at least when we aren't burning down churches. -v Dr v 04:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Fall animals

YECs typically answer these questions either by postulating a non-lethal original purpose for these predatory mechanisms (eg. snake venom was designed to soften fruit), or suggesting that these mechanisms were miraculously added to animals by God or the devil at the time of the Fall.

Strange there is no mention that the fall caused at least one immediate and dramatic change to one animal. The serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly (Gen 3:14). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerothis (talk • contribs) 08:22, June 28, 2007

Capitalization

I've changed the capitalization of "creation science" to both lowercase initial caps, because that's how it's used in its article, and "Young Earth creationism" and "Young Earth creationists" to the proper writing, as used in the beginning of the article. Fatalis^talk 18:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)