I’m not asking if one position is “more wrong” than the other. I’m asking if it is unfair to compare them as existing in the same category of “obviously erroneous.”
My question is a sincere one and I’m not trying to start a fight with anyone. Speaking for myself, I don’t make such a “inflammatory” comparison when talking with a YEC friend—but I certainly do understand why the comparison is common. Nevertheless, one of the Young Earth Creationist biology Ph.D.'s I respect most (for his conduct and tactics, if not for his specific defenses of YECism), is adamantly offended at the flat-earther comparison. So his podcast on that topic led me to ponder the issue. Again. [I’m omitting his name here because I’m in a very peaceful mood and trying to keep this thread “maximally peaceful” in its science.]
I once read someone claim that YECism and flat-earthism are very different because "The average flat-earther has seen the evidence against a flat-earth and he simply IGNORES that evidence—while the average YEC [not the professionals] is honestly IGNORANT of the massive contrary evidence. Moreover, virtually every YEC I’ve ever known made his decision for traditional Biblical hermeneutics reasons while far fewer flat-earthers made their decision based upon the Biblical text.
Meanwhile, I must admit that my patience with informed scientist/academic YECs—and my hesitance to use the flat-earthism comparison—is wearing thinner as the years go by. For example, I recently watched the NOVA episode “Dino Birds” and was absolutely amazed at how much progress has been made in recent decades compiling compelling evidence for birds descending from theropods. In the 1960’s it seemed like there were many serious gaps in the paleontological record but new finds and better technology make the evidence for bird evolution absolutely overwhelming (to cite just one evolutionary story.) So I feel like I’m reaching a point where the legitimately credentialled scientists of the YEC world need to vastly up their game or simply admit that they are wrong. I mean . . . eventually there’s got to be a “reality wall” that one hits. (And there are plenty of Christian scholars whose hermeneutics have no difficulty finding alternatives to YECism in the Bible, so it is not like one has to die on the Bishop Ussher 6000 year old universe hill to be a Bible-affirming Christian.)
That said, I’m interested in hearing opinions on this topic. When I do compare YECism to flat-earthism, I’m not trying to be insulting. I’m usually simply trying to convey that the evidence against YECism is so overwhelming that it is difficult to not be exasperated and candid about it.
If anyone sympathetic to the YEC position can convince me to soften my ever-hardening position, I’m all ears.
No; the analogy is exact. I generally use it as a way to show YECs that the weight of evidence is crucial in rejecting their position, especially in refusing to “teach the controversy”. If they are invited to consider, for the sake of argument, that we view their position to be as nonsensical as we all (one hopes) view flat-earthism, they might better understand our side of such things. That is, whether it’s legitimate to teach the evidence favoring creation is not just a matter of abstract fairness but of the quality of that evidence. And the flat-earth test — What would be your position on teaching flat-earth geography alongside conventional geography? — is a way to communicate that understanding to YECs.
I just had a panic attack considering that we may soon see a movement gain momentum to introduce anti-vax and anti-pasteurization “teach both sides of the controversy” curricula in our public schools.
Hi Allen
I do not support either but think a young earth takes more technical understanding to dismiss than a flat earth. A round earth can be shown valid by direct observation or experience traveling in one direction and returning home.
The age of the earth requires understanding carbon dating and the reason to trust its accuracy.
By equating both as a method of persuasion is borderline indoctrination vs education.
It is rather interesting that creationists often think that the extent of evidence for an ancient earth is “carbon dating”. Yet we knew that the earth is ancient for over a century before 14C dating was developed.
It is not wrong at all. A friend describes YECs as “flat-earthers who are better at geography” and…yeah I think that tracks. They’re both “obviously erroneous”, and the tactics are almost identical.
Growing up, I learned that the earth was billions of years old. As I recall, it was thought to be 2 billion years old, so a bit off. But still billions of years old. That was prior to carbon dating.
The old age of the Earth can also be shown by direct observation. Perhaps not by you or me, but that is also true for a round Earth - unless you have been lucky enough to travel into space.
I do agree that it takes more work to understand the data and analyses that tell us the age of the Earth, and that data is very often hidden from the public by the paywall nature of scientific publications. Personally, I think that limiting the general public having access to scientific publications by charging ludicrous amounts just to view a technical paper is a very bad thing that allows huge volumes of misinformation and conspiracy theories to thrive.
That suggests one difference - that the average flat-earther is willing to look at evidence against their position, while the average YEC is not.
The other difference I’ve seen, albeit based on a very sample of flat-earthers, is that flat-earthers actually attempt to deal with evidence, albeit extremely badly.
Flat earthers at least post pictures and diagrams. YECs post quote-mines from works they haven’t read and then lie about where they got them from.
No, I think it’s fair. Scientifically speaking “Flood Geology” is a joke and has been since the early 19th Century (at least). Ironically it was Agassiz - a Creationist - who killed the last idea of geological evidence of Noah’s Flood…
I don’t think it is possible to argue YEC outside of a bubble without encountering obvious evidence against it. Even when it comes to interpreting the Bible there are obvious issues - like ignoring the geocentrism of Genesis 1.
The last I looked (it’s been several years) a lot of the YEC groups on FB had rules forbidding Flat Earth posts. IMO this is because the two are so very similar, and the YEC don’t like having their own form of argument thrown back at them.
More recently I’ve seen a YEC comment that FEs misinterpret scripture, which I suppose is true, but there was no explanation of why FE is wrong yet YEC is not. So I asked Gemini …
Why do Young Earth Creationists think that Flat Earth belief is wrong?
I’m not surprised that there are geocentrist Creationists but they seem like a small minority.
I think that the flat-earthism is a little less obvious than the geocentricity. Especially as Creationists are usually taught (incorrectly) that Isaiah 40:22 indicates a spherical Earth.
The reality is that Creationists - and many other Christians - tend not to read the Bible for comprehension. It’s all about propping up their own beliefs.
One conflating piece of common ground between young earthers and YEC is the sweeping rejection of the scientific community. Young earth advocates publicly paint almost all (other) scientists to be variously engaged in a vast conspiracy, deluded, in spiritual rebellion and antagonist to faith, apathetic with regards to fundamental assumptions, calculating to advance their careers, timid before peers, brainwashed, and in the case of actual Christian scientists, compromisers.