Did he know that would just plant a 70s Eagles earworm?
1 Like
Seventh Day Adventists accept the Bible as a whole to be Godās Word. We accept the historical writings of the book of Genesis, to be as much God breathed as was the verses that tell us God is love.
But, this is not arbitrarily done.
Because what was said in Genesis, has also been repeated in various other books of the Bible, and Jesus, has even referred to the occurrences of Genesis, as having actually occurred.
1 Like
Pre-modern acceptance of a Young Earth ceased when the field of geology rejected Catastrophism in favor of Uniformitarianism in the early 19th Century.
Modern Young Earth Creationism traces its roots back to George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist and amateur armchair geologist who write in the early 20th century. His ideas reached more mainstream conservative Christians with the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961.
What you describe is consistent with YEC, which also tries to interpret Genesis literally. Surely you must know this interpretation is not doctrine for all of Christianity?
The point (for this thread) is that young people are taught this interpretation backed up by misrepresentations of science. When they grow up and learn that science works, they discover the lies they were taught and abandon their faith.
Within YEC, roughly 2 in 3 young people are leaving the church they grew up in. Not all become atheists of course, many end up in other Christian denominations. I would think they same is likely true for SDA, but I donāt have any days (or even anecdotes) to back that up.
10 posts were split to a new topic: RTMCDGE and The Flood
There is no scriptural evidence Genesis should not be interpreted as historical.
It is quoted or referred to by other authors from other books of the Bible. Christ referred to Genesis more than once, and He speaks about it as being historical.
Roughly 2 in 3 are leaving. And does that surprise you? The church has for years allowed them to be bombarded with false understanding of Godās Word. Luke warm pastors being deceived, try to harmonize what they have been told is scientifically sound, with what Godās Word has said about how God created.
And so, this has undermined the faith of members in Godās Word, and in God Himself.
Little wonder the God has told us this.
āFor the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lustsā 2 Timothy 4:3
And yes, the Seventh Day Adventist church lose members. But, again, this is only because of how the world has bombarded them with the lie of evolution. They are told it is scientifically sound, and since they have no background about science they are deceived.
But now, letās look at the other side of the coin. Do you know that many of the scientists who work for AIG, Evolution News, and other groups are made up of scientists who USED TO ACCEPT COMMON DESCENT EVOLUTION?
James Tour, Meyer, and many other scientists who are either supporting ID, or the Creation model, used to accept common descent evolution.
You need to listen to the speech given by Patterson. In it he admits he had been deceived about common descent evolution.
We have already discussed your desecration of Patterson. Do you have anything, anything at all, better than out of context proof texting of two generations out of date quote mines to offer, or is that level we should continue to expect?
4 Likes
No, itās because the church has bombarded with them with lies about evolution. The lies you are so keene on spreading.
If they were leaving because they were told evolution was true, they might come back if they discovered evolution was really false. But if they were leaving because they were told evolution was false and discovered it was really true, or leaving because they were told certain things about evolution by the church and discovered those were false,[1] they wouldnāt.
Quote mines, for example. ā©ļø
3 Likes
No, he says no such thing and has elsewhere explicitly stated that he does not reject evolution nor that all organisms are related by common descent.
This has already been explained to you, yet you persist in repeating this defamatory falsehood. I am trying to come up with a charitable explanation for the behaviour you are exhibiting here, but so far with no success.
Be that as it may, since you seem to think science is best practiced by reading quotations from people, I will provide you with a genuine and authentic quote from a prominent and well-educated Young Earth Creationist regarding the theory of evolution.
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because Iām crazy or because Iāve āconvertedā to evolution. I say these things because they are true. Iām motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
That last paragraph could have been written specifically for you. I suggest you heed it.
9 Likes
Yet MOST Christian denominations do not requite a literal historical interpretation, and NONE of them have that as doctrine. (I could be wrong about SDA on this point, but Iāve read otherwise.)
There are MANY reasons why people could be leaving. Church membership has long been declining and it doesnāt seem to have anything to do with science - denominations that accept science are also declining, tho maybe not as rapidly? (Iāll look for numbers, but that kind of data is hard to get)
every published h
EVEN if we limit the reasons to science, why evolution in particular? Geologists found evidence for an old Earth longer than evolution has been a scientific concept. Physics and astronomy also contradict a Young Earth, resoundingly so, yet one claims people are leaving the faith because of physics.
Those at Evolution News still accept Common Descent, and an Old Earth. They just happen to think God may have tinkered a bit along they way. The way to show a particular scientific concept is wrong is to present better science - one that can do everything the old science can do AND MORE. AiG, ENV, etc., have no alternative to the working science of evolution - a science that regularly produces useful results.
AND this is where YEC falls down, IMO. They teach that science doesnāt work, but then the kids grow up and see very clearly that science does work; it gives us inventions, patents, medical treatments, and opens new areas of research. The science works.
These young people, discovering they have been lied to, wonder if they have been lied to about other things, and many leave the faith they grew up in. I base this statement on numerous accounts from former members of YEC congregations. If you want to learn for yourself, there are several nice FB group where people with this experience are common.
Scientific reasoning and religious faith donāt have to be contradictory. Claims to the contrary might be another reason young people leave their faith.
I think others have covered that point adequately, but Iāll try to make time to look at that later. The point remains that is no viable alternative to the theory of evolution that is testable, and produces results.
In general, you are presenting a lot of old and tired arguments against evolution that have been well covered by numerous sources/ Yet you expect people to jump as if these are ideas that have never been seen before. WHY? There is nothing new here. Meanwhile, the science of evolution just keeps working. 
4 Likes
Whatever else might be said, @rtmcdge is doing a splendid job of illustrating, by example, the answer to the title: āHow modern-day young-earth creationism pushes people to atheism.ā
6 Likes
Itās a bit like the Sunken Cost fallacy. Having committed to this path, they have to double down or admit there was no conflict to begin with.
5 Likes
Some do, some donāt, and others are so coy that itās impossible to tell.
5 Likes
For those considering that path (to atheism)*, one effective next step is not to criticize or condemn the believer (for credulity, dishonesty, cruelty, etc) but to ask what responsibility lies with the god. The path, after all, is not to misanthropy (disgust with humans). Itās to atheism, which can start fruitfully at disgust with gods who inspire credulity, dishonesty, cruelty, etc.
*The path can be rough but the destination is so worth it.
2 Likes
Also worth remembering: Bad arguments do not entail a bad position.
1 Like
Then again, if all thatās supporting a position are bad arguments, that itās a bad position is at least the way to bet.
5 Likes
There is something to be said for carefully criticizing an argument but soaring the point of view. Too often people will react to defend their viewpoint instead of reconsidering the bad argument. I helps if you can offer a good argument to replace the bad, but sometimes that isnāt possible.
2 Likes
But they do entail a (localised) lack of evidence that the position has any merit. And if all the arguments are bad, then we have no evidence whatsoever that the position has any merit, and therefore no reason not to reject it out of hand.
4 Likes
Qualified agreement here. In the case of religious viewpoints you arenāt going to have hard evidence, but that doesnāt mean those views have no merit. I think it is evident than a great number of people still find merit in religious views.
I think weāre talking about different things here. I was talking about a ālack of evidence that the position has any meritā ā i.e. objective merit. You are talking about people āfind[ing] meritā ā i.e. subjective merit.
Subjective merit is a fundamentally personal and idiosyncratic thing ā I may āfindā great merit in a song that you consider to be garbage. This personal and idiosyncratic aspect would also apply to whether an argument for subjective merit is ābadā or not.
I think conflating the two is highly problematical.
For instance, when the Editors of the Guide were sued by the families of those who had died as a result of taking the entry on the planet Tralal literally (it said "Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal for visiting tourists: instead of āRavenous Bugblatter Beasts often make a very good meal of visiting touristsā), they claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant eveningās ultragolf.
ā Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikerās Guide to the Galaxy
1 Like