Is All YEC Really Pseudoscience?

Scriptural manuscripts are valid evidence about the world when shown to be valid evidence in anthropological science like what @Alice_Linsley does.

3 Likes

That is what I mean. Also, look at this JAMA article on the crucifixion from 1985:

This seems like a legitimate use of Scripture within science along these two models;

1 Like

The cultural aspects that anthropological science can bring are very beneficial. For example, I am sure from the knowledge and culture at the time, most people knew that snakes don’t talk. So the language used must have been figurative and not to be taken literal.

1 Like

I don’t agree there is such a thing in nature as science.
Its just a human construction after the fact of a working nature(including twisting it/inventions)
SO science is just a verb. Not a noun. Its just a methodology to reach conclusions. SO its a high standard of investigation that CAN DEMAND confidence in its conclusions.
So planes and drugs are PROVED by science to work.

In origin matters its all about PAST processes and results that have a lineage to the present.
I see it as very, very, very, difficult to investigate origins. whatever is right. In fact more intellectuaslly difficult then biology which is more difficult then any physics/invention so far done. I’m not sure if physics could ever be as complicated as biology.

YEC , sometimes ID, says conclusions in origins about denying God, or Gods clear fingerprints, or evolutionism are not based on a high standard of investigation.
Sometimes we say no one is doing science and sometimes we do the same science. everyone gets mixed up.

I say evolutionism is not a scientific theory but only a unrested hypothesis BECAUSE its claimed evidence are not based on biological processes. Instead they are based on AFTER THE FACT of biological processes. SO they invoke fossils/geology, comparaitve anatomy and genetics, biogeography, minor in species experimentation., and heaps of speculation.
What do you think science is?

I think science is a noun.

3 Likes

4 posts were split to a new topic: Does Appearance of Age Render God a Deciever?

A post was merged into an existing topic: Welcome Greg to the Forum

Young Earth Creationism has been criticized for lacking a solid scientific basis. It also should be criticized for lacking a solid Biblical basis.

5 Likes

I would agree that using terms like “pseudoscience” tend to close more minds than they open.

If there was one BIG problem that most scientists have with YEC is that it starts with a conclusion, and then accepts or rejects evidence based on that conclusion. For example, the only reason that YEC’s doubt the science demonstrating constant decay rates for radioisotopes is that it leads to conclusions they don’t like. “Answers in Genesis” isn’t afraid to just spell it out:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "–Answers in Genesis

6 Likes

Agreed.

I agree that this is probably the main reason why YEC is labeled as “pseudoscience” by many. Because it is perceived as not seeking the truth, but rather seeking to support the truth it has established elsewhere.

So, given that, do people who are steeped in the evolutionary sciences also see why a similar accusation is often made by those who do not fully accept evolution as an explanation for all of the life that we see on the planet? Many outsiders (edited) feel as though an a priori assumption has been made (end of edit) that evolution happened and then work to backfill with evidence.

I’m not making a statement here at all… I’m merely saying that this should be a point of empathy rather than division. We all have our POV and seek to support it. We can all have a healthier discussion if we see others’ objections as clearly as we see our biases. Some here are already very good at this. Others, eh… not so much.

1 Like

Except that is not true.

1 Like

It is not true that many outsiders feel that an a priori assumption has been made? Or it is not true that an a priori assumption has been made?

1 Like

There was no a priori assumption made.

Ah… I see. My mistake… I should not have said “see” as I meant “feel”… Here’s what I intended to say:

Sorry. I was trying to be all-inclusive and it blew up in my face. I’ll definitely not try to be nice or understanding for at least another week.

2 Likes

I dont see any difference with this stance than a scientist who starts with the assumption that life is in existence via purely naturalistic processes. Arnt both in the exact same camp? They are both starting with an equality subjective assumption. And since the laws of entropy strongly suggest that organized energy could not be eternally in existence, Something out of the natural had to have started it all…so out of the gate, the naturalist is behind one length.

So one worldview is developed upon the foundation of a belief that the Bible is right, and the other is developed upon the foundation of the beluef that natural processes are capable of producing results of highly complex bio machines that are even more complex than a diesel engines because they can even fix themselves.

Im not here to defend AIG in everything as in fact i disagree with some of what they do. But if i were a gambling man, and i knew that 1. there was a God who is even powerful enough to create the expanding universe 2. Genetic mutation normally results neutral and many times detrimental traits that, given millions of years should arouse thinking that species more likely to go extinct and NOT increase in complexity 3. Bio machines are irreducibly complex, then regardless of how old this earth is, hands down i place my bet on the creationist belief side for winning a bought of who has the better amount of pertinent truth over the evolution system of belief.

It’s good to recognize different views, but sometimes we still need to be about to say, “No, 1+1 does not equal 3, that is wrong.”

2 Likes

The difference is that you can’t show us any evidence that these scientists are ignoring evidence, nor can you point to a statement of faith where they say they will ignore all evidence of a non-natural origin of life.

The fact that YEC’s refuse to address inconvenient facts makes these types of claims empty.

I think scientists understand why people ignorant of the science can have wrong ideas about the science. On top of that, it is very difficult to find common ground with people who give the appearance of being willfully ignorant of the science. It is rather frustrating to show someone the science and then watch them misrepresent the science they have just been shown.

3 Likes

I understand and agree. It is frustrating to me to observe people who come to preach and lecture, but never to learn. There should always be an exchange of information, that way we can come away from a conversation having learned something. For some, they may have learned more about science and for others, maybe more about human nature or the dialog itself.

It should always be an exchange. We cannot control what others say or how they respond, but we can do so for ourselves. Our own dialog can be one-half of an open conversation. At least then the others who read it can benefit. I think that you are always careful to respond this way and I appreciate you for it.

3 Likes